Defining and Analyzing “Resistance”.docx

Published in: Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 2016, Vol. 41(3) 137-153. Defining and Analyzing “Resistance”: Possible Entrances to the Study of Subversive Practices Mikael Baaz, Mona Lilja, Michael Schulz, and Stellan Vinthagen Abstract 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. Introduction This article aims to contribute to the further clarification of “resistance studies,” in particular this emerging research field’s links and boundaries to other key concepts and related research fields within the social sciences. In doing this, the concept of “resistance” will first be labeled and categorized and then serve as the starting point for a discussion regarding how the phenomenon can be studied. Resistance studies is a relatively under-researched, although rapidly growing, field of inquiry in the social sciences. Within resistance studies, there exists a plurality of concepts and definitions of actions that are seemingly equal or related in one way or another to resistance.1 Put somewhat differently, the overall situation within the field appears somewhat chaotic. The article is, on the one hand, an attempt to respond to the increasing need to clarify these concepts by displaying, elaborating, and categorizing the plurality of the field and, on the other hand, an attempt seeking to offer some possible entrances to the study of various subversive or resistance practices. Considering the above, the article starts by discussing various definitions and understandings of resistance, seeking to capture the distinctive features of this social phenomenon. Then, based on this discussion, the article suggests different analytical categories or entrances to the study of resistance. The overall question guiding this part of the article is: what aspects/dimensions could (fruitfully) be embraced when approaching and analyzing resistance? The starting point for the discussion on resistance in this article is the observation that power and resistance co-constitute each other. Michel Foucault writes “[In] order for power relations to come into play, there must be at least a certain degree of freedom on both sides...[If] there were no possibility of resistance (of violent resistance, flight, deception, strategies capable of reversing the situation), there would be no power relations at all”.2 Or, as expressed by Couzens Hoy, “[P]ower needs resistance, and would not be operative without it. Power depends on points of resistance to spread itself more extensively through the social network”. Although we agree with Foucault and Couzens Hoy that power and resistance are coconstitutive, we want to emphasize that power and resistance should be kept conceptually distinguished in order to allow for analytical elaborations on resistance’s links to power and other related concepts; if this is not done, systematic empirical research will turn out to be difficult. Bearing the above in mind, we will explore various meanings and variations of resistance—as a concept—and by this trying to contribute to the systematic development and coherence of the emerging and interdisciplinary field of resistance studies; a field that is, we suggest, fundamental to the understanding of “power” and “social change.”3 In this regard, it should be noted that compared with “power theory,” the state of “resistance theory” is still weak.4 This weakness is not particularly surprising since, as indicated above, resistance studies is still very much an undertaking in the making. At the most basic level, we would like to in this article demonstrate that resistance is plural, malleable, and evolving, and that it is a phenomenon with many faces. Historically, resistance has to a large extent been associated with antisocial attitudes, destructiveness, reactionary or revolutionary ideologies, unusual and sudden explosions of violence, and emotional outbursts. We would like to add to this picture, by displaying that resistance could also be productive, plural and fluid, and integrated into everyday social life. Resistance holds the potential to constructively transform societies and change history. There is, needless to say, no such thing as “the” definition or categorization of resistance, and it would be an act of hegemonic ambition to claim such a final definition. In spite of this observation, “not anything goes.” It is difficult to accept an unlimited range of possible definitions and categorizations. What is needed is instead a set of viable options. By suggesting the distinguishing properties of resistance and at the same time maintaining its plurality of forms in different contexts, we seek to apply enough pragmatism in order to display empirical variations of resistance, while avoiding presenting a definition that is so wide that the concept becomes meaningless and muddled. The end result, we would like to believe, is a range of useful properties and analytical categories that make it possible to undertake informed choices in various analytical situations, in particular with regard to various empirical resistance studies projects. Here, it is important to recall the well- established (however, somewhat forgotten) observation that definitions and analytical categories are analytical tools; and if we have functional tools, then an important precondition for creating something new is in place. This observation ultimately justifies this article. Definitions of Resistance Within the field of resistance studies, where resistance is the key concept, there exists a plurality of more or less related concepts and definitions of this key concept, for example, “everyday resistance,” “critical resistance,” “off-kilter resistance,” and “civil resistance.”5 Within other partly overlapping research fields, such as social movement studies, terrorism studies, and subaltern studies, we also find suggestions of other concepts with different but similar connotations as resistance, for example, “contention,” “protest,” “power struggle,” “revolution,” and “mimicry.” While recognizing that many research fields might have valuable concepts, insights, and theories to contribute to resistance studies, we will in what follows, chiefly for analytical but also practical reasons, maintain a focus on explicit resistance research, by viewing mimicry, protests, and so on as different resistance practices. In this regard, it should be noted that most studies from which resistance studies might fruitfully build are partly from overlapping fields that tend to use concepts and theories that are somewhat unclearly connected to resistance studies (e.g., protest, revolution, or subaltern) or case studies that supplement resistance studies by describing particular modes or instances of resistance (e.g., racist resistance groups in the United States or strategies of Muslim “martyrs” who carry out “suicide bombings”6). So far, Hollander and Einwohner have made the most ambitious overview of the literature on resistance.7 They have found that there are several key disagreements among researchers and only two features of the concept of resistance that are agreed upon, namely (i) that resistance is an act and (ii) that resistance is always oppositional to power. We will follow this observation but suggest a more precise analytical path forward. The overarching disagreement described by Hollander and Einwohner deals with the question of who needs to recognize an act as resistance in order for it to be categorized as such an act: the actor, the target (power holders), or the observer (primarily the researcher)? If all these three groups agree, then there is really no problem. However, the problem with defining resistance begins when one of them or all (maybe for different reasons) do not recognize the act as resistance. This will be discussed further below. When elaborating on the concept of resistance, Foucault’s groundbreaking studies need to be mentioned. He fundamentally changed the view on power and, by consequence, also on resistance.8 If power is not only a sovereign center that is forbidding (and punishing) but also more importantly a productive multiple network of power techniques, then the face of resistance also changes. If the decentered powers produce regimes of truth/knowledge, specialized institutions of discipline, and ultimately the very subject that makes resistance, then it has to have consequences for resistance studies. While Foucault made a paradigmatic turn regarding the understanding of power/resistance, his work is not equally helpful in understanding power/resistance. Foucault mainly studied power (with resistance in brackets), and he did it basically from the perspective of power (its archives and techniques).9 Even though Foucault contributes in certain regard to our understanding of resistance, we also need to turn to other sources to further elaborate upon the concept. Among the first major definitions and perspectives of resistance within the field, we find the seminal work by James C. Scott.10 He argues that “class resistance,” which is his main interest, “includes any act(s) by member(s) of a subordinate class that is or are intended either to mitigate or deny claims (for example, rents, taxes, prestige) made on that class by superordinate classes (for example, landlords, large farms, the state) or to advance its own claims (for example, work, land, charity, respect) vis-a`-vis those super-ordinate classes.”11 To Scott, this definition has the advantage of focusing on the material basis of class struggles and on intentions as well as claims rather than consequences, allowing for both individual and collective acts while not excluding ideological resistance that challenges definitions and standards of the superordinate. Still he recognizes that “enormous difficulties” arise from having to show resistance as an intentional activity.12 The major achievement of Scott, which has spurred a lot of new research on resistance, is his insistence that resistance is predominantly informal, hidden, and non-confrontational (a kind of “infrapolitics”). He writes, “Formal political activity may be the norm for the elites, the intelligentsia, and the middle classes, which in the Third World as well as in the West, have near monopoly of institutional skills and access. But it would be naıve to expect that peasant resistance can or will normally take the same form.”13 The main problem with Scott’s understanding of resistance, however, as we understand it, is that it focuses on resistance against explicit claims (of class interests) and does not recognize unintended or “other-intended” resistance, that is, resistance that has the possibility to undermine power relations through its consequences. It may be true that all power makes claims, although not always explicit, but it is not true that all resistance is intended to affect power. As a prime example in this regard, we could think of one of the current biggest resistance movements in the world: digital file sharing in which millions (who mainly seek free films, music, and software) actually undermine some of the biggest transnational corporations in the world—within the entertainment industry and software business—and, by extension, an essential feature of contemporary informational capitalism, namely, intellectual property rights. The industry’s claims are outspoken, but few resisters have any intent to deny the claim. They just have a desire for these cultural products, which are abundantly and readily available through file sharing. An alternative would therefore be to exclude the intent from a definition of resistance altogether. The advantages arising from excluding the consciousness/motivation or intention of the resister could be questioned, but it is (in line with post-structuralism) maybe even more problematic to include it. The point is that various actions or practices—even when the intent is ambiguous, unknown, or non-political—still qualify as resistance. Some acts are arguably in themselves de facto a response to power relations, irrespective of the intention of the actor (e.g., disloyalty, sabotage, evasion, or working slowly). The irony is that Scott—who more than anyone is famous for bringing informal, non-organized, disguised resistance into the field—excludes much everyday resistance by demanding the political consciousness of the actor. We understand this simply as a residual Marxist theoretical assumption regarding class interest and class consciousness.14 According to Asef Bayat (who proposes a competing concept, “quiet encroachment,” that resembles everyday resistance), Scott and other resistance scholars basically “confuse an awareness about oppression with acts of resistance against it”.15 Instead, he argues that if it is possible, such mental or psychological properties should be part of what we investigate. Intentions could be considered plural, complex, contradictory, or evolving as well as occasionally something that the actor is not sure about, views differently in retrospect, or even is not able to explain. Although not needed as criteria for defining what resistance is, by being able to identify a possible intention of the subaltern, it is easier to detect the power relations and the conflict issues related to this intention, which are of concern to the subaltern. No matter how we judge a resistance activity per se, by searching for the content of a possible existing or emerging intention of the subaltern, our understanding of why there is resistance increases. The content of the intention could be political, material/economic, related to personal needs/satisfaction, emotional satisfaction, upholding a value, curiosity, wanting to hurt someone/something, to increase status/identity/position of oneself, and so on. Aims, purposes, intents, or some form of (class) interest related to action are common ingredients in the literature on resistance. For example, Paul Routledge defines resistance with reference to “intent,” as “any action imbued with intent that attempts to challenge, change or retain particular circumstances relating to societal relations, processes and/or institutions...[which] imply some form of contestation...[and] cannot be separated from practices of domination.”16 And, within resistance studies from a pedagogical perspective, it is possible, as done by Viegas Fernandes, to understand resistance as “the counter-hegemonic social attitudes, behaviors and actions which aim at weakening the classification among social categories and which are directed against the dominant power(s) and against those who exercise it (them), having as a purpose its (their) redistribution in a more equitative way.”17 Although the understanding of everyday resistance within academia is strongly formed by the tremendous influence from Scott, there are definitions that take other directions and do not include any particular (political/class) purpose or intent. One such example is the definition of everyday resistance suggested by Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen who defines everyday resistance as “resistance that is done routinely, but which is not politically articulated or formally organized (yet or in that situation). It is a form of activity that often avoids being detected as resistance. But it might also be made invisible by society, by not being recognized as resistance.”18 Yet others turn to the understandings that take into account not only the intention of the resister but also the perception of the one being resisted (targets). In a study of resistance in western Europe against Nazism and Fascism, Bob Moore, for example, writes that a common definition of resistance counts “any activity designed to thwart German plans, or perceived by the occupiers as working against their interests.”19 Thus, in the light of the discussion here, any activity of the subordinated that, in the view of power holders or targets, causes a problem or is a threat to power could count as resistance. This may or may not be a correct assessment. Of importance for us here, however, is to emphasize that resistance is not the same thing in different contexts or in relation to different types of targets. Steve Pile and Michael Keith, in their study of the “geographies of resistance,” suggest a definition of resistance by stating that resistance “stands in implacable opposition to ‘power’” and that “‘resistance’ is the people fighting back in defence of freedom, democracy and humanity.”20 Here resistance becomes, per definition, something normatively benign. Such a definition excludes not only the revolutionary ambitions of religious fundamentalists but seemingly also the (unintentional) oppressive effects or power dynamics of resistance activity, such as the well-known stratification of resisters into (sometimes even formal) hierarchies.21 Within some parts of resistance studies, normative or ideological aims are not included as definitional criteria. In her study of imperialism, anticolonial, and antiracist resistance, Barbara Bush opens up the concept of resistance to “any action, individual or collective, violent or lawful, covert and overt, that is critical of, opposes, upsets or challenges the smooth running of colonial rule.”22 This functionalist kind of definition says nothing about the resister, who can be anyone, but focuses on the activity and its relation to or consequences for power. Another example in the same vein is the definition proposed by Adam Roberts who understand resistance as: “activities against a particular power, force, policy or regime.”23 Here, the resistance is simply “activities against” power relations. With such a definition, another problem arises, it includes too many power struggles or war, generally speaking. All kinds of acts in which power is opposed become resistance, even the exercise of power against power. Considering the above, we would like to propose that, analytically speaking, resistance should be separated from power. If not, we are just talking about a different form of power. Speaking about resistance, we are primarily interested in power that creates, upholds, or demands subordination, for example, by the creation and maintenance of hierarchies, various stereotypes, and reductionist fallacies. Sometimes a hierarchy is maintained with brute force, while at other times, it is maintained by productive power that forms the subjects, which then “voluntarily” subordinate themselves. On yet other occasions, hierarchies contain subordinates that are not only willing but also enthusiastic in their obedience to the power with which they identify and live. Even though resistance has many faces, we primarily focuse on resisting practices that, at least in theory, dissolve, undermine, question, or challenge subordination—and which ultimately could produce non-subordinate relations. Taking the above into consideration, we could conclude that there are some (theoretical) properties of resistance that distinguish it from other similar forms of political actions. Resistance is a reaction against power (relations, claims by power or violence, when occurring as a power strategy). In this, we would like to suggest a definition where there is no demand for any particular intention or consciousness of the actor or recognition by targets of resistance.24 Instead we suggest, following Michel de Certeau,25 that it is the resistance act that counts. Or in other words, resistance is a particular kind of act—not an intent or effect. We are ultimately interested in the kind of resistance that prevails as a response to power from “below”; a subaltern practice, which has the possibility to negotiate and/or undermine power. In this, however, it is important not to dichotomize resisters and dominators since that would mean to ignore the multiple systems of hierarchy and that individuals can be simultaneously powerful and powerless within different systems.26 To the above, it should also be added that resistance might be parasitic on power and/or nourish as well as undermine it. Power is, for example, sometimes created or recreated exactly through the very same resistance that it provokes.27 Moreover, we have observed in our previous research that not only does power encourage resistance but that resistance also encourages resistance.28 Resistance could then, to summarize, be understood as a response to power from below—a subaltern practice that could challenge, negotiate, and undermine power, or such a practice per- formed on behalf of and/or in solidarity with a subaltern position (proxy resistance). Irrespective of intent or interest, we view resistance as (i) an act, (ii) performed by someone upholding a subaltern position or someone acting on behalf of and/or in solidarity with someone in a subaltern position, and (iii) (most often) responding to power (or, as we will see below, other resistance practices, which in turn emerge as a response to power).29 Here, no specific (political) intent by the actor or particular interpretation from the target (power representatives) is necessary in order to identify an act as resistance. But knowledge or interpretations of such intent would be helpful in those cases where it is made possible. An explicit aim and perhaps even a conscious strategy to undermine power will have consequences for how the resisters act. Such explicit and strategic resistance will also be easier to categorize for an observer. Still, the definition does not depend on such a detectable state of mind within the resister (or anyone else). However, the suggested definition does require the existence of subordinate positions in relation to power and activities that emanates from this subaltern subject position. This excludes resistance practices that emanate from a power position; this irrespective of whether such acts are intended to damage that power.30 We believe that to embrace resistance that emanates from power positions is to include too much (e.g., power struggles, exercise of power against power or war in general) into the theoretical framework. In the proposed definition, resistance comes from below but is not necessarily intended and not necessarily “good.” To illustrate this point, we could think of the religious Jewish–Israeli nationalist settlers in the occupied West Bank, who act from a subaltern position vis- a`-vis the Israeli state in order to gain approval to build new settlements. At the same time, the settler’s activism can be seen, de facto, as part of the overarching Israeli occupation and therefore following suppression of Palestinians living in the West Bank. The settler’s resistance against the Israeli state simultaneously becomes the power dominance over the Palestinians. We have so far found only one reasonable exception to the general rule that resistance is done by individuals or social groups, in subaltern positions, who desire, feel urged, or need to, subvert the authority of direct or hegemonic power. In this regard, we suggest a form of “solidarity resistance” done by an actor in “solidarity” with someone in a subaltern position, as, for example, the abolitionists in the struggle against slavery or, more generally, when a defence lawyer sympathizes with his or her client and resists an entire legal process.31 This is what we call proxy resistance—that is, resistance motivated by “solidarity”. This kind of resistance might become very strong, since it creates unexpected alliances across social sections (such as race or class), yet it can easily become paternalistic, self-serving, or exploitative, in which nonsubalterns utilize subaltern “masses” in order to gain status, credibility, or positions within new revolutionary movements or parties. Before moving to a discussion on how to study particular kinds of resistance, we also want to emphasize that it is possible to understand (certain) resistance in a radically different way than what has been done so far in this article. Resistance may sometimes transcend the whole phenomenon of being against something, turning into the proactive form of constructing “alternative” or “prefigurative” social institutions that facilitate resistance (i.e., “constructive resistance”).32 For example, Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (the landless workers movement in Brazil, [MST]) not only “expropriate property” of others (by land occupation), but it also goes on to create a cooperative, ecological, anticapitalist, nonsexist, and nonracist farming society on that very land. Similarly, the US-based organization Movement for a New Society played a key role within the nonviolent tradition with their emphasis on radical democratic meeting-, work-, action-, and housing forms, by literally supplying other movements with new social structures to experiment with. According to these movement groups, they attempt to fight the existing system by replacing it here and now and making it obsolete by constructing alternatives of an emerging new society that also enable qualitative confrontations. Having discussed different concepts and definitions of resistance, we are now in a position to propose a number of analytical categories and entrances that could inspire more in-depth (empirical) studies of resistance (activities). The social phenomenon of resistance varies in relation to various contextual and particular circumstances. These variations will be discussed below. In a similar way, as with the definition of resistance, there is not one way of studying resistance that is the correct one. Different methodological entrances, approaches, and analytical categories have different purposes and uses. Being aware of this, we still believe that the entrances introduced below could serve as fruitful and constructive entrances for (a better) understanding of resistance one by one or in creative combinations. Before we continue, a few words about choices are necessary. Choices inevitably had to be made in selecting the different entrances to understand resistance discussed below. These choices are not grounded on any ultimate truth about what qualify as resistance or how such practices should be understood. Omissions will be noted. Ultimately, the choices of possible entrances to understand resistance reflect our definition of resistance presented above as well as our own preferences. It largely mirrors what we, for the time being (considering that we are working with an undertaking in the making) consider fruitful and constructive, in terms of intellectual contribution, to the contemporary intellectual development and debate in resistance studies. It represents and counts for our own sensibilities. While seeking to foster interest among scholars about various entrances to the understanding of resistance, the entrances that follow ultimately represent our own (previous) inquires as well our individual and collective journey into the immensely interesting field of resistance studies. The entrances are different from one another, they highlight different qualities of resistance, and they tackle issues that sometimes are distinct from the ones proposed by others. The lowest common denominator of the suggested entrances, however, is that they all, individually or in various combinations, to the best of our current knowledge offer fruitful and constructive options to better understand resistance.33 Possible Entrances to Understand Resistance Within resistance studies, we currently find different distinctions of resistance that dominate the discussion. We have what is intuitively associated with resistance—the confrontative and public challenge against power (revolutions, demonstrations, union strikes, boycotts). But thanks to the classic work of Scott on everyday resistance, researchers have detected one more mode of resistance, namely, hidden, circumventing forms of disguised resistance (working slowly, playing stupid, poaching, etc.).34 Although survival practices of subordinates are often regarded as something else within the scholarly literature, sometimes and in some contexts, it qualify as resistance, for example, when survival practices occur in “third spaces” against effects or aspects of power,35 or have cumulative political effects, despite not being politically motivated.36 Additionally, a “third form” of resistance has also been suggested, one that mixes ingredients of the disguised and public forms, for example, when subalterns use system rules against corrupt or authoritarian rulers who do not follow their own rules.37 Most likely, more forms exist. Another common distinction made in the literature is between collective/organized and individual/nonorganized resistance or small-scaled resistance (i.e., “individual resistance”). This distinction overlaps somewhat with the distinction “public” or “disguised” resistance. Still, the difference is made due to methodology (since it is easier to identify large scale or extraordinary resistance) and for theoretical reasons. There is a lot of research that supports the existence of some kind of qualitative shift or threshold when collective/organized or “mass” actions become large enough to have effects on state regimes.38 It is, however, not clear from this research how many participants that are needed, what role the type of method plays or if mass actions are necessarily organized, even if there might often be some that take the initiative to try and organize them. Charles Tilly’s extensive empirical research into the history of “collective actions” as “performances” and “contentious repertoires,” for example, is based on frequencies and categories of verbs in newspapers and constructions of “event catalogs” and is limited to events in which at least ten people acted in a public space.39 By this, Tilly’s concept “repertoires” of “contentious performance” do not cover the everyday resistance as discussed by Scott and others. There is obviously a spectrum of small-scale resistance somewhere between the individual and the collective action. More research in this regard is needed. Scott’s classic categorization, mentioned above, here called public and disguised (resistance),40 are related to three forms of domination (material, status and ideological), resulting in six various types of resistance. Resistance thus exists in the public form as (i) publicly declared resistance (open revolts, petitions, demonstrations, land invasions, etc.) against material domination, (ii) assertion of worth or desecration of status symbols against status domination, and (iii) counter-ideologies against ideological domination. And, resistance exists in the disguised form (low profile, undisclosed, or infrapolitics) as (iv) everyday resistance (e.g., poaching, squatting, desertion, evasion, foot-dragging) or direct resistance by disguised resisters against material domination, (v) hidden transcripts of anger or disguised discourses of dignity against status domination, and (vi) dissident subcultures (e.g., millennial religion, myths of social banditry, class heroes) against ideological domination. This categorization has two advantages as it systematically relates to public and disguised resistance and to the main forms of domination (material, status, and ideological). However, Scott’s categorization (i) does not encompass all the variation of resistance that seems to exist and (ii) does not use categories of domination that fit with current theories of domination (e.g., Foucault’s sovereign power, disciplinary power, and biopower).41 These shortcomings of an otherwise excellent categorization indicate how the system of categories might be more or less dependent on theory. If you subscribe to the theory on which the construction of the categories builds, you get more detailed categories to work with. This is an analytical advantage. If you do not subscribe to the underlying theoretical framework, various problems occur. If so, one option is to use even more basic and open categories that are less tied to certain theoretical standpoints that extend the variation (one such option is developed below). Another option is to make the categorization relatively independent of the applied power theories and to explicitly utilize more of the different positions and key concepts of current debates within the social sciences on power and social actions. Considering the above, resistance seems to appear in different forms, which then raises the question of how to carry out empirical studies of resistance in order to account for its complexity. What are the aspects or properties that must be embarked upon to capture various relations between performed resistance and its possible impacts? In what follows, we aim to contribute to future empirically grounded studies by proposing some considerations on how to study various forms of resistance. By this, we hope to provide “guidance” to those seeking to carry out grounded empirical research within the field of resistance studies. In the article Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework, Johansson and Vinthagen (2014) suggest a general framework for analyzing everyday resistance by utilizing four dimensions: (i) repertoires of everyday resistance in relation to particular configurations of power, (ii) relations between actors, (iii) the temporal, and (iv) spatial dimensions of everyday resistance. In the text, it is argued that all instances of everyday resistance will have (at least) these four dimensions and by analyzing them all, it become possible to compare different articulations of resistance across varied contexts and situations.42 Below, we will further elaborate on, explain, and supplement these dimensions. In particular, we will add a few analytical categories to what has already been put forward by Johansson and Vinthagen.43 Here, we will mix both general and context dependent analytical categories, which might—depending on the circumstance—be relevant for our under- standing of resistance. We will also broaden the research field to include all kinds of resistance as defined above and not limiting ourselves to only everyday resistance. The analytical categories we propose below and which could inspire more in-depth studies of resistance are: (i) repertoires of resistance in relation to particular configurations of power, (ii) the spectrum between organized and individual resistance, (iii) the temporal aspect of resistance, (iv) the spatial dimensions of resistance, (v) the relationship between bodies and representations, (vi) resistance reinforcing and/or creating new performances of resistance, and (vii) processes of self- reflection and affects. By this let us now turn to an elaboration on the categories one by one. Repertoires of resistance in relation to particular configurations of power. As stated previously, power and resistance exist in a mutually constitutive relationship. In fact, the dichotomizing of resisters and dominators ignores the fact that there are different systems of hierarchy that interact. Individuals can be simultaneously powerful and powerless within parallel systems.44 There exists a multitude of strategies of resistance, which are informed by power, including (i) nonviolent noninstitutional resistance, such as the various actions performed by the civil rights movement in United States (like protests, demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, civil disobedience, etc.),45 (ii) nonarmed resistance (with incidences of violence but still not militarized) for example, the secret sabotage done by ecological activists of the US Earth First!, the autonomous movement and animal rights activists in the United Kingdom,46 and (iii) military organized resistance as in noninstitutional terrorism (e.g., the Lehi or the Stern Gang, Islamic Jihad, and the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua) or various guerrillas groups.47 Resistance might also respond to power politics from an aesthetic dimension of cultural means (cultural values/products, identities, or discourses), for example, (i) through the construction of alternative life stories48, and (ii) the deconstruction of symbols, which, for example, Adbusters do when they change and/or imitate logos and advertisements from transnational companies or art performances that transgress borders between art and political activism. Resistance can be performed in response to sovereign power, disciplinary power, or biopower.49 As displayed by Stuart Hall and other scholars of “British Cultural Studies,” counter- culture or youth resistance to the established “normality” or the expectations from older generations could occur through provocations or experiments with new identities and styles or even through creations of postmodern identities of anti-identity to “exist against-in-and-beyond” pre- scribed roles such as the Chiapas Mayan Indians’ Zapatista movement, which fights for autonomy while it simultaneously includes everyone in the world oppressed by Neoliberalism as part of being a “Zapatista.”50 A rather specific variation of this latter type of resistance is those resisting the fabric of society itself (i.e., civil relations between different groups), like those warlords who thrive from a war economy of looting and “primitive capitalism,” who rule through terror and are not striving for legitimacy.51 Resistance is also carried out against state institutions and laws, corporations and market rules, discursive rules or cultural institutions, and traditional norms more generally; this type of resistance includes wildcat strikes and resistance to gender stereotypes (e.g., the queer actions of Outrage! or feminist reconstructions of gendered lifestyles in a patriarchal society). By way of conclusion, to study resistance invites to a discussion on the repertoires of resistance in relation to the particular configurations of the power in focus. But, in order to understand individual, everyday, and organized resistance, it is not only its relationship to power but also its related forms of resistance that must be elaborated on. It is not only different forms of power that shape distinct articulations of resistance, but paradoxically enough, resistance might also encourage and/or create new performances of resistance. Or in other words, resistance could inspire, provoke, generate, and even discourage resistance depending on contextual factors and other circumstances. The most obvious example in this regard is when someone’s resistance act inspires others to take part. One form of resistance (e.g., organized resistance) might also lead to another innovative form of resistance (such as everyday resistance).52 This may be due to the frustrating results of the first attempt to create resistance. Individuals’ experiences of organized and public forms of resistance might inspire themselves or others to develop new resistance forms of identities or everyday behavior. The spectrum between organized and individual resistance covers a whole range of resistance practices. To begin with, there are individual acts of resistance, for example, (i) “proletarian shopping” (i.e., “theft” from supermarkets by activists against private property and capitalism) and (ii) “whistle-blowers”53, or individuals with “courage.”54 Then, there are majority mobilizations, for example, the Indian anticolonial struggle.55 It might also be mobilizations of specific social categories according to gender, class, ethnicity, sexuality, or specific ideological groupings, such as fascists in a liberal democracy or liberals living under fascist rule. Thus, resistance is not necessarily organized in a formal and explicit way through organizations such as social movement organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or civil-society organizations. It is also not always organized in a collective sense through (in)formal networks, for instance, social movements, transnational advocacy networks, or social media—such as SMS, Facebook, and Twitter. It might arise from a seabed of a counterculture of some kind; by counterculture is here understood a social field of groups related to a number of ideological positions or beliefs. Countercultures vary in type and style, from progressive left wing or reactionary right wing. The white neofascism and racism groups in the United States seem to have enough communication tools, active participants, and links to be a stable environment for a counterculture; but at the same time, they do not have enough common discourses or behavioral orientations to be a sustained “movement.”56 The temporal aspect of resistance. This dimension sheds light upon various resistance practices and their foundation. Contemporary research is often preoccupied with the spatial dimensions of civil societies, social movements, and other networks and tends to generally focus on concepts such as “space,” “sphere,” and “sector.” Sometimes these concepts symbolize a space in itself in which civil society–based activities are taking place.57 At other times, they appear as metaphors that can be associated with, for example, directions, places, centers and margins, houses, or whatever one may imagine to have some kind of “spatial” meaning.58 In this, there is a tendency to forget that social relations, for instance, those shaping various civil societies, are imbued with time and not a space to visit or a thing to be understood. In line with this, many scholars miss to make temporality visible when watching/describing the surfaces of bodies in action.59 By embracing this argument, we suggest that time and temporality are important aspects to consider when studying civil society–based resistance.60 In our previous research, we have found that the “doing” of various civil societies and their resistance practices are carried out in relation to people of the past as well as the future.61 Overall, we specified some resistance strategies that involve temporality and time, namely (i) the creation of multiple temporalities, (ii) the relativizing of the heteronormative social script with other possible scripts (as in queering time space and social relations), (iii) the bringing of the future into the now by practicing prefigurative politics (as in embodying aspired visions or values from a movement’s utopia), and (iv) the removing the future or by referring to possible dangerous future scenarios (and the promotion of another temporality through this). It is, however, not only time and temporality but also the spatial dimensions of resistance that are interesting. The variety in this regard is impressive and includes (i) organized collective action in an established and recognized public arena (e.g., TV or parliaments), (ii) spontaneous uprisings and riots in neighborhoods that create informal and temporary political spaces,62 and (iii) everyday resistance permeating “private”/“apolitical” spaces, such as feminists’ politicization of sexual relations in a family context, or silent disloyalty at the work place, for example, work place sabotage/theft or a Svejkist kind of “playing stupid/sick” or “go-slow” activities.63 Among other things, analyzing the spatial dimensions of resistance offers a possibility to understand the leakiness of the civil society, the market and the state, as people move between these spaces, and carrying out resistance with unconventional methods in unexpected locations. The spatial dimensions also allow us to explore the materiality of resistance. The bodies of the organized resisters occupy pavements, streets, and squares (i.e., the material conditions for public assembly and public speech). When analyzing these assemblies, an interesting aspect is, therefore, how different materialities affect the bodies and minds of the protesters. In addition, the bodies, in some senses, produce or reproduce the character of that material context. The material space transforms and thereby affects the bodies and their symbolic value, for example, “when trucks or tanks suddenly become platforms for speakers, then the material environment is actively reconfigured and re-functioned.”64 Discussing materiality the relationship between bodies and representations must be considered as important (images, texts, etc.) when studying resistance. Language and symbolism are regarded as highly relevant in terms of resistance and “ . . . the most powerful practices of dissent . . . work in discursive ways, that is, by engendering a slow transformation of values.”65 Discursive and/or everyday practices of resistance are often subtle and hard to locate and resistance studies has, therefore, emphasized “‘less than tangible’ entities such as texts, signs, symbols, identity and language.”66 Overall, there has been a focus on cultural processes and meaning making as well as how these can be understood from the concepts of power and resistance. For example, the repetition of representations is what allows others and objects to be attributed with emotional value and create different “truths.” The circulation of, and sliding between, representations also involves “sticking” signs to bodies: the bodies who “could be terrorists” are the ones who might “look Muslim”;67 the one who “looks feminine” is the one who is the “babysitter” or “nurse” and so on. Thus, in the circulation of representations, emotions, hierarchical relations, and stereotypical images are created, assumed, maintained, and resisted. Representations that circulate create truths, subjectivities, and disciplinary subjects, who both adjust themselves to contemporary norms and resisting these norms. For example, resistance toward discipline is possible through reiteration, rearticulation, or repetition of the dominant discourse with a slightly different meaning. Foucault speaks about this as “reversed discourses.”68 Reversed dis- courses are used to describe how subalterns involve the categories and vocabularies of the dominating force or superior norm, precisely in order to contest it.69 He argues that, “homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or ‘naturality’ be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified.”70 This reverse discourse is then parasitic on the “dominant discourse” and resistance appears as the effect of power, as a part of power itself.71 In this, representations interact with prevailing materialities and create power as well as resistance. People navigating among different power-loaded discourses and more direct relations of power, make another dimension of the power/resistance nexus interesting. We believe that any study of resistance, when possible, can gain from embracing various processes of self-reflection as well as the nexus between individual emotions and affective economies, thus targeting dominant subject formations by embracing the entanglements between “within” and “without.” We are aware that resisters’ processes of self-reflection, emotions, and affects might sometimes be—in a similar way as we previously argued with “intentions”—hard to identify and analyze, but when it is possible, our understanding of resistance will arguably benefit greatly. How does the subject reflect upon herself or himself in relation to the dominating discourses and hierarchies? What emotions encourage resistance? Resisting subjects, whether they intend to resist or not, emerge from processes of self- formation. In this, it becomes a challenging task for the researcher to self-reflexively narrate and map the considerations and self-reflexivity of emergent resisting subjects. Moreover, since affects and interpretations are inseparable, emotions become an important dimension in processes of self- reflection. Emotions are performative—they do things, they direct bodies, and create practices.72 While issues, political institutions and/or their practices are attributed emotional value, such as hate or frustration, this sometimes forms the very base for political activities. It directs bodies and makes them connect or perform political practices. The adhesiveness of the emotions makes people stick to resistance movements and to others aligned with the movement. In addition, affects have the tendency to become more intense as they circulate. Affects are produced as an effect of its circulation. They circulate and accumulate over time. According to Sara Ahmed “...the more they circulate, the more affective they become, and the more they appear to ‘contain’ affect”.73 Thus, affects intensify as they circulate at the gathering and meeting between people. This implies that, in some situations, affects that are forwarded in networks give rise to increased intensity and escalating resistance. Departing from this, one might speculate that when resistance moves from everyday and individual resistance to larger gatherings and assemblies, that this might be due to the affects that are circulating and become intensified as they circulate, thereby leading to a more covert, joint, and explicit resistance. Or in other words, resistance is sometimes being accelerated or “upscaled”—it is being practiced by larger assemblies as the result of an affective intensification.74 The presentation, elaboration, and discussion above summarize only some key analytical categories that, one by one or together, provide us with possible entrances to the study of resistance. The “list,” needless to say, does not cover the whole spectrum of the interesting dimensions of resistance. As more research is done, new interesting dimensions of resistance and entrances to study resistance will emerge. These could be added to the ones presented above and further enrich an emerging field, still very much in the making. Concluding Discussion In this article, we have discussed resistance that challenges, or reacts against, repressive forms of power that comes in different forms. We have discussed how resistance is to be seen as analytically different from power and introduced various understandings of resistance. Departing from this discussion, we have also suggested different possible entrances to the (empirical) study of resistance. While we still do not know the full extent of variations of resistance, we do claim that resistance, at least on a theoretical and conceptual level, is a “umbrella concept” that encompasses multiple forms and a potential for creative development and adaptability in different contexts. It seems even possible to develop forms of resistance that are contradicting the most common (mis)understanding of resistance: “constructive” or “proactive” resistance, articulations where resistance is actually creating new and different subjectivities, social relations, and institutions, and are not (only) hindering or undermining them. Resistance is as productive and constitutive as power, if power is understood as suggested by Foucault. In the literature on resistance, it is well established that resistance responds to power. Scholars also argue that resistance is constituted by power. In the words of Scott regarding everyday resistance: “The practice of domination, then, creates the hidden transcript. Moreover, if the domination is particularly severe, it is likely to produce a hidden transcript of corresponding richness.”75 However, it seems clear to us that power (and violence) also responds to resistance. Power and resistance are often co-constitutive. But other’s resistance, material contexts, social relations, and so on also encourage and facilitate resistance. It is our hope that the rich variation of resistance that we have demonstrated in this article contributes to make the concept as well as the practice of resistance more understandable, in particular in regard to how resistance is not only a response to power but is creative in itself. Power will, at least partly, be a response for the challenges emerging from resistance. Thus, in a fundamental sense, power and resistance develop and expand together. An overall conclusion following from the undertaking in this article is that resistance studies is a necessary companion to all critical theory and other research based on agency, and, maybe most importantly, it is also necessary if we are interested in understanding power and social change. The exercise of power varies and takes both obvious and disguised forms, and it is developed in specific contexts. If we want to understand power (and its limits), we cannot only study power since the dynamic qualities and creative innovations of power, resistance, and social change are connected. By just studying how power is structured, exercised, or changing the world, we actually miss half of it, and, more importantly, we run the risk of overemphasizing the role of power. Resistance is sometimes utterly destructive and hindering, sometimes even fundamentally antisocial, as in misogynic resistance against gender equality or popular racist movements. But most often, resistance will be, as other social activities, productive or at least be active in both tearing down some things in society while creating new relations and products, ideas, discourses, and activities at the same time. The fundamental and possible normative value of resistance is its expansion of the space for making choices and the opening up of possibilities by undermining, destabilizing, or restructuring such power relations that limit and produce our (possible) identities, actions, space, or bodies. This is possible because resistance is not (primarily) directing people and telling us what to do, but it enables us to make new choices. A society thriving with resistance does not necessarily lead to nihilism or laissez-faire—”nothing matters” or “anything goes”—but rather genuine and emerging pluralism. Resistance has the ability to reconstruct new positions, material conditions, and truths while deconstructing others. In these cases, resistance could open up space for different choices—in the best of worlds—open the space for a freer choice with less domination. This kind of “emancipatory” resistance—which aim for a more peaceful and/or democratic society—is, from our perspective, maybe the most interesting form of resistance to research. Even though we believe that the analytical categories listed above could serve as important tools and fruitful entrances for how resistance could be better understood, we are also aware of the need for further research in this regard. Resistance as one specific act within a power relation seems possible to define and categorize, but which forms/categories are more common in certain conditions and which ones have more undermining effects on power/domination? What about dynamic processes of social change that might develop as a result of resistance? When the power relation shifts, quickly or during a long-term struggle, at what point is resistance becoming a power exercise, or when do we simply find a struggle between forces where no “subaltern” exists in a meaningful sense? Put somewhat more straightforwardly, much work remains to be done. Notes Louise Amoore, The Global Resistance Reader (London, UK: Taylor & Francis Inc., 2005); David Couzens Hoy, Critical Resistance: From Poststructuralism to Post-Critique (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005); Stephen Duncombe, Cultural Resistance Reader (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002); Jocelyn A. Hollander, and Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”, Sociological Forum, 19, no. 4 (2004): 533-554; Vinthagen, Stellan & Lilja, Mona, “Resistance”, in Encyklopedia of Activism and Social Justice, eds. G. L. Andersson and K. G. Herr (Sage, 2007); James Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992); Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz and Stellan Vinthagen, “Fighting with and against the Time: The Japanese Environmental Movement’s Queering of Time as Resistance”, Journal of Civil Society. 11, no. 4 (2015): 408–423. 
 Hoy, Critical Resistance, 82. 
 Lilja, Mona and Stellan Vinthagen (eds.), Motstånd. (Malmö, 2009). 
 Lilja, Mona and Stellan Vinthagen (eds.), (2009). Motstånd. (Malmö, 2009); Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz 
and Stellan Vinthagen. “Exploring ‘Irrational resistance’”, Journal of Political Power, 6, no. 2 (2013): 
201–217. 
 James Scott, Weapons of the Weak (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985); Hoy, Critical Resistance, 2005; David Butz and Michael Ripmeester, “Finding Space for Resistant Subcultures,” Invisible Culture, no. 2 (1999): 1–16; Sharon Erickson Nepstad, Nonviolent Revolutions: Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011). 
 Nasser Abufarah, The Making of a Human Bomb: An Ethnography of Palestinian Resistance (Durham,NC: Duke University Press Books, 2009); Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). 
 Hollander and Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance,” 538. 
 See, for example, Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Harmondsworth, UK: 
Penguin, 1975); Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” in Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. H. L. Dreyfus, P. Rabinow, and M. Foucault (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1982), 208–26; Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975–1976 (London, UK: Penguin, 1997). 
 Monique Deveaux, “Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault,” Feminist Studies, 20, no. 2 (1994): 223–47. 
 Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 1985; Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 1992. 
 11 Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 299, original emphasis. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 290. 
 Ibid., 299. 
 This is a problem with Scott’s work, although he is critical to the Marxist idea of “false consciousness”; See Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 1992, chap. 4. 
 Asef Bayat, “From ‘Dangerous Classes’ to ‘Quiet Rebels’: Politics of the Urban Subaltern in the Global South,” International Sociology, 15, no. 3 (2000): 533–57. 
 Paul Routledge, “A Spatiality of Resistances: Theory and Practice in Nepal’s Revolution of 1990,” in Geographies of Resistance, ed. S. Pile and M. Keith (London, UK: Routledge, 1997), 68–86. 
 Viegas Fernandes, “From the Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction to the Theory of Resistance,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9, no. 2 (1988): 169–80. 
 Lilja, Mona, Stellan Vinthagen and Mikael Baaz, “Exploring ‘Irrational resistance’”, Journal of Political Power, 6, no. 2 (2013): 201–217. 
 Bob Moore, Resistance in Western Europe (London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000), 2. 
 Steve Pile and Michael Keith, eds., Geographies of Resistance (London, UK: Routledge, 1997). 
 See, for example, James Scott, “Revolution in the Revolution: Peasants and Commissars,” Theory and 
Society, 7, no. 1/2 (1979): 97–134. 
 Barbara Bush, Imperialism, Race and Resistance (London, UK: Routledge, 1999), 16. 
 Adam Roberts, “Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Questions,” Paper presented at a Conference on Civil Resistance and Power Politics, St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, Oxford, 
March 2007. 
 See, for example, Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 1985; Hollander and Einwohner, “Conceptualizing 
Resistance,” 2004. 
 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). Hollander and Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance,” 2004. 
 See further Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz and Stellan Vinthagen, “Exploring‘ Irrational resistance’”,Journal of
Political Power, 6, no. 2 (2013): 201–217. 
 Lilja, Mona, “(Re)figurations and Situated Bodies: Gendered Shades, Resistance and Politics in 
Cambodia”, Signs. 41, no. 3 (2016): 677–699. DOI: 10.1086/684242 
 Compare Lilja, Mona and Stellan Vinthagen (eds.), Motstånd [Resistance]. (Malmo ̈, 2009, p. 51); Johans- 
son, Anna and Stellan Vinthagen, “Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework,” 
Critical Sociology, published online on May 12; 2014. 
 However, it is important to observe that this only means that someone in a power position cannot do 
resistance in that power relation. A dictator of a country cannot do resistance to his or her citizens’ resistance movement, but to other states if these states are understood as brokers of regional or world power. The dictator is superior in the power relation vis-a`-vis his people, but a subordinate vis-a`-vis stronger states. Similarly, a female prime minister might be subordinated to her husband in the family due to patriarchal power relations. Or a male resistance activist might be both subordinated to his government and superordinate racially to a minority in his neighborhood. Therefore, the one and same person might be exercising power as well as resistance but in different relations depending on the specific subject position in a field of power. 
 Baaz, Mikael and Mona Lilja, “Using International Criminal Law to Resist Transitional Justice: Legal Rupture in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia”, Conflict and Society, 2, no. 1 (2016): 142–159. 
 Ickevåldsaktion: en social praktik av motstånd och konstruktion (Non-violent action: a social practice of resistance and construction. PhD dissertation. Ickevåldsaktion: en social praktik av motstånd och konstruktion (Non-violent action: a social practice of resistance and construction. PhD dissertation. Stellan Vinthagen University of Gothenburg, Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University, Gothenburg, 2005 
 Compare Andrea Bianchi, International Law Theories: An Inquiry into Different Ways of Thinking (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016), 13–15. 
 Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 1985. 
 Regarding “off-kilter resistance,” see Butz and Ripmeester, “Finding Space for Resistant,” 1999. 
 Asef Bayat, Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East (Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press, 2009). 
 For “rightful resistance” or “loyal resistance,” see Kevin J. O’Brien, “Rightful Resistance,” World Politics 
Journal, 49, no. 1 (1996): 31–55. 
 See, for example, E. Chenoweth and M. J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of 
Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011). 
 See, for example, Charles Tilly, Contentious Performances (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 
2008), 31–61. 
 Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 1985, Table 6.1. 
 Ibid. 
 Johansson, Anna and Stellan Vinthagen, “Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical 
Framework,” Critical Sociology, published online on May 12; 2014. 
 Ibid. 
 Hollander and Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance,” 2004. 
 Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1973). 
 Kolya Abramsky, ed., Restructuring and Resistance; Diverse Voices of Struggle in Western Europe (Walla Walla, WA: Earthlight Books, 2001). 
 Here, we use the term “noninstitutional” as we are trying broadly to capture the kind of terrorism that 
is not directly carried out in special operations by regime agencies such as CIA or regular nation state armies in a declared war. The concepts and their use are here, as often when it comes to resistance, highly politicized (e.g., “terrorism,” “freedom fighters,” “guerrillas,” etc.); Amanda Peralta,...med andra medel. Från Clausewitz till Guevara. Krig, revolution och politik i en marxistisk ide ́tradition (Göteborg, Sweden: Daidalos, 1990). 
 Anna Johansson, La Mujer Sufrida—the Suffering Woman: Narratives on Femininity among Women in a Nicaraguan barrio (Göteborg, Sweden: Monograph from the Department of Sociology, Göteborg University, 1999). 
 49. Johansson, Anna and Stellan Vinthagen, “Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework,” Critical Sociology, published online on May 12; 2014. John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today (London, 
UK: Pluto Press, 2002). 
 Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2003). 
 Mikael Baaz, Mona Lilja, Michael Schulz and Stellan Vinthagen, “How Resistance Encourages Resistance: Theorising the nexus between Power, Everyday Resistance and Organized Resistance”, Journal of 
Political Power, 10, no. 1 (2017), 40–54. 
 Brian Martin, “Whistleblowing and Nonviolence,” Peace and Change, 24, no. 3 (1999): 15–28. 
 Martin Gilbert, The Righteous—The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust (London, UK: Transworld, 2002). 
 Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent, 1973. 
 56 Gardell, Gods of the Blood, 2003. Gideon Baker, “Problems in the Theorisation of Global Civil Society,” Political Studies, 50, no. 5 (2002): 
928–43; Robert Fine, “Civil Society Theory, Enlightenment and Critique,” Democratization, 4, no. 1 (1997): 7–28; Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz and Stellan Vinthagen, “Fighting with and against the Time: The Japanese Environmental Movement’s Queering of Time as Resistance”, Journal of Civil Society, 11, no. 4 (2015): 408–423. 
 Halldis Valestrand, “Spatial Metaphors in Feminist Discourse,” Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, no. 2 (2000): 117–20; Lilja, Mona, Gendering Legitimacy through the Reproduction of Memories and Violent Discourses in Cambodia, Asian Perspectives, 32, no. 1 (2008): 71–97. 
 Kate Weston, Gender in Real Time: Power and Transience in a Visual Time (London, UK: Routledge, 2002). 
 Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz and Stellan Vinthagen, “Fighting with and against the Time: The Japanese Environmental Movement’s Queering of Time as Resistance”, Journal of Civil Society, 11, no. 4 (2015): 408–423; Bleiker, R., Popular dissent, human agency and global politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 
 Ibid. 
 Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail 
(New York: Vintage Press, 1979). 
 Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent, 1973. 
 Judith Butler, Notes toward a Performative Theory of Assembly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press, 2015). 
 Roland Bleiker, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- 
versity Press, 2000); Lilja, Mona, Stellan Vinthagen and Mikael Baaz, “Exploring ‘Irrational resistance’”, Journal of Political Power, 6, no. 2 (2013): 201–217; Baaz, Mikael and Mona Lilja, “(Re)categorisation as Resistance: Civil-Society Mobilisations around the Preah Vihear Temple”, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s10767-016-9241-7; Lilja, Mona, Mikael Baaz and Stellan 
Vinthagen “Fighting with and against the Time: The Japanese Environmental Movement’s Queering of Time as Resistance”, Journal of Civil Society, 11, no. 4 (2015): 408–423; Johansson, Anna and Stellan Vinthagen (2014) “Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework,” Critical Sociology, published online on May 12. Anton Törnberg, “Resistance Matter(s): Resistance Studies and the Material Turn.” RSN (Now Journal of Resistance Studies) 2013. 
 Sara Ahmed, “Affective Economies,” Social Text, 22, no. 2 (2004): 132. 
 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Vol.1. (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981); 
Foucault in Judith Butler, “Subjection, Resistance, Resignification,” in The Identity in Question, ed. John
Rajchman (New York: Routledge, 1995), 229–50. 
 Ibid., 236. 
 Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 101. 
 Judith Butler, “Subjection, Resistance,” 237. 
 Ahmed, “Affective Economies,” 2004. 
 Ibid., 120. 
 Lilja, Mona, Dangerous bodies, matter and emotions: public assemblies and embodied resistance. Journal 
of Political Power, forthcoming 2017. 
 Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 27.