Mona Lilja

This article explores how resistance and power are intertwined within the field of mainstream Swedish feminism, by analyzing some of its more visible expressions and strategies. These feminist resistance strategies could be described as circulating resistance (e.g., the #metoo campaign), public assemblies, the more subtle "disciplinary resistance", and state feminism. The article illustrates how these different forms of resistance fuel different reactions from movements that reiterate different discourses of "anti-genderism". In addition, some forms of feminism (state feminism and feminist disciplinary resistance) sometimes develop into, or overlap with, different technologies of power.

Human rights-, gender-and environmental-activists struggle hard to get their messages heard. This paper discusses communicative strategies and the establishing of norms, in general, and the impact of repetitions, in particular. It contributes to previous research on meaning-making and discusses how/ what patterns of repetition are of central importance when activists are resisting certain discourses by way of negotiating and enhancing different norms. Overall, we use linguistic theories on repetitions and suggest different ways of repeating words, images or sounds in conversations and media that might transform the boundaries and content of contemporary discourses. This paper displays four different patterns of repetition – in the nexus between the symbolic and the material – that can be employed in order to establish, maintain or resist certain political truths. In this paper, we consider the repetition of representations, with the aim of accomplishing a transformation of values, to be a powerful practice of dissent and linguistic activism. Hereby, this paper answers to the call of a number of leading critical sociologists who urge us to place the future well-being of society at the center of our current sociological research.

This paper discusses the potential of different Preah Vihear temple replicas to resist Bdiscursive orders^ that have been used to legitimate war in the border area between Thailand and Cambodia. The replicas of the Preah Vihear temple are embraced as Brepeats^ of the Boriginal^; by this, we take off from linguistic theorizing of repetitions. The temple replicas could be considered as resistance against the very idea of one, single Boriginal^ temple. By consequence, the replicas, understood as Brepeats,^ have contributed to negotiate different relations of power and challenge various heritage discourses. The replicas' appearances and the resistance that they constitute ought to have the potential to contribute to Bpeace-building.^ However, instead of contributing to peace, the repeats, as the paper displays, have rather fueled the conflict between the two countries.

This article explores the meaning of “resistance” and suggests a new path for “resistance studies,” which is an emerging and interdisciplinary field of the social sciences that is still relatively fragmented and heterogeneous. Resistance has often been connected with antisocial attitudes, destructiveness, reactionary or revolutionary ideologies, unusual and sudden explosions of violence, and emotional outbursts. However, we wish to add to this conceptualization by arguing that resistance also has the potential to be productive, plural and fluid, and integrated into everyday social life. The first major part of the article is devoted to discuss existing understandings of resistance with the aim of seeking to capture distinctive features and boundaries of this social phenomenon. Among other things, we will explore resistance in relation to other key concepts and related research fields. We then, in the article’s second major part, propose a number of analytical categories and possible entrances aiming at inspire more in-depth studies of resistance.

Resistance is both a common and somewhat unusual concept. It appears often in political debates and the media. Members of various non-governmental organizations and social movements also frequently use resistance when they refer to their various activities. In spite of the significant growth regarding the use of resistance during recent years, the discussion about the meaning and content of the concept, the ways resistance activities can be understood, as well as their potential impact, et cetera, is still rather divided and underdeveloped within academia. Hence, in spite of offering a necessary addition to the earlier focus on 'power' within the social sciences, the rapidly growing field of resistance studies is still very much in its infancy. This article is an attempt to introduce some of our main ideas on researching resistance in a systematized and structured fashion. One of the main arguments put forward in the article is that what qualifies as resistance is very much dependent on context, as the aim of various resistance practices also varies very much; so, does its different articula-tions as well as the ability of various activities to challenge political, legal, economic, social and cultural structures in society—ultimately to achieve 'social change'.

This article links Foucaultian power forms with its corresponding resistance. If resistance is a reaction to power, then the characteristics of the power strategy/relation affect the kinds of resistance that subsequently prevail. Accordingly, it becomes interesting to discuss what kinds of resistance emanate from what kinds of power. We discuss this relationship between power and resistance by drawing on Foucault’s ‘triangle’: (I) sovereign power; (II) disciplinary power; and (III) biopower. Thus, deviating from Foucaultian studies’ preoccupation with ‘power’, we utilise Foucault in order to focus on ‘resistance’. And by connecting to empirical examples from within the emerging field of resistance studies we argue that the peculiarities of power decide how resistance can be conducted.

This article aims to add to the discussion on civil society, resistance, and environmental politics by departing from the concepts of affects, time, and temporality. In essence, the article suggests two things. Firstly, when theorizing civil society, we argue that we should depart from the idea that the present is not a singular, linear moment, but comprises affective relations to other times and people situated within these times. To support the argument, we will display how the ‘doing’ of various civil societies is performed in relation to people of the past as well as the future—that is, how already deceased people of the past or not-yet-born people of the future contribute to the creation of the present in various ways. Secondly, we will show how civil society actors are carrying out various forms of resistance against global warming by suggesting multiple temporalities that are operating simultaneously. By reviewing interviews with local representatives of the environmental movement in Tokyo, the promotion of another temporality prevails as a form of resistance, or as a means to resist, in order to negotiate current discourses and future prospects. To further understand this embracing of time, the article is inspired by affective theory and takes temporality in queer studies as a starting point to examine different strategies of resistance. Overall, the article highlights the importance of adding the affects/time nexus to the analysis of national and transnational civil societies.