Everyday Resistance ” : Exploration of a Concept and its Theories
Everyday Resistance ” : Exploration of a Concept and its Theories
复制标题
日常抵抗”：概念及其理论的探索
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Anna Johansson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stellan Vinthagen;Anna Johansson
本文探讨了“日常抵抗”的概念和理论，并建立了一个理论框架，旨在发展日常生活中的抵抗研究。自从詹姆斯·C.斯科特在1985年引入了这个概念，研究在部分重叠的领域内发展-主要是下层，女权主义者，文化，酷儿，农民和后结构研究-从而澄清了这个相对难以捉摸的概念。新兴的“抵抗研究”理论各不相同，但他们一致认为抵抗是一种对抗行为。与所有行为一样，抵抗也处于特定的时间、空间和关系之中，并与不同（类型）的行动者、技术和话语相关联。因此，对立行为的表述将是复数的。通过对当代研究的讨论，我们可以提出以下几点建议：（1）日常抵抗是一种实践（既不是某种意识，意图，认识，也不是结果）;（2）它在历史上与（日常）权力（不分离、不二分或不独立）;（3）日常的抵抗需要被理解为它所涉及的权力的交叉（不参与单一的权力关系）;（4）由于不断变化的背景和情况，它是异质的和偶然的（不是通用的策略或单一的行动形式）。因此，日常抵抗的异质性和偶然性实践，由于其与权力的纠缠和交叉关系，被行为者、目标和观察者以话语的方式表达出来;有时被称为“抵抗”，有时则不然。然而，如果各政党自己称之为其他东西，可能也有必要确定日常抵抗。我们对日常阻力的理解的进一步发展需要系统的研究计划，这些计划既涉及关键的概念理论讨论，也涉及具体的实证案例研究。
This article explores the concept and theories of “everyday resistance”, and develops a theoretical framework that aims to develop studies of resistance in everyday life. Since James C. Scott introduced this concept in 1985, research has grown within partly overlapping fields – mainly subaltern, feminist, cultural, queer, peasant and poststructural studies – thus warranting clarifications of this relatively elusive concept. Theories within emerging “resistance studies” differ but they agree that resistance is an oppositional act. Like all acts, resistance is situated in certain time, space and relations, and engages with different (types of) actors, techniques and discourses. Therefore, articulations of oppositional acts will be plural. Our discussion of contemporary studies makes it possible to develop some proposals: (1) Everyday resistance is a practice (neither a certain consciousness, intent, recognition, nor an outcome); (2) It is historically entangled with (everyday) power (not separated, dichotomous or independent); (3) Everyday resistance needs to be understood as intersectional as the powers it engages (not engaging with one single power relation); and (4) It is heterogenic and contingent due to changing contexts and situations (not a universal strategy or unitary action form). Thus, the heterogenic and contingent practice of everyday resistance is, due to its entanglement with and intersectional relations to power, discursively articulated by actors, targets and observers; sometimes as “resistance” and sometimes not. However, it might be necessary to identify everyday resistance also when parties themselves call it something else. Further development of our understanding of everyday resistance warrants systematic research programs that are engaged with both critical conceptual-theory discussions and specific empirical case studies.