This term has leapt the boundaries of its origins in theoretical mathematics and found application in finance and, now, political science. Has its original meaning been intellectually distorted or has it been expanded in an enriching manner? That is of interest to readers of this website as etymology, metaphor and extension are the essence of our examination of words. Perhaps now is a good time to refresh our discussions back in 2013 when “stochastic” made its appearance as the good word of the day.
(TRIGGER WARNING TO SENSITIVE TYPES: My discussion is apolitical, and I will not respond to any post that argues from a political rather than a linguistic POV.)
A phrase that has gained currency recently is “stochastic terrorism.” Is that a fair use of the adjective? Among the nuances underpinning this phrase is the notion that small random acts of terrorism (for example, a series of small incendiary devices or a patter of incendiary speeches) can have dramatic far reaching effects, well beyond what the perpetrator could achieve directly on their own. Plus another strategic advantage is that the original perpetrator can deny personal responsibility for the acts of remote actors who subsequently commit the larger, more destructive events.
The historical definition of “stochastic” does not clearly lead me to this usage, but that does not disqualify the phrase. I tend to think it is a useful addition, adding clarity and efficiency to ordinary conversation. Hey, the word “heresy” originally meant (in a positive not pejorative sense) “choice,” so there is a lot of elasticity in words over time.
Here is a good definition of “stochastic terrorism”
“There is this thing called a stochastic terrorism which is the idea of leaders putting out falsehoods, demonizing people, and acts of violence happen and can’t be directly tied, but there is a responsibility there.”
So, dear readers, what say you?
