Resistance.docx

INTRODUCTION
Resistance is a relatively under researched field of social sciences. There exists a plurality of concepts and definitions of resistance. Within the small and recent social science field which could be addressed as "resistance studies" where "resistance" is explicitly discussed, theorised and investigated there exists a plurality of concepts and definitions of the core concept, incorporating a form of "disguised resistance", "critical resistance", or "civil resistance".
Misconceptions of resistance prevails often connecting Resistance to anti-social attitudes. Foucault fundamentally changed the view of power, and thus logically, resistance. If power is not only a sovereign centre forbidding (and punishing), but more importantly a productive multiple network of power techniques, without a unifying centre, then resistance also changes face. If the decentred powers produce regimes of Truth/knowledge, specialized institutions of discipline, and ultimately, the very subject that make resistance, it sure has consequences for any resistance studies. While Foucault made a paradigmatic turn in our understanding power/resistance he is not very helpful in understanding power/resistance. Foucault did study power from the perspective of power hierarchies .
The first major work on Resistance studies are to be found in James Scott's 'The Weapons of the weak' . scott emphasized on the notion of class resistance. Human thoughts are oblique and multi-angled. Scott viewed Resistance for the deprived sections in a non-confrontational way. He failed to foresee the or underline the effects of ''other intended resistance''. He had mainly identified two main types of resistance-public and disguised .
The major achievement of Scott, was his insistence that resistance predominantly is informal, hidden, and non-confrontational ."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 naïve to expect that peasant resistance can or will normally take the same form."
Resistance is about redefining norms of power structures or denying certain dichotomies. Scott divides resistance into two forms (public and disguised) which corresponds to three forms of domination (material, status and ideological), resulting in six types of resistance. Resistance exist in the public form as public declared resistance (open revolts, petitions, demonstrations, land invasions, etc) against material domination; assertion of worth or desecration of status symbols against status domination; or, counter ideologies against ideological domination per say.
Resistance is not only a response to power, power might as well be a response to resistance, a response both to its construction of new social structures which negates power logics and a counter-response to the resistance against power. In a fundamental sense power and resistance need each other to develop and expand. Foucault did a famous genealogy of power in which he traced the historical relatives of contemporary techniques of power. Through it he showed how the contemporary configurations of power, common sense and subjectivity was not natural or given but historical and contingent (thus possible to challenge, undermine and change). He did not try to prove a causal relationship between e.g. medieval monastery discipline and modern surveillance forms as the Bentham panopticon, but instead showed both the inheritance of structural similarities and the changing forms of power. He showed both a continuation and difference within disparate institutions as the school, the hospital clinics, the prison, the military barracks, the industry, as well as the monastery, leper colonies and other pre-modern experiments with forms of power.
A genealogy of resistance is similar to a genealogy of power in some sense and in other different. In a similar way a genealogy of resistance need to demonstrate structural continuity as well as innovation. One important difference is that the archives of power techniques (which were so important for the research of Foucault) are a lot more extensive than the archives of resistance techniques. The rebellions, mutinies or arsons on power structures are documented by the winners, mostly by governments, landlords, priests or other representatives of power if they are documented at all. It becomes quite difficult in the case of subaltern studies where hidden forms of resistance had been adhered to. The framing of resistance discourses is interesting to study but it is also in itself a hindrance in empirical investigations.
Resistance is an integral part of power relationships, of domination, subjugation and as such may be viewed from different ideological viewpoints. It is this idea of the hidden transcript that characterises much of Cultural Resistance, and it is the transition from the hidden to the public transcript that holds the key to meaningful political impact.
Postmodernism adds 'disruptions' to the almost comforting possibilities for powerful resistance offered by the modernist paradigm. Postmodernists view power and resistance, not necessarily as oppositional, but rather as a complex of diverse, fragmented and transitory relationships between individuals .Foucault in particular introduces the concept of diffuse power which sees domination and resistance not as a binary but as integral parts of each other. Scott draws together modernist ideas of powerful resistant agency with postmodern fragmented individual power into the concept of infrapolitics. Herta Muller's assertion was that resistance is an instinctive moral, rather than a political, gesture that separates us from the daily grind. Cultural resistance can point the way, like a moral compass, for meaningful political activity. It can be a proto-revolutionary culture offering a rehearsal space for more concrete overt political action. Cultural resistance, then, might be described as a satisfying bellow of rage against the darkness while we are looking for the matches. James Scott tied up the modernist ideas of powerful resistant agency with postmodern fragmented individual power into the concept of infrapolitics.
Stephen Duncombe uses the term, ' Cultural Resistance' to describe culture as it has been used consciously or unconsciously , effectively or not, to resist or change the dominant pre existing social, political and economic structure. More or less, these patterns take on new identities which makes it flexible.
Cultural resistance provides a platform for experimentation of ideas and practices as well as resources and tools of resistance can be developed.


While resistance may manifest in various forms, its manifestation is highly constrained by and must be viewed in relation to complex and dynamic power relations. Resistance and submission to powerful actors were often impossible to delineate and the motivations for participation were often ambiguous in most cases.
As Hollander and Einwohner pointed out, "resistance is not always pure," and resistance and domination often have a cyclical relationship. Rather than subverting or diminishing the strength of oppressive power structures, resistance can sometimes reinforce structures of domination which often leads to severe forms of repression.
Resistance is not an antagonist type of change but a different form of change. It is not the denial of the historical process, but instead an expression of it in different terms. Resistance is not the antithesis of change; resistance also involves active processes. Everything that functions as a type of resistance can also function as a mechanism of disintegration , because it triggers or stimulates a parallel mechanism of the recognition or extension of social division within the existing hierarchy.
Foucalt and the syntax of Power, Resistance
Foucalt has been indeed been a pioneer in terms of resistance studies who had been successful in unmasking the hidden mechanisms of discipline and domination. The evolution of Foucault's ideas can be divided in phases , for example like in the early 1960s, then its subsequent development and alterations in the early 1970s, and finally the idea of resistance that Foucault presented in the last decade of his life. This chronology will emphasize certain features, such as the centrality of this theme throughout his work, especially since it appeared before his formulation of theories on power. The first period begins in 1961, with the publication of 'Madness and Civilization', and continues through the late 1960s. This period will be dealt with more briefly, since these works have not been as influential within political philosophy and the conceptualization of resistance within this period is less reflective of his later thought. The second period, marked by a renewed sympathy for Marxism, probably caused by the events of 1968, is brief and only covers the years of 1971 and 1972. Thus Foucaultian resistance is ultimately caught between two unacceptable positions: either place restrictions upon resistance and remain trapped in modern power, or celebrate any form of resistance and thereby sanction the worst forms of social engagements.
The central issue for any reading of Foucault's conception of resistance during the first period of his work is that he had not yet formulated power as a central problematic element. He was rather focused on the foundational issues of a culture. These provides dichotomies formulating the context for social belief and actions . The historical division of reason and un- reason, the creation of a gulf between them over which no communica- tion can take place is the most important instance of the creation of a limit.

Transgression forces the limit to recognize and acknowledge what it excludes, and hence "the world is forced to question itself" and "is made aware of its guilt''. Foucault also abandoned the focus on discourse to the exclusion of social practices which marked his "archaeological" period. Foucault's account of modern power as ubiquitous, diffuse, and circulating, emphasizes the difficulty of resistance. It also leads Foucault away from the great emphasis he previously placed upon a few institutions. Since power is spread throughout society and not localized in any particular place, the struggle against power must also be diffuse. More- over, modem power works under the injunction to maximize the productive forces of the subjects it works upon, while simultaneously decreasing their political or resistive forces. The view of power as productive and creative alters Foucault's previous focus upon those who were marginalized or excluded.

A central issue in Foucault's work from this period is the relationship between power and resistance. Is resistance simply that which frustrates power; is it "the antimatter of power"?' Is it recalcitrance, refusal, and unruliness? There is textual evidence for these views. Foucault sees resistance as the odd element within power relations. Resistance is what eludes power, and power targets resistance as its adversary. Resistance is what threatens power, hence it stands against power as an adversary. Although resistance is also a potential resource for power, the elements or materials that power works upon are never rendered fully docile. Something always eludes the diffusion of power and expresses itself as indocility and resistance.

Polish Resistance as an exemplar of Cultural Resistance ( Case Study)
The Polish Resistance during the era of Second World War does not get enough attention as a serious event. The Polish experience is unique in a number of ways. It did not end in 1945. It began in 1939 and continued to 1948. Poland was also the victim of two criminal regimes: Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. On another level, the Polish experience is almost a paradigm for genocide in several of its main characteristics.
First, it was the result of specific modern ideologies which marked for extinction Poles in general or significant and leading segments of Polish society based on primitive, pseudo-scientific theories of race or socio-economic class. These ideologies served to both identify and stigmatize the victims and to justify their liquidation. Secondly, these ideologies were bolstered by old, pre-existing, virulently negative stereotypes of the victims, as well as long nursed historical grievances and alleged wrongs done to the perpetrators by their victims. Third, the genocidal crimes were committed in an area with a long history of colonialism. In fact, the Polish lands had been the site of two recently failed empires: Imperial Germany and Tsarist Russia. Fourth, The genocide against the Polish nation was marked by a determined effort not only to destroy the biological fabric of the people through slavery, forced "labor to extinction", mass deportations, starvation and murder on a massive scale but also by the expropriation of the wealth of the victims and a comprehensive campaign to destroy Polish culture, language, religious faith and institutions.
It was a comprehensive, planned effort to wipe out all vestiges of national memory and culture as a prelude to the physical destruction of the Polish people over the course of a generation. The Poles resisted these efforts to destroy them as best they could in a wide variety of ways. Yet resistance itself carried grave dangers to Polish society and culture. The difficulties—faced by all survivors of genocide—were compounded for the Poles by the fact that their "liberators" were themselves accomplices of the Nazis in genocide. On the positive side, the experience of genocide and resistance between 1939 and 1948 brought a new awareness to Poles. It was out of this experience that the next wave of resistance would come as a self limiting revolution based on a principled nonviolence and drawing on the rich cultural and spiritual heritage of the nation.
A new governmental apparatus and national state had to be created out of three distinct areas which had different histories, governments and development for more than a century. Most of the war on the Eastern Front had been fought in Polish territories. The new nation inherited a devastated landscape and a ravaged economy. Minority groups made up one-third of the population of the new Poland especially Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, and Belarussians. Still a poor and developing country at the outbreak of the war, Poland was well on the way to modernization.
The Polish resistance to the Soviet attack, provided largely by lightly armed border guard units, was equally determined. The original Soviet claim that their troops met little resistance and suffered only a few hundred casualties has been seriously challenged by new research. Resistance cells were frequently organized around political parties and among groups of people who knew each other from before the war. Many of the early local efforts were infiltrated and destroyed by the Gestapo. Efforts to form a central resistance movement began by the end of September 1939. In December 1939, the Union of Armed Struggle was created. In 1942, it was renamed the Home Army, or Armia Krajowa (AK). The right-wing National Democratic party created the National Military Organization, a powerful resistance force that battled both Nazis and communists.
To counter German propaganda, the underground developed a vast number of clandestine publications: flyers, news bulletins, and regular newspapers. Teams of boy scouts and girl guides distributed the secret publications while a special unit of scouts called the Grey Ranks painted anti-Nazi graffiti by night. To outwit German radio detection, the AK broadcast coded news to England where it was rebroadcast back to Poland using a powerful transmitter. Information was extremely accurate and up-todate. A distinctive feature of Polish Resistance was the establishment of the Council for Aid to Jews in 1942. The group was known by its acronym "Żegota". It brought together representatives of Jewish organizations, members of the Polish underground and Polish political parties as well as deeply committed members of Polish society to try to provide assistance to the Jews of Poland after the Nazis began their "final solution". In addition to helping Jews escape from the ghetto and find shelter on the "Aryan" side, Żegota supported many in hiding and even helped Jewish fighting groups purchase arms on the black market.
World War II was a catastrophe for Poland on a scale that few other countries have experienced at any time in human history. Most major industrial and commercial enterprises were also completely wrecked and what remained was often looted by the Soviets who dismantled whole factories and shipped them to Russia. Poland itself effectively ceased to be independent. Although the local communist authorities would gain some measure of autonomy after 1956, virtually all major decisions had to be approved from Moscow. The country's borders were shifted drastically and about a quarter of its population internally displaced. Despite these catastrophes, the Poles remained defiant.



The Jewish Resistance ( Case Study)
During the Holocaust, Jewish resistance came in many forms. In some cases, the resistance was organized and obvious, such as the armed struggles carried out in ghettos, camps, and by Partisan units. In other cases, individuals resisted the Nazis' plan to dehumanize the Jews in a multiplicity of minor acts, such as keeping themselves clean in the unsanitary conditions in the concentration camps, or by making sure to pray despite the threat of being shot if discovered. Within the ghettos and camps, non-armed resistance against the Nazis was widespread and part of everyday life. Jews resisted the Nazis' unbearable economic and social restrictions in order to survive through smuggling food, clothing and medicine into the ghettos and camps to preserve their physical strength. They founded Jewish newspapers, schools, theaters, and orchestras to sustain their spiritual and mental strength. The cultural and communal aspects of the ghettos and camps helped the Jews maintain their dignity despite the Nazis' systematic efforts to dehumanize them. These aspects also helped boost their morale in the face of uncertainty and death. The Jews called this attempt to maintain their humanity "Kiddush ha-Hayyim," meaning "Sanctification of Life."
Acts of unarmed resistance predominated, as Jewish ghetto activists did not usually take the risk of armed resistance against overpowering military force until the last days and weeks before the destruction of the ghetto. Ghetto underground groups also needed time to organize and plan acts of armed resistance and to smuggle weapons into the ghetto. The rightist Betar party (Jewish Revisionists), which included former Polish army officers, also participated in ghetto resistance. Activists gathered the news from BBC or Soviet broadcasts on hidden radios, as possession of receivers was illegal.
Jewish resistance was most widespread in German-occupied territories of eastern Poland, Lithuania, and Belorussia. The largest organizations were based in Kovno, Vilna, Minsk, and Bialystok. The atmosphere of total terror and isolation in the camps as well as the chronic starvation of most prisoners severely inhibited the will of the prisoners and the possibilities of resistance. Barbed and high voltage electrical wires and guard towers left little hope of escape. The daily routine in the larger camps was brutally regimented. It included an elaborate system of harsh punishments for the slightest infractions, close surveillance, and endless roll calls for counting prisoners. Those who attempted to resist or escape were killed when caught.
All reason opposed physical resistance within the camps. The Jews there had no weapons, they were at the mercy of their guards, were starving, exhausted, and sick, and they knew that if one person resisted, many others would be punished. And yet, revolts took place in a number of camps, including Treblinka, Sobibor and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Before Auschwitz was fitted with gas chambers for the systematic murder of Jews in late 1941, it served as a concentration camp primarily for Polish prisoners, including army officers who served as leaders of the first resistance groups.
Spiritual resistance refers to attempts by individuals to maintain their humanity and personal integrity in the face of Nazi attempts to dehumanize and degrade them. Compared with other countries, resistance activities in Nazi Germany were limited, lacking in broad support, and largely ineffective. A unified resistance movement never existed. Hitler's foreign policy successes in the mid-1930s and the drop in unemployment, trumpeted by an effective propaganda machine, helped forge widespread popular support for the regime. Feelings of patriotism and nationalism also made it difficult for the majority of Germans to oppose Nazi policies.
Conclusion
The notion of resistance is multifaceted in myriad of ways. The resistance theories of the recent decades were born in an historical conjuncture that has passed, at least some of the respects in which they were part of a broader concern with power and power relations remain at the centre of current academic debates. Here, then, the invocation of Foucault has moved away from the fixed dichotomies between "dominant" and "subaltern" classes and the spaces of freedom in which unfettered "resistance" may be practiced towards a more complex account in which "resistance" can be recognized but its effects on power relations more subtly diagnosed. One positive effect of Scott's drawing attention to "everyday forms of resistance" was to complement the Foucauldian complication of the original "domination and resistance" binary opposition by invoking a whole series of debates around which acts might or might not reasonably be characterized as "resistance."


Vinthagen Dr.Stellan; Understanding Resistance: Exploring definitions, perspectives,forms and implications, Presented at Resistance Studies Network 6th Dec 2007, Gothenburg University,Sweden
Ibid,pp3-4
Ibid,pp4-5
Ibid,pp4-5
Ibid; pp7-8
Vinthagen Dr.Stellan; Understanding Resistance: Exploring definitions, perspectives,forms and implications, Presented at Resistance Studies Network 6th Dec 2007, Gothenburg University,Sweden,pp14-15
Ibid, pp15-16
Barnard Eben, Review Essay;''Cultural resistance': can such practices ever have a meaningful political impact?'' Critical Social Thinking: Policy and Practice, Vol. 3, 2011 ,School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Ireland
Ibid,pp2-3
Ibid,pp 3
Ibid; pp9-10
Duncombe Stephen;' Cultural Resistance Reader' Verso, London, New York
Kirmani Nida; ' Resistance and its limits: protesting urban violence in Lyari,Karachi', Review of Urban Affairs, pp41-48
Ibi,pp47-48
Boado Felipe Criado and Oubina Ces'ar Parcero; ' Social Change, Social Resistance:A long term approach to the processes of transformations of social landscapes in the NW Iberian peninsula' Institute of Heritage Sciences, Spanish National Research Council
Pickett Brent.L; ''Foucalt and the politics of Resistance" Polity, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Summer, 1996), pp. 445-466 Published by: The University of Chicago Press ,pp2-3
Ibid, pp3-4
Ibid, pp4-5
Foucalt Michel; ' Madness and Civilization' , (New York: Random House,1967),pp 230-231
Alessandro Pizzorno, "Foucault and the Liberal View of the Individual" in Michel Foucault: Philosopher (New York: Routledge, 1992)

21The Will to Know, Volume One of the History of Sexuality (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), p. 95
Alessandro Pizzorno, ''
"Taylor, Foucault, and Otherness," Political Theory, 13 (August 1985)
Radzilowski T.C. and J. Radzilowski;'' The Genocide of the Poles'', www.piastinstitute.org
Ibid.
Ibid. pp 7-8
Ibid. pp 9-11
Ibid, pp17-19
Ibid, pp18-20
Jewish resistance, www.yadvashem.org
Ibid, pp19-22
Ibid, pp23-25
Ibid,pp30-34
Ibid, pp48-49