Concepts of Power and Resistance

Concepts of Power and ResistancePower and ResistanceWhere there is power, there is metro, and yet, or rather consequently, this fortress is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power (Foucault, 1978 95-96).In human sciences one of the main issues has al carriages been the relationship of apology to power. Where there is power, there is opponent power affirms that there exists immunity and visa versa. But before starting to think astir(predicate) confrontation, we defy to take in mind that power is no longer considered a unitary, constant force that emanates from a particular tender class or institution, rather it is forecastn as a more tenuous framework of hegemonic forms (Constable, 2007 11). Foucault (1978 95-96) questions our assumption that power is always and essentially repressive, he wants to show how power as well cig bet be positively in a way that it open fire hit forms of pleasure, systems of knowledge, goods, and discourses and that it not only works negatively, by denying, restricting, prohibiting and repressing (Abu-Lughod, 1990 42). The boil down within studies of electric resistance recently shifted from large-scale collective revolts to more unlikely forms of resistance such as subversions and small or local resistances which do not especially aim to overthrow the system and which do not result from ideologies of license (Abu-Lughod, 1990 41).Hence both concepts have turned to be more complex than initially supposed, but this makes it make up more interesting and more vastly applicable to various situations where people try to construct their life within structures of power.ResistanceThe term resistance has been economic consumptiond by m both scholars to describe a wide range of boutions and behaviours in all aspects of human social life and in contrasting passeltings. Hollander and Einwohner (2004 534) illustrated how everything from revolutions to hairstyles has been described as resistance. Consequently f ollowing from the diversity of actions and behaviours which used to be named as resistance, they found in their analysis of the concept that there is little matchment on the definition (ibid 234). Therefore it is important to outline the range of characteristics that can exist within the concept of resistance.First of all the scale whereat the resistance occurs has not always the aforementioned(prenominal) size acts of resistance whitethorn be for lawsuit individual or collective, widespread or limited to local beas. Levels of coordination argon also variable, in some situations there depart be a high extent in which the resisters clothedionally act to yieldher, than in other. Thereby the targets where resistance is directed to also differs, they vary from individuals to sort outs and from organizations to institutions and social structures. As well the direction or goals are variable, while resistance mainly is understood to be aimed at achieving some sort of change, someti mes it is possible that the behaviour described as resistance aims to constrain change. Finally, while resistance is generally understood to be a political action, some writers suggest that resistance can also be identity-based (ibid 536-537). motion and Opposition later on having observed the dimensions of variation of resistance Hollander and Einwohner (ibid 537) tried to describe the core elements of resistance to see how all these phenomena can be described with the same term. They identified action and opposition as two core elements within the discussions of resistance where authors seem to agree on. Resistance is not a quality of an promoter or a state of being, but involves some active behaviour, whether verbal, cognitive, or psychical, and another component common to almost all uses is a sense of opposition. After having identified these core elements, the lines of disagreements became clearer, which made them realize that several debates of resistance above all differed i n their position on two central issues recognition and heart (ibid 537).Recognition and IntentionActs of resistance are not always equally visible, their variation in visibility becomes clearer when we analyze the contrast mingled with day-to-day resistance and more (and more obviously contentious) forms of political mobilization. Sometimes the intention of resistance is to be accepted, while other resistance is purposefully hidden, so recognition depends in part on the goals of the people who resist (ibid 540). While Scott (1985) in his book most modes of everyday resistance among peasant workers argues that resistance need not to be recognised as such and that it whitethorn remain relatively invisible to the powerful, other scholars define resistance as necessarily provoking recognition and even reaction from others (Hollander Einwohner, 2004 541).This level of recognition also varies depending on the two different groups of others who can identify an act as resistance, to wit targets and observers. The first group contains those to whom the act is directed and the second group can comprise the general man, members of the media and researchers (ibid 542).After the question if oppositional action must be readily apparent to others, and if it must in fact be substantiated as resistance, Hollander and Einwohner wonder if the actor must be aware that she or he is resisting some exercise of power and intending to do so for an action to qualify resistance (ibid 542). Also on this matter scholars do not completely agree, roughly classified Hollander and Einwohner (2004) distinguish three different views. The first group of scholars believes that the actors conscious intent is a core element to be able to classify trustworthy behaviour as resistance. The second group thinks that measuring intent is difficult or even undoable, as resistance not only arises in public, but also privately. People in these cases may be conscious of oppression and may intend to resist in some fashion, but this will not be visible and therefore impossible to measure. Following to the last group of scholars we must not digest on the intent, as resistance can occur consciously or unconsciously, concentrating on intent will neglect important forms of resistance (ibid 542).Types of ResistanceHollander and Einwohner (2004) didnt want to define the verities and the falsities among all possible meanings and contends of the term resistance. Therefore they decided to analyse the various opinions to see if it would be possible to describe different forms of resistance without judging what is wrong and what is not. They already observed that all scholars seemed to agree that resistance implied oppositional action of some kind. difference discords about whether resistance must be intended by actors or whether it must be recognized by targets and/or observers. They therefore argue that it is expedient to think of resistance in terms of distinct types, each defined by a different combination of actors intent, targets recognition, and observers recognition.Not all scholars will agree that all behaviours summarized in Table 1 should be called resistance, but it will help to emphasize again the core elements of resistance.The first type, overt resistance, comprises for example social movements and revolutions, and individual acts of refusal. It is visible behaviour, which is recognized by both targets as observers as resistance and is also intended to be recognized as such.Covert resistance refers to acts as gossip and subtle subversion in the work bewilder they are intentional but go ignored by their targets. However they are recognized as resistance by culturally aware observers. These two forms of intentional forms of resistance are followed by some unintentional forms of resistance. The first one is recognized as resistance by both the observers as the targets but is not meant as such. And the second one contains so called self-defined targ ets who may be the only ones who recognize certain behaviour as resistance (target-defined resistance). A separate category contains externally-defined resistance, these are acts of resistance that are neither intended nor recognized as resistance by actors or their targets, but are labelled by third parties. The last two forms of resistance go to a certain degree unnoticed by others. If recognized by their target but unrecognized by third-party observers, they have called it missed resistance. If an actors intentional act goes unnoticed by both targets and observers alike, it may be classified as attempted resistance (ibid 544-547).InteractionUnderstanding the interaction between resisters, targets, and third parties plays a central role in the apprehension of resistance. Resistance is socially constructed resisters, targets, and observers all participate in this construction (ibid 548). Of course often there is no overall agreement on the question if certain behaviour can be seen as resistance or not. What one observer (or participant) sees as resistance, another may see as accommodation or even domination this does not only happen between the different participative groups but also within the parties there is variation. Resistance is a complex set of thoughts and behaviours (Ortner, 1995 175).Dichotomizing resistance and dominators ignores the fact that there are multiple systems of hierarchy, and that individuals can be simultaneously powerful and powerless within different systems (Hollander Einwohner, 2004 548).In her article about resistance and the concept of dbrouillardise (a way of social manipulation) used by Auvergnat farmers in rural France, Deborah Reed-Danahay (1993 223) describes how Kondo (1990 221) based on her research in Japan also emphasizes the intertwining of power and meaning, so that no one can be without power.Everyday ResistanceAfter appointing the different types of resistance, it is necessary to take a first glimpse into possible forms of resistance among undocumented migrants to see on what kind of forms we have to continue focussing. First of all, it is obvious that undocumented migrants wont participate in any overt form of resistance (i.e. demonstrations) because it probably endangers their precarious situation. Therefore it is not very likely that the target of the resistance will recognize their acts as such. It will also vary if the acts are intended as resistance. Consequently, it is more likely that possible forms of resistance among undocumented migrants will be covert resistance, attempted resistance and externally-defined resistance.Especially the first two forms of resistance are familiar to Scotts concept of everyday resistance. He describesWhat everyday forms of resistance share with the more dramatic public confrontations is of course that they are intended to mitigate or deny claims made by superordinate classes or to advance claims vis--vis those superordinate classes. Where institutionali zed politics are formal, overt, concerned with systematic, de jure change, everyday resistance is informal, often covert, and concerned largely with immediate, de facto gains (Scott, 1990 32-33).Scott points out different expressions of everyday resistance foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, smuggling, etc. He refers to these practices as hidden transcripts (Scott, 1990) that are not easily visible in official transcripts and those on-stage behaviours controlled by elites (Reed-Danahay, 1993 222). He described the existence of a too strongly focus on official and public transcripts of culture resulting in an underestimation of subordinated people and argued for a look into the unofficial transcripts to see the variety of forms of resistance taking place in this area of social life (ibid 223). Though, Reed-Danahay (ibid 223) points at a, ly to her, disturbing simplification by Scott by describing resistance as something which can be found in the hidden transcripts of the weak while only accordance becomes visible in the public transcripts of both the weak and the strong. This derives from the fact that he sees ideology as a crystal clear message, while there is contradiction and ambiguity in any discourse (ibid 223)Everyday PracticesSimilar to Scotts everyday resistance is Michel de Certeaus (1984) concept of everyday practices. He divides strategies and manoeuvre and explains why many everyday practices are not strategic but tactical in character.A strategy is the calculus of force-relationships which becomes possible when a musical theme of will and power can be isolated from an environment. Strategies possess their own place which forms a starting point from where relations with the outside can be generated. simulated military operation on the other hand, do not possess their own place, so the other cannot be singled out as a visible totality. Tactics constantly manipulate events to turn them into opportunities.De Certeau (ibid xix) describe sA tactic insinuates itself into the others place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance.Everyday practices are a gathering of ways of operating characterized by victories of the weak over the strong and consisting of clever tricks, knowing how to get away with things, hunters cunning, manoeuvres, polymorphic situations, etc (De Certeau, 1984 xix).Tactics produce a certain movement within the system. They show to what extent it is possible to use intelligence to consort power within the daily struggle. Strategies, on the contrary, have a rather ambiguous relation with power. They use the instruments of the power for their own purposes. Hence, the structure of power where the strategies compete against at the same time sustains them (De Certeau, 1984 xviii).Scotts concept of everyday resistance, consisting of practices as foot dragging, dissimulation and smuggling tends to be more similar to strategies than to tactics. Whil e De Certeaus concept of ways of operating (or everyday practices), like knowing how to get away with things, are more tactical in character. We could say that strategies aspire to undermine the structures of power and thus are more saturated with a legal opinion of resistance, whereas tactics not only aim to resist, but also comprise an accommodating component.CunningDespite their differences, De Certeau and Scott are concerned with the same kind of behaviour. Reed-Danahay (1993 222) presupposes to use the concept of cunning to refer to this behaviour. ly to her, Detienne and Vernants (1978 3-4 in Reed-Danahay 1993 222) description of the Greek quality of metis summarizes accurately the significance of cunningit combine(s) flair, wisdom, forethought, subtlety of mind, deception, resourcefulness, vigilance, opportunism, various skills and experience acquired over the years. It is utilize in situations which are transient, shifting, disconcerting, and ambiguous, situations which do not lead themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation, or rigorous logic (1978 3-4 quoted in Scott 1990 164 in ibid 222).Also De Certeau (1984 xix) is conscious about the connection between metis and his ways of operating. Together with cunning, metis refers to the idea of Goffmans concept of making do in difficult situations and overcoming hardships (Reed-Danahay, 1993 223). ly to Reed-Danahay, resistance suggests a mechanical metaphor of good bodies coming into contact. Unlike resistance, cunning includes some fluidity in social life, leaving room for play or manipulation (ibid 223).DbrouillardiseReed-Danahay therefore speaks of a more complex notion of power and resistance, where forms of power lay both with agents of the dominant culture and with the resisting people themselves (ibid 224). In her fieldwork in a mountain vale in the Auvergne region of central France she describes how people from a place fictionally named Lavialle have adopted a stance of resistance to a gents who threaten their cultural autonomy. She shows how these farmers use the french concept of dbrouillardise as a manner to talk about social manipulation expressing accommodation, resistance, cunning, ways of making out and ways of making do (ibid 221). Dbrouillardise connotes both resisting domination and other forms of social manipulation or even partial accommodation. It is a form of everyday resistance and it is a way of taking advantage of a situation that presents itself. Dbrouillardise has a dual nature, it consist of both making out and making do and is associated with both justificative postures and coping strategies in everyday life (ibid 224).ConclusionMigrants and ResistanceAbu-Lughod and romanticizing resistanceWith the concept of dbrouillardise Reed-Danahay tries to cover the gap between theory and practice. This is viable because the villagers she observes are actually using the concept in their ordinary language.According to her dbrouillardise refers to a more complex form of power than the theories of Scott (ibid 224).DbrouillardiseAccomodationThe ethnographic writings also contains examples of positive values associated with behaviours interpreted as everyday resistance when no native term or vocabulary for it is present. (223)Even while resisting power, individuals or groups may simultaneously support the structures of domination that necessitate resistance in the first place. Various authors have referred to this complexity as accommodation (e.g., Sotirin and Gottfried, 1999 Weitz, 2001), ambiguity (Trethewey, 1997), complicity (Healey, 1999 Ortner, 1995), conformity (St. Martin and Gavey, 1996), or assimilation (Faith, 1994).These authors stress that a single activity may constitute both resistance and accommodation to different aspects of power and authority (Hollander Einwohner, 2004 549). thus far it is easy to romanticize resistance as Abu-Lughod says, to view its forms as signs of ineffectiveness of systems of power and of th e resilience and creativity of the human spirit in refusal to be dominated, to focus on successful forms of resistance and neglecting to consider accommodation, passivity or acquiescence adequately (In Constable, 2007 ). It is only valuable if we can find a way between romanticizing resistance and portraying young migrants as passive oppressed victims.