Skip to main content

Stuck on defining resistance

I know its been weeks since we’ve read the Dana Cloud piece about the workers that went on strike in Decatur, IL, but I seem to have this reoccurring question that focuses on the definitions of critical theory and critical theoretical work. What is considered resistance and what resistance is more substantial than others? What are the goals of critical scholarship? How do you differentiate critical theory from its close cousin, interpretive work? I understand the tensions between the material and the symbolic and that both are necessary for structural change; however, I am still finding it hard to accept the line that is being drawn between the types of resistance that are considered most appropriate and acceptable when seeking structural change.

I remember our discussion of “feet dragging” and how it should not be considered substantial resistance when compared to more materially based threats to the structure. I see the merit in this statement, but can’t help but wonder, are we so wrapped up in defining what is and what is not critical theory, that we began to build our own structure within the social structure, that marginalizes those who try to resist, but may not live up to our “standards.” Looking at this week’s readings, especially the piece on crisis communication, it seemed that one of the main tenets for subaltern studies is to “acknowledge the existence of the subaltern and of the context in which they coexist with diverse agents” (p. 149). It would seem to me that if a person is a part of a marginalized group or the subaltern, their access to resources and their ability to resist structures is much more limiting than what we as scholars sometimes consider. If a person’s individual livelihood is completely dependent on the very structures that oppress them, then maybe posing a material threat to those that oppress marginalized population is more of a risk than their willing to take. I don’t know, I just fee like our sensitivity to those situations are haughtily placed against our own standards of social change and of resistance, further marginalizing those who do the “feet dragging” because it is all they may be able to access at the time. I’m still thinking it though, still figuring out my response to such claims.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...

Whose means justifies their end?

I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...

Is participation just a rhetoric?

Participation and participatory strategies are used in different spaces globally to involve communities and ensure their voices in the discursive space. The culture centered approach foregrounds active participation of community members in the construction of shared meanings and experience (Dutta, 2008). Basu and Dutta (2009) underline the importance of participation of community members in the enunciation of health problems as a step toward achieving meaningful change. My experience with participatory projects involving children and community members also bears testimony to the importance of participation in impacting society; effecting a sustainable social change. But at the same time, this question looms large in my reflexive spaces that "Is it all just a co-optive process as the structural issues have remain untouched?" Basu and Dutta (2009) discuss different approaches of participation, critique the top down participatory campaigns and provide an alternative theorizing o...