Archive for the 'Norms' Category

Resistance Studies Seminar: Skolan som en arena för motstånd

Stellan Vinthagen November 24th, 2011

Alla intresserade är välkomna till Motståndsseminarium torsdag den 8 dec 2011.

Sven-Eric Liedman, pensionerad professor i idéhistoria ger ett motståndsseminarium på Annedalsseminariet, Institutionen för Globala Studier, Campus Linné, www.globalstudies.gu.se i Sal 220, kl 15:15-17.00. Som vanligt så samlas vi på Gyllene Prag för en bit mat och fortsatta samtal efteråt.

Titel: “Skolan som en arena för motstånd”
Skolsystemet från förskola till universitet är alltid en plats för ständigt kämpande intressen. Just nu styr kravet på att skolan ska förbereda unga människor för en snabb och gränslös marknad, där effektivitet är nyckelordet. Det väsentliga blir då kunskaper i sådant som betraktas som viktigt för ett marknadsliv: matematik, språk, framför allt engelska, men också vad som kallas social kompetens. Begreppet “social kompetens” är värt en särskild eftertanke. Det betecknar i allmänhet en förmåga att umgås med andra människor, vara inkännande men inte kravlös. Men lätt insmyger sig också en nyans av medgörlighet, framför allt den underordnades medgörlighet och kritiklöshet gentemot den överordnade, den anställdes gentemot företaget eller institutionen. Social kompetens kan i så fall urata till kritiklöshet.

För egen del kämpar jag för en skola, och i mitt fall framför allt ett universitet, där ifrågasättandet är i högsätet. Orättvisor på nära håll liksom i ett världsperspektiv kommer då i fokus. Den tilltagande segregationen också i ett land som Sverige måste komma i fokus, liksom givetvis hela den globala snedfördelningen (det hör ju till saken att världen i dag finns i Sverige på ett annat sätt än för femtio år sen). En avgöraned aspekt av detta är också hushållningen med naturens resurser. Det måste inskärpas att människan redan genom sin egen kropp är en del av naturen.

Det betyder inte alls att matematik eller engelska eller några andra skolämnen blir mindre viktiga. Det betyder att attityden till både kunskap och omvärld förändras. Det gäller inte att smälta in utan att få en kritisk inställning till den dominerande utvecklingen.

Bolivia: Coca-chewing protest outside US embassy

jj January 29th, 2011

From BBC

Indigenous activists in Bolivia have been holding a mass coca-chewing protest as part of campaign to end an international ban on the practice.

The protest was good-natured

The protest was good-natured

Hundreds of people chewed the leaf outside the US embassy in La Paz and in other cities across the country.

Bolivia wants to amend a UN drugs treaty that bans chewing coca, which is an ancient tradition in the Andes.

But the US has said it will veto the amendment because coca is also the raw material for making cocaine.

The protesters outside the US embassy also displayed products made from coca, including soft drinks, toothpaste, sweets and ointments.

They were supporting a Bolivian government campaign to amend the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to remove language that bans the chewing of coca leaf.

The convention stipulates that coca-chewing be eliminated within 25 years of the convention coming into effect in 1964.

Bolivia says that is discriminatory, given that coca use is so deeply rooted in the indigenous culture of the Andes.

Eradication

The US is opposed to changing the UN convention because it says it would weaken the fight against cocaine production.

In a statement, the US embassy said Washington recognised coca-chewing as a “traditional custom” of Bolivia’s indigenous peoples but could not support the amendment.

“The position of the US government in not supporting the amendment is based on the importance of maintaining the integrity of the UN convention, which is an important tool in the fight against drug-trafficking,” it said.

The US is the world’s largest consumer of cocaine and has been leading efforts to eradicate coca production in the Andes for decades.

Bolivia is the world’s first biggest producer of cocaine after Peru and Colombia, and much of its coca crop is used to make the illegal drug.

Bolivian President Evo Morales has long advocated the recognition of coca as a plant of great medicinal, cultural and religious importance that is distinct from cocaine.

As well as being Bolivia’s first indigenous head of state, Mr Morales is also a former coca-grower and leader of a coca-growers trade union.

The Bolivian amendment would come into effect on 31 January only if there were no objections.

How Hackers Are Rewriting the Rules of Civil Disobedience

jj December 18th, 2010

On the same day Yahoo laid off 600 of its employees, Yahoo’s image search function leaned a bit toward the risqué. And by that I mean an onslaught of X-rated imagery.

For a few brief hours, any and all Yahoo image searches—no matter the apple-cheeked innocence motivating said search—turned up a snapshot of a man and a woman, um, “knowing” each other.

Fuzzy kittens? Fornication.

Justin Bieber? The ol’ in-out-in-out.

Images of the $100 bill to print out at work and attempt to pass off to Juan at the lobby cigarette counter because you already demolished your paycheck on what you said was holiday shopping but was really just you, take-out Chinese, rotgut wine, and the sadness of a solitary life? Sweaty intercourse.

Over the span of time this money-shot image was live, it was viewed by nearly 200,000 individuals, according to TechCrunch’s estimate. That’s a whole lot of aftershock repentance.

Is There a Point in Rewriting Civil Disobedience?

Clearly, this wasn’t a glitch. This was an act of what we’re now calling “cyber terrorism,” the same breed of civil disobedience that spurned Operation Payback hackers to dismantle the websites of the Swiss bank Switzerland Post Finance, MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal to avenge Julian Assange and the shutdown of Wikileaks. Operation Payback has told the press that more attacks will be coming as long as companies continue to censor Wikileaks.

Unless you’re gung-ho about blindly “sticking it to the man” by tearing massive corporate websites to shreds, or, in the case of Yahoo, inundating innocent Web crawlers with porno, you’re probably questioning the point of these attacks.

The Yahoo Porno Hiccup is barely defensible, if at all. We’re talking about porno, plain and simple, and Lord knows how many 6-year-olds seeking pictures of their favorite cartoons were introduced—rudely and without parental context—to the birds and the bees.

However, a backlash such as the one wrought on Yahoo’s servers is an expression of disappointment and loathing, and also an illustration of the power individual employees in major tech firms have over the systems they were once paid to control.

I do not condone the Yahoo Porno Hiccup. I do, however, recognize it as a modern—and human—reaction to betrayal, one that’s superior to the immaturity of trashing a boss’s office or, worse yet, bringing an AK-47 into work on your last day on payroll.

Point or Not, Here’s How the Rewrite Starts

In terms of Operation Payback—so what if MasterCard was shut down? The site was rebooted within hours, impervious to the hackers’ digital protest. Without a lasting impact—or even a coherent doctrine explaining and justifying the attacks—it comes across as a bunch of whiny computer geeks behaving like jerks.

Historically speaking, social movements that begin with protests, violent or otherwise, have been propagated by the ripple effect: it starts in the streets, slinks into the living room via TV news, and sometimes knocks on the government’s door to rewrite the law. The architecture of these hack attacks have yet to suggest that such an enduring goal or strategy exists.

That decree is fair enough, but what I see here are the rumblings of a groundswell that could impact the Internet’s overall safety construction. Yes, these credit card websites only 404-ed for a spell, and MasterCard has evidently hired programmers savvy enough to bounce back with strengthened site security, but hand in hand with the raising of higher walls comes a clever-by-necessity boost in hackers’ intelligence, speed, and subtlety.

As much as I’m cautious of condoning what is, in essence, a tentacle of terrorism, I’m curious as to what Operation Payback’s next steps will be. Perhaps the next server failure will occur in the bowels of the Pentagon, or maybe a hacker’s sniper bullet will paint an entire business’s brains on the wall, irreparably.

One thing is for certain: our generation should no longer be labeled as upper-middle-class do-nothings too obsessed by consuming mass media to function as members of traditional society. Even in this disconnected world of tweets, TXT, and LOL-speak, there still exists a disobedient bent that will not be ignored.

“FUCK FSB”

jj November 27th, 2010

The Russian activist group Voina is famous for provoking the authorities with humorist actions and satire. They are regularly harassed by the secret police FSB (former KGB). In St Petersbourg they did a unique action by “showing the finger” to the FSB headquarter. And this was not just a small sign with their hands. They painted a dick at the bridge just opposite the police headquarter.

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina, activist Koza at action practice

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina, activist Koza at action practice

And when the bridge was elevated to let a ship pass the dick was erected.

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina, it rises

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina, it rises

It continues to rise

It continues to rise

And lovers can’t resist the photo op

And lovers can’t resist the photo op

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina can be seen across St Petersburg

Action “Dick Captured by the FSB!” by Voina can be seen across St Petersburg

Read the full text here.

University of Gothenburg Resistance Seminars Fall Schedule 2010

Stellan Vinthagen September 5th, 2010

We invite you all to the new semester of Resistance Studies Seminars. For the seventh time we have a full and interesting number of seminars that explore critically the meaning of resistance and its various articulations. All seminars are this time on Swedish.
September 16 with Marcus Regnander and Mattias Ström, International Solidarity Movement – Researchers. Nonviolent Resistance and State Repression in Hebron. Seminar is in Swedish. September 16. Thursday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

October 13 with Tiina Rosenberg, Professor of Gender Studies. Från protest till motstånd: Utgaångspunkt Ulrike Meinhofs text Vom Protest zum Widerstand. Seminar is in Swedish. October 13. Wednesday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

October 28 with Salka Sanden, author. 1990-talet och den autonoma rörelsens framväxt i Sverige. Seminar is in Swedish. October 28. Thursday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

November 11 with Daniel Hjalmarsson, Akademikerförbundet SSR. På jobbet är väl alla hetero…?: Öppenhet och stängda dörrar på sveriges arbetsplatser. Seminar is in Swedish. November 11. Thursday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

November 25 with Mats Adolfsson, historian. Svenska uppror: bondeuppror och gatukravaller. Seminar is in Swedish. November 25. Thursday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

December 9 with Mattias Gardell (or another member of) Ship To Gaza. Seminar is in Swedish. December 9. Thursday 15:15-17.00 at the Annedalseminariet at Room 419.

After the seminar there is a post-seminar gathering at restaurant Gyllene Prag (Sveag. 25) from 17:00 and onwards. We eat, drink and continue the discussions from the seminar in a more informal way. You are welcome to attend even if you was not at the seminar!
Annedalsseminariet, Seminariegatan 1A, close to Linneplatsen. see description how to find at: http://www.globalstudies.gu.se/kontakt
Welcome!

Call for proposals: The Underground Railroad Resistance Against Slavery

Stellan Vinthagen September 2nd, 2010

Abolishing Slavery in the Atlantic World: The ‘Underground Railroad’ in the Americas, Africa, and Europe

The Tenth Anniversary Underground Railroad Public History Conference
Sponsored by the Underground Railroad History Project of the Capital Region, Inc.

April 8 – 10, 2011 at Russell Sage College, Troy, New York

Where there was slavery, there was resistance, escape, and rebellion. The Transatlantic Slave Trade (1400s to 1800s) was a global enterprise that transformed the four continents bordering the Atlantic, and that engendered the formation of a multifaceted and international Underground Railroad resistance movement.

The broad geographic nature of this freedom struggle is the theme of the 2011 UGR Public History Conference. We invite proposals that address capture, enslavement, and resistance within and across borders in Africa, Europe, and the Americas, historically and contemporarily, as well as proposals that address the preservation of the voices of the past and their relationship with us today.

Possible questions to be considered:

  • What were the similarities and differences among the slave systems created by Europeans in the Americas?
  • How did the enslaved and their allies engage in resistance, rebellion and revolution in the four continents and the Atlantic Ocean?
  • What were the forms that global abolitionism took?
  • What roles were played by escaped slaves, inlcuding those who crossed national borders?
  • What is the range of experience captured by slave narratives and testimonies in various countries and on different continents?
  • How did Africans and people of African descent involve themselves with indigenous peoples in the countries and colonies of the Americas and the other continents?
  • What are contemporary manifestations of this international freedom struggle?
  • How can we preserve the voices of the past and relate them to us today?

Proposals on related questions, not directly on this theme, are also welcomed.

Proposals may be for a 60-minute panel session, workshop, cultural/artistic activity, media production, poster, or other exhibit that addresses these questions and this theme. When possible, activities should encourage audience interaction. Proposals should include: title, content description, type of presentation, names and contact information of presenters, target audience, and technology needs.

Proposals should be submitted by July 31, 2010 Via postal mail to:
URHPCR, PO Box 10851, Albany NY 12201 or via email to urhpcr2011@gmail.com

For more information, call 518-432-4432

“The gold standard of Underground Railroad conferences… bringing together an extraordinary spectrum of attendees, ranging from noted scholars and authors to large numbers of interested laymen, in spirited and informative workshops which both bring history alive and open new avenues of research.” — Fergus M. Bordewich, author, Bound for Canaan

Underground Railroad History Project of the Capital Region, Inc. researches, preserves, and retells New York’s regional history of the Underground Railroad, highlighting the role of African-American freedom seekers and local abolitionists

Tibetan activist group gives voice to gagged Tibet

jj August 18th, 2010

“Somebody said to me: You are Tibetan, I am also Tibetan”
“I am Tibetan.
But I am not from Tibet.
Never been there.
Yet I dream
Of dying there”
You once again speak the truth!.

Meeting in India

From Phayul.com

A popular Tibetan poet from Tibet, Gade Tsering began his poem titled “My Tibetanness” in response to exile poet Tenzin Tsundue’s poem using the same title. This could be the tone of what the exile Tibetans are now coming together, adding voices to the Tibetans inside Tibet in the form a “Renaissance Series” undertaken by Students For Free Tibet, India.

The activist group launched its ‘Renaissance Series’ at TCV day school here Friday. The renaissance series is in response to all things “banned in Tibet” and will be amplified in exile.

The theme is on the creative voices of the Tibetans who are asserting their Tibetan identity in the form of blogging, film making, painting, songs, poetry and books which are banned in Tibet.

A two hour long event of 12 acts included exiled Tibetan poets, singers and activists performing compositions of the Tibetans inside Tibet, talking about works of Tibetans who have faced arrests and imprisonment for expression of their creativity.

This is the first of the series and SFT India says it will continue to hold more such programs in the future.

Tamding, a young Tibetan artist who arrived into exile from Tibet a few years ago, opened the show by singing Tashi Dhondup’s “1958 to 2008″ song. Tashi Dhondup was sentenced to a year and half in prison for singing what the Chinese call “subversive songs”.

The Title song of his album “Torture without trace” was performed rendering the powerful lyrics which says, “first, a sad tune for my brother hasn’t returned from afar./ Second, the pain because there is no harmony for people./ Third, the occupation and denial of freedom for Tibetans./This is all torture without trace.”

Sonam Lhundup , a painter in exile gave an account of Tibetan painters, students and artists in Tibet who highlight their Tibetan identity and culture through their paintings.

“Many of them have studied in China as students, yet their works clearly deviate from their Chinese teachers’ paintings which portray Tibetans as being happy under the Chinese rule. Tibetan painters are resolute and committed towards the responsibilities they have in accentuating the problems faced by our fellow country folk in their works” said Lhundup as paintings by of Tibetan painters were shown.

Phuntsok Wangchuk from Gu Chu Sum ( organisation for Tibetan political prisoners) spoke about Shogdhung and Shokjang and their banned books.

Shogdhung (morning conch) used as a pen name by Tragyal, was arrested in April 2010 on charges of “splittism” for his book “The Line Between Sky and Earth”. His book is a poetic indictment of Chinese rule over Tibet and calls for a civil disobedience movement from the Tibetans. It was published secretly in March and is now banned.

Dabe, a popular stand-up comedian and poet from Amdo who now lives in exile performed at the event, giving the audience some light moments.

A young Tibetan boy named Dhargay rendered soulful ‘yi rey kyo’ song by Kunga, a popular singer from Tibet.

Tenzin Tsundue, exile poet and independence activist spoke about how poetry is one of the most dynamic forms of expression for Tibetans inside Tibet, who are in constant search for their Tibetan identity under the Chinese rule.

“There are Tibetans who write in Tibetan language about the inner resistance to sinicization and kindling the pride in Tibetan identity writing about the famous Kings of Tibet. And there are also many Tibetans who write in mandarin (Chinese language) like Woeser, telling us painful stories of Tibet and the struggle each Tibetan inside Tibet is facing,” said Tsundue.

The event which saw painful melodies of Tibetan artistes whose voices are now hushed, saw tears, smile and laughter from the audience.

The renaissance episode was concluded with a screening of a song by a Tibetan female singer Lhakyi titled ‘please give a phone call’ conveying the emotions of Tibetans from Tibet who are waiting for a phone call to hear that the Dalai Lama is returning home.

Avhandling om motstånd mot heteronormativ könsmakt

Stellan Vinthagen April 4th, 2010

Vi har glädjen att meddela att Cathrine Wasshede är nu klar med sin avhandling om motstånd mot heteronormativ könsmakt: Passionerad Politik (2010).

Avhandlingen presenteras och försvaras offentligt vid Göteborgs Universitet, Sociologiska institutionen, den 9 april, kl 13:15, hörsalen Sappören, Sprängkullsgatan 25, Göteborg.

Om du vill veta mer om boken eller beställa den så kolla in: www.bobbox.se

Economy and Resistance (Gothenburg Resistance Studies Seminar)

Stellan Vinthagen May 26th, 2009

On this Thursday, 28 May, at 15:15-17.00, Erik Andersson, Senior Lecturer in Peace and Development research, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg will present at the Gothenburg Resistance Studies Seminar On Economy and resistance (discoursive strategies against neoliberal hegemony). (In English) Room 403, Annedalsseminariet. You will find more practical information about the place above at the link “Seminars”.

PhD Erik Andersson did his disseration in Peace and Development Research with a focus on economy and globalization. He has written a short introduction text to the seminar in which his discussion is outlined. Our plan is to give him good comments and critical reflections so he will be able to develop the seminar text into an article later.

Please read the short seminar text before the seminar!

In the seminar text Erik writes: “Over the last decades, economic globalizaton has made the institutional order of the liberal world economy a bit obsolete. The role and nature of IMF, the world bank and the WTO has been scrutinized, questioned and developed. In this process, two different critical positions has developed regarding what would be the proper goal for resistance against a the neoliberal world economy of globalization. The first position argues that these IFIs needs to be closed down, in order for a different world economy to develop. The second position argues that the closing down of the IFIs is meaningless without a change of the discourse ingrained in their mandate and practices; i.e. if we close down the IMF but world monetary policy continues to be formulated and run according to the same discourse, nothing will really change. In this text I will argue for a take on this issue which tries to reconcile the difference between these two positions by help of Mouffe’s theory about anti-hegemonic interventions.”

Welcome to the seminar and welcome to our post-seminar (from 17:00 and late, at the restaurant Gyllene Prag) where the discussion continues in more informal style!

Your humble seminar organizer,

Stellan Vinthagen

“Pirate Resistance” and File Sharing

Stellan Vinthagen February 12th, 2009

Dear resistance friends,

on Monday the trial begins against one of the worlds’ biggest file sharing sites, The Pirate Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/). And today the Pirate Party of Sweden will present their form of resistance and views on file sharing at the Gothenburg Resistance Studies Seminar (se “Seminars”). A collection of material relevant for understanding this form of “digital resistance” you can find at: http://razor.azoff.se/fun/PirateResistance.html

The judicial situation for The Pirate Bay seems bleak, but their political optimism is strong as usual, an optimism which is only surpassed by their technical skills in Information Communication Technology (ICT). So, I think it will be one thing to punish the (present) organisational form of file sharing (“The Pirate Bay”), and a completly other (and much more difficult) thing to stop file sharing…

For those of you who want to see where in the world file sharing is happening right now, we are now blessed with a real time world map: see,  http://geo.keff.org/

When I checked today at 11:15 CET, it was most downloaders in the US, Europe and Latin America.

Probably file sharing is the biggest resistance movement in the world, counted in terms of active participants (but not counted on politically aware resisters…).

We will see what happens, welcome to the seminar in which we will debate the issues.

People’s Tribunals as Constructive Resistance

Stellan Vinthagen May 23rd, 2008

At the last Gothenburg Resistance Seminar yesterday we discussed the law as expression of power and of resistance. Based on a (Swedish) paper from Dr Mikael Baaz (senior lecturer in international relations and legal studies) we tried to look on possibilities for law strategies for social movements, based on an understanding of the law as a social construction. One of the key conclusions were the need for alliances between legal experts/lawyers and activists. Another conclusion was that different societies/communities could compete over legal principles/systems. The sovereign nation state and its legal system is always challenged and not as sovereign as it claims.

I have since some time been thinking that the interesting phenonmenon of “People’s Tribunals” are under-researched as a form of resistance. It represents a broad alliance of law-experts/lawyers/judges, activists and communities affected by oppression. And, it is an attempt of undermining the monopoloy of law by states.

During September 2007 a critical movement organized People’s Tribunal against the World Bank was conducted at a university in New Delhi (JNU); the Independent People’s Tribunal on the World Bank in India. Various organisations, experts, intellectuals, researchers and victims presented their witness and evidence in which the bank was accused of conducting crimes against people with its anti-human and anti-development policies and projects. The jury found in their judgement the World Bank and Indian government guilty on several accounts.

The first such political but evidence-oriented movement organised tribunal I know of was the Russell Tribunal 1966-1967 against the US war in Vietnam in which among others the peace activist and philospher Bertrand Russel and intellectual Jean Paul Sartre took part. Recently we have also seen such tribunals against the US occupation of Iraq.

The problem with such tribunals are of course that they easily tend to be ignored, especially if their demands of evidence are low and if they tend to become mere political theater.

Still, in some cases they serve as the pre-hearing within civil society in preparation for making conventional law-suites, as with the recent “ethical tribunal” against 20 European corporations in Peru within the People’s Summit. The tribunal has over its 30 years of existence conducted 36 sessions.

Is these kind of people and movement organised tribunals possible to understand as resistance? When the state authorities (prosecutors, judges, etc.) are not taking accusations from affected people serious, these peoples are conducting the trials themselves. By refusing to accept a monopoloy of initiative and authority to judge right from wrong, to make normative statements based on thorough investigation – these groups could be said to do “resistance”.

We have earlier seen how movements protest against the laws which parliaments make, or the judgements courts give, and even movements trying to, sometimes succeeding to, create new laws in collaboration with willing law-makers/states when proper laws are lacking (e.g. the successful campaign for an international law against anti-personal mines), and most commonly, movements breaking the laws they don’t find legitimate (e.g. the Civil Rights Movement with M L King in the US). All these forms of resistance is much discussed, but , as far as I can see, not so much the people tribunals. With the tribunals we have a case of movements making the judgements themselves, challening the silence and (status que supportive) passivity of contemporary courts. As resistance it can be understood as pro-active and constructive; creating the better system while undermining the domination by existing systems.

Since the new International Criminal Court is a result from temporary ad-hoc tribunals (most famously the Nürnberg Trials but also the special tribunals in ex-Jugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) it might not be impossible that also civil society organised “tribunals” result in new judicial praxis.

But such progressive effects of people’s tribunals are only possible, I think, if we talk about tribunals made in opposition to a dominant judicial system, not if it is made into a part of that dominant system, as in China during the Cultural Revolution…Then, the tribunals are not articulations of emerging new law and principles of justice but articulations of harrasment, oppression and violence.

If anyone has recommendations, thoughts or references to share on this topic I would be thankful.

Semi-official defintion of Resistance Studies

Christopher Kullenberg February 15th, 2008

The Resistance Studies Magazine has now been classified by the Royal National Swedish library. In the ongoing debate we have on what Resistance studies is all about, it is sometimes interesting to see how it is defined institutionally. Sweden is an exception from the Dewey system, and has its own ‘taxonomy of books’ called SAB. However, according to the Dewey system it is still “323.04″ and following SAB it is “Oc(p)”. This means:

O = Society

Oc = Political science and politics

p = Future studies

I am not sure what “future studies” is all about, but since I am in a good mood today, I will be less critical. What about this interpretation?

“Accordig to the libraries, Resistance Studies is about the future of politics and society”

After all, it is not so bad…

ERROR CORRECTION: A librarian told me that (p) does not mean future studies, but simply refers to “periodical”. In other words, the magazine is classified as a periodical in political science and politics (at least according to the SAB system).

Resistance at workplaces.

jj July 2nd, 2007

Trade Unions have used a number of means of resistance throughout their entire history. Strikes, boycotts, and demonstrations are just the most famous means. The reasons for such actions vary but salaries and working conditions are probably among the most frequent ones. An interesting category is employees being asked by the boss to do something they don’t think is the right thing to do, and they resist to do it. A couple of decades ago a train driver, and a good friend of mine, in Sweden refused to drive his cargo with arms from the train station down to the quay in Uddevalla. The arms were going to be shipped to India and the contract violated not only Indian laws, Swedish policy on arms trade, but also my friend’s conscience. So he refused to do his job and became a conscientious objector at his workplace. When he, after his refusal to drive, took part in an action against others to drive the same train he was arrested, lost his job and when he argued in the court that he was in a similar situation as the train drivers with wagons full of Jews on their way to concentration camps in Germany in the Nazi regime the court reacted strongly against such a parallel.

A few groups of workers within the Swedish labour-market have in their collective agreement with the employers a legal right to object tasks that goes against their conscientiousness. Journalists is one group with such an agreement. Not used too often… I was reminded of this the other day when I read that a journalist in USA had reacted strongly against making Paris Hilton’s release from jail the main story.

Mika Emilie Leonia Brzezinski is a journalist at MSNBC and on June 26, Brzezinski refused to air the story about this American celebrity. Brzezinski’s producer had consistently put the story as the lead, ranking over the other big news story of the day: A republican breaking from President Bush on the Iraq war, which Brzezinski thought was more important. She attempted to burn the story’s script on air but was prevented from lighting it by a co-host. Later in the newscast, she tore and shredded copies of the story. The scene is on YouTube.

It would be interesting to collect more cases of conscientious objection at work places. Could be an interesting article if we had enough cases and some reflections on the morality, legality and possibilities of such actions.

What is Resistance Studies? Part I

jj June 25th, 2007

I was not present at the inauguration and have not taken the time to watch through all the video clips. So may be some of you have already developed some ideas about “Resistance Studies” and this Network. If so I hope you can join me in a discussion on some of the questions I will raise in the weeks to come. The first one is about the perspective the Network want to have in their activities (research, dissemination, and practice).

My starting point for this short intervention is the “Resistance Studies Mission Statement” which can be downloaded from this site. There the main case is Globalisation. According to the statement “One of the most striking features of globalisation is the scope and changing nature of mobilisations, struggles and resistance against, for or within present change processes.” And it goes on to list several forms this resistance can take; Suicide bombings, virtual resistance and massive demonstrations.

The focus is said to be on “transformation of power” and that the Network “aim to establish cooperation between researchers interested in understanding practices of resistance, and its connections to power and social change.” Resistance is then defined as “the undermining of power relations”. Resistance, as power, is further understood as “multidimensional, unstable and a complex social construction in dynamic relations related to differences of context”. Violent means are included in the focus for the Network, not only the means of the traditional civil society actors.

At this point in the reading of the Statement I needed to think twice. That may be due to the fact that my brain is small and slow, but I did not feel sure if I understood the perspective correctly. Do the authors of the statement want us to see power relations as asymmetric and that the focus shall mainly be from the perspective of the “weaker part”? Or is this biased (?) perspective not intended? Most practical examples seem to indicate such a biased view, but the theoretical arguments don’t give me the same perception. As I understand the theoretical presentation the Network is just as well for those who want to study how those in “position” can control those in “opposition”. But all examples have the opposite angle.

To be very pragmatic and practical: I will be lecturing at a British War Academy in August. Would it be a good idea to invite my audience there to be part of the Network? Or does it make more sense to keep people like them out of the Network. They are clearly studying how to “undermine power relations” but mainly to reduce the power of “non-state actors”.

If the Network wants to have a normative approach it would be good to spell it out clearer. The same if such an approach is not wanted.

Civil Society Resistance Influences Global Governance?

Stellan Vinthagen June 22nd, 2007

Last week I took part in a unique conference at the School of Global Studies at Gothenburg University; Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. It was organised by one of the worlds leading civil society researchers, Jan Aart Scholte. It brought together a huge number of research projects on how civil society has influenced various multilateral regimes or governance organisations (as e.g. WTO, the World Bank, IMF, OECD, OIC, ICAAN) which regulate different areas of the world’s activites. The way the conference was organised was in itself an example of how a dialogue in a civilised society could happen: each research paper was presented of a researcher on that governance organisation, then two commentators gave their critical reflection on the paper, and lastly a long part of the session consisted of how everyone gave their critical questions or comments to the researcher. When the paper on WTO was presented the commentators where from WTO itself and from one of the civil society organisations that are trying to influence WTO. So, various actors in the global struggle for governance were present.

The conference is part of an ongoing research led by Scholte which will be presented at the UN and published in a book. Already now it is clear from the research done that civil society is not only having a strong influence on present global governance, making it accountable for its doings and failures, and in that sense somehow democratising the world, but also that some forms of governance is done through civil society organisations themselves, like e.g. in establishing the rules and standards of fair trade (through the umbrella organisation IFAT: International Fair Trade Association). Still, the research also shows that most civil society organisations are themselves having problems to be accountable to the people they say they represent or the social groups they effect by their activity.

One weakness, though, of the research papers and discussions in the conference was that it focused on a special kind of civil society, that which Mary Kaldor and Hilary Wainwright describes as the “tame civil society” (in Kaldors description of various versions of civil society in the book “Global Civil Society”, see the argument by Wainwright in “Civil Society, Democracy and Power” on the web at the institute for scholar-activists, Transnational Institute), the civilised society that do not disturb the present configuration of power, but tries to reform it through dialogue. In the papers and in most of the discussions existed a silence: the role of the confrontative and resistant civil society.

Still, arguably the resistance against IMF through the IMF-riots of the 1980s and the de-facto effective blockade of the WTO conference in Seattle 1999 played a huge role in facilitating the growth of (other more tame) civil society organisations that gained access and influence to parts of the Breton Woods institutions, sometimes even in a consultative status (mainly the World Bank but also partly the IMF and WTO). As such, resistance oriented civil society groups play both the role as institutional door-opener for tame civil society organisations and the role of critical civil society watch-dogs, empowering as well as pressuring those more dialogue and reform oriented organisations.

I am very impressed by this conference model and think it is something we could develop and use within resistance research, which as we already have concluded (through the input from mainly Jane Pickerhill during the recent Resistance Seminar, see earlier blog entry), demands of us a different research methodology, different to the conventional research on rule and power conformative behaviour. Resistance is, as Mona Lilja has shown in her dissertation (see earlier blog entry), often messy, changing and contradictory – and as the classic research of James Scott has shown – often hidden, informal and disguised. Studying research then, demands methods that brings forward various actors in a critical reflection. One of the ways to bring it out in the open and visible for investigation might be through stakeholder conferences like this one. Having said that, it might be exactly the wrong thing to do at other times, since there are sometimes really good reasons for resistance to be hidden and changing, in order to avoid detection by power surveillance, and it should not be our role to facilitate that control of resistance. Our research need firstly to be done in respect of the subaltern or subordinated individuals who do resistance and in such a way which facilitate their empowerment and autonomy. Still, stakeholder conferences might bring out perspectives and views which otherwise might be silenced and repressed by certain knowledge regimes or established/conventional understanding.

Ethical problems in resisting the “human” robots

jj May 13th, 2007

Ethical problems in resisting the “human” robots

This text is relayed from my friend Tormod (tormod . otter (at) tidskriftenordobild . se

In danger of falling into the deep pit of awe in front of new technology I will try to say something about an important new factor in the high tech wars of the USA. The Washington Post tells a well written story about the soldiers best friends, the war bots of the Iraq war. The article begins with the touching story of a happy and excited engineer that sees his multilegged robot fight on against the mines, slowly losing one leg after another. When the robot crawls on to the last mine, with only one leg left, the engineer is more excited than ever. But the colonel overseeing the exercise has the exact opposite emotional reaction. He stops the test, calling it “inhumane”. He couldn’t stand watching the machine moving forward, busy getting crippled by mines.

The tales about squads in the American troops getting so attached to their robot servants that they name them, award them promotions and military degrees are growing by the day. The industry of creating robots not mainly for home purposes but increasingly for so called “government use” have golden days.

My questions are not mostly concerned with the threat of failing robots, going rogue or the interesting philosophical questions concerning who “really kills someone” when an autonomous robot kills people in Iraq. I am more concerned with the old, disturbing fact that the decision of what is humane or not, who is a human or not a human, a mere enemy and subhuman, always are twisted out of recognition in wars, whatever time or place. The even more disturbing fact here is that a dead thing, animated by simple algorithms, gets more concern than a human would have received in the same situation. What resistance is necessary to make a soldier understand the difference between a bot and a human? The easiest ideas might be the most difficult to practically comprehend.

Tormod

Research Project on Legal Change and Social Movements

Stellan Vinthagen April 10th, 2007

I am since 2004 doing an undergraduate course on “Social and Legal Movements”. Its an cross-disciplinary course trying to understand how struggles between historical and social groups are shaping the legal system and the social norms of a society, especially how social movements adopt legal strategies and methods in order to repeal, change or push for certain laws. Together with my co-teacher and ass.prof. in law, HÃ¥kan Gustafsson, I am working on an application to do a three year research project in this field. We are interested to understand how movements are trying to influence the norms and laws of society by doing a comparative case-study of some movements and their claims of rights, articulations of justice and methods of influence on the legal system. We have chosen to study the “fair trade” and consumer movement; “environmental justice” and the environmental movement; “asylum rights” and the human rights movement; and, the anti-nuclear weapon movement. In our understanding they are interesting since they have achived very different results (in terms of legal and normative change) depending on a number of differences (in strategies, methods, legal fields, levels of social mobilization, etc.).

We attempt an explanation of their differences in effectiveness according to their choice of strategies, methods, etc. Mainly we are arguing that an “effective juridification” of a political demand (i.e. a translation into legal codes which do not alter the political intention of that demand) needs a “legal movement”, i.e. a productive cooperation within a (in/formal) network involving discourses, actors and individuals within both social movements and legal systems. A successful movement will have activists with enough knowledge of the law in order to translate their political demands into legal language and demands – and – will have links into professional law-workers within the legal system who have enough of knowledge and interest to understand the political demands of movements so that they are able to translate the proto-legal demands of movement activists into proper legal codes and legal adoption. That means that some kind of transactivist/law-professional network and interaction is needed, formally or informally. If we are right will find this kind of networks and cooperative links in the successful cases of legal change.  

In order to develop our proposal of the research project it would be helpful to get some respons on some of our key themes and problems:

1) Do you know of any (relatively) clear (and documented) case in which a movement through certain activity effected legal and/or normative change in a society? (We are not stuck on the present choice of cases, it could be changed, or expanded).

2) What kind of legal and/or normative strategies and methods exists among movements and are worth investigating?

3) What do radical movements for democratic/peaceful social change need to know about how the law is changed? What kind of scientific knowledge would help?

4) How do you think that it would be possible to study movements (attempted) change of normative and/or legal systems? (in terms of methodology and research design)

We will do this kind of research, sooner or later, depending when we succeed to get some funding to do it. So, comments are valuable when ever, but we are going to submit this specific application on the 17th of April. So, quick comments are even more helpful…

Dialectics of resistance?

Christopher Kullenberg March 18th, 2007

Yesterday the network interacted in the public sphere, emphasizing the “pub” aspects of such a social setting, but nevertheless interesting debates took place. One important issue raised was the inescapable flow of power in resistance studies. In critical studies this is a classical dilemma and the story goes something like this:

1. The sociology of resistance

This problem occurs whenever resistance seeks a collaborative shape. When resistance assembles in structures, power is exerted, right and wrong is established as binary categories, leadership forms hierarchies and usually there is a division of labour. This version is very common among resistance movements which have a goal, an ideology and are expressive towards other institutions. There are of course exceptions, which leads us to the second category.

2. The interactiveness of resistance

Even if category one is not fulfilled, another type of power is produced. In the lack of a central ideology, a cognitive collectivity (discourse) and centralized administration, resistance is still productive. In file-sharing, counter-ideological reception, avoidance of narrative and so on, power is produced in the reconfiguration of oppression. But since the consequences of such resistance is hard to predict, consequences may be equally devastating as in category 1.

Now, back to resistance studies, and specifically the academic branches of such knowledge. Could there be a purely descriptive depiction of resistance? No, not at all. The very concept of resistance involves a value judgement which is historically laden with traditions and discourses. And second, there is a problem with being plugged into academia, since it has become the epistemic authority at least in secular western societies. Within this logic there is always the temptation of making studies transform into science. This manouvre gains access to the royal institutions of society, and adopting a vocabulary consistent with power would be effective but would probably diminish the critical aspects.

Please comment on possible solutions or if you disagree!

Creating Empowerment Through Resistance

Stellan Vinthagen March 13th, 2007

Five researchers - at the time of writing – connected to the still continuing Empowerment Network at Stockholm University (ENSU), published 2004 a very interesting article about “Validation, Techniques and Counter Strategies: Methods for Dealing with Power Structures and Changing Social Climates”. (Reference info exists at Diana Amnéus’ page). Their starting point is the classic “Master Suppression Techniques” discussed by Berit Ã…s (1978), various techniques in which normally women are made invisible by men (e.g. by ridiculing or withholding information) but also, as Berti Ã…s later explains, by techniques of objectification and threats & violence. A group of female PhD students at Stockholm University learned about the theory of Berit Ã…s and recognized these “ruler techniques” of suppression from their own experience and started to discuss how resistance would be possible. In 2004 they wrote a text about it and just recently – some days ago – that text became available on the Internet.  

In their text they suggest a number of corresponding techniques for each of the ruler techniques; one validation technique (which confirms and supports the person suppressed, validating the human value of that person, thus changing also the group climate) and one counter strategy (i.e. a way to do resistance to the suppression). For example is the ruler technique “invisibilizing” countered by “taking up space” and validated by “visibilizing”. Each of these counter strategies and validation techniques are then discussed.

The work by this cross-disciplinary group of authors: Diana Amnéus (Public International Law), Ditte Eile, former Jonasson (Pedagogy), Ulrika Flock (Biochemistry), Pernilla Rosell Steuer (German) and Gunnel Testad (Literature Studies) – is a major break-through, since the “suppression techniques” have been discussed and used within mainly the feminist movement (but also within other power critical groups) without resulting in a clear strategy of how to counter these forms of everyday “herrschaft” or suppression. Women experience these forms of suppression regularly but not only women. More rulers than men are using the techniques, as is pointed out by the authors. This kind of suppression of others exists at universities in which those higher in rank at seminars are able to suppress those with lower rank with the help of e.g. ridiculing. Ruler techniques can be used in corporations, by parents against children, in the military, etc. I would argue that all unjust hierarchies not only keep its hierarchy with formal rule behaviour but also with informal ruler techniques, i.e. suppression. That is a way to protect injustice and discourage resistance.  

We at the Resistance Studies Network are interested in cooperation with the authors of this important text and with the new active members of the Empowerment Network. It would therefore be helpful if our readers contributed with comments to this resistance relevant text by writing at our blog. Even if you happen to agree totally with the authors about their suggestions there are a lot more to say and discuss. We are e.g. looking for empirical illustrations, case-studies or further techniques that could shed some light on these important forms of everyday resistance.

Enjoy the reading and let me know what you think!

Cities of surveillance

Christopher Kullenberg January 6th, 2007

The urban landscape is very multi-layered. Two layers are of special importance – its territoriality and how it negotiates the line between private and public. Both of these are dynamic and contingent, thus subjected to global politics and technological change. Recently I was on a trip to London, and I was walking the streets like an everyday tourist with a special interest in the disposition of the streets, buildings and people. Peacefully I shot this picture with my digital camera:

bildbibliotek-4003.jpg

However, within seconds I was approached by a security guard telling me not only not to make pictures of this particular building, but also that I ought to watch out for “the” security cameras, one like this (which I shot five minutes later):
bildbibliotek-3947.jpg

Not only had I been corrected by a human-in-the-flesh, but I was part of a high-tech network of surveillance that had re-negotiated the trenches of territoriality and extended the green line of private/public in favour of (the very political) private sphere. I became aware that my cognitive map of central London had failed to recognize new lines of law-enforcing (counter-terrorism?) artefacts. And also my tacit feelings of what counted as a public space, was highly incompatible with a new logic of practice.

My vacational photography is not much more than an anthropological study. But which are the consequences when someone wants to whistleblow what some corporation or authority is up to inside that skyscraper, or when people would like to demonstrate in context of real-time surveillance?

Can resistance be institutionalized?

Christopher Kullenberg January 5th, 2007

In Sweden, and in many other European countries, there has been an ongoing debate on how to face the problem of (ultra) right-wing parties gaining popular support in elections, but also on how to fight racism and xenophobia. In Karlskrona, a city in southern Sweden, the principals of five schools organized a demonstration in memory of the holocaust and against the party Sverigedemokraterna, a right-wing party that gained surprisingly many votes in the 2006 elections. One of the principals declared:

“One of the reasons why the Sverigedemokraterna were successful in the elections is that they were unchallenged in debate. It is important to show resistance, especially now.” (source: SVD, my translation)

Racism, xenophobia, eurocentrism and populism are structures founded deeply in history, as well as in social and material practices. Social theory often find them frustratingly solid, and in the history of ideas they keep repeating themselves in new shapes century after century. However, so are the disciplinary practictices of going to school (School is as close to prison as one can get according go Foucault and Deleuze). What we have then is an institutionalized form of resistance against the structural “evils” of contemporary European xenophobia.

Maybe it is a good thing. For sure it is an interesting phenomenon, and must for sure be reflected upon when thinking varieties of resistance. Resistance as a extra-governmental and civil activity can be very powerful operating on its own, but maybe it is not all it takes. Deleuze & Guattari finish A Thousand Plateaus with “Never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us”. Maybe that is the case here, and hopefully one could reflect upon this without falling back on modernism.

The importance of context in understanding resistance

Stellan Vinthagen December 26th, 2006

Being in Morocko I can’t help but think of the importance of the context when you try to understand what is resistance and what is not. I mean, ordinary and everyday behavior that would make no importance might become very dramatic in a certain context. When some couple hold hands or walk along the beach holding arms around each other it is quite dramatic in a Muslim country where public signs of affection is not really accepted. You might even understand that as a kind of resistance to a religious oppressive norm, or? In Sweden that would not be resistance but here it is possible to understand as such. And what about the two morockan women sitting close together on the beach laughing and smiling, and then kissing each other? A resistance act by lesbians on the beach, finding some freedom to live and be relaxed among the tourists? Homosexuals have almost everywhere in the world problems if they openly show affection to each other, but here even more so. So, the same behavior might become conventional at one place and one historic setting but a resistance act at another, depending on the relation to existing laws, norms, attitudes, i.e. to power.

Resistance Fashion

klang December 19th, 2006

Resistance to fashion is a topic that occasionally appears. Such resistance can take the form of animal rights activists protesting against the fur trade (e.g. Coalition to abolish the fur trade), it can take the form of protests against the use of anorectic models (e.g. the Spanish Association in Defense of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia has managed to obtain the world’s first ban on overly thin models at a top-level fashion show in Madrid), or it can deal with protests against the conditions of workers in the textile trade (the most famous example must be Naomi Klein’s work No Logo)

But what about the fashion of resistance? This is can be seen both as a reflection on what is fashionable to resist at any given time and as the actual fashion statement of the resister. The former is a fascinating subject since the world attention is fickle. The focus of popular attention varies even if the reason for resistance may remain – maybe a book here for someone to edit? (nudge, nudge).

However, it is the latter which is the focus of this post. Fashion and style can in themselves be both a form and a symbol of resistance. Styles of dress such as punk and hiphop are seen as resistance to the norm – punk went even further since its purpose was to provoke.

But even in the less extreme resistance has a fashion. Styles which identify, unite and exclude. Occasionally these styles establish themselves in the mainstream and there ability to provoke/resist are almost lost. One such controversial symbol is the image of Che Geuvara. On 5th of March 1960 Alberto “Korda” Gutierrez took two pictures of Che Guevara. In 1967 the Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli received two copies of the famous print at no cost.

Che by Korda

Feltrinelli started making posters from the prints with the notice “Copyright Feltrinelli” down in the corner. The image was on it’s way to become an international icon – it has been transformed, transplanted, transmitted and transfigured all over the world. Korda never received a penny. For one reason only – Cuba had not signed the Berne Convention. Fidel Castro described the protection of intellectual property as imperialistic “bullshit”.

Since then the image has gone from being a symbol of resistance and revolution to being a fashion statement. Today the image has achieved iconic status and is (ab)used on everything from posters to carpets.  The image has even had an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The question therefore, as symbolized, by the Che icon is: How does an iconic symbol of resistance spread to a mass audience without becoming pop-culture and lacking in the symbolic value which was the original purpose? Or is resistance fashion a paradox since once it becomes a fashion it loses its resistance quality?

Newton on Resistance

klang December 9th, 2006

Newton knew resistance. His third law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Obviously you don’t want to mess with Newton. He is after all… Newton. Now Newton was not talking about resistance in the same way as it is understood here at Resistance Studies but there seems to be a similarity in the the third law even in social movements.

It is strange then that despite the fact that for almost every social idea we can find some kind of (more or less organised) resistance towards it. My latest find is the Christmas Resistance Movement. The strange part is how little organised study such “anti” movements seem to attract. Could it be that the researcher is too much of a mainstream character to discover and research networks such as these?

Considering the amount of people out shopping today – the Christmas Resistance Movement is in a minority. While I doubt I could really implement a full Christmas boycott in my life there are certain aspects of Christmas which I tend to ignore in an attempt to “survive” the season.

Does anyone know of a well written book on anti-consumption movements? In particular I would like to find a good historical perspective… Maybe as a Christmas present…

Social Conventions of Disobedience

klang December 7th, 2006

As with almost everything else there are rules to disobedience. Despite the fact that we tend to perceive of disobedience as the breaking of rules the act falls into a strict complex of rules to be what may be paradoxically referred to as an accepted form of disobedience.

The very idea of an accepted form of disobedience is quite strange. One might argue that either something is disobedience or it is not. If it is disobedience then it will not conform to the rules. At first glance this may be seen as a form of philosophical exercise with no correct answer.

But this is to do disobedience an injustice (please excuse this and all following weak puns). Obedience and disobedience are, besides being actions in themselves, also communicative actions. By obeying rules (following orders) we signal our support for both the rules and the system from where they originate. By disobeying the rules we signal protest.* This protest can be either for loftier philosophical reasons or egoistic needs – either one is a protest.

Those familiar to disobedience are aware of the “rules” of legitimate political disobedience (non-violence, openness etc) developed in practice and theory by people such as Gandhi and King & Singer and Bedau. But rarely are the social conventions of disobedience discussed.

For example can a demonstrator wear a suit? What can one write on a sign? What colors should protest flags be? Etc…

OK so these may be banal questions in comparison with the issue being protested but I do find the social rules of protest fascinating. My favourite example is from a wall in Uddevalla were the protester wrote Civil Olydnad (Civil Disobedience) in large letters on a wall. But the author managed to invert one of the letters. Realising the mistake the protestor – decided that this grammatical gaffe could not be tolerated.

You may well believe in disobedience – but you apparently need to respect the rules of grammer…

Please help us develop, define and discuss the concept of disobedience on our wiki.

—
* Obviously I am ignoring acts of habitual or unreflected acts of obedience or disobedience.