Comments on: Theory says the Burma Regime is Falling?! http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219 University of Göteborg Resistance Studies Network Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:48:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Samuel http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-44235 Samuel Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:14:50 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-44235 Dears I thank God for this time to communicate with you, I’m Pastor Samuel Muderhwa from D.R.Congo, and work with the Organization called Peace and Conflict Resolution, which is located in East of the Republic in Province of South-Kivu, Bukavu town is the main office locating. And is registered under this number from Ministry of Justice and human Right in my Country: JUST.G.S. 112 / S-KIVU/ 2673, we have a Certificate from Division Provincial in Ministry of Justice and Human right, we are allowed to work as a nonprofit organization. Peace and Conflict Resolution it is located in Peace Building Area, and it mission and vision Please if you may allow we will be send the attachment of our brochure and pictures of their activities we provided with full of details. We are working to breaking the both cycle of Violence and Poverty, as you knew the kind of difficulty situation we were passed in, caused by the war took place in East of Democratic Republic of Congo Please what pushed us, to mention this to you, is because we would like to ask for the assistance from you, because we won’t by ourselves succeed as you knew the area we are coming from, for any kinds of support from you we will delightfully and praise God. And we would like to ask to be partner with you. In advance we give our humble thanks for the courage response you will give us. And for furthermore please let us know. God bless you Samuel Muderhwa M Coordinator PCR Peacecrp@yahoo.com Dears

I thank God for this time to communicate with you, I’m Pastor Samuel Muderhwa from D.R.Congo, and work with the Organization called Peace and Conflict Resolution, which is located in East of the Republic in Province of South-Kivu, Bukavu town is the main office locating. And is registered under this number from Ministry of Justice and human Right in my Country: JUST.G.S. 112 / S-KIVU/ 2673, we have a Certificate from Division Provincial in Ministry of Justice and Human right, we are allowed to work as a nonprofit organization.
Peace and Conflict Resolution it is located in Peace Building Area, and it mission and vision Please if you may allow we will be send the attachment of our brochure and pictures of their activities we provided with full of details. We are working to breaking the both cycle of Violence and Poverty, as you knew the kind of difficulty situation we were passed in, caused by the war took place in East of Democratic Republic of Congo

Please what pushed us, to mention this to you, is because we would like to ask for the assistance from you, because we won’t by ourselves succeed as you knew the area we are coming from, for any kinds of support from you we will delightfully and praise God. And we would like to ask to be partner with you.

In advance we give our humble thanks for the courage response you will give us. And for furthermore please let us know.

God bless you

Samuel Muderhwa M
Coordinator
PCR
Peacecrp@yahoo.com

]]> By: Stellan Vinthagen http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-9529 Stellan Vinthagen Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:06:51 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-9529 On the 30th of Sept I was offered a beer in the bet by one who thought I was wrong. I guess now the odds are a lot lower for my prediction, or? ; - ) So, Howard, what is your bet against the stamina of the Burmeese?! What are you risking on your own implicit theory and prediction (it sounds like you have one...)?? On the 30th of Sept I was offered a beer in the bet by one who thought I was wrong. I guess now the odds are a lot lower for my prediction, or? ; – ) So, Howard, what is your bet against the stamina of the Burmeese?! What are you risking on your own implicit theory and prediction (it sounds like you have one…)??

]]> By: Howard Clark http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-9239 Howard Clark Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:18:23 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-9239 Stimulating Stellan. In situations such as these, there's a lot more going on under the surface than we know at the time. Not just hidden transcripts, but manoeuvring between different factions of the elite and their international supporters, etc ... There are also some random factors. So the only way I will ever be convinced that a theorist can predict the outcome of insurrections is when they start doing it with some regularity in advance. You've nailed your flag to the mast with your prediction that the regime will fall this month. Very brave. In 1989 I know someone in New York who did quite well by placing bets on each of the power people movements ... Now a betting book might be interesting ... all the best Howard Stimulating Stellan.
In situations such as these, there’s a lot more going on under the surface than we know at the time. Not just hidden transcripts, but manoeuvring between different factions of the elite and their international supporters, etc … There are also some random factors.

So the only way I will ever be convinced that a theorist can predict the outcome of insurrections is when they start doing it with some regularity in advance.

You’ve nailed your flag to the mast with your prediction that the regime will fall this month.
Very brave.

In 1989 I know someone in New York who did quite well by placing bets on each of the power people movements … Now a betting book might be interesting …

all the best
Howard

]]> By: Niklas http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-9019 Niklas Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:20:02 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-9019 Thanx for an important contribution to the discussion on "resistance" culture. It sounds interesting the things you say about your study of the MST etc. I have some concerns about my own field as to how to conceive of the "macro-dimension" of a somewhat non-localizable "anti- or alterglobalization movement". You speak about, for instance, politico-economic factors or causes (opportunities/risks) as something that are part of a process of several instances combined making impact as to the formation of "resistance" or oppositional practice. But how do someone make sense of an "alterglobalization" movement who's got no clearcut "action frame" or something like a non-localizable "search for" opportunity structure? I think that I too long have been focusing on what you label as "the agency of resistance cultures (in a specific context)" and not payed enough attention to the "macrodimension" of things. Could be that it seems to be such a "deathtrip" to try to flesh out such a context. May be that the social forumprocess (my area of interest) is constantly resisting to get subjected to representations/unifying signifiers? Well, the struggle continues... [...] //N. Thanx for an important contribution to the discussion on “resistance” culture. It sounds interesting the things you say about your study of the MST etc.
I have some concerns about my own field as to how to conceive of the “macro-dimension” of a somewhat non-localizable “anti- or alterglobalization movement”. You speak about, for instance, politico-economic factors or causes (opportunities/risks) as something that are part of a process of several instances combined making impact as to the formation of “resistance” or oppositional practice. But how do someone make sense of an “alterglobalization” movement who’s got no clearcut “action frame” or something like a non-localizable “search for” opportunity structure? I think that I too long have been focusing on what you label as “the agency of resistance cultures (in a specific context)” and not payed enough attention to the “macrodimension” of things. Could be that it seems to be such a “deathtrip” to try to flesh out such a context. May be that the social forumprocess (my area of interest) is constantly resisting to get subjected to representations/unifying signifiers?
Well, the struggle continues… [...]
//N.

]]> By: Stellan Vinthagen http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8739 Stellan Vinthagen Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:23:01 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8739 I am reading news from Burmese opposition groups and am finding news about demonstrations, arrests and resistance which is not told in our conventional news. Of course mainstream media is not telling the truth about resistance, but I am surprised of the compact mainstream (and somewhat critical) media consensus on that the resistance in Burma is over now. It happend instantly in the beginning of this week. All media telling the same story: now the resistance is over. But on the 3 Oct 10 000 people demonstrated in the town of Arakan in Burma. And a new action is spreading among citizens of Rangoon: when the state (propaganda) news are sent on TV and Radio, people turn of the light in their appartment (showing they are NOT listening to the regime...). And on the 4 Oct over 100 members of Suu Kyi's National League of Democracy (the party that won 88 % of the votes in the only election, 1990) were arrested. And numerous Monks and citizens of Rangoon are still getting arrested in all day raids around in Rangoon. Why is the regime arresting so many people if they are not afraid of more protests coming? And, where are the students, have anyone heard from them? They were the ones who lead the uprising in 1988 and now they are quite. Are they crushed, scattered, disorganised or are they the next group who will make open confrontation with the regime? My guess is that the foreign journalists either went home, are only staying in hotels in Rangoon and don't speak local languages, so, logically, they don't have any clue if the resistance has ended or not... I am reading news from Burmese opposition groups and am finding news about demonstrations, arrests and resistance which is not told in our conventional news. Of course mainstream media is not telling the truth about resistance, but I am surprised of the compact mainstream (and somewhat critical) media consensus on that the resistance in Burma is over now. It happend instantly in the beginning of this week. All media telling the same story: now the resistance is over. But on the 3 Oct 10 000 people demonstrated in the town of Arakan in Burma. And a new action is spreading among citizens of Rangoon: when the state (propaganda) news are sent on TV and Radio, people turn of the light in their appartment (showing they are NOT listening to the regime…). And on the 4 Oct over 100 members of Suu Kyi’s National League of Democracy (the party that won 88 % of the votes in the only election, 1990) were arrested. And numerous Monks and citizens of Rangoon are still getting arrested in all day raids around in Rangoon. Why is the regime arresting so many people if they are not afraid of more protests coming? And, where are the students, have anyone heard from them? They were the ones who lead the uprising in 1988 and now they are quite. Are they crushed, scattered, disorganised or are they the next group who will make open confrontation with the regime? My guess is that the foreign journalists either went home, are only staying in hotels in Rangoon and don’t speak local languages, so, logically, they don’t have any clue if the resistance has ended or not…

]]> By: Stellan Vinthagen http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8601 Stellan Vinthagen Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:29:35 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8601 Dear all, thanks for comments on the substance of my blog entry (not just the approach of it, be it "grand" or less grand...). Hunar, I think you are right, "context" is essential (!) and that is why I try to apply the theories on the present situation in Burma, but my lack of detailed knowledge of the context make it hard to apply it more closely. I have though, Niklas, tried to apply Foran's model of "oppositional culture" in a more internal, micro, process way in an article (together with Sean Chabot) on the Indian liberation movement and the landless movement MST in Brazil (“Rethinking Nonviolent Action and Contentious Politics: Political Cultures of Nonviolent Opposition in the Indian Independence Movement and Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement”, in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Vol. 27, 2007.). In that we try to understand the emergent processes that together make a oppositional culture (or resistance culture). If you read my earlier blog entries on revolution theory you will see that cause and effect reductionism is not really what contemporary revolution theory is about anymore. I am inspiered by these later developments of revolution theory, in which micro-macro, structure-agency, political economy and culture, etc. are combined. A difficult and maybe messy approach but interesting. I tried to apply that kind of dynamic approach in which the agency of resistance cultures (in a specific context) is what matters, although not alone but in in interaction with other major actors (as e.g. state governments and military forces) and within a favourable opportunity structure. Anyhow, I would be happy if blog entries, which are by its very nature more explorative and less processed thoughts/formulations, could be dealt with by a respectful discussion of such kind you have done here, not statements which simply label it within a low-value chategory, e.g. "grand theory", without even making it clear why. Thanks Hunar and Niklas for constructive engagement with my scribble... Dear all, thanks for comments on the substance of my blog entry (not just the approach of it, be it “grand” or less grand…). Hunar, I think you are right, “context” is essential (!) and that is why I try to apply the theories on the present situation in Burma, but my lack of detailed knowledge of the context make it hard to apply it more closely. I have though, Niklas, tried to apply Foran’s model of “oppositional culture” in a more internal, micro, process way in an article (together with Sean Chabot) on the Indian liberation movement and the landless movement MST in Brazil (“Rethinking Nonviolent Action and Contentious Politics: Political Cultures of Nonviolent Opposition in the Indian Independence Movement and Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement”, in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Vol. 27, 2007.). In that we try to understand the emergent processes that together make a oppositional culture (or resistance culture). If you read my earlier blog entries on revolution theory you will see that cause and effect reductionism is not really what contemporary revolution theory is about anymore. I am inspiered by these later developments of revolution theory, in which micro-macro, structure-agency, political economy and culture, etc. are combined. A difficult and maybe messy approach but interesting. I tried to apply that kind of dynamic approach in which the agency of resistance cultures (in a specific context) is what matters, although not alone but in in interaction with other major actors (as e.g. state governments and military forces) and within a favourable opportunity structure.

Anyhow, I would be happy if blog entries, which are by its very nature more explorative and less processed thoughts/formulations, could be dealt with by a respectful discussion of such kind you have done here, not statements which simply label it within a low-value chategory, e.g. “grand theory”, without even making it clear why. Thanks Hunar and Niklas for constructive engagement with my scribble…

]]> By: Niklas http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8590 Niklas Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:22:14 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8590 I am impressed with this Stellan, I whished I had such a good eye for combining various long term causes. This is what I am looking for in a closer dimension of small scale "cause and effects" or as Christoffer would have it "emergent properties". I think I would label the "laws" or "processes" somthing like "mechanisms" (a mechanism being something that seems to be present in many divergent processes causing somthing to change - or from being in a state of dispersion to a state of cennectedness for instance; a "scale shift" as Doug McAdam would have it.). I never take the time to read a long comment all the way through before re-comment on it (caused by some kind of desire for commenting before dropping the line of thought), so I will return to your review again. But, somthing did cross my mind, again there seem to be too much "macro-causes" involved, and too little knowledge as to the processes that fertilize the composition of networks within the "resistance" camp? Thanx I am impressed with this Stellan, I whished I had such a good eye for combining various long term causes.
This is what I am looking for in a closer dimension of small scale “cause and effects” or as Christoffer would have it “emergent properties”. I think I would label the “laws” or “processes” somthing like “mechanisms” (a mechanism being something that seems to be present in many divergent processes causing somthing to change – or from being in a state of dispersion to a state of cennectedness for instance; a “scale shift” as Doug McAdam would have it.). I never take the time to read a long comment all the way through before re-comment on it (caused by some kind of desire for commenting before dropping the line of thought), so I will return to your review again.
But, somthing did cross my mind, again there seem to be too much “macro-causes” involved, and too little knowledge as to the processes that fertilize the composition of networks within the “resistance” camp?
Thanx

]]> By: Hunar Adabanijan http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8576 Hunar Adabanijan Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:25:14 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8576 Hello folks! I have not read the two books, Foran and Jörgensen, but I sure had some lectures with the latter and been reading some political “science” (e.g. a big deal of comparative measures on election systems, economical index, constitutional characteristics and other so called relevant indexes on macro-political phenomena). The general aim according to these epistemologies is about prediction, which we likewise, as Stellan notice, can´t know for sure about. Futher I believe its not only possible, as Per holds, to criticize grand theories without it being a non-productive stigma – I think its necessary. Particularly if we aim to broad the notion of resistance in resistance studies. Some of the established social science disciplines have been dealing with questions of (silent/violent/rapid) social change and revolution for some time now, though generally not being able to recognize and thoroughly criticize the metaphysic assumptions about national states. If one of our aims is to “normalize” everyday resistance, through establishing resistance as a field of knowledge and vice versa, one main necessity should be to theorize “the everyday” as being a question of specific contexts (how many national states and “everydayworlds/practices” are there?). If power as an analytical notion is said to be present everywhere the articulated, material and empirical resistance as a consequence/interaction of it is, I believe, a question of context. It should thus be essential to hold a critical stance against the beloved but problematic grand theories and if it seems to be “non-productive” I would guess the problem arises from the lack of context in the critical stance (the direction of the burden of proof can of course be altered...). Peace´n hugs Hello folks! I have not read the two books, Foran and Jörgensen, but I sure had some lectures with the latter and been reading some political “science” (e.g. a big deal of comparative measures on election systems, economical index, constitutional characteristics and other so called relevant indexes on macro-political phenomena). The general aim according to these epistemologies is about prediction, which we likewise, as Stellan notice, can´t know for sure about. Futher I believe its not only possible, as Per holds, to criticize grand theories without it being a non-productive stigma – I think its necessary. Particularly if we aim to broad the notion of resistance in resistance studies. Some of the established social science disciplines have been dealing with questions of (silent/violent/rapid) social change and revolution for some time now, though generally not being able to recognize and thoroughly criticize the metaphysic assumptions about national states. If one of our aims is to “normalize” everyday resistance, through establishing resistance as a field of knowledge and vice versa, one main necessity should be to theorize “the everyday” as being a question of specific contexts (how many national states and “everydayworlds/practices” are there?). If power as an analytical notion is said to be present everywhere the articulated, material and empirical resistance as a consequence/interaction of it is, I believe, a question of context. It should thus be essential to hold a critical stance against the beloved but problematic grand theories and if it seems to be “non-productive” I would guess the problem arises from the lack of context in the critical stance (the direction of the burden of proof can of course be altered…). Peace´n hugs

]]> By: Per Herngren http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8409 Per Herngren Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:53:06 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8409 I think my comment could be misunderstood, sorry. I was not criticizing Stellans text but the two books. 1 Stellan did an excellent review of the two books. 2 I think one of the best way to test theories explaining what is happening all over the world is to test them on specific places, like Stellan did on Burma. Thanks for that! I support that approach. 3 I think it is possible to criticize grand theories universalizing nations all over the world without it being nonproductive stigma, like Christopher mentioned. 4 I understand my reflections on the problems with grand theories might not be acceptable here so I will discuss grand theories somewhere else. Stellan and Christopher are two of the owners of Resistance Studies, and I am not, so I will respect your decisions. 5 But I hope I can be part of reflections on other topics on the Resistance Studies. I think my comment could be misunderstood, sorry. I was not criticizing Stellans text but the two books.

1 Stellan did an excellent review of the two books.

2 I think one of the best way to test theories explaining what is happening all over the world is to test them on specific places, like Stellan did on Burma. Thanks for that! I support that approach.

3 I think it is possible to criticize grand theories universalizing nations all over the world without it being nonproductive stigma, like Christopher mentioned.

4 I understand my reflections on the problems with grand theories might not be acceptable here so I will discuss grand theories somewhere else. Stellan and Christopher are two of the owners of Resistance Studies, and I am not, so I will respect your decisions.

5 But I hope I can be part of reflections on other topics on the Resistance Studies.

]]> By: Christopher Kullenberg http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219&cpage=1#comment-8407 Christopher Kullenberg Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:28:30 +0000 http://resistancestudies.org/?p=219#comment-8407 If this counts as old modernism, then count me in! I do not see any reductionism, rather the predictions are built on qualitative and emergent properties in social change. A central question for resistance studies, to me, is "what does it take for resistance to turn into social change?". I believe that this process may be described, patterned and even predicted, however, not as "laws" but rather as "processes". We must dare to leave nonproductive stigma echoing in the backwaters of postmodernism, literary theory and textism and get back to the real material world. If this counts as old modernism, then count me in! I do not see any reductionism, rather the predictions are built on qualitative and emergent properties in social change. A central question for resistance studies, to me, is “what does it take for resistance to turn into social change?”. I believe that this process may be described, patterned and even predicted, however, not as “laws” but rather as “processes”.

We must dare to leave nonproductive stigma echoing in the backwaters of postmodernism, literary theory and textism and get back to the real material world.

]]>