Resistance

Postcollectivity Situated Knowledge and Practice Edited by Agnieszka Jelewska Michał Krawczak Julian Reid LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Contents Acknowledgements vii List of Figures viii Notes on Contributors ix Postcollectivity New Ways of Gathering and Practicing in Times of Crises 1 Agnieszka Jelewska, Michał Krawczak and Julian Reid Part 1 Resistivity 1 Resistance 15 Julian Reid 2 Carnivalesque Postcollectivity Reenactment as Decolonial Subversion 27 Adela Goldbard 3 Collecting Crumbs of Lost Knowledge Learning from Postindustrial and Postsocialist Disruptions 45 Andrzej W. Nowak 4 Borderforms 68 Grant Leuning and Pepe Rojo 5 The Networked Public Sphere and the Sectarian Public Stephen Dersley 86 Part 2 Co-​existence 6 Collective Co-​existence, Climate Apocalypse, and a Nature-​Relational Way Forward 111 Peter H. Kahn, Jr., Sarena Sabine and Carly E. Gray For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid vi Contents 7 As I Sit Down to Write a Monsoon Story without Cloud Bands Harshavardhan Bhat 8 A Meteorology of Media Brett Zehner 128 137 9 Not-​Only-​Human-​Habitat, or Pedagogies of Vulnerable Collectives in the Age of Extractivist Fantasies 148 Anna Nacher 10 Media Warfare The Coercive Coexistence of Radiation and Memory 165 Agnieszka Jelewska Part 3 Transversality 11 The Right to Breathe Is the Right to Speak The Transversality of Environmental Pollution and Postdigital Infrastructures 187 Michał Krawczak 12 Transversal Physiognomies and the Postcollective Self Jan Stasieńko 206 13 The Silicon Gender Technological Species and the Transgression of Model Sexes Ania Malinowska 14 Towards a Postmonetary Collectivity Jens Schröter Index 224 236 249 For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid ­c hapter 1 Resistance Julian Reid Resistance, today, has an image problem. What is it, where is it, who does it, to whom and what and how? How do we know what is resistance and what is not? Each of these questions is a question of the image of resistance. Research in the social sciences on resistance commonly points to the limits of our imaginaries when it comes to the question of resistance, and the ways in which those limits lead us to the issue of form. A recent article by the geographer Sarah Hughes provides a classic example. She complains of the “predetermination of form that particular actions or actors must assume” to be considered as resistance (Hughes 2020, 1). She points out what it is we risk missing or ignoring in having succumbed to such “predeterminations of form”, and then proceeds to revisit fundamental assumptions at work in concepts and practices of resistance, before making an argument for an engagement with a wider understanding of resistance, one that does away with traditional images of resistance, as linear, intentional, oppositional forms of agency, to focus instead on new, different and better ones, such as incoherence, multiplicity, becoming and emergence. The basic idea is that the emergence of alternative forms of life are held back by resistance once resistance is shut off from these alternatives on account of the limits of the imaginaries framing it (Povinelli 2011, 14). “Traditional framings” of resistance are seen as problematic in these literatures, as new “intersectional” framings are championed (Taylor 2017, 20–​21). The struggle over the image, form, and frame of resistance is all about making it more “accessible” to its own potentials (Taylor 2017, 14), as theorists of resistance call for a mobilisation of the imagination to release images of resistance from the confines of the myths which condition it. This kind of problematisation of form is not confined to resistance. Much has been made in recent years of how ‘the West’ in its entirety has been shaped by a certain understanding of the origins of forms. The anthropologist, Philippe Descola, has argued that what defines the West, and what distinguishes it from other civilizations, is its belief in what he calls “the heroic model of creation”; the idea, that is, of “production as the imposition of form upon inert matter” (Descola 2014, 323). Descola demonstrates the peculiarity and cultural specificity of this idea, discussing how foreign it is to, for example, Chinese culture, but more especially to that of the Indians of Amazonia, for who there is no © Julian Reid, 2024 | DOI:10.1163/9789004694880_003 For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 16 Reid heroic imposition of forms onto anything, but simply reciprocal processes of co-​creation (Descola 2014, 321–​325). Another anthropologist, Tim Ingold, has made a similar kind of critique of such ‘hylomorphism’, the theory according to which form is that which is simply imposed onto matter by practitioners (Ingold 2010, 20–​21). Indeed, Ingold’s work is a classic example of an attempt to make us think differently about the processes through which forms themselves are engendered. Practices of deformation, themselves emergent through the agency of the matter acted upon, are today seen as intrinsic to the processes by which form evolves. Arguing for exactly this, Ingold drew significantly on the work of Deleuze and Guattari, for whom the resistance of matter was key to the processes by which form develops (Ingold 2010, 25; Deleuze and Guattari 1999). In terms of the political theory of resistance, the question of the connections between form and image is doubtless an essential one. The theorist and historian of Black radicalism, Cedric Robinson, makes this point very well. In his now classic text, Black Marxism, he describes how the Europeans who bore historical witness to the resistances of African peoples to enslavement were perfectly able to understand why those peoples would rebel, and yet, how they could not comprehend the forms which African resistance took (Robinson 2021, 309). The limits of European imaginaries when it came to resistance meant those forms were dismissed, not as resistance, but as the expressions of madness, of insanity, of savagery, and satanism (Robinson 2021, 309). Yet, as Robinson well maintains, the invention of those forms were themselves the expression of the combination of a power of imagination with an ability to conserve what was most fundamental to a culture, that of black African culture (Robinson 2021, 309). Within western scholarship on slavery a mythic and false image of the docility of slaves has been perpetrated at the cost of a real understanding of the multiplicity of forms which resistance took (Owens 1976, 70–​105). The argument as to the importance of form and the peculiar limits of European abilities to comprehend and enable its plasticities can be applied to every possible kind of resistance. There would seem to be something intrinsic to the limits of the European imagination when it comes to resistance which has made it difficult to see resistance for what it is, whenever a given act of resistance has not complied with those limits. Imagination and form are, in this sense, highly interrelated when it comes to the question of resistance. Resistance requires imagination to be inventive, yet it easily runs up against the limits of dominant imaginaries in the forms it takes. And those limits have racial determinations. White thought is inflexible while Black thought is eminently elastic. Robinson’s argument continues to reverberate in contemporary literatures on resistance. For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Resistance 17 The argument goes that we have been taught to imagine resistance in highly particular ways, and that these ways are no longer adequate for our present. In short, we are told that we need to make new images of resistance, as well as learn to deploy the imagination in ways that can change practices of resistances, killing off those mythic, tired and clichéd images of resistance as merely linear, intentional opposition to power, devised by autonomous agents, with preconceived plans as to ‘what is to be done’, which lead to the same tired and mythic forms of politics. We also, it is said, need to contribute to the creation of new intersectional subjects of resistance endowed with the abilities to free us from those now outdated practices. This is a line of argument about the relations between imagination, resistance, form and myth that is fairly ubiquitous today. Numerous works express these kinds of sentiments –​the need to recover the imagination, as a source for resistance, and in the process, reimagine what resistance is and how it takes place, in order to free it from the limitations of imaginaries which would otherwise stifle it. This task is often foregrounded in relation to issues of the fight against neoliberalism. Mark Fisher, for one, argued it very well. The problem for Fisher was that resistance today, and for some time, has been reduced to the limits imposed by an imaginary of ‘anti-​capitalism’. Shaped so, it has no alternative vision to offer, or ‘positive political project’. All of which means it possesses no better image of how society might be organized to that of its opponent. Which is why, as he argued at least, it has become such a subdued hostage to neoliberalism and its peculiar yet deeply naturalized image of the human as a competitive, self-​preserving and endlessly enterprising entity (Fisher 2018). Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi makes a similar kind of argument. For Berardi, Europe has become a dogmatic project of reassuming and reinforcing neoliberal ideology, of a neoliberal regulation that leads to the impoverishment of European societies: to the slashing of salaries, to the postponement of retirement, but most crucially, to the project of colonizing the imagination itself (Berardi 2012, 38–​ 9). The future where Europe is concerned has become unimaginable as anything other than the further extension of this project. This is all testimony to the power and success of neoliberal strategies that depend not simply on the application of a set of economic rules and functions but “the internalization of a certain set of limitations, of psychic automatism, of rules for compliance” (Berardi 2012, 58). Traditionally we have been taught also to see resistance as a peculiarly human capacity. However, images of humans achieving forms of sovereignty and security dependent on their distinction from, and exploitation of, other life forms are no longer particularly in vogue today within critical theories For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 18 Reid of resistance, as research into resistance chases after other more posthuman commodities; vulnerability, perseverance, adaptation and resilience, for example. Discourses of resistance which involve recourse to ideas and concepts of independence are dismissed as ableist, romanticized and anthropocentric, as much as dependence becomes a capacity to be valorized (Taylor 2017, 205–​ 218). Much of this has, of course, to do with the racial underpinnings of humanist discourses on resistance. The human which has claimed sovereignty over nature is the same white human which has dominated and exploited other races of humanity on the basis of the understanding that whites are more human than others; others whose lesser humanity renders them closer to a nature which it is the right and responsibility of a white race to lord over. As we have become more aware of the ways in which racism has shaped discourses on the political left as much as on the right, so the humanism of leftism has been brought further into question, as the construction of a posthuman subject has become an ever more urgent task for leftist critique on racial grounds. As Rosi Braidotti puts it: not all humans are equal and the human is not at all a neutral category. It is rather a normative category that indexes access to privileges and entitlements. Appeals to the “human” are always discriminatory: they create structural distinctions and inequalities among different categories of humans. Humanity is a quality that is distributed according to a hierarchical scale centred on a humanistic idea of Man as the measure of all things. This dominant idea is based on a simple assumption of superiority by a subject that is: masculine, white, Eurocentric, practicing compulsory heterosexuality and reproduction, able-​bodied, urbanized, speaking a standard language. This subject is the Man of reason that feminists, anti-​racists, black, indigenous postcolonial and ecological activists have been criticizing for decades. braidotti 2020 The task of the political imagination when it comes to imaginaries of resistance is quite clear then. Resistance must be deformed and re-​imagined. The limits of its dominant imaginary must be exploded; the image, that is, of its subject, the white urban hetero able-​bodied European man, and his servile politics, his anti-​capitalism, his economistic diagnosis of the limits of neoliberalism. In its place a new kind of subject must emerge, one that can reconcile the differences between the trans feminists, the anti-​racists, the blacks and the indigenous, and the ecologically minded, and fight for the creation of a new politics, one formed upon a different kind of image, capable of birthing a world For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Resistance 19 beyond and outside of capitalism, neoliberalism, but also colonialism, racism, sexism, anthropocentrism, and so on. The indigenous tend to play particularly specious roles in these kinds of prescriptions. Indigenous peoples have been crucial to the narratives, mythologies and ideologies of western states and their societies since the discovery of the New World. We know much by now about the ways in which the indigenous have been deployed to create the myth of a contrast between the old and the new, the primitive and the developed, past and future. However, it is a fact, as one of the great chroniclers of that mythology described, that the ideological needs of western regimes have undergone significant changes since that discovery, and that the functions of the indigenous in practices of western myth-​ making have changed much too. Their function in the 20th century was not that which it was in the 19th, nor the latter that which it was in the 18th century, and so on (Slotkin 1998, xvi–​x vii). To understand how colonialism continues to operate today we need to attend and be wise to the narrative adaptation strategies of these regimes and changes in their operative languages, in ways that Slotkin’s research was historically, and which we can see affecting the new science and theory of resistance. In the modern era at least, ideologies have tended to emerge from and as a response and resistance to the oppressions of myth. As Slotkin put it, ideology is the product of a discontent with a world dominated by myth, and the expression of a desire to free that world from myth (Slotkin 1998, 25). Problems persist however with the ways in which ideologies tend to end up generating their own myths based on their own narrative formulas (Slotkin 1989, 25–​31). Going beyond the kind of deconstruction of classic and nationalist structures of myths which Slotkin’s research achieved, has to mean, however, examining how ideologies mask themselves in a narrative of the deconstruction of myth itself, and the deployment of new and old myths in discourses of resistance. A classic example of this kind of paradox can be found in the work of Braidotti, whose work Posthuman Knowledge entails significant references to what she calls the “creative imagination” (Braidotti 2019, 132) as well as the struggles of indigenous peoples, those “people who live closest to the earth” (Braidotti 2019, 164), the alternatives which indigenous peoples supposedly offer to critical imaginaries today, and the need of resistance movements to learn from them about their ways of thinking and living (Braidotti 2019, 7). The indigenous are, Braidotti argues, peoples that are or have been missing; “subjects whose knowledge never made it into any of the official cartographies or genealogies” (Braidotti 2019, 162) and she situates their struggles “for visibility and emergence” as the driver of what she calls a “radical politics of immanence, aimed at actualizing minority-​driven knowledges through transversal For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 20 Reid alliances” (Braidotti 2019, 162). Similar demands to make indigenous peoples and their indigeneity more visible, learn from them, and build alliances with them, have been made by a host of other thinkers concerned with resistance, including Judith Butler (Butler and Athanasiou 2013), Elizabeth Povinelli (2011), Bruno Latour (2017), Donna Haraway (2016), Timothy Morton (2017), and Anna Tsing (2015). Are the indigenous of these discourses on resistance the people who were missing and are now being given presence by such authors, or do they remain, simply, a figment of western myth-​making? A point well made by Slotkin was that myths are never simply tools of conservative ideologies, but also of radically critical ideologies too. Indeed, the same myths tend to reinforce both kinds of ideology simultaneously. In the 1960s, to give an example which Slotkin dwells on, “counter-​cultural radicalism” deployed the myth of the frontier, and that of the “Noble Savage” to critique a form of society which had “gone wrong” (Slotkin 1998, 17). The iconography of beads and headbands, the adoption of “tribal” life-​styles as a form of communalism untainted by political association with communism, the rationalization of drug use as a form of mystic religiosity, the linkage of political and ecological concerns, the withdrawal to wilderness refuges and the adoption of an “outlaw” or “renegade” stance towards the larger society –​all of these phenomena so special to the sixties were acted out as if they were not innovative at all, but merely repetitions of an older pattern (Slotkin 1998, 17). It is a fiction to assert, as Braidotti does, that the knowledge of the indigenous never entered into official cartographies of power. By contrast it had a very crucial function in the construction of western myth making, as a weak and negative counterpart to positive and superior western forms. The problem is that the counter-​cultures of today are simply trying to reverse the structures of western mythologies in much the same ways that those movements of the 1960s did which Slotkin well describes. Much of this latest turn to indigeneity is motivated by the underlying desire of thinkers including Braidotti to advance what they call “posthumanism”. Indigenous peoples are said to possess a radically different cosmology to peoples in the West, one that does not support the human/​non-​human distinction supposedly so central to Western political imaginaries since at least the Enlightenment, and which is held to blame for a great deal of historical damage (Braidotti 2019, 7; Descola 2014). Indigenous peoples never bought human exceptionalism, it is argued; they understand intrinsically the depths of human vulnerability, the need to build caring relationships with each other as well as other species, and act as custodians for the environments on which they depend for survival. For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Resistance 21 All of this is myth. There is plenty of more balanced and empirically grounded research, both anthropological and otherwise, to demonstrate that indigenous cultures are as complex in their constructions of the purpose of the animal as their western counterparts (Reid 2020). One particularly dangerous myth of indigeneity coshared by Left and Right today, is that of the resilience of indigeneous peoples. Resilience has in fact already been widely exposed across the social sciences as a key component of the ideology of neoliberalism (Cretney 2014). And much of the discussion around the topic has headed in the direction of the question of how precisely to resist resilience (Slater 2022). Meanwhile however, fashionable works continue to treat resilience as if it is some kind of partisan property of those working on the outside of power. Marquis Bey’s recent book, Black Trans Feminism, which is another attempt to articulate a politics of the multitude is a case in point. As Bey puts it, “(T)he multitude carries with it a resilience via its plasticity, its ability to be more than and excessive of the unitary. In black trans resilience, an embodied ‘antagonism of subjectivity’ … there is flexibility” (Bey 2022, 214). Resilience is not the source of resistance. It is that which is to be resisted. Resisting resilience, however, requires the indigenous turning on these oppressive sources of critique in which the resilience agenda is now advancing. And a complication of doing that is that these sources of critique also come garbed in a discourse of resistance, and a discourse of resistance itself cloaked as a critique of existing and predetermined forms. As we are told, today we have to be wary of pertaining to forms of resistance that do more damage than good. Resistance is something but it’s not enough, to paraphrase Braidotti. “Politics”, as she puts it, “requires not just resistance, but the effort to activate the generative force of virtual possibilities” (Braidotti 2019, 177). As such a politics of resistance which does not simultaneously function to activate “the generative force of virtual possibilities”, we have to assume, is a politics which is lacking: a politics which is not enough, and indeed if it is a politics which connects with and draws support from “the sovereign power of the master signifier which means what it says and says what it means” (Braidotti 2019, 174–​175) then it is a politics which resistance itself has to be tasked with dismantling; the object of opposition for the kinds of resistance Braidotti is calling for. Thou shalt not speak in the language of the master signifier, is one of the fundamental ‘do not’s’ of this present discourse on resistance, which seeks to adapt us to the harsh realities of the Anthropocene, bend us to accommodate the new forces emerging, which exceed anthropocentric perspectives, and rid us of the white western humanisms which led to the Anthropocene in the first place. The source of resistance, from now on, once the subject has swallowed this message, and adapted itself to the new world and its conditions, will be For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 22 Reid as Braidotti also informs us, not just the indigenous, but “the resilience of zoe” (Braidotti 2019, 177). That is an interesting turn of phrase; “the resilience of zoe”. Derrideans might choose to dwell a while on that phrase and wonder at it. Does Braidotti mean that zoe, in its infinite resilience, is the source of resistance? Or is it that resilience is the subject here? That resilience, being always derivate of, and an expression of, zoe, is the source of resistance? Is resistance another word, in a way, for resilience, and vice versa? And what of the relationships of indigenous peoples to zoe? Are they mere zoe? Or have they just digested their Agamben better? Braidotti’s philosophico-​political alignment with the powers of Zoe goes back some way in her work. In her relatively early book, Transpositions, for example, she elaborated on Zoe as that which “marks the outside” of a “particular vision of the subject”; that is, the outside of “male, white, heterosexual, Christian, property-​owning, standard-​language-​speaking citizens” kinds of of subjects (Braidotti 2006 37). Zoe is to bios “the poor half” in a couple, she argues, wherein bios claims the mantle of intelligence and sociability while Zoe is left at home to do the laundry (Braidotti 2006, 37). The struggle to free Zoe from its subjection within its coupling to bios is akin to that which Deleuze and Guattari theorized in terms of the nomad to the state (Deleuze and Guattari 1999). Resistance, in this vein of thought, is a practice which connects those who find themselves, contemporarily, on this outside, being neither male, white, heterosexual, christian, property-​owning, standard language speaking, with all those historical nomads of yore on which Deleuze and Guattari constructed their own theory of grand historical struggle. And indeed, this connection to the nomadic is not incidental to Braidotti’s thought either, going back some way, and being essential to her contribution. For Braidotti, the nomad has long been precisely the answer to the problem of “the poverty of the social imaginary”, when it comes to resistance (Braidotti 2002, 5). The nomad is also a way to bring the outside in, at least in terms of her inhabitation of philosophy itself (Braidotti 2002, 7), and a way of avoiding the customary separation of reason from imagination which has so held back philosophy when it has come to the task of the apprehension of forms which break with established ideologies of resistance. An admittedly “iconoclastic, mythic figure”, the nomadic subject is nevertheless the subject capable of rescuing us from the conventions of established imaginaries of resistance (Braidotti 2002, 7). What if this mythic and iconoclastic figure is not the liberator it is claimed to be, and itself a force for the colonization of imaginaries? Let us recall that Deleuze wrote not only of the people who are missing, in the present, but of For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Resistance 23 the people which are to come, in the future, so to say (Deleuze,1989). The task of the people to come, Deleuze argued, was precisely to destroy dominant imaginaries. It is a community of iconoclasts which seeks to destroy icons in order to create a space for the consistution of a new regime of images. It imposes its own images with as ruthless a power as it destroys those of its enemies. Any serious theorist of resistance and power today has to engage with Deleuze (and Guattari), and yet soon runs up against the issue that Deleuze’s work has become so iconic that it demands being destroyed itself, being so overwrought in its influence. One is not at the margins if reading and citing Deleuze, one is at the centre, and there to be attacked. Still, there are better and worse readings of Deleuze; those which are nuanced and allow for complex interpretation, and those which reduce him to one side in a binary struggle, between the nomad and the state, for example, or the imagination and reason. When it comes to theorizing resistance today the imperative which governs thought is that of the necessity to be suspicious of forms, to work for deformation, to see and empower the materials within the forms, the emergent properties of which are only ever contained by form itself. Form has become in itself a conceit, an imposition of sovereigns, an expression of power, and a problem for resistance. Yet it bears remembering that we have known since at least, Foucault, that power itself incites resistance, and that it needs resistance, in order to be, and moreover that it knows this (Foucault 1990). Foucault’s thesis, so radical for its time, and so abstract in its formulation, is confirmed in the work of Ingold, which works through the problem of form via practices. Ingold describes, for example, how in learning to make a basket, the novice runs up against the resistance of the willow, only to discover that it is that very resistance which makes willow such a conducive material for basket making (Ingold 2010, 22). In the drive to make a theory of resistance which would exceed the limits of hylomorphic models the work is already complete, and there is little more to be done. As with the making of baskets, it is left up to the artisan to decide when to finish. It would be possible to go on forever, yet at some point, if only for the maker to go home and sleep, it is necessary to stop (Ingold 2010, 23). There is a paradoxical problem with regards to the roles of imagination in resistance here. It is wrong, we learn, to attempt to impose an image onto resistance. This is what we Europeans have done historically, following the hylomorphic model, and it is this error of image-​imposition which accounts for the many failures to recognize and comprehend practices of resistance which confounded the images we had made for it. Instead, imagination is supposed to follow the morphogenetic model which Ingold and others have developed. Adhering to this latter model means the image of resistance has to ally with For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 24 Reid whatever the practices of resistance produce. Images are, at most, participants in a field of forces combined with other tools and practices, working towards the production of emergent forms. They must not be allowed to become dominant or legislative in this process, as this would be to miscomprehend the ways through which resistance works (Ingold 2010, 126–​127). However, on the other hand, imagination is needed, we are told, if resistance is to be truly creative (Robinson 2021; Braidotti 2019), and critics of the failures of resistance to neoliberalism berate the weakness of the imaginaries shaping it, and call for more imagination, and better, more potent images (Fisher 2018; Berardi 2012). Which is it to be then? Does the image problem which besets resistance demand more imagination or less? The imaginaries which govern resistance produce a limitation of forms of resistance. Dominant and prescriptive images of resistance are held accountable for forms which fail us strategically, as well as for failures of apprehension when it comes to the encounter with truly imaginative forms of resistance. It is obvious, therefore, that one answer to the problematic has to be an expansion of the imagination in order to produce better images strategically, and as a means to increase the powers of apprehension by which we recognize resistance in all its multiplicities. Is there, then, a nomadic imagining, akin to what Maggie Nelson describes, after Braidotti, as “nomadic remembering” (Nelson 2021, 214), which would perform this work of reconciliation between strategy and ethics in the field of resistance? And yet, it is as obvious that this problematization of resistance, dominated by forms which function to limit and exclude, is itself today a legislative one, formative of an industry of critique, which functions to police images of resistance. Perhaps, therefore, it is time to revisit the supposedly Deleuzian critique of the hylomorphism on which so much of this problem seems to hang. Of all the authors, makers, figures who so inspired Deleuze to think about resistance, as well as about images, we might consider what he had to say about T.E. Lawrence, who defined himself “solely in relation to the force through which he projects images into the real”, images he drew from himself and his friends (Deleuze 1998, 118). Yes, resistance requires images and imagination, if it is to escape being dragged into this quagmire of impotence where it now finds itself, deformed beyond all recognition, wedded to political power. But we also need to recognise the depths of the problem, when it comes to the functions of images and imagination in the strategies of the forms of political power which resistance is tasked with undoing. Too often what comes declared as resistance, and too often arguments and analyses claiming to be aimed at freeing up resistance from what it is not, reveal themselves too easily as dependent on myths and forms deriving from regimes of representation that are themselves already dominant and subjugating. For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid Resistance 25 References Berardi, Franco B. (2012) The Uprising: On Poetry and Finance. New York: Semiotext. Bey, Marquis (2022) Black Trans Feminism. Durham: Duke University Press. Braidotti, Rosi (2020) ‘We’ are in this Together, But We are not One and the Same. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17: 465–​469. Braidotti, Rosi (2019) Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. Braidotti, Rosi (2006) Transpositionsi. Cambridge: Polity Press. Braidotti, Rosi (2002) Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press. Butler, Judith and Athanasiou Athena (2013) Dispossession: The Performance in the Political. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cretney, Raven (2014) Resilience for Whom? Emerging Critical Geographies of Socio-​ ecological Resilience. Geography Compass 8(9): 627–​640. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix (1999) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia. Volume 2. London: Athlone Press. Deleuze, Gilles (1998) Essays Critical and Clinical. London: Verso. Deleuze, Gilles (1989) Cinema 2: The Time-​Image. London: Athlone Press. Descola, Philippe (2014) Beyond Nature & Culture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Fisher, Mark (2018) Foreword. In: Davies W (ed.) Economic Science Fictions. London: Goldsmiths Press. Foucault, Michel (1990) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. London: Penguin. Haraway, Donna (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. Hughes, Sara M. (2020) On Resistance in Human Geography. Progress in Human Geography 44(6): 1–​20. Ingold, Tim (2010) Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Latour, Bruno (2017) Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climate Regime. Cambridge: Polity. Morton, Timothy (2017) Humankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman People. London and New York: Verso. Nelson, Maggie (2021) On Freedom: Four Songs of Care and Constraint. London: Jonathan Cape. Owens, Leslie H. (1976) This Species of Property: Slave Life and Culture in the Old South. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Povinelli, Elisabeth (2011) Economies of Abandonment: Social Belonging and Endurance in Late Liberalism. Durham: Duke University Press. For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid 26 Reid Reid, Julian (2020) Constructing Human versus Non-​human Climate Migration in the Anthropocene: The Case of Migrating Polar Bears in Nunavut. Anthropocenes –​ Human, Inhuman, Posthuman 1(1): 2. Robinson, Cedric J. (2021) Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. London: Penguin. Slater, Graham B. (2022) Terms of Endurance: Resilience, Grit, and the Cultural Politics of Neoliberal Education. Critical Education 13(1): 1–​16. Slotkin, Richard (1998) The Fatal Environment: The Myth of the Frontier in the Age of Industrialization 1800–​1890. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Taylor, Sunaura (2017) Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. New York and London: The New Press. Tsing, Anna L. (2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press. For use by the Author only | © 2024 Julian Reid