RESISTANCE THEORY

Resistance Theory



Resistance Theory

Resistance is a response to power; it is a practice that challenge and negotiate, and which might undermine power. Depending on the definition of power, different types of activities will count as resistance. But resistance is, as power, a part of social life, not exceptional or asocial, but often relational within networks of productive social interactions. Resistance is distinctive yet manifold and continually invented. It embraces alliances, assertions, accommodations, (Duncombe, 2002) and rejections, which sometimes produce agreements and inclusive forms of democracy and at other times, isolation, violence, and polarizations. When power becomes (perceived as) dominance, resistance is likely. If power is understood as the creation of subordination through discourses that structure performance, label and rank identities, create boundaries, reduce complexity, and then promote power-loaded images of identities to be invested in, then resistance might be performed by the usages of identities, images, and discourses in order to alter stereotypes and hierarchies.

Resistance is a multidimensional and complex practice, appearing in different shapes with different aims. As such, it is not evil or destructive, as well as not intrinsically good, progressive, or democratic, whereas specific resistance acts in certain contexts might be. Not only do fascist resistance and religious fundamentalist resistance exist, but they are common examples of how people aim try to undermine established legitimate power relations. (Amoore, 2005)

Because power relations may involve different categories or relations (e.g., patriarchal, sexual, ethnic, and capitalist), with manifold relations within each, resistance can be directed toward one power relation without attempting to disturb others. Instead, resistance might actively support some power, even depend on one and defy another. Thus, the production of resistance does not mean that power is not created. Parallel use of power and resistance sometimes also produces integrated or mixed forms; for example, the military discipline of a terrorist group.

A common mistake is to make no explicit differentiation between power and resistance, instead speaking of “power struggle” or a matching of “forces.” But analytically speaking, resistance has to differ from power. If not, we are by definition not speaking of resistance but simply of another form of power. If resistance is not a different phenomenon, it makes the nexus among power, resistance, and social change difficult to understand. It is only through distinguishing between power and resistance that we are able to discuss the empirical opposition, integration, or implication of power and resistance.

The existing conceptual confusion is connected to a lack of development of the concept and theories of resistance. Resistance studies are an extraordinarily underdeveloped social science area. Generally social sciences focus on understanding established social structures. While power is a well-developed and even contested concept, resistance is commonly either reduced to another version of power or misrepresented as a destructive rejection, thus both unproductive and uncomplicated. And resistance movements are typically reduced to (underground) military opposition to (foreign) rulers. (Butler, 1995)

With a simplified understanding of resistance, it becomes difficult to distinguish between different forms, dynamics, conditions, ideologies, and effects of resistance toward different kinds ...