Everyday Resistance

Everyday resistance

Scope of paper

In this paper I would like to (1) present the thesis from a B-essay in Sociology I wrote in 2006 together with Jenny Hennecke where we tried to deepen the understanding of the political act in everyday life. It will be a short summary of the most important points from the essay.

I will also (2) present Scott's three forms of everyday resistance in relation to three forms of domination to further understand everyday resistance, and (3) suggest some general problems of the subject to discuss.

There will also be further reading in Swedish in an appendix. It is copied extracts from the B-essay to deeper understand our findings on everyday resistance and the differences and similarities between everyday politics and everyday resistance.

1. Everyday politics and everyday resistance

The following will largely be a short summary of the essay, with a few changes. I will also suggest how an everyday political act could be defined, and what powers could be present in everyday life.

In Sörbom’s research on individual’s perception about the individual’s experience of political do-ability, that is the individual's experience of the possibilities and limitations of acting politically, she found a difference in how people generally perceived politics in the older generations, and how they perceive politics in contemporary Sweden. From the beginning of the last century, until the 60s and 70s, the individualperceived politics as something far away from its own reality and as something practised only by politicians. The individual experienced politics as something it could not affect (Sörbom 2002).

Early research on politics in late modern society shows that politics has made a shift from being practised professionally in the public to also being recognised in the private life. Ulrich Beck goes as far as saying that what used to be political, the state for example, is being depoliticised. And what used to be apolitical is being politicised. Also, the risks in society such as environmental disasters, which seems not be controlled on national level is one explanation for why individuals take responsibility for fighting the risks themselves and not depending on the state for this (Beck 1995:139). Early empery was taken from the feministic and queer movement. There the private was made political in feministic and queer struggle, to show that what occurred in the everyday life of one woman was shared by many women and showed the effects of patriarchy in large.

In our essay we tried to outline different forms of everyday political acts and found two ways of how it was treated within theory. We started our journey with theories on how the political had shifted from not only being performed in the public sphere but also recognised within the private sphere. We made an inventory ofliterature about politics in everyday life and saw differences in how research treated this subject.

We found two main differences; there was the kind of everyday political activity that took place within the economic system. It was open, and even encouraged by the establishment. Examples of this can be found in sustainable development, where people choose to recycle, or in the thought of consumer power and political consumption, where people boycott or choose products in their shopping according to their political values and standing points. We chose to call this kind of political everyday activity for ”everyday politics”, as the theories it arrived from continuously used these two words in their language. Here we used mainly Giddens (1997), Beck (1995) and Sörbom (2002).

Then there was the kind of everyday political activity that took place in the shadows of the norms. It was hidden and, if discovered, not accepted by the establishment, not only because it was something that broke social norms, but also not accepted as political activity. During our writing I was very interested in what I saw as the new activism in the anticapitalist movement in Sweden, especially the one taking place in the ”extreme” left. Here we found many examples of what the theory was talking about. One of these was a campaign driven by a network of groups, encouraging resistance at the place of work. They encouraged things as foot dragging, sabotage, theft and non-cooperation with superiors at the place of work (see or Another group encouraged faire dodging on public transport as a protest against the privatisation of the public transport ( We called this phenomen of everyday political life ”everyday resistance”, for the same reasons as above. Especially James C. Scott (1990) talks about this form of resistance.

The following is a table where we tried to outline differences and similarities between everyday politics and everyday resistance:

Table 1. Differences and similarities between everyday politics and everyday resistance.

Everyday politics / Everyday resistance
SIMILAIRITIES
What? / One form of political standing point. / One form of political standing point.
When? / In everyday life. / In everyday life.
Who? / The individual (sometimes organised in an organisation, network or platform). / The individual(could be organised by a network)
DIFFERENCES
Where? / In industrialised, late modern societies and liberal democracies. / In all times and places.
How? / Open acts such as recycling, political consumption, riding the bike or public transport. / Hidden acts such as foot dragging at work, fair dodging on the public transport, illegal file sharing
Against what? / The present system. A discontent with present system and thus aims to change the present system within the system. / Often against an authority, such as a state, a norm, company or land owner. Could be both outside the system and within.
For whom? / For self good and for a global cause. / For self good and all in the same oppression.
What is the aim? / To affect injustices or for environmental reasons. / To counteract or eliminate oppression.

Power exercise in everyday life

Another distinction between everyday politics and everyday resistance is the issue of power within everyday resistance. In everyday politics there seems to be a consensus or agreement with power. Recycling in Sweden for example is an everyday political act that agrees with power. It doesn't challenge power and is even encouraged by the state and economy. Another example is political consumption, such as buying organic food. This form of political act is pro-production and also encouraged by the state and economy.

Everyday resistance however, challenges power. For example acting feminine as a boy. This boy risks to be met with punishment from his environment for acting outside the frames of gender. So what powers could be present in everyday life in Sweden today?

Norms exercises power. For example gender norms that limits people to act different from what is set within the frames for how women and men should act/be/look. Gender norms is also strongly connected to heteronormativity. Other norms are norms for ethnicity and age. Examples of resistance could be sticking to ”traditions” as ethnic minority group or same sex couples holding hands and kissing.

Capitalism is another form of power exercise as it reproduces class structure and encourages unlimited production and consumption, also proprietorship and copyright.Examples of resistance could be footdragging at workplace or school, anti-consumption for environmental reasons, such as veganism, self-reduction as in Planka.nu (swedish organisation for de-privatisation of public transport) and illegal file sharing.

Definition of everyday political act

It gets also important to understand what we mean when we say everyday politics or everyday resistance. What is an everyday political act? The everyday could be spontaneous and situational. The individual does not need to plan the act, as it is almost habitual.

When something is political it should aim for ”better” change for more people than the individual and the individual’s family and friends. It could also be for environmental causes and other species than the human being. The political act is in addition reflexive; “what is my position in society, how am I affected by the issue and what can I do”?It could be performed for the own personal good, and at the same time for a group of people with the same ambitions.Furthermore it is important to discuss the difference between “politics” and “political”, especially if understanding the shift of what is political as Beck; that what used to be political is depoliticised, and what used to be apolitical is politicised.In that perspective, politics could be a profession, a skill to be learned and mainly performed by elite, and not necessarily something political. Thus, politics could be political, but what is political could be much more than only politics. Also, the individual should have an intention of being political in order to call an act political, otherwise the word risks loosing its meaning.

And finally, what could be an act? An act could be performed bodily, as talking, walking, seeing and hearing. It could also be performed cognitively, such as feeling, interpreting and thinking.

2. Hidden transcripts

Scott pursues the thesis of hidden transcripts; the act of communicating“one thing to those in the know and another to outsiders and authorities” (Scott 1990:184). According to Scott this is necessary for subordinate groups that cannot risk resisting in the open, as they have too much to loose. The individual rather keeps the act hidden. The fear of risking different forms of punishment makes the individual rather choose to act in the shadows or anonymously. It is the vulnerability of the subordinate that prevents her or him from the “luxury” of acting in the open (Scott 1990: 120, 136 and 140).Also, the definition of politics has to be broaden, in order to recognise the infrapolitics of subordinate groups. If only recognising open political acts, we risk missing out on hidden acts that very well could be political as well (Scott 1990:199). In the following table Scott suggests three forms of disguised or low profile resistance in relation to three forms of domination:

Domination and resistance

Material domination / Status domination / Ideological domination
Practices of domination / Appropriation of grain, taxes, labor etc. / Humilitation, disprivilege, insults, assaults on dignity. / Justification by ruling groups for slavery, serfdom, caste, privilege.
Forms of public declared resistant / Petitions, demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, land invasions, and open revolts. / Public assertion of worth by gesture, dress, speech, and/or open desecration of status symbols of the dominant. / Public counterideologies propagating equality, revolution, or negating the ruling ideology.
Forms of disguised, low profile, undisclosed resistance, infrapolitics / Everyday forms of resistance, e.g. poaching, squatting, desertion, evasion, footdragging. Direct resistance by disguised resisters e.g. masked appropriations,threats anonymous threats. / Hidden transcript of anger, aggression and disguised discourses dignity e.g. Rituals of aggression, tales of revenge, use of carnival symbolism, creation of autonomous social space for assertion of dignity. / Development of dissident subcultures e.g. Millenial religions, slave ”hush-arbors”, folk religion, myths of social banditry and class heroes, world-upside-down imagery, myhts of the ”good” king or the time before the ”Norman yoke”.

Table copied from Scott 1990:198.

3. Problems

The following problems are open for discussion:

• What is the difference between everyday politics and everyday resistance? Why is one resistance, and the other not? The question goes back to what is resistance, and what is not.
• What more could be added or corrected when it comes to the definition everyday political act?
• Suggestions for more empery on everyday resistance.
• When we talk about resistance it becomes important to also define what is political. And what is political could be harder to define when it is in the everyday life.
• Could there be ”unconscious resistance”? Related to the slogan ”everything is political” within the feminist movement where it became important to get conscious about patriarchal dominance within the everyday life.It goes back to the question of what is political: Could an act be political no matter if the subject is not consciously acting political?Downloading for example could make a political effect but not always intended to be political.
• Other powers than those presented that could be present in everyday life.
• Could the discourse of sustainable development be seen as a sort of “organising” everyday political acts such as, recycling, consumption of organic food, low-energy products, public transport, bicycling? Could it be said that there is expressively organised everyday acts, and subtle organisation? Within organisations such as Planka.nu or Maska.nu the everyday political act is expressively encouraged. Then there are discourses that help or tell the individual what she or he can do to “save” the environment, for example the discourse of sustainable development or political consumption. Could these discourses be organising, but not expressively?
• What could be interesting for further study? One aim could be to further categorise everyday political acts; more organised-less organised; legal-illegal; closer to norm-away from norm. Suggestions for more categorisations?

Appendix 1.

Utdrag ur ”Vardagspolitik och vardagsmotstånd: att förstå det politiska handlandet.” Hennecke, Jenny & Daoud, Safaa, (2006) Göteborgs universitet, sidorna 13-19.

//Vardagsmotstånd

Vi har sett i vår litteraturinventering att det talas om vardagliga politiska handlingar som rör sig i det fördolda och också inom området för det ”otillåtna”, ”illegitima” eller lagligmässigt brytande. Enligt Scott kan individens handlingar av motstånd röra sig om kritik av, attack, våld eller hot om våld mot en auktoritet. Vissa former av handlingar är heller inte vanemässiga, medan andra finner utrymme att utövas i vardagen. Motståndshandlingar som finner utrymme i vardagen ser vi röra sig inom sfären för något som vi betecknat som vardagsmotstånd. Vi tänkte börja med att beskriva James C. Scott teorier kring vardagsmotstånd där han uppmärksammar det dolda politiska handlandet. Sedan använder vi oss av Stellan Vinthagens text ”The Political Underground” för att inte bara se hur politiska handlingar kan ske i det dolda, men också hur de kan vara regelbrytande och i vissa fall olagliga. Vi använder också Vinthagen för att försöka förstå hur motståndshandlingar kan från en kontext till en annan skifta från att vara illegitima till legitima och långsiktigt sett viktiga för det demokratiska samhällets utveckling.

James C. Scott – Det dolda politiska handlandet

Scott menar att många av de handlingar som i en västlig liberal demokrati betecknas som politiska är i verkligheten sällsynta och inte allmänt förekommande. Exempel på sådana politiska handlingar är demonstrationer och bojkotter. Många politiska aktiviteter, som historisk faktiskt har utövats av majoriteten av befolkningen, skulle osynliggöras om man enbart skulle räkna demonstrationer och bojkotter och andra öppna handlingar som politiska. ”Not so long ago in the West […] and, even today, for many of the least privileged minorities and marginalized poor, open political action will hardly capture the bulk of political action” (Scott 1990: 199). Människor är subjekt som ständigt försöker påverka sin politiska situation enligt Scott. Majoriteten av människor skulle enligt den liberala demokratiska utgångspunkten i grunden sakna ett politiskt liv och skulle minimaliseras till att vara politiska i tillfälliga former av uttryck, såsom upplopp eller strejker (Scott 1990: 199). I och med detta kritiserar Scott det traditionella sättet att beteckna handlingar som politiska eftersom de osynliggör faktumet att människor utför politiska handlingar i sin vardag. Det är just detta dolda motstånd som Scott anser är viktigt att lyfta fram och synliggöras som ännu ett inslag i repertoaren för vad ett politiskt handlande kan vara.

Scott driver alltså tesen om att det råder en politik ”under ytan” som inte är högljudd och som inte liknar det som vanligtvis förknippas med politiska handlingar i en liberal demokrati (Scott 1990: 183,198). Handlingarna sker istället taktiskt med hänsyn till den rådande maktbalansen. Utifrån sina studier av malaysiska lantarbetares motstånd mot arbetsgivare såg Scott att det rådde en klyfta mellan hur arbetarna talade till sina arbetsgivare och hur de sedan agerade inom sin grupp (Scott 1985). Scott påvisade att lantarbetarnas motstånd på så sätt skedde vid sidan av det öppna handlandet. Här har Scott främst använt sig av ett perspektiv som tar hänsyn till maktrelationer mellan klasser. I vidare studier såg Scott att klyftan mellan det dolda agerandet och det öppna handlandet visade sig även i andra maktrelationer (Scott 1990). Gemensamt för grupper som Scott talar om är att de befinner sig i en utsatt underordnad position där maktrelationen utgör ett förtryck och ett destruktivt förhållande. Exempel på dolda motståndshandlingar är slöhet på arbete eller foot dragging som Scott benämner det. Det kan vara att hålla tempot uppe inför åsynen av sin arbetsgivare, och dra ner tempot när det inte syns och inte kan upptäckas. På så sätt motarbetar individen systemet genom handlingar som tar ut fördelar åt individen eller underlättar för den. Vardagsmotståndet verkar alltså som underminerande av maktrelationer, även om det sker i det fördolda (Scott 1990: 202). Scott ger andra exempel på dold eller vardagsmotstånd som håller ”låg profil”; snatteri, ”slöhet”, sabotage, flykt eller spelad okunnighet (Scott 1990: 198 och 1985: 34). Scott drar paralleller till slaveriets tid i USA där människor bland annat använde sig av exemplen ovan för att motarbeta slavdrivare.

Scott menar att vardagsmotstånd är handlingar som individen vill hålla i det dolda för att kunna handla fritt (Scott 1990: 120). Risken att råka ut för olika former av bestraffningar inger en rädsla som får individen att handla i det fördolda eller anonymt (Scott 1990: 140). Scott anser att detta beror på en underordnads sårbarhet som förhindrar denne från ”lyxen” att öppet konfrontera sin auktoritet (Scott 1990: 136).

Många motståndshandlingar beskrivs av Scott som drivna av ”self-help” (självhjälp) till skillnad mot handlingar som kan vara ”self-defeating” (egna handlingar som kan innebära skadliga konsekvenser). Handlingar som förutom att vara motståndshandlingar också är drivna av att vara ”self-help” är handlingar som riskerar mindre allvarliga konsekvenser till skillnad mot ”self-defeating” handlingar som kan ådra sig allvarliga konsekvenser för individen och i vissa fall individens närmaste krets, såsom familjen. Self-help kan på så sätt inge större säkerhet för individen när den motarbetar ett system eller en auktoritet, medan self-defeating försätter individen i ett instabilt tillstånd. ”…The nature of resistance is greatly influenced by the existing forms of labor control and by beliefs about the probability and severity of retaliation.” (Scott 1985: 29,34) Som exempel på handlingar som kan vara self-defeating nämner Scott öppna strejker i en kontext där arbetare riskerar att förlora jobbet helt eller att få fängelsestraff.