The desire to locate political space: a methodological discussion

ABSTRACT

This article explores the role of the critical scholar in constituting agency and political space in academic work. It problematizes how our desire affects what we find, and do not find, what we can see and hear in our research material. We focus specifically on how agency and political space are studied from a governmentality perspective and in resistance studies. Ultimately, we elaborate how can we remain obedient to the rules of the neoliberal institution of the university while perceiving ourselves as political subjects and suggest how we can make explicit how our complicities and desires affect our research findings.

KEYWORDS:

• Methodology
• desire
• power
• agency
• resistance

Disclosure statement

No conflict of interest has arisen in the process of writing this article

Notes

1. Evans and Reid (2014) for example, call for a reimagining of the political subject in relation to their analysis of resilience as a central idea in contemporary neoliberal governance.

2. Recently, governmentality scholarship has turned its attention to studying governmental power in practice, highlighting its smooth functioning as well as acts of resistance that constitute ‘sand in the machinery’ (Knutsson 2014; see also Gabay 2011) and the field has further developed within anthropology (Olivier de Sardan 2008, Blundo and Le Meur 2008, Gupta 2012). Moreover, the concept of ‘counter-conduct’ has been applied in order to rethink and study the complex relationships between ‘power and dissent’ (Death 2011).

3. Resistance Studies, as understood here, span many disciplines, embracing a broad spectrum in terms of studying and defining resistance. Current research in Resistance Studies has placed focus on the creation of alternatives to existing ways of lives, institutions and practices, and it has labelled this specific form of resistance as ‘constructive’ resistance (Baaz et al. 2017).

4. de Certeau, for example, has argued that practices of resistance take shape within power relations (de Certeau 1984), and Lilja has highlighted that actors are both subjects and objects of power (2008). In fact, a key way for resistance to be possible is through ‘reiteration, rearticulation or repetition of the dominant discourse with a slightly different meaning’ (Lilja and Vinthagen 2018, building on Butler 1995).

Additional information

Funding

No funding has been provided for the writing of this article

Notes on contributors

Stina Hansson

Stina Hansson is a researcher at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. Her research focus is governance, local service provision and accessibility, especially in relation to processes of differentiation and community building

Sofie Hellberg

Sofie Hellberg is an associate professor in Peace and Development Research at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. Her research interests center around environmental issues and (bio)politics, especially relating to water, climate change and education for sustainable development as well as research methodology.