Editorial

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

… all the poetics of the dispersed marginal sexual, ethnic, lifestyle, ‘multitudes’ (…) ‘resisting’ the mysterious central (capitalized) Power. Everyone ‘resists’ – from gays and lesbians to Rightist survivalists – so why not draw the logic conclusion that this discourse of ‘resistance’ is the norm today (…)? (Žižek 2002, p. 66).

From the quotation above, which occurs quite often in scholarly literature today, several conclusions could be made. One possible conclusion is simply that resistance matters. Another one is that resistance is an ‘activity’ that is performed in relation to power. To push it even further, it could be argued that power and resistance are entangled in different and intricate ways. A third conclusion that is possible to draw from the quotation, at least indirectly, is that if you are interested in understanding social change, then you have to try and understand the complex web of entanglements between power and resistance as well as, we would like to emphasize, resistance(see further Baaz et al. forthcoming). Moreover, another important dimension, which is elaborated in this editorial, and in the special issue at hand, is resistance at the crossroad of affects and emotions.

Conventionally power and the study of power has been associated with and focused on, respectively, the military power of states and/or the capacity by someone else or an act in accordance with its or his/her will. However, from the 1970s onwards, scholars such as Lukes (1974, 1986) and Bourdieu (1986), and above all Michel Foucault (see e.g. 1975/1991, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2009) contributed to profoundly challenging this traditional understanding by analysing power in relation to various practices. Over and above this, they changed the focus of analysis from what power is to the ways in which power is performed. In this, Foucault added to the concept of sovereign power by introducing ideas such as ‘disciplinary’, ‘capillary power’, ‘biopower’ and ‘governmentality’ to the discussion and analysis.

While, Foucault truly revolutionized our understanding of power, his work is less helpful in understanding resistance and, by consequence, social change. Foucault was primarily interested in and focused on power (with resistance in parentheses); and when he actually studied resistance, he did so from the perspective of power. In consequence, Foucault did not, at least not in any greater detail, outline what type of resistance (hidden/open, individual/collective, organized/everyday, conscious/unconscious, etc.) interacts with or would be possible counter-reactions to power (see further Baaz et al. forthcoming). Thereby, even though Foucault matters in seeking to understand resistance and the relationship between resistance and power, it is necessary to move beyond his work and the huge number of scholars who work in the wake of Foucault (Thompson 2003).

An early pioneer in focusing more explicitly on resistance and the role of resistance in understanding social change is Scott (1972, 1985, 1989, 1990). His seminal work spurred a lot of subsequent research and today resistance, as a key component for understanding social change, is increasingly acknowledged (see e.g. Butler 1995, 1997, 2015, Bayat 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 2000, 2009, Hardt and Negri 2004). The potential of dissent against sovereignty, disciplinary practices as well as bio-political governing, are gradually becoming recognized, which makes the invisible visible. People raise their voices against economic exploitation and neoliberal forms of governing subjects, but also against gendered and racist norms and practices.

Previously, the political practices of protesting, revolting and occupying, have received scholarly attention (see e.g. Baaz and Lilja 2016a). However, lately, practices of resistance that are less visible have also been put under the microscope (see e.g. Baaz and Lilja 2016b, Odysseos et al. 2016, Baaz et al. 2017, forthcoming). ‘Resistance’ challenges all forms of ‘domination’ – not just the particular configuration of power relations that we call ‘the state’, but also exploitative practices, social acceleration, commodification, fetishism, alienation and economic injustices of capitalism, discursive truth-regimes and normative orders of gender, race, status and caste hierarchies. Moreover, power is seldom singular – it simultaneously relates to other forms of power.

Due to its broad scope, resistance studies involve several theoretical traditions, including, for example, state-oriented, structuralist and social movement studies, revolution studies and studies on guerrilla warfare, civil warfare and terrorism. It also draws on many specialist fields that, at least tangentially, engage with it: gender studies and feminism, queer studies, peace (and conflict) studies, political science, sociology, critical race studies, anthropology, pedagogics, psychology, media and communication studies, law, in particular critical legal studies, heritage studies and design, just to mentioning a few (Baaz et al. forthcoming).

All in all, resistance studies is an ever expanding field, which is increasingly nuanced and multifaceted. Resistance studies embrace ‘resistance’ as a practice that might be played out by organized, large groups and movements, as well as individuals and subcultures. It might be articulated through or against power-relations or be inspired by other resisters (copy-cat resistance). Resistance is an act or patterns of actions, which might undermine or negotiate different power-relations, but sometimes ends up reproducing and strengthening relations of dominance (Lilja and Vinthagen 2009). Sometimes resistance is carried out with intent, and sometimes unintentionally. But as argued above, regardless of the type, resistance exists in relation to power (and/or violence or inspiring forms of resistance) and the type of power often affects the type of resistance that is employed, as well as the effectiveness of various resistance practices.

Resistance can be understood as subversive and/or challenging to different forms of power. However, while power and resistance are constituted together, they are not always in opposition. Sometimes resistance transcends the whole phenomenon of being against something; instead it constructs ‘alternative’ or ‘prefigurative’ social institutions or is practised in self-loyalty with oneself (Arvidson and Axelsson 2017). In addition, power is sometimes created or recreated exactly through the very same resistance that it provokes (Henriksson 2017).

Previous research on resistance has primarily focused on, on the one hand, practices of agitating, organizing and dissenting or, on the other hand, less visible practices of resistance that are enacted expressly outside political spaces. In both cases, ‘affects’ and ‘emotions’, have rarely been the main focus of the research, even though they have played a silent but fundamental role in many theories of resistance (e.g. Scott 1972, 1990). Based on the perception that this is an obstacle for the further theoretical understanding of the entanglements of power, resistance and, by extension, social change, the overall aim of this special issue is to critically examine and explore the ways in which different emotions are interrelated or intra-act with resistance and its ‘generally ‘less than tangible’ entities such as texts, signs, symbols, identity and language’ (Törnberg 2013). Thus, we seek to fill a knowledge gap in the current literature on resistance by displaying not only how emotions make resistance possible, but also how emotions orient, embody, construct, or are the product of, resistance. The collection of articles presented here provides a novel excursion towards an elaborated understanding of how emotions offer us an original and multi-disciplinary tool to further understand various resisting conducts and political subjectivities.

In the remainder of this editorial introduction, we will outline five analytical observations or themes that emerge from the attempts of the contributors to this volume to theoretically develop and refine the assemblage of resistance, affects and emotions. These theoretical considerations could, more generally, also serve as a point of departure for future research that seeks to understand the complex relations between emotions and resistance. The suggested themes/theoretical considerations are as follows:

(i) Emotions translate into motivations and various resisting practices. Emotions seem to create resistance, non-governable subjects and undermine the very core of various self-disciplinary systems. According to Hemmings (2005, 2014), however, affects should not only be seen as a ‘rescue’ from the deterministic aspects of power; for example, the post-structuralist approach in which language decides everything. Emotions can be emancipatory and create ‘non-disciplinary’ subjects, but they can also discipline bodies, form realities and stop bodies from expressing themselves.

Emotions as an engine of resistance, tangentially interact with other fields and aspects, such as space (loss of land, memorial places, etc.) or different temporal dimensions. For example, as outlined in Anna-Lena Haraldsson and Mona Lilja’s article in this issue, there is sometimes a temporal aspect of ‘emotional’ resistance. Fear, is an emotion experienced in the face of something that threatens us in the future. According to Heidegger, fear relates ‘as something that threatens us, is not yet within striking distance, but it is coming close’ (Heidegger 1962, p. 180). Fear, then, moves between the present and the future; between the immediate experience and potential hurt (Ahmed 2004). The time-traveling between then, now and the future creates emotions, which also shape our practices and how we act in order to change the future. Resistance acts of the ‘now’ sometimes emerge from a fear of what will be played out later (i.e. forthcoming climate refugees, raised sea-level, abortion prohibitions). Resistance, here, is played out in order to change the future.

(ii) Emotional management can be seen as a form of resistance. Both Minoo Koefoed’s article as well as Mona Lindqvist and Eva Olsson’s article in this issue explore resistance through Hochshild’s theories of emotional labor (1983). Identifying and managing emotions could, from their argumentations, be understood as resistance practices that mirror different forms of power. In her study on a resistance movement in Northern Kurdistan, Koefoed defines emotional resistance as ‘a form of resistance with the explicit aim of undermining the psychological power of violent state activities’ (p. X). Conscious attempts of maneuvering emotional expressions or reactions aim to challenge power in different forms. This kind of resistance, refers to emotions, expressed publicly as well as hidden, but as ‘deep acting’, through emotional work (or labor) of the individual to really feel what she strives to express. Koefoed illustrates the latter case through an example of an individual who, at her brother's funeral, actively strives to reduce inner feelings of grief as they represent, to her, the very power of the Turkish state. By avoiding emotions of sorrow, the psychological power of the Turkish state is thereby undermined. Putting on faces, and trying to ‘feel’ unexpected emotions, might thus, shake the discursive order and work subversively. Emotional management could also be about working with one’s emotions in other ways, such as expressing improper, out of the way, emotions (laughing too loudly or pulling angry faces), which challenge norms and different disciplinary ‘truth-regimes’ (Lindqvist and Olsson, this issue; Ackroyd and Thompson 1999, Rasmussen 2004).

(iii) Resistance as the non-conformity to emotion rules. Emotions are powerful instruments in human relations, which conform and regulate our actions to norms by signaling approval and disapproval. There are many examples where resistance has been expressed by silence and ‘non-emotional’ expressions instead of happiness or applause at public meetings. An investigation of resistance could embrace the study of non-conformity to emotion rules. For example, angry bodies in public spaces are frightening and a threat to the nation state and the order of democratic states. The resisting bodies, and emotions expressed in the moment of resistance, are in themselves a representation of a vibrant, political sphere (Mouffe 2005), which is not the sphere of normalization, homogenization and discipline. Similarly, sudden happy, laughing ‘flash mobs’, which suddenly invade public spaces are a recurrent, but rather new, form of resistance. In addition, sexual desire, humor, joy and laugher can be used to negotiate stereotypes or gendered norms. Billingsley (2017) argues that, while humor often reinforces women’s silence – by trivializing expressions of sexism – humor and laughing could also be seen as a means to point out the existence of patriarchal structures in society. Humor could break silences and allow women to do resistance by showing emotions that are ‘inappropriate’ for women (laughing too loudly, etc.). According to Dahl (2006), the femme movement also uses ‘inappropriate’ emotions as resistance. Women’s sexual desires and sexual agents are in focus, and challenge dominant ideas about which bodies are allowed to display sexual cravings in public spaces.

(iv) Emotions create communities (of resistance). Another important aspect of the entanglement of emotions and resistance is how emotions create communities (of resistance). Emotions are at the very core of loyalties, attachments and bonds (see e.g. Scheff on social ties and Goodwin et al. 2001 on social movements) and consequently, emotions are central for organizing groups and resistance. Departing from Goffman’s distinction of front stage and back stage, in this issue Majken Jul Sørensen and Andrew Rigby show the importance of management of emotions back stage for the creation and reproduction of cultures of resistance in social movements. Rituals, symbols, humor and different cultural activities back stage all strengthen group solidarity. However, these communities of resistance can also create ties to local communities, which can strive to empower the wider community. In addition, emotions are of importance front stage when activists are acting in public in order to influence the emotions of others, thus, mobilizing and organizing resistance. The concepts of ‘back stage’ and ‘front stage’ are elaborated in several articles of this issue (see also Lindqvist and Olsson; Koefoed), which perhaps illustrates the fruitfulness of connecting overt expressions of emotions in public to covert, hidden emotional acts.

Also in this special issue, Kristin Wiksell exemplifies how emotions contribute to emerging resisting communities by showing how a narrative of ‘a loving we’ is constructed as an alternative to dominant neoliberal conceptions of production. She focuses on cooperations that strive to incorporate social values (e.g. democracy, equality and solidarity) and by way of their very existence may be understood as resistance, illustrating alternatives to dominant forms of organizing production. However, in analysing a marketing campaign for cooperatives she displays the fine dividing line between resistance and power, and the danger of non-critical resistance, which ends in reproducing the dominant discourse of neo-liberal capitalism.

(v) Emotional, devoted resistance as a productive/constructive form of non-oppositional resistance. Enthusiasm and devotion for ‘alternative’ or ‘prefigurative’ social institutions, which challenge the existing social order (i.e. ‘constructive resistance’) prevail as an emotional form of resistance, which is played out without actively being in opposition to others. Emotions not only form bonds and outward loyalties to, for example, pre-figurative institutions, but they also form an important type of inward loyalty, which Markus Arvidson and Jonas Axelsson explore in this special issue and term ‘self-loyalty’. This kind of loyalty, ‘being true to oneself’ or ‘one’s ideals’ can be voluntary or involuntary. According to the authors, it is the voluntary form of self-loyalty that is of importance in relation to resistance. Dominant discourses can be handled by a strategy of distancing oneself from the discourse. While, being interpellated by the discourse to, for example, a sub-altern subject position, the strategy aims at autonomy and keeping an inner distance in order to avoid expected feelings of, for example, shame or subordination. Here too, resistance is played out to resist disciplinary practices, and to protect oneself rather than being in oppositions to others.

Mikael Baaz, Satu Heikkinen, and Mona Lilja
[email protected]

Acknowledgements

The editors of this special issue would like to thank Mark Haugaard, the editor of Journal of Political Power, for, on the one hand, entrusting us to edit this special issue and, on the other hand, for providing very constructive feedback. We would also like express our profound gratitude to the scholars who have served as anonymous reviewers and shared their profound knowledge, thereby substantially contributing to the improvement the quality of these papers.