Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance A Transdisciplinary Approach Anna Johansson

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance A
Transdisciplinary Approach Anna Johansson
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/conceptualizing-everyday-
resistance-a-transdisciplinary-approach-anna-johansson-22027510
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Everyday resistance is about the many ways people undermine power and domination
through their routine and everyday actions. Unlike open rebellions or demonstrations,
it is typically hidden, not politically articulated, and often ingenious. But because of
its disguised nature, it is often poorly understood as a form of politics and its potential
underestimated.
Conceptualizing ‘Everyday Resistance’ presents an analytical framework and theoretical
tools to understand the entanglements of everyday power and resistance. These are
applied to diverse empirical cases including queer relationships in the context of
heteronormativity, Palestinian daily life under military occupation, workplace
behaviors under office surveillance, and the tactics of fat acceptance bloggers facing
the war against obesity. Johansson and Vinthagen argue that everyday resistance is best
understood by accounting for different repertoires of tactics, relations between actors
and struggles around constructions of time and space. Through a critical dialogue with
the work of James C. Scott, Michel de Certeau and Asef Bayat, they aim to reconstruct
the field of resistance studies, expanding what counts as resistance and building
systematic analysis.
Conceptualizing ‘Everyday Resistance’ offers researchers and students from different
theoretical and empirical backgrounds an essential overview of the field and a creative
framework that illuminates the potential of all people to transform society.
Anna Johansson is Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the Department of Social and
Behavioural Studies, University West, Sweden. Her areas of research are mainly
resistance studies, critical fat studies and gender studies.
Stellan Vinthagen is Professor and Endowed Chair in the Study of Nonviolent Direct
Action and Civil Resistance at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is also
Co-Leader of the Resistance Studies Group at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden
and co-founder of the Resistance Studies Network, as well as Editor of the Journal
of Resistance Studies . His research is focused on resistance, power, social movements,
nonviolent action, conf lict transformation and social change.
CONCEPTUALIZING ‘EVERYDAY
RESISTANCE’

“Resistance comes in many different forms. It is ultimately about forming
assemblies, engaging in collective and/or individual protests and it involves
everything from direct oppositions to delay tactics, refusals to collaborate to the
creation of alternatives, et cetera. In addressing ‘everyday resistance’, this timely
and well-written book helps us in filling a gap in our current understanding
of resistance (practices) and, by extension, social change. In close dialogue with
other important scholars in the field, this illuminating, interesting, inspiring
and important book is a needed corrective to the existing literature that provides
some coherence and congruity to the emerging field of Resistance Studies. I
would recommend it to a wide readership, to anyone interested in understanding
the dynamics of current (world) politics.”
— Mikael Baaz, Associate Professor of International Law and
Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies,
University of Gothenburg

CONCEPTUALIZING
‘EVERYDAY RESISTANCE’
A Transdisciplinary Approach
Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen

First published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
The right of Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-55654-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-55655-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-15015-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
Apex CoVantage, LLC

To all the steadfast who resist in their everyday, even when what they do
is unrecognized, and even if their resistance for the moment seems to not
lead to any change .

Foreword by James C. Scott ix
Acknowledgements xii
Author Biographies xiii
Introduction 1
PART I
A Theoretical Framework: Resistance
as Everyday Counter Practice 15
1 Everyday Resistance as a Concept 17
2 A Theoretical Approach Beyond Scott and de Certeau 33
3 Everyday Resistance as Practice 46
4 Everyday Resistance as Counter Practice 62
Intermezzo: Towards a Framework That Guides
Our Analysis of Everyday Resistance 81
CONTENTS

viii Contents
PART II
An Analytical Framework: Dimensions
of Everyday Resistance 85
5 Repertoires of Everyday Resistance in Relation
to Configurations of Power 87
6 Relationships of Agents 106
7 The Spatialization of Everyday Resistance 121
8 The Temporalization of Everyday Resistance 136
9 Four Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: The Case
of Palestinian Sumūd 149
Conclusion: Towards a Transdisciplinary Social
Science Analysis of Everyday Resistance 181
References 192
Index 210

I begin with a completely banal example of everyday resistance that embodies,
for safety’s sake, a nod of assent to the prevailing hegemony. A pedestrian has
begun crossing the street a few seconds late and the traffic light turns green,
releasing the oncoming file of automobiles. The pedestrian in many cases then
pantomimes haste by raising her knees a bit higher for a few steps. The panto-
mime signals the car-driver that the pedestrian recognizes, the auto’s right-of-
way. But, if I am not mistaken, the pedestrian typically moves no faster across
the street than she would have if she simply continued walking at the same pace
without the pantomime. Practically, the pedestrian has “usurped” a temporal
fraction of the right of way without challenging (in fact gesturing assent to)
the normative status quo. Notice the difference between this scenario and a
pedestrian who proceeds at the same pace and yet turns and gestures belliger-
ently at the driver, miming a claim to her right-of-way. This last is a public and
normative challenge—a small confrontation—by the pedestrian to the driver’s
right to the street. It is, therefore, not everyday resistance in my understand-
ing of the term but a public, political challenge. Everyday resistance, as in the
first example, avoids public claims and settles for de facto, undeclared victories
(re-appropriations) rather than aiming for a codified, de jure, public victory.
My claim is that for most of history and for most human subjects, political life
was largely everyday resistance and that to ignore this perpetual struggle was
to ignore the bulk of political life. Identical political aims can be pursued via
everyday resistance or by a (more dangerous) public challenge. Control of arable
land can be pursued by “squatting” or by a public land invasion; access to for-
est resources can be sought by “poaching” or by a public claim to woodlands;
opposition to conscription can be expressed by desertion or by open mutiny;
cultural disapproval can be expressed by gossip or by open denunciation in the
FOREWORD

x Foreword
public square. In each case, everyday resistance is the safer, more clandestine
option that sacrifices de jure recognition for practical, de facto achievements.
The most important compliment that can be paid to any author of social
criticism is that her work be taken seriously, scrutinized as to its logic, exam-
ined for its relevance, and subjected to thoughtful criticism. I am most grateful
to Stellan Vinthagen and Anna Johansson for paying me their compliments in
this fashion.
It has been thirty-four years since I published Weapons of the Weak , depicting
everyday resistance in a Malaysian rice-farming village, and nearly thirty years
since I followed it up with Domination and the Arts of Resistance , suggesting how
the concept might be applied to broader areas of social and political life. In the
interim, a substantial number of scholars and activists have found the concepts
developed in these two works “good to think with” and, as is to be expected,
worth criticizing, amending, and even dismantling! I have remained, through-
out this period, an interested and opinionated observer, but not a commentator.
The main explanation for my relative silence was simply that I had moved on
to other issues and intellectual problems which monopolized my attention. A
part of the explanation is also that I have avoided, however tempting, crossing
swords with critics, as correcting what I often considered a misunderstand-
ing of my argument and restating my position nearly always comes across as
defensive. And, without doubt, when some of the criticism seemed well-taken,
I absorbed the shortcomings of my position and resolved to incorporate them
in subsequent work.
This volume, however, is so thorough, so well-thought-through, and so
discerning in its insight and critique of my work and that of de Certeau, that I
have decided to break my rule and make some brief comments.
First, I want simply to concede two important criticisms made in these
pages. It is true that my analysis of resistance is both centered on relatively
static class relations and therefore ignores a wealth of situations that cannot be
reduced to class differences. For example, racial or ethnic stratification, gender
identity, or generational differences. It is also the case that I do not account for
the many instances in which an actor occupies an intermediate class position,
subordinate to some and superior to others and, therefore, both an example of
domination and of resistance depending upon the situation. Above all, I wholly
accept the criticism that my analysis was conceptualized without much of a
temporal dimension. Once one builds in the historicity of relations of subor-
dination, then one adds an important dose of learning, customary practice and
reciprocal adjustment over time. My analysis would have been greatly enriched
by a more discerning temporal dimension.
Vinthagen and Johansson argue that, by insisting on evidence of “inten-
tion”, I exclude a great swath of behavior that they believe should be classified
as everyday resistance. I would be the first to admit that the question of inten-
tion is perhaps the most fraught issue in analyzing everyday resistance. This is

Foreword xi
so, in large part, simply because everyday resistance succeeds by systematically
concealing intentions or, in fact, misrepresenting intentions as loyal and alle-
giant. How does one establish intention when the agent has every reason to
conceal or misrepresent it and when the human targets of the resistance them-
selves have an interest in not calling attention to certain acts as resistance? (How
often have actual rebels been called “bandits” to de-politicize their aims?)
Despite all the difficulties of evidence, I am not convinced that we can do
without an analysis of intention. How, otherwise, can we distinguish between,
say, a pure theft of no political interest and a theft that likely represents every-
day resistance. In the case of poaching in England I took the fact that it was
almost impossible to find a villager who would ever testify against local poach-
ers in court and a climate of opinion that regarded unimproved woodlands
and waterways as, by right, open to popular access as indicative of intention.
Not definitive evidence of intention but surely strong circumstantial evidence.
I would go so far as to say that the social understanding of intention is, in fact,
more important in the study of resistance than either the act itself or the inten-
tion of the individual actor performing the act. Jesse James seems to have been
interested in theft qua theft; but because he attacked the banks and railroads
that rural people in Missouri hated, his robbery was seen as resistance against
evil institutions. The social understanding of the intention behind his acts
turned what may have been a mere robbery into a significant political event.
It’s the “audience’s” construction of intention that matters for resistance studies.
The poacher may be only interested in rabbit stew but when all his neighbors
see it as a just use of the common lands, then it becomes, socially, an act of
everyday resistance.
But as we say, it’s such disputes on important issues that “make horse races”.
What is without doubt is that this volume represents an enormous contribu-
tion to our understanding of political life in general and everyday resistance
in particular. For that, we will long be in debt to Stellan Vinthagen and Anna
Johansson.
James C. Scott
Sterling Professor of Political Science, Yale University

We want to thank the editors at Routledge, Natalja Mortensen and Maria
Landschoot, for believing in our project and for their patience with us and our
delays.
We also appreciate the previous publishers of our articles: Resistance Studies
Magazine , Critical Sociology and Journal of Political Power , for generously providing
permission to reprint sections from these original texts.
Initially it was important for us when we got some economic support from
University West, Sweden to work on the first steps of this project several years ago.
During our work on this project that grew every year, it has been impor-
tant for us with all the colleagues and friends that have continously discussed
with us over the years, such as the RESIST research group at the University of
Gothenburg (Mikael Baaz, Mona Lilja and Michael Schulz), and all those who
read various drafts of our texts over the years, especially Sean Chabot, Carol
Daniel, Nornos (the Nordic Nonviolent Resistance Seminar) and the graduate
students at the Fall 2018 course on Everyday Resistance at University of Massa-
chusetts, Amherst, but also the helpful anonymous reviewers from the journals
in which we have published.
Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen, Gothenburg and
Dals-Ed, Sweden, February 18, 2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Anna Johansson is Senior Lecturer at University West with a PhD in
Sociology (1999) from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her areas of
research are mainly resistance studies, critical fat studies and gender stud-
ies. She is the author of several books and numerous articles. Since the
eighties Johansson has been an educator, organizer and activist, involved in
social movements such as the solidarity movement for the people in Central
America, feminist groups, etc. One of her more recent engagements was
as initiator and co-founder of an activist network called the Middle-Class
Revolt (Medelklassupproret) in Sweden, which resists the privileges of the
middle class, such as tax reduction. Johansson is also a practitioner in gestalt
psychotherapy and has in that role initiated a network for norm critical
psychotherapy.
Stellan Vinthagen is Professor of Sociology and a scholar-activist. Vintha-
gen has a PhD (2005) in Peace and Development Research from University
of Gothenburg. He is the Inaugural Endowed Chair in the Study of Nonvio-
lent Direct Action and Civil Resistance at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst. He is also a Professor of Sociology at University of Gothenburg,
where he is co-leading the Resistance Studies Program. Vinthagen researches
resistance, power, social movements, nonviolent action and social change.
He has written or edited several books and numerous articles. Vinthagen
is a academic advisor to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
(ICNC). Vinthagen has since 1980 been an educator, organizer and activ-
ist in several countries, and has participated in numerous nonviolent civil
disobedience actions, for which he has served in total more than one year in
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

xiv Author Biographies
prison. Vinthagen is one of the initiators of the European Plowshares move-
ment and Academic Conference Blockades, and one of the founders of Ship
to Gaza Sweden, a coalition member of the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza. He
lives in the activist communes Irene, Dalsland, Sweden and the Pioneer Val-
ley Cohousing, Amherst, USA.

“One summer I worked temporarily in a storage facility, where most of
the workers were manually loading goods onto pallets—washing powder,
orange juice, candy and stuff like that. It was low paid and quite heavy and
boring work, collecting items to be shipped to supermarkets according to
what appeared to be endless lists. We worked in two-shift: from 6 am to
2 pm, and from 2 pm to 10 pm. I soon noticed that the work-pace changed
dramatically over the course of a shift. In the morning-shift it took a long
time before we started, and we always worked really slow the first couple
of hours, but then in a decent tempo from 8 am until 2 pm. When I did
the late-shift the work pace varied in the opposite direction. We worked
promptly between 2 and 4 pm, afterwards the pace drastically slowed down:
with people standing around having long chats, extended coffee breaks,
and long-time visits to the bathroom, etc. After a while it dawned on me
that we only worked without unmotivated interruptions during the period
when the management at the office where present: between 8 am and 4 pm.
No one ever told me this was the informal policy, I just noticed clearly how
people changed their behavior and since I was new I followed the pattern of
the others. Occasionally accidents in which goods were dropped and damaged
happened, but it rarely involved soap, batteries or toilet paper. It was usually
packets with chocolate or other attractive content which was the victim
of these accidents, and such damaged goods we could eat from during our
breaks. . . . Sometimes after our shift ended there were guards that checked
our bags and pockets. I never saw anyone who was apprehended for stealing
anything, but one of my fellow workers was demoted for having a company
pen in his pocket and had to give it back.”
1

This workplace story is from Europe and represents typical examples of informal
everyday forms of resistance: work slow-downs, property destruction and theft
disguised as hard work, accidents and mistakes. The resistance is not organized or
INTRODUCTION

2 Introduction
politically articulated, but supported by a silent work culture that legitimizes a
performance of work pace according to low payment and envisions chocolate as
a “bonus”, etc. This resistance does not preclude organized trade-union actions
and formal negotiations of work conditions, but it constitutes a complement
that increases the class-war and the material and symbolic gains for the work-
ers when organized actions don’t succeed to create fair compensation or the dig-
nity workers feel they are entitled to. Sometimes everyday resistance also might
work as a facilitator of open rebellion and mass mobilization, especially when
an elaborate and widespread culture of everyday resistance feeds into organized
initiatives, as within the occupied territories of Palestine. In this way, connec-
tions might develop between the more individual, informal and scattered forms
of resistance that people conduct in their everyday, at workplaces, in neighbor-
hoods and in their families, and the kind of public confrontations through
collectively organized protests that we easily recognize as “resistance”. This
connection between everyday resistance and public mass mobilization we call
a “culture of resistance”, which is something we will develop in our chapter on
Sumūd (Palestinian everyday resistance) in the occupied territories ( Chapter 9 ).
Basically, we argue that waves of mass actions might feed into everyday resis-
tance and vice versa, in a way in which (certain forms of) resistance inspires
(other forms of) resistance (Lilja et al. 2017). In some contexts, such a culture
of resistance might develop as a form of “subculture” among a particular social
group, not only in a military occupied territory, as in Palestine, but also in
urban contexts, as we have seen with for example punk, queer or animal rights’
cultures.
Resistance is both a popular and largely misunderstood concept. It is often
invoked, in daily discourse, in media as well as in academia, and then related to
a limited phenomenon: as an exceptional and dramatic attempt to stop ongo-
ing processes, often through violent or confrontational means, as in “riots” or
“rebellions”. It is seen as a reaction that is sometimes progressive, at other times
reactionary. The resistance of groups that powerful elites fear is demonized,
while the courage shown by individuals that refuse to participate in atrocities
generally tends to be admired. Some people, on the other hand, instead roman-
ticize resistance and view it as inherently and univocally progressive, hopeful
and liberating of repressed people. In this book we hope to show that resistance
can be very different things, even mundane kind of practices of accommoda-
tion and non-confrontation, and that resistance can be integrated into our daily
life in a way that makes it almost unrecognized.
In our contemporary world it becomes increasingly unclear what we should
count as “political”. “Politics” in a broad sense, as the public management of
power relations, is affected by transnational flows of capital, information, cul-
tural symbols, governance, migration and environmental processes (Castells 1996;
Hardt and Negri 2000 ; Keck and Sikkink 1998 ; Tilly 2004 ; Vinthagen 2003,
2011). Local contexts are increasingly interconnected to each other, in ways

Introduction 3
that make us interdependent and affected by what happens at other places on
the planet. At the same time, the situation looks different for different groups
of people, and contexts vary. It is not clear what all this means, except that the
boundaries between what should reasonably count as politics, power or resis-
tance are changing, and vary. It is, however, clear that the conventional idea
of politics as restricted to the public participation in the governing of the state
is becoming less and less appropriate. Today, especially among younger gen-
erations and in contemporary subcultures and movements, almost everything
is politicized. Even the most everyday kind of behavior is politicized, as for
example what people eat (e.g. preferences of local organic food, or the political
boycotts of certain producers, or those that adopt identities as vegetarians or
vegans), the clothes people wear (e.g. fair trade, brand boycotts, etc.), and how
people speak and write (e.g. politically-correct language to show differences
without being offensive, as when activists inform each other about their pre-
ferred gender pronouns at the start of meetings, or the invention of new gram-
mar and concepts, such as “ze” to replace “he or she”, or “functional variation”
instead of “disabled”, etc.). Some of these subcultural norms and behavior have
become established; for example, now it is mainstream to say “police officer”
(instead of “policeman”) or first name (instead of “Christian name”).
In a world of changing relations of politics, it becomes more important than
ever to stay alert to forms of resistance that evolve and defy conventional defi-
nitions. This book is focused on what we call “everyday resistance”, the area
of resistance in which people engage with power relations in their everyday.
Basically, we are trying to cover the broad field and variation of resistance that
is neither uniquely individual acts, nor public confrontations of authorities by
formally organized collectives (in the conventional forms of political parties,
nongovernmental organizations, civil society associations or social movement
organizations). We are trying to capture the patterns of practices done by indi-
viduals or informal gatherings of groups, in which they engage with power
relations or the effects of power in their ordinary lives. These patterned prac-
tices tend to not be recognized as politics in any conventional meaning. Often
these practices are not even identified at all and continue to stay out of sight
of the gaze of power, mainstream society or science.
A range of questions is actualized once you decide to pay interest to this area
of non-recognized politics of everyday resistance practices. How is it possible
to define everyday resistance in a way that makes it meaningfully identifiable,
yet avoids restricting it so much that you do not detect the creative innova-
tions and unexpected changes by practitioners? Is it necessary that those doing
resistance are motivated by a political intention or might the everyday resisters
also be motivated by desires, needs, affects or other intentions not conven-
tionally understood as political? Does everyday resistance have to be somehow
“effective” or “successful” (as having political consequences) in order for us to
regard small acts in the everyday as resistance, or does it make sense to consider

4 Introduction
also small symbolic acts in the everyday, acts that might only be visible for
the actors themselves? Is resistance a normal and common phenomenon in all
everyday life situations, for everyone, or only in some particular situations by
some particular groups, for example, only those most repressed (subalterns, the
poor, etc.)?
**
This book focuses on everyday resistance and develops a unique framework
that considers theoretical approaches in other fields. Our framework is applied
through several empirical illustrations that show its usefulness in a variety of
contexts. Despite a high interest in everyday resistance since the 1980s within
social science there are mostly single case studies or edited books on everyday
resistance. This makes the field heterogenous and rich, yet without a common
language to speak across cases and perspectives. No other book has developed
a coherent and general framework that guides research and includes poststruc-
turalism and intersectionality, shown to be applicable on vastly different kind
of contexts and types of cases and suitable for different theoretical approaches.
Our book updates a field based mainly on 1980s peasant studies, “history from
below”, anthropology, queer studies and critical political science, and shows
its relevance for diverse fields, among others, research on humor, surveillance,
military occupation, as well as critical fat studies. This is something we have
worked on since 2012 ( Johansson and Vinthagen 2014 , 2015 ; Vinthagen and
Johansson 2013 ). We hope our framework is coherent enough to create com-
munication across the plurality of studies on everyday resistance, yet loose enough
to open up for variations of theoretical and conceptual approaches. We are not
aiming for mainstreaming or creating straight-jackets, quite the opposite. We
think plurality and disagreements are signs of a healthy intellectual environ-
ment and create promises of high-quality research. Still, without a common
language for talking about our different studies, we will not learn from each
other and create knowledge together.
In one of the most well-known quotes of Michel Foucault, he claims:
“Where there is power, there is resistance” ( 1978 , 95–96). Still, social science
has been, as was Foucault, preoccupied with exploring power, largely isolated
from an analysis of resistance.
2
Lately we have witnessed a renewed interest in
resistance studies, which is partly due to the upswing of various poststructuralist
perspectives and language/discourses as a point of departure for studying power
and social change. David Couzens Hoy expresses this as follows: “From the
poststructuralist perspective, a society without resistance would be either a harm-
less daydream or a terrifying nightmare” ( Hoy 2004 , 11; see also Lilja and Vin-
thagen 2006). All in all, today resistance studies seems to have advanced within
the social sciences. Over the last decades, research on resistance has grown
within fields that partly overlap; mainly subaltern, feminist, cultural, queer,
peasant and post-structural studies. Since James C. Scott wrote Weapons of the

Introduction 5
Weak ( 1985 ), a significant part of resistance studies has investigated the area
of everyday resistance; the informal and non-organized resistance that Scott
also calls “infrapolitics” (or invisible politics). This is the area of resistance we
are focusing on. Everyday resistance is basically about how people act in their
everyday lives in ways that might undermine power. Everyday resistance is not
easily recognized like public and collective resistance—such as rebellions or
demonstrations—since it is typically hidden or disguised, individual and often
not politically articulated. Therefore, everyday resistance poses a special chal-
lenge for research.
Sometimes everyday resistance is purposefully hidden or disguised, as when,
for example, poachers illegally take firewood and hunt animals in a forest
belonging to a large landowner, or when workers do their jobs slowly or pre-
tend to make mistakes in order to lower the production stress. At other times,
everyday acts of resistance are simply not recognized in the public discourse
as being politics, as when persons adopt a way of life in which they refuse
to support the mainstream “meat culture” and only use vegan products. Our
understanding of what constitutes “resistance to dominant power or injustice
is formed in a historic process of social construction particular to that society,
and takes time before it changes. It will not be enough that some academics,
such as us within resistance studies, recognize certain everyday behavior by
ordinary people as resistance for it to become recognized by a public discourse.
Therefore, we might argue that certain unrecognized patterns of actions by
people are everyday resistance even if they are not understood as resistance or
even politics in mainstream discourse.
Someone might ask the valid question of why we need research on every-
day resistance, especially when it is often about practices that are designed to
be hidden or disguised. The risk is then, of course, that research might under-
mine the possibilities of such resistance by exposing how it is done, where and
by whom, and thus unwittingly assist repressive forces. Since others have dis-
cussed the ethical-political aspects of resistance studies at length elsewhere, we
will not go into depth regarding this problem (see e.g. Baaz, Lilja, and Vintha-
gen 2017 ). Our general response to this fundamental questioning of resistance
studies is twofold. Firstly, we think that we always have to be aware of the risk
that research might be unhelpful for human liberation, or in the worst case,
counter-productive. Therefore, our research will always have to seek oppor-
tunities to become as relevant, meaningful and helpful as possible for those
trying to liberate themselves from various forms of domination. The funda-
mental ethical-political requirement is that we try to avoid creating harm for
people. But the risk will always be there and needs always to be taken seriously.
Secondly, we are convinced that the repressive forces that try to secure forms
of domination are already aware of, mapping and analyzing resistance. The
amount of surveillance, data mining and intelligence mounted to keep track of
different forms of resistance is immense. Thus, to us it is a more fundamental

6 Introduction
problem that scattered individuals, subordinated groups and ordinary people
do not know enough of each other, and do not learn from the experiences
of others. In general, we think the lack of popular knowledge about creative
resistance practices and particular experiences from everyday struggles is the
real problem here. This book, and the whole field of resistance studies in which
it belongs, is trying to counter that problem and make the knowledge about
options, challenges and problems of resistance more widely shared.
An important point guiding our research is the claim that power and resis-
tance are not the dichotomous phenomenon that is often implied. In our
analysis we often need to maintain a clear distinction between power and
resistance in order to disentangle the complex dynamic, but in practical inter-
actions they might be mixed and interconnected hybrids ( Lilja and Vinthagen
2009 ). Agents of resistance often simultaneously promote power-loaded dis-
courses, being the bearers of hierarchies and stereotypes as well as of change.
Then, each actor is both the exerciser of power and the object of power
exercised—the subject is exposed to ranking and stereotyping as well as pro-
moting repressive “truths”, ranking or stereotyping others—thus being both
an agent exercising powers and a subordinate who has been subjugated and
reduced to order by disciplinary strategies ( Lilja 2008 ). Resistance is always
situated in a context, a historic tradition, a certain place and/or social space
formed by power. Therefore, resistance is also situated in relation to previous
resistance. Especially when resistance is innovative, experimental and creative,
it needs to build on the material left by other rebels—stories, myths, sym-
bols, structures and tools available in that special situation ( Tilly 1995 ; Traugott
1995 ). New forms of resistance connect to old forms by using them as stepping
stones, translating existing hegemonic elements, dislodging and recombining
that which is available to them ( Vinthagen 2006 ). And, the power of today is
influenced by struggles with resistance in history. Thus, resistance and power
are intimately connected, something that will become increasingly clear later
in this volume.
Although there has been a growing interest in the study of resistance, there
have so far been few serious attempts to develop a more coherent analytical
framework in order to systematically study resistance. One of the most ambi-
tious attempts is Hollander and Einwohner’s overview article “Conceptualiz-
ing Resistance” ( 2004 ). While they make a substantial contribution to the field
in their literature review, we do not agree with their conclusion and proposal.
Their construction of a clear-cut typology by which one is to decide if an
act can be recognized as resistance and if the act is intended as resistance, by
involved targets, agents, and observers, contradicts the authors’ simultaneous
emphasis on resistance as a complex and ongoing process of social construc-
tion. Furthermore, their typology privileges consciousness as “recognition” by
or “intention” of actors, which dramatically limits its scope. Consciousness
might be of interest for an analysis and understanding of resistance, especially

Introduction 7
if we want to understand why people do what they do or want to explore
how a strategic development of resistance might be possible, but privileging
consciousness limits us methodologically. It is often hard to determine or even
detect, not only historically, but also among repressed groups that have good
reasons to not honestly reveal why they do what they do, or if a researcher tries
to understand groups that act within cultures very different to that from which
the researcher comes. There is also the risk with privileging consciousness that
political awareness is made more important than emotions, desires or practices,
and educated groups (that are able to explain their intention in ways recogniz-
able as political) are made more important than non-educated, etc.
Instead, we would like to hold on to and take our point of departure from
their basic premise: acts or patterns of actions are defined as resistance within
on-going processes of negotiation between different agents of resistance (the
resisters), between the agents of resistance and the agents of power (the targets),
and between the two former parties and different observers. Such observers are,
for example, researchers who contribute to creating “the truths” about resis-
tance through scientific discourses. These on-going processes of negotiation
might not always be explicit, but implicit and indirect.
In our view, resistance consists of practices that have the potential to under-
mine dominant power relations. This is something we will discuss in depth
later. However, not all resistance does succeed, at least not always, or in all
aspects, but might instead reproduce and strengthen relations of dominance
( Lilja and Vinthagen 2009 ; Lilja, Baaz, and Vinthagen 2013 ). This is not only
due to the creation of counter forces or new oppositional alliances that explic-
itly try to capture the state or other entrenched power institutions, but is a
more fundamental paradox of inbuilt ambivalence, complexity and an unes-
capable entanglement with power (which, also is something we will discuss at
length later).
Our book is thus needed in order to offer a theoretically informed analytical
framework that, in contrast to the one by Hollander and Einwohner, does not
aim for precise (and therefore limiting) categorization. We think it is too early
to be precise. The research on resistance is still scattered and emerging and is
trying to find a basis for translation and communication between the plurality
of perspectives we need. Instead a useful framework needs to relate to basic
sociological concepts. We see the need to anchor an analysis of resistance in
some of the fundamental “organizing principles” of social action. This book
is an attempt to find ways to analyze everyday resistance through asking the
questions: who is carrying out the practice, in relation to whom, where, when
and how? This facilitates a complex analysis and avoids simple categorizations,
yet structures our analyses and makes them more coherent and comparable.
Resistance studies build on theories, concepts and empirical findings within
several research fields, disciplines or traditions ( Lilja and Vinthagen 2009 ).
Resistance studies are simultaneously rich and poorly developed. Specialized

8 Introduction
and systematic research on resistance is uncommon; while at the same time
resistance is a concept that is at least (occasionally) used within most social sci-
ence disciplines. Thus, research on the subfield of everyday resistance is even
less developed, and therefore this book tries to contribute to such theoretical
development. In a broad sense an overview of everyday resistance will have to
engage with intersections of other more established fields of study: (1) theo-
ries of the everyday that use perspectives or concepts related to resistance, even
though they might not use the concept (e.g. gender studies or sociology of the
everyday); (2) general theories of resistance related to the everyday (e.g. cul-
tural and identity theories of social movements); and (3) studies that explicitly
deal with everyday resistance (e.g. subaltern studies). All of this is, however,
not possible to fully cover in this book. We therefore focus on the third inter-
section, but cover some of the key literature concerning the first and second
intersections.
In the first part of this book, we position ourselves in relation to current
debates within the studies of everyday resistance. However, we do not position
ourselves in relation to the major debates within social science on structure/
agency and discourse/materiality. This choice merits an explanation. For us it
seems clear that it is a matter of combinations, not either-or. Structures and
systems influence human agents (individuals and collectives) through language,
political economies and similar, yet, none of these structures are total and actors
do have a (limited) scope of agency. And these structures are material and
discursive, symbolic and physical. Speech-actors are embodied organisms,
always-material beings. At the same time, we do not have strong positions on
how exactly such combinations should be understood and described, or—more
importantly—we do not find it necessary to position ourselves in a particu-
lar way to create our theoretical and analytical frameworks around everyday
resistance. Instead, we think an added merit of our analytical framework is
its utility for researchers and authors subscribing to vastly different theoreti-
cal positions in these core social science debates, as for example Marxism and
post-structuralism.
The Themes, Concepts and Ideas We Will Develop
Our hope is that the book will provide students of different theoretical and
empirical fields with an overview of the research, a possible definition of every-
day resistance and a useful analytical framework to inspire further research
on power and resistance. The chief objective of this book is to contribute to
systematic studies of everyday resistance. This includes the clarification of the
relatively elusive concept of everyday resistance: taking on the challenge to
explore how to limit the concept enough in order for it to be a useful and
distinct concept, simultaneously avoiding limiting it so much that it loses its
relation to ordinary social life and becomes an academic abstraction. The

Introduction 9
elaboration on different theoretical aspects of everyday resistance is done in
relation to competing concepts such as “hidden transcripts”, “infrapolitics”,
“off-kilter resistance” and “tactics of the weak”. Everyday resistance will be
defined as a pattern of acts (practice) done by someone subordinated in a power
relation and that might (temporary) undermine or destabilize (some aspect of)
dominance. Such resistance is necessary to be understood as intersectional,
which is something we will motivate and illustrate extensively as we proceed.
In addition, everyday resistance will be discussed in relation to other contested
concepts such as: body, emotions, bio-politics, social change, etc.
We also aim to map the specific field of everyday resistance, its main the-
oretical approaches and the range of different empirical material. The key
debates of the field that we will visit are: (1) how to define “resistance” and
“everyday resistance”, and how different definitions serve different purposes;
(2) how the resistance actors’ intentions, motivations or consciousness mat-
ter in relation to the definition and our understanding of resistance; (3) how
power and resistance relate—as an oppositional dichotomy/binary or an
entangled ambivalence with occasional cooperation. This debate is fundamen-
tally about whether it is possible to separate power and resistance—not only
analytically but also empirically; (4) whether or not power and resistance are
unitary entities/phenomena or plural heterogeneities (as “powers” and “resis-
tances” in plural, perhaps entangled with each other). Formulated differently:
is resistance connected to one power relation or several power relations simul-
taneously? Are different forms of resistances articulating differences, perhaps
even contradictions, or do they all show a common logic; and lastly, (5) if
what counts as resistance is a matter of context and discourse, or something
universal. The wearing of a veil, like the hijab, can be an act of subordination
if it is mandatory in a particular Muslim context, but an act of resistance if it is
generally devalued, met with hostility and even illegal, such as in a Christian-
secular context like France or Denmark today. By taking positions in the
debates accounted for previously, we aim to develop our theoretical under-
standing of everyday resistance by suggesting how it can fruitfully be linked to
theories within studies on poststructuralism, Foucault, queerness and gender,
as well as other approaches.
In these discussions, we develop our own theoretical platform that consists
of some fundamental assumptions that are as follows ( Vinthagen and Johansson
2013 ):
1. Everyday resistance is a practice or a pattern of acts (not a certain con-
sciousness, intent or outcome) that is countering power.
2. It is historically entangled with (everyday) power (not separated, dichoto-
mous or independent).
3. Everyday resistance needs to be understood as intersectional with the pow-
ers that it engages with (not a singular power relation).

10 Introduction
4. It is heterogeneous and contingent due to changing contexts and situations
(not a universal strategy, logic or coherent form of action).
All these theoretical positions will be discussed and illustrated in detail through-
out the book. With this theoretical framework, we want to position ourselves
in relation to some key ongoing debates in the field of everyday resistance
(points one and two), and we also want to incorporate some established theo-
retical assumptions from other fields (including feminism and poststructural-
ism) into the field of everyday resistance (points three and four), with the aim
of bringing the field into closer communication with contemporary radical
social science.
Furthermore, with the aim of facilitating more systematic development of
research on everyday resistance, we then develop our own analytical frame-
work, based on basic and general dimensions within sociology. The starting
point is another conceptualization that has inspired us, developed by Chin
and Mittelman (1997 ), which suggests an analytical framework for studies of
resistance. Our interest lies in the same analytical elements that they suggest:
forms, actors, sites and strategies. These elements serve as keys to our analytical
framework, but with a different theoretical point of departure. We try instead
to cover four pivotal aspects of the study of social life, dimensions that are fre-
quently used by sociological research in other fields: patterns and relationships
of social interaction, and how they are organized and conceptualized in time
and space. Thus, our framework consists of four dimensions:
1. Repertoires of everyday resistance (and its relations to configurations of
power)
2. Relationships of agents
3. Spatialization of everyday resistance
4. Temporalization of everyday resistance
The analytical dimensions are primarily developed to point out and illuminate
aspects of everyday resistance that we find particularly significant, but not to
use as distinct analytical tools (since they are by purpose more general, to fit
different contexts). In actual social life and with acts of everyday resistance
these dimensions are, we suggest, intertwined and in no way mutually exclu-
sive. We regard all dimensions as applicable, but not always equally relevant, in
all contexts. In order to show the usefulness of our framework we proceed by
applying it to a number of empirical cases as illustrations.
While the first part of the book outlines the basic concepts and assumptions
of our theoretical framework (Chapters 1–4), in the second part we outline our
analytical framework ( Chapters 5 – 10 ) in order to illustrate, specify and con-
tinue to develop the framework.

Introduction 11
With the analytical framework, we aim to create a framework that is as much
as possible grounded in contemporary social science (utilizing well-established
core concepts) and also open for utilization by authors and researchers that sub-
scribe to very different social theory traditions (e.g. structuralism, poststruc-
turalism, Marxism, feminism, postcolonial studies, peasant studies, etc.). With
this construction of the analytical framework, we want to recognize and show
appreciation for how the field needs to have research emanating from vastly
different theoretical approaches.
Thus, our framework is consciously chosen to relate to fundamental social
categories. We think it is then possible to achieve two things simultaneously.
It then becomes possible for resistance studies (which has been a rather isolated
discourse so far) to connect to current social science discussions (which tends to
focus much on space, time, relations and strategies/repertoires). Ultimately, we
are aiming to lay a foundation for a transdisciplinary social science of everyday
resistance, not just useful for sociology, but also for other disciplines. We are,
however, not trying to build a general theory, just a transdisciplinary frame-
work that makes it possible to analyze everyday resistance in relation to dif-
ferent contexts, and from the perspective of different theories and approaches.
Other authors on everyday resistance have used concepts and dimensions
we choose not to make central, such as ideology, consciousness, organization,
strategy, forms, types, history, structure, system, etc. In our view these alterna-
tive concepts and dimensions are either already included in or easily possible
to add to our more general and broad dimensions, or they are too specific and
suited for a particular approach to include in a framework that aims to be inclu-
sive of different theoretical traditions.
We will not discuss the empirical “effects” or impact of specific cases of
everyday resistance in this book. Although the question of impact is clearly
important, few have made the attempt so far, and we believe it is a major chal-
lenge to seriously asses impact. The challenge is that such a discussion demands
an empirical evaluation of a complex set of factors and dynamics rooted in an
analysis of a particular context. That is beyond the scope of this book that is
trying to contribute to the definitional, theoretical and analytical groundwork
on everyday resistance, work that will make impact studies possible at a later
stage. We are utilizing a high number of illustrating cases and do not have the
capacity to analyze these cases in a deeper sense within the limits of this proj-
ect. Therefore, we do not think it is possible to argue that everyday resistance
is in general either “ineffective”, as some argue—since it consists of small or
scattered and local actions by individuals or small groups against large systems
of domination—or “effective”, as others argue—since it is uniquely contagious
due to its stealth mode of resistance, which makes the risk of punishment mini-
mal. Instead, we think the effects and impact of everyday resistance will vary
depending on the context and particular circumstances in every case. It is our

12 Introduction
hope that our attempt of improving the way we research and analyze everyday
resistance will make such assessments of its outcomes more possible in future.
The content of previous research (see the next chapter) is, we claim, pro-
foundly different from what we do here. We aim to present new combinations
of theoretical tools to understand the entanglements of everyday power and
everyday resistance and build a solid analytical framework. By incorporating
the work of these previous studies and adding influences from other social sci-
ence fields, we will be able to propose a comprehensible, theoretically updated,
transdisciplinary and new approach to everyday resistance.
3
In such a way, it
is our aim to contribute to the development of the empirical research and the
conceptual consistency of everyday resistance research. As stated by Žižek (in
Welcome to the desert of the real , 2002), there is a current trend within the social
sciences to understand the world from the power/resistance couplet. If Žižek is
correct in this observation, and we think he is, this new and emerging interest
will most likely increase the relevance of our book.
We think our study is of relevance for students and researchers who are
interested in issues relating to democracy, development, peace, social change,
bio-politics, body, identity-politics, everyday resistance, globalization and/or
different shapes of power. In particular, our discussion is relevant to researchers
dealing with marginalized groups such as women, queer people, refugees or
ethnic minorities, etc. Furthermore, this book is also—with its keen interest in
the techniques of resistance—directed to activists and other theory-interested
non-scholarly readers with a particular interest in the relations of power and
resistance.
Book Structure
Our book is divided up into two parts. Part I outlines our theoretical frame-
work, which is our basic understanding of what everyday resistance is (“Resis-
tance as Everyday Counter Practice”); Part II presents our proposal of a new
analytical framework, which is our suggestion of how to analyze everyday
resistance in a systematic way in future studies (“Dimensions of Everyday
Resistance”).
We begin in Chapter 1 (“Everyday Resistance as a Concept”) by outlining
different conceptual understandings of everyday resistance and arguing for our
approach to the concept, suggesting a tentative definition. Within the existing
literature we identify two authors, whom we identify as representing two very
different ways of conceptualizing and theoretically analyze everyday resistance.
From these two authors, we build our own understanding in Chapter 2 (“A
Theoretical Approach Beyond Scott and de Certeau”), taking up the basic idea
that everyday resistance is oppositional to dominant power (from James C.
Scott) and a particular way of acting—a practice (from Michel de Certeau).
In Chapter 2 , we also point out the limitations of the classic works by Scott

Introduction 13
and de Certeau, and the need to move beyond their frameworks. This leads
us to clarify what it means to understand everyday resistance as a practice (not
as a particular consciousness/intent or consequence), in Chapter 3: “Everyday
Resistance as Practice”, and as an opposition that engages with power relations,
in Chapter 4: “Everyday Resistance as Counter Practice”. Since we have not
found an already existing theoretical framework and approach that captures our
understanding of everyday resistance, we then try to move from this basic view
of an everyday oppositional practice towards a possible alternative perspective.
This brings us to our proposal of a new analytical framework that would deal
with the limitations of previous studies and update research on everyday resis-
tance to align with current theories on poststructuralism, queer studies, gender
studies and intersectionality (Intermezzo: Towards a Framework that Guides
Our Analysis of Everyday Resistance). The basic ideas within our analytical
framework are outlined in the Intermezzo that bridges Part I and Part II.
In Part II, our analytical framework is presented through our constant uti-
lization of different studies by other authors, in order to both specify the four
dimensions of the framework, and to illustrate its usefulness for a coherent
understanding of everyday resistance. In Chapter 5 (“Repertoires of Every-
day Resistance in Relation to Configurations of Power”), we present the first
dimension, configurations of power and repertoires of everyday resistance. Since
we consider power and resistance always to be intimately related we discuss
them together in this dimension. Our choice of the concept “repertoires” is
loosely inspired by Charles Tilly’s concept of “repertoires of contention”, which
is particularly useful since it connects to historical configurations of power
and their related culturally learned repertoires. Chapter 6 (“Relationships of
Agents”) discusses the second dimension, relationships between actors, with a
focus on who is carrying out the actions of everyday resistance (the resisters),
as well as the relationships with the other main types of actors involved in the
practice of resistance (the targets and the observers of resistance). Basically, we
argue that the identities of actors are constructed and changed through interac-
tion, that fixed or stable actor identities are unusual and that hybrid positions
evolve. Chapter 7 (“The Spatialization of Everyday Resistance”) discusses the
third dimension, spatialization, and highlights how everyday resistance, in
the form of activities, social relations and identities, is spatially organized and
how everyday resistance is practiced in and through space as a central social
dimension. As the fourth and last dimension we introduce temporalization in
Chapter 8 (“The Temporalization of Everyday Resistance”). Just as everyday resis-
tance involves repertoires of practices entangled with power relations, as well as
social relations and identities, and is practiced in and through space as a central
social dimension, one may equally talk about everyday resistance as temporally
organized, and as practiced in and through time as a central social dimension.
Temporalization of everyday resistance may be about creating and embody-
ing a different conception of and relation to time than the dominant ones, for

14 Introduction
example, queer temporalities. In Chapter 9 (“Four Dimensions of Everyday
Resistance: The Case of Palestinian Sumūd”), we apply the earlier proposed
analytical framework on everyday resistance to the case of Palestinian Sumūd
(steadfastness) in relation to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and the
Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. The chapter aims to show how the four
dimensions can be utilized simultaneously in an analysis of a case with respect
to its specific context.
In the final chapter, “Conclusion”, we are then equipped to summarize our
discussions and contribution to the field, the strengths and weakness of our
proposed analytical framework, and suggest further research needed in the field
of everyday resistance.
Note
1. Story shared by Majken Jul Sörensen in personal communication, July 15, 2017.
2. However, in his later works, Foucault argued to begin with resistance, not power,
since resistance was possible to view as a way to detect power. But he was never able
to shift his focus to resistance, and it continued to be marginal to his writings.
3. A number of Swedish scholars within resistance studies have brought attention to the
need to expand the analysis of power and resistance beyond the study of cultural pro-
cesses, discourses and intersubjective meaning systems by also including materiality
(Tö rnberg 2013; Lilja 2017; Von Busch 2017 ; Johansson, Lilja, and Martinsson 2018 ).
While we acknowledge the inf luence of post human theories and schools of thought
in social sciences, particularly new materialism and its attempt to undermine the
binary opposition between humans and non-humans and complicate the hierarchy
that has placed humans in a privileged position, are inspired by the previous call,
however, this book, with its focus on everyday resistance, does only to a very limited
extend integrate and use post human perspectives and concepts.

PART I
A Theoretical Framework
Resistance as Everyday Counter
Practice

If we operate with a superficial understanding of resistance, we sometimes have
problems detecting even large-scale resistance, if it occurs as aggregation of
more individualized and scattered forms. Mahdavi (2008) shows how women
in Iran have to deal in their everyday with the “komite” (the Iranian morality
police) that enforces strict dress codes and behavioral rules in public spaces.
However, she argues that there is a “sexual or sociocultural revolution” hap-
pening in Iran today (2009, 3). It is subtle and often hidden and uses small signs
and steps in order to push the limits of how you are able to dress and behave,
and sometimes it bursts, and mobs attack the “komite” (2009, 6). This happens
mainly among youth—the majority of Iran—in Tehran and other urban cen-
ters mainly, and it involves “music, dancing, alcohol, and premarital sex—all
punishable offenses” (2009, 7).
1
Mahdavi claims this youth culture is so strong
the regime has to adjust to it progressively. “I watched women both uptown and
downtown walk the streets of Tehran wearing more and more makeup and dress-
ing less and less Islamic in style. Shrinking and colorful headscarves replaced
long, black, loose-fitting and conservative hejâb, and form-fitted overcoats
replaced looser, more conservative mânto” (2009, 8). This cultural resistance
seems connected to an ongoing modernization or Westernization, and is infor-
mal, dispersed and individualized, not organized, ideologically united or with
leadership (which eventually got organized in the Iranian “Green Revolution”,
or rebellion of 2009). Several years before the outbreak of the Arab Uprising
Bayat (1997a , 1997b , 1997c , 2000 , 2009) wrote a lot on the “informal people”
who during many years have conducted resistance in Iran and the Arab world
and who sometimes are brought together as “social non-movements” (2010,
14–19), i.e., individuals brought together by the activated “passive networks”
in a social space of temporal affinity, which enable a coordination despite the
1
EVERYDAY RESISTANCE
AS A CONCEPT

18 A Theoretical Framework
lack of formal leadership, formal organizations and united plans or strategies.
The research by Bayat and Mahdavi on ongoing everyday resistance reminds
us how all the major revolutionary changes have taken researchers preoccupied
with formal leadership by surprise (e.g. the regime changes in Eastern Europe
1989 and in Soviet Union 1991, or in South Africa 1994, and the Arab Upris-
ing 2011, etc.) (Goodwin 2011). Thus, if we are interested in how people can
liberate themselves in repressive contexts, it seems we have to pay close atten-
tion to the everyday forms of resistance that precede (and follow) the drama of
revolutions.
Basically, this chapter is an overview of the existing theories and conceptu-
alizations in the field, in which we show the plurality and the main tendencies,
the many disciplines involved and varied understandings of everyday resistance.
A main conclusion is that the field lacks an accepted understanding of what the
phenomenon in question is, and how to empirically study it. It is also not clear
what its key characteristics are, and what roles it plays in politics, social change
or life of people, and we certainly do not know how its meaning changes in
different contexts and historical periods.
Everyday Resistance as a Research Field
Everyday resistance studies are about exploring how people act in their every-
day lives in ways that might undermine power. In order to achieve clarity in
our definitions and analytical discussions, we maintain an analytical-theoretical
distinction between resistance and power, but as will become clear during our
discussions, to “undermine power” is not a clear-cut either-or thing in the empiri-
cal reality, but rather complex, dynamic and both-and. This is so because power
is intimately integrated into and exists in several ways in the everyday lives of
people. And at the same time power and resistance are often intimately entan-
gled. Our understanding of power will be developed in a more nuanced way as
we proceed in the text, but for now we can say that power is here understood
as power over people that is fundamentally limiting their potential (possible
ways of life, identities, subjectivities, discourses and ways of behaving) through
a variation of techniques (including hierarchies, stereotyping, discipline, vio-
lence, etc.) that is forming human existence in particular ways. In a Foucaultian
sense, power is something practiced in all social relations throughout society,
on all levels and in indeterminate struggles, negotiations and changing relations
of forces. In line with Foucault, power is understood as sometimes forbidding,
but primarily productive and basically decentered, heterogenic and plural, how-
ever, sometimes taking somewhat more stable forms, as “domination”. How-
ever, our analysis of everyday resistance aims to also suit other understandings of
power, at least those that resemble Foucault’s, e.g. Bourdieu’s, Butler’s, Laclau’s,
Lukes’, etc.
Everyday resistance is a theoretical concept introduced by James C. Scott in
1985 in order to cover a different kind of resistance; one that is not as dramatic

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 19
or visible as rebellions, riots, demonstrations, revolutions, civil war and other
such organized, collective or confrontational articulations of resistance ( Scott
1985 , 1989 , 1990 ). Everyday resistance is quiet, dispersed, disguised or other-
wise seemingly invisible to elites, the state or mainstream society; something
Scott interchangeably calls “infrapolitics”. Scott shows how certain common
behavior of subordinated groups (for example, foot-dragging, escape, sarcasm,
passivity, laziness, misunderstandings, disloyalty, slander, avoidance or theft) is
not always what it seems to be, but instead resistance. Scott argues these activi-
ties are tactics that exploited people use in order to both survive and under-
mine repressive domination, especially in contexts when rebellion is too risky.
2

According to Scott, the form of resistance depends on the form of power. Those
who claim that “‘real resistance’ is organized, principled, and has revolutionary
implications . . . overlook entirely the vital role of power relations in constrain-
ing forms of resistance” ( Scott 1989 , 51). If we only care for “real resistance”,
then “all that is being measured may be the level of repression that structures
the available options” ( Scott 1989 , 51).
Scott fundamentally transformed our understanding of politics, making the
ordinary life of subordinated groups part of political affairs. He also directly
played an inspirational role in the international establishment of “subaltern stud-
ies” as a distinct school that reformulated a “history from below” of India and
South Asia ( Haynes and Prakash 1991; Kelly 1992 , note 1, 297; Ludden 2002 ,
7–11; Sivaramakrishnan 2005 ), and he still inspires numerous empirical studies
on everyday resistance ( Sivaramakrishnan 2005 ): with general applications (for
example, Smith and Grijns 1997 ), on how covert resistance transforms into overt
forms (for example, Adnan 2007 ) or on effectiveness (for example, Korovkin
2000 ). Some deal with specific social spaces, such as the workplace ( Huzell
2005 ), the family (for example, studies of resistance among women in violent
relationships, Holmberg and Enander 2004) or gay/queer spaces ( Myslik 1996 ;
Camp 2004 ). Others study everyday resistance and specific categories, often
women, low-skilled workers, migrants, gay/queer people, Palestinians, minori-
ties, peasants, but also sometimes “new agents” such as white-power activists
( Simi and Futurell 2009 ) or white, middle class singles resisting stigmatiza-
tion ( Zajicek and Koski 2003 ). Studies may also cover specific themes, such as
resistance and stigma ( Buseh and Stevens 2006 ) or resistance and consumption/
shopping ( Fiske 1989 ), etc.
Theoretical Perspectives on Everyday Resistance
Besides agreeing that resistance is an oppositional activity, the literature on
resistance differs in the meaning of the concept, at the same time as theoretical
understanding and empirical scope varies tremendously ( Hollander and Ein-
wohner 2004 ; Lilja and Vinthagen 2009 ; Vinthagen and Johansson 2013 ). The
classic theoretical frameworks for understanding resistance are based on the
literature of Karl Polanyi, Antonio Gramsci and James. C. Scott ( Gills 2000 ).

20 A Theoretical Framework
Chin and Mittelman provide an overview and argue that these “three master
theories of resistance[:] Antonio Gramsci’s concept of counter-hegemony, Karl
Polanyi’s notion of counter-movements and James C. Scott’s idea of infrapoli-
tics” ( 1997 , 26), deal with different targets. Gramsci deals with “state appara-
tuses (understood as an instrument of education)”, Polanyi with “market forces”
and Scott with “ideologies (public transcripts)”. Furthermore, these master the-
ories deal with different modes of resistance (“wars of movement and position”;
“counter-movements aimed at self-protection”; and, “counter-discourse”)
( Chin and Mittelman 1997 , 34, Table 1). Thus, we get a work-division between
these “master theories”, where Gramsci and Polanyi deal with collective poli-
tics and Scott with individual everyday life, at the same time as they reflect on
how globalization transformed conditions of resistance: “as societies became
more complex, so too did the targets and modes of resistance” ( 1997 , 34), and
furthermore, as they argue, also the forms, agents, sites and strategies, become
more diverse and complex ( 1997 , 34–36). For our purpose, with a focus on the
micro-level of resistance, it is Scott that becomes important. Unfortunately, we
think this neat categorization of Chin and Mittelman treats Scott incorrectly,
reducing him to an ideological and discursive struggle in the everyday. As a
difference, we recognize how Scott very much (also) focuses on the material
class war in the everyday. Furthermore, we would argue that at least de Cer-
teau should be added here, perhaps also Bayat and Foucault, although Foucault
has more of an indirect importance, as someone that provides help to under-
stand the network environment of micro-relations and techniques that every-
day resistance operates within. All of these authors we will discuss in detail in
the process of developing our perspective. Now, we want to outline some of
the main contributions in the research field of everyday resistance, and, in the
process, show that none of the other publications have done what we are aim-
ing to do here.
Previous Research
There are quite a lot of edited books that deal with everyday resistance that add
to our understanding, but they fail to develop coherent theoretical tools and
analytical frameworks, as is the aim of this book. Among the recent literature
on resistance, two edited books: The Global Resistance Reader by Amoore (2005 )
or the Cultural Resistance Reader by Duncombe (2002 ) hold sway. While the for-
mer focuses on social movements, the latter centers on broader cultural, indi-
vidual or “everyday” resistance exemplified by, for example, women shopping
(Fiske, in Duncombe 2002 , 267–274), smoking (Frank, in Duncombe 2002 ,
316–327) or women identifying with other women (Radicalesbians, in Duncombe
2002 , 248–254). A more recent version of such a collected volume with diverse
approaches is the SAGE Handbook of Resistance ( 2016 ), edited by Steve Vallas
and David Courpasson. In a similar manner, the edited book, Entanglements of

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 21
Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance (2000), gives close attention to how
resistance played out in specific contexts, taking the domination/resistance
couplet as a point of departure, but with a focus on the spatial dimension of
domination/resistance, ignoring other dimensions that we suggest are impor-
tant. There are also those edited books that more explicitly deal with everyday
resistance. For example, Everyday Forms of Resistance in South East Asia (Kerkv-
liet and Scott 1986 )that focuses on peasant studies in a regional context. Since
all these are edited books they add a range of interesting perspectives to the
field but cannot provide a coherent framework, neither in terms of theory,
conceptual clarity, nor empirical scope. There are, however, some few books
that do that, and they are key to our later discussions.
One of the few books that indeed does develop a coherent theoretical frame-
work is the classic work by James C. Scott (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resis-
tance , which is fundamental for the understanding of everyday resistance. It is a
book that makes the locally developed concepts in Scott’s classic ethnographic
study among peasants in Malaysia ( 1985 ) into a more general framework, shown
to be applicable to serfs as well as slaves and other particular groups. Many have
criticized Scott (see Gupta 2001 ; Howe 2000 ; Field 1994 ; Gal 1995; Gutmann
1993 ; Kelly 1992 ; Tilly 1991 ), without proposing a consistent alternative. One
of these is O’Hanlon (1988 ), who argues in line with subaltern studies in gen-
eral and claims that Scott applies too strong a division between dominants
and subalterns while simultaneously overemphasizing the role of resistance. To
O’Hanlon, “this is a major problem since acceptance and submission is prob-
ably the strongest element of subaltern culture” ( 1988 , 214). Such a dichoto-
mous understanding of resistance and power as Scott professes is not something
we use, instead we argue that resistance and power are entangled, and subal-
terns are often divided along different positions in relation to class, gender and
sexuality as well as race. Therefore, we prefer the concept “subordinated” as a
broader and less charged categorization than “subaltern”, which is today often
used to indicate the most subordinated in society.
3

In another ground-breaking work, Life as Politics ( 2009 ) by Bayat, is a book
that focuses on the urban poor in Third World societies and Muslim/Arab
everyday articulations of resistance. Unlike Scott, Bayat shows a link between
individualized and disguised forms of everyday resistance, on the one hand,
and temporary mass mobilizations of the urban poor, on the other. But neither
Bayat nor Scott has the ambition to create a theoretical framework that incor-
porates other key perspectives in the field of everyday resistance, such as de
Certeau’s, or the power theory of Foucault or other poststructuralists of later
style, as we will do throughout our discussions.
Michel de Certeau’s The Practice of Everyday Life ( 1984 ) looks in an unusual
and refreshing way at how creative practices in liberal-democratic contexts
from a perspective of postmodernism and cultural studies can be understood
as resistance in the everyday. However, we argue both de Certeau and Scott

22 A Theoretical Framework
fail to incorporate the power/resistance dynamics. de Certeau solves one of the
main problems with Scott, that of his privileged (class antagonistic) intention.
Instead de Certeau focuses on practice (creative ways of acting)—a solution we
also follow, but by suggesting a framework that closely and continuously relates
resistance to power. We try to avoid the main problem with de Certeau: that
acting “differently” becomes resistance. de Certeau views too much as “resis-
tance” and makes power disappear. In our attempt to go beyond both Scott and
de Certeau, we will focus on what it means to understand everyday resistance
as a subverting practice that is entangled in a dynamic with power.
Popular Dissent , by Bleiker (2000 ), is the first serious engagement with social
science theories on discourse, Foucault, de Certeau and nonviolent forms of
everyday resistance and activism. Bleiker (2000 ) criticizes Scott for not under-
standing that subordinates who deliberately are “maintaining a public posture
of consent”, out of reasons of self-preservation or strategy, are not able to do so
from any “pre- or extra-discursive knowledge” or “position of authenticity”
(193). Like everyone else, subordinates “live in a community whose language,
social practices and customs set limits . . . [and] provides the conceptual tools
through which ‘reality’ makes sense” (193). To Bleiker the solution lies in com-
bining strengths from both Foucault and Scott in order to avoid their respective
weaknesses ( 2000 , 193). Basically, Bleiker argues that Foucault is helpful for
understanding power, while not equally so for resistance, at the same time as
Scott is helpful for understanding resistance, while not when it comes to power.
This is something we agree with and take inspiration from and try to pursue.
Bleiker, however, does not develop a comprehensive understanding of all the
social dimensions of everyday resistance; instead he focuses on the potential of
cultural, linguistic and discursive aspects.
Similarly, David Couzens Hoy makes a foundational work in applying post-
structuralist theory (Derrida, Foucault, Nietzsche, Žižek, etc.) in Critical Resis-
tance: From Poststructuralism to Post-Critique ( 2004 ). His focus is, however, more
on developing poststructuralist approaches to ontology, ethics and critique, and
he arrives at a suggestion of “post-critique” as an alternative. Hoy does not pay
interest to methodology, empirical research or frameworks for analyzing cases
of (critical) resistance.
Then we have two books that do innovative theoretical work to help us to
find a new understanding of subordinated groups that previously have been lim-
ted to Marxist class theory or liberal human rights’ frameworks. Charles T. Lee
outlines, in Ingenious Citizenship: Recrafting Democracy for Social Change ( 2016 ), a
critique of the limited use of liberal human rights approaches for oppressed and
marginalized people. Based on several in-depth case studies of migrant domestic
workers, global sex workers, trans people and suicide bombers, Lee shows how
those made “abject” to mainstream society fight for an integration into liberal
citizenship in “ingenious” ways that unsettle and open up new cracks for fur-
ther resistance, and ultimately hold a potential for transformation of the liberal
hegemony. Lee does not totally dismiss human rights activism, but argues for

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 23
its application together with everyday resistance in context-adopted, fluid and
creative ways. Instead of typically arguing for a straightforward inclusion of
marginalized groups through expanding liberal citizen rights, Lee argues that
rights-based activism on behalf of groups that are oppressed and made into
non-citizens (“abjects”) needs to combine with the innovative, ingenious and
unsettling forms of everyday resistance applied by “abjects” themselves—as for
example “hidden tactics”, “calculated abjection”, “morphing technologies” or
“sacrificial violence”. Thus, in an original way Lee’s sophisticated theoretical
and empirical analysis opens up a link between organized rights activism and
everyday resistance. However, since this work is an attempt to make sense of
“ingenious citizenship”, it does not aim to offer a general framework. The same
applies to the next book.
In a similar but very different attempt, Kevin Van Meter’s Guerillas of Desire:
Notes on Everyday Resistance and Organizing to Make a Revolution Possible ( 2017 ) is
building an approach that connects everyday resistance with more organized
struggles. He starts from popular experiences, organizing and struggles and
shows how, historically, working and poor people under slavery, in peasant life
and throughout modern capitalism have been innovative in developing forms of
resistance suitable to the context and realities of their exploitation. Van Meter
argues that the “creation of counter-communities” through creative forms of
solidarity, communication and mutual aid, is key to make both everyday resis-
tance and more generalized revolts possible. The book is also different in the
consistent way in which it critiques the external imposing of models, theories
or ideologies from professional activists, intellectuals or academics, and tries to
develop guidelines for organizing rooted in local contexts, lived experiences
and particular communities of resistance.
Recently two researchers, inspired by de Certeau, have in an article sug-
gested a theoretical framework similar to ours for the analysis of resistance: the
“specific acts of resistance and their consequences: their political aesthetics and
the way they link into practices of distinction, their temporal duration, and
their spatial extension” ( Frers and Meier 2017 , 128). Their approach differs
from ours, in that temporality and spatiality are focused on how resistance prac-
tices travel in time and space, not how they relate to an attempted reconstruc-
tion of (dominant) time and space. Furthermore, “distinction” is about how the
practices through exclusions and inclusions, preferences and biases, etc. “actu-
ally unfold for the individuals involved in each case” (131). Even if “distinc-
tion” is about characterizing the specific everyday practices of resistance in
relation to its environment, which is somewhat similar to our emphasis on the
repertoire of resistance, the main difference is that we, like Scott, and as a dif-
ference from de Certeau, focus on how resistance practices are related to forms
of domination.
We have saved the most similar attempt for last. In a recent book, Every-
day Resistance, Peacebuilding and State-making , Marta Iñiguez de Heredia (2017 ),
uniquely develops a new framework, based on de Certeau and Scott and her

24 A Theoretical Framework
critical reading of the everyday resistance literature. She proposes a new defini-
tion and a framework that “connect patterns, intensions, motivations, acts and
actors . . . [through] gradients of intentionality, intensity, exposure and engage-
ment” (69). In our view, Heredia (2017 ) is so far the most elaborated attempt to
build on and go beyond the founders of resistance studies and create an empiri-
cally useful perspective for how to research the elusive phenomenon of every-
day resistance. Her work is a great step forward in theoretical development
of the research on everyday resistance, and she shows how a more elaborated
understanding of the concept can be applied in an empirical study. However,
as distinct from Heredia, we develop a more generally applicable framework,
including more dimensions. Heredia’s ambition is after all to contribute to a
subfield within everyday resistance studies: International peacebuilding.
“Everyday Resistance” as a Concept
Everyday resistance is not easily recognized like public and collective resistance—
such as rebellions or demonstrations—since it is typically (by design and necessity)
hidden or disguised, individual and often not (openly) politically articulated.
Therefore, everyday resistance poses a special challenge for research; but, it is
well worth the effort. Our aim is to give an overview of the specific literature
on everyday resistance, its main theoretical approaches and the range of differ-
ent empirical material.
4
By taking positions in current debates within the field,
the proceeding aim is to theoretically develop our understanding of everyday
resistance by suggesting how it can be fruitfully interpreted as an activity in a
dynamic interaction opposing dominant power. Through this exploration we
hope to show the potential usefulness of the concept.
The existence of mundane or non-dramatic resistance shows that resistance
could fruitfully be understood as a continuum between public confrontations
and hidden subversion. Such a continuum also suggests a possibility to under-
stand from where collective rebellions come, and it might help us to understand
why sometimes and in some places, they don’t occur, despite “objective” condi-
tions. Furthermore, everyday resistance suggests that resistance is (sometimes)
integrated into social life and is a part of normality, not as dramatic or excep-
tional as assumed—even if it is still unclear how common it is.
5

A clear problem with the concept of “everyday resistance” is that it risks
labeling too many other activities as “resistance”. All expressions of differ-
ence, opposition, protest, deviation or individuality should not, we think, be
labeled “resistance”. Every concept that is made excessively inclusive becomes
less interesting or useful since it is not clear enough what different activities
have in common. The challenge for our investigation is to explore if everyday
resistance is possible to limit enough in order for it to be a useful and dis-
tinct concept, both for theoretical development and for empirical studies, while
simultaneously avoiding limiting it so much that it loses its relation to social life

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 25
and becomes an academic externality. A strict and delimited concept has aca-
demic merit but risks failing the main test, in our view: its usefulness for cap-
turing the creative innovations of subordinated people and activists that employ
everyday resistance in an empirical reality. Therefore, our conceptualization
of everyday resistance needs to strike a balance between clear delimitation and
openness to creative innovation, showing its main characteristics without being
too strict.
Scott has suggested a general categorization of resistance that builds on two
main forms: the public and the disguised resistance ( Scott 1989 , 55–56; Scott
1990 , 198). These two forms of resistance relate to three forms of domina-
tion (material, status and ideological), which result in six types of resistance.
Although we find this categorization to be a problematic dichotomy, it serves
to clarify Scott’s position and it is a simple way to differ between forms of
power and resistance that is initially helpful for our discussion.
According to Scott, resistance exists as publicly declared resistance as (1) open
revolts, petitions, demonstrations, land invasions, etc. against material domina-
tion; (2) public assertion of worth or desecration of status symbols against status
domination; (3) public counter-ideologies against ideological domination. Fur-
ther, in a corresponding way, resistance exists as disguised, low profile, undis-
closed or “infrapolitics” as (4) everyday resistance (e.g. poaching, squatting,
desertion, evasion, foot-dragging) and direct resistance by disguised resisters
against material domination (e.g. masked appropriations, anonymous threats
and carnival); (5) hidden transcripts of anger or disguised discourses of dig-
nity against status domination (e.g. rituals of aggression, tales of revenge, use of
carnival symbols, gossip, rumor, creation of autonomous space for assertion
of dignity); or (6) dissident subcultures (e.g. millennial religions, slave “hush
arbors”, myths of social banditry, class heroes, world-upside-down imagery,
myths of the “good” king or the time before the “Norman yoke”) against
ideological domination.
Thus, a typology of “paired forms of resistance” construes the difference
between everyday resistance and “a more direct, open confrontation”. In every-
day resistance, one seeks “tacit, de facto gains”, while in the other “formal, de
jure —recognition of those gains” ( Scott 1989 , 34). Desertion corresponds to
open mutiny in the same way as pilfering is the hidden version of open attacks
on markets, etc. The objectives are similar, but the forms are different. “If
everyday resistance is ‘heavy’ on the instrumental side and ‘light’ on the sym-
bolic confrontation side, then the contrasting acts would be ‘light’ on the
instrumental side and ‘heavy’ on the symbolic side” ( Scott 1989 , 56). Everyday
techniques are “small scale”, “relatively safe”, “promise vital material gains”
and “require little or no formal coordination” ( Scott 1989 , 35), but “ some level
of cooperation”, and evolve into “a pattern of resistance” ( Scott 1989 , 36) that
“rely on a venerable popular culture of resistance” ( Scott 1989 , 35). The practi-
cal techniques come in many varieties but acquire “a certain unity . . . [through

26 A Theoretical Framework
their] invariably quiet, disguised, anonymous, often undeclared forms” ( Scott
1989 , 37). This amounts to a:
quiet unremitting guerilla warfare . . . day-in and day-out [that] rarely
make headlines. But just as millions of anthozoan polyps create, willy-
nilly, a coral reef, thousands upon thousands of petty acts of insubordina-
tion and evasion create a political and economic barrier reef of their own.
And whenever . . . the ship of state runs aground on such a reef, attention
is typically directed to the shipwreck itself and not the vast aggregation
of actions which make it possible.
( Scott 1989 , 49)
The coordination of small acts of resistance is not done formally but infor-
mally through the culture of subordinated groups. Scott first understood this
while studying peasants in South East Asia. He argues that the “climate of
opinion” articulated in “folk culture” of peasants gives legitimacy, or is even a
“celebration, of precisely the kinds of evasive forms of resistance” ( Scott 1989 ,
52). What he finds is a typical way of doing collective actions among peas-
ants, not unique for resistance. Peasant societies coordinate a range of complex
activities such as “labor-exchange to wedding preparations, to rituals [through]
networks of understanding and practice” ( Scott 1989 , 52). However, everyday
resistance is “not a peasant monopoly” ( Scott 1989 , 52), but one that exists
among all kinds of subalterns ( Scott 1990 ).
It is key to understand that to Scott, everyday resistance is not a lesser or
primitive force of resistance. It is just operating according to a very different,
even opposite logic to public and collective resistance, and at other places or times,
occasions where public collective resistance would be futile, self-defeating or
too dangerous.
The key characteristic of everyday resistance is the “pervasive use of dis-
guise”, through either “the concealment of anonymity of the resister”, in which
“the personal (not the class) identity of the protesters” is kept secret, or the con-
cealment of the act itself ( Scott 1989 , 54). “Instead of a clear message delivered
by a disguised messenger, an ambiguous message is delivered by clearly identi-
fied messengers” ( Scott 1989 , 54–55). Thus, the true identity of the resister, or
the resistance is hidden. “A practical act of resistance is thus often accompa-
nied by a public discursive affirmation of the very arrangements being resisted”
( Scott 1989 , 56). And within folk culture we typically find trickster figures,
spirituals, metaphors or euphemisms that “have a double meaning . . . so that
they cannot be treated as a direct, open challenge” ( Scott 1989 , 54).
The two main forms of resistance have very different relations to the domi-
nant symbolic order. The “public, symbolic confrontations . . . intended as
discursive negations of the existing symbolic order . . . fail unless they gain
attention”, while everyday resistance “ by not openly contesting norms of law, cus-
tom, politeness, deference, loyalty and so on leaves the dominant in command

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 27
of the public stage” ( Scott 1989 , 57). Scott compares the two forms in an exam-
ple of resistance to the “norm of a religiously sanctified marriage as the only
legitimate basis for family life”, by arguing that this moral norm can be resisted
not only through a social movement that “openly repudiates the norm”, but
also through “a pattern of unsanctified, common law marriages that are wide-
spread but . . . undeclared as public acts” ( Scott 1989 , note 37, 62). Thus, what
is an effective form of resistance in one context might not be that in another
more repressive context. In a highly repressive environment, as for example in
Western Sahara, occupied by Moroccan military forces, where police regularly
beat up protesters and use torture on Sahrawi activists, some brave activists do
continue with public protests, but most have to resort to more subtle, hidden or
disguised forms of resistance in the everyday.
Beyond Dichotomies—Other Concepts
Even if Scott recognizes that hidden everyday resistance might evolve into
public and collective forms of resistance ( 1989 , 58), his conceptualization seems
to create a dichotomy between his “paired forms of resistance”—everyday
resistance and public resistance. Such a dichotomy might make what seems
in empirical reality to be a continuum of mixed forms of resistance invisible.
Instead, we would maintain the need for an analytical distinction between
“everyday resistance” and other more public and collectively organized forms
of resistance, but still recognize how empirical reality displays combinations
and hybrid forms. We are not alone in taking such a position. Several resistance
researchers argue that public and hidden resistance mix and combine (e.g. Bayat
2000 , 545–546; Katsiaficas 1997 ; Simi and Futurell 2009 ).
Simi and Futurell (2009 ) claim the study of activism has become based on an
implicit dichotomy of “normal activism” versus everyday resistance: “Research-
ers have not usually considered everyday forms of resistance to be what par-
ticipants in established social movements do as part of their activism” ( 2009 ,
90). Instead, they argue that managing the stigma of being an activist in a cer-
tain social movement is a type of “veiled, identity-based resistance that occurs
across many everyday contexts” ( 2009 , 91). In order to make their point, they
utilize an empirical illustration from an unconventional subordinated group:
White Power activists, a group that, in a complex way, show simultaneous
subordination (to a self-declared non-racist liberal hegemony) and superordina-
tion (to people of color and immigrants). In their position as subordinated to
hegemony, they experience, according to the authors, a stigma. In their article,
“Negotiating White Power Activist Stigma”, Sims and Futurell describe a pro-
cess that “pivots on strategies of calculated concealment and revelation of their
Aryan activist identity” ( 2009 , 89), thus, a form of combination of hidden and
public resistance. The Aryans experience stigmatization through experience
of “soft” repression such as ridicule, ostracism, and other “interactional con-
flicts”, which surge within the contexts of everyday life. Based on interviews

28 A Theoretical Framework
with Aryan activists the authors identify a wide range of stigmatization such as
neighbors that shun and picket their residences when they are exposed, as well
as losing jobs. The Aryan activists always conceal more than they reveal, and
Simi and Futurell regard the disclosures the activists make as a “form of indi-
vidual everyday activism to resist social controls that subjugate them to others’
values and identity expectations” ( 2009 , 106).
Furthermore, all social movements are not necessarily creating formal kind
of politics. They might even resist the formalization of (their) politics. Auton-
omous anarchists create what Katsiaficas calls an “anti-politics” of “the first
person”, in which individuals do not act on abstract principles, distant goals or
on behalf of large-scale collectives, but based on their own desires and values by
trying to implement change locally, informally and directly ( 1997 ). Thus, their
way of life (i.e. their “everyday”) becomes one of resistance, both as persons and
as (public) activists, in a way where it is hard to tell the difference between their
life as activists and their life as private persons. Again, we see resisters (from
different ends of the political spectrum) mixing public and hidden everyday
resistance.
Therefore, we have to avoid creating a dichotomy and need to understand
everyday resistance as a different kind of resistance that relates to other resis-
tance. It constitutes an initial, off-stage, or later stage activity in relation to
other more sustained, organized and conventional political forms of resistance.
Thus, everyday resistance goes on before, between or at the side of the dramatic
resistance events. Thus, everyday resistance is a practice conducted in certain
situations and contexts, when public resistance for some reasons is not an alter-
native, while resistance against power still is deemed as motivated. Resistance
is not a characteristic or quality of any certain group or people—be that peas-
ants or subalterns—but a particular type of activity among many other types of
activities that peasants or other subordinated groups might employ. When and
where everyday resistance occurs is not necessary for us to determine here. Our
interest is to put the searchlight on these less obvious kinds of resistance that
are—for the moment and in certain situations—neither expressed in dramatic,
confrontational and public events, nor with (collectively elected) leadership, or
(explicit) political motivations or sustained by (formal) organizations.
The concept of the “everyday” ( Neal and Murji 2015 ) in everyday resis-
tance is necessary to understand in contrast to the extraordinary or, according
to Bhabha: the “spectacular”.
6
Heredia (2017 ) connects the everyday to “pat-
terns”, thus, something that is repeated in the lives of people, however, not
necessarily literally “every” day. In a similar manner, also dominant power is
reproduced in the everyday, in the way people accept, normalize, follow and
enforce norms, rules, hierarchies, stereotypes, discourses, orders, laws and poli-
cies, often in an automatic non-reflective way.
In this sense, everyday resistance becomes the silent, mundane and ordinary
patterns of acts that are normalized ( Heredia 2017 , 3, 12, 17) within a certain

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 29
subordinated culture or community. Everyday resistance happens in other
spaces and times or in other relations, although everyday resistance might be
facilitated by waves of public mobilizations, and sometimes the consequences
of everyday resistance are dramatic and crash into the public scene (like the
shipwreck in Scott’s previous quote). Therefore, and this is a key observation
for our later discussions, actors themselves are not necessarily regarding it as
“resistance” at all, but rather as an established or conventional part and way of
their lives, personalities, cultures and traditions.
A Tentative Definition of Everyday Resistance
Definitions are needed in order to create clarity, to specify what we include,
search for and talk about. The problem with a definition is that the more suc-
cessful it becomes, the more people will use the same one and therefore sub-
scribe to the same understanding. In such a situation, definitions become an
exercise of power. Then it does not guide us by distinguishing something we
did not see before, but regulates in a way that limits our exploration of empirical
variation and innovations. Our aim in this book is not to impose our definition
or suggest all resistance researchers need one and the same definition. Instead,
we want to emphasize how research on resistance is fundamentally about the
power of discourse, not only the discourse of resisters, but also about the sci-
entific discourse on resistance. Every discourse on resistance runs the risk to
marginalize, exclude and silence different articulations of resistance; especially
when only some intentions are counted as legitimate. Those intentions that
have to do with “non-political” or “private” goals, emotions or personal needs
are not regarded as relevant, irrespective of whether they undermine power
relations. Why are certain “political” intentions and consciousness privileged?
Michael Adas (1986 , 69), for example, claims that resistance (or, what he calls
“avoidance protest”) “must involve a conscious and articulated intent to deny
resources or services or do injury to those who are perceived as the sources of
their suffering.” It is as if expecting of all resistance to express “politics” in the
same way as researchers, regimes, national and educated elites and intellectuals
do. Such assumptions become a problematic power exercise. How we include
or exclude the resistance of others is key to resistance studies. In social science,
in general, there seems to be a problematic tendency to privilege political con-
sciousness, or public, direct and confrontational resistance. In such a way, other
forms of resistance are made invisible and insignificant. What is more surpris-
ing is that researchers who focus on marginalized forms of resistance, such as
hidden and everyday resistance (as, for example, in James C. Scott’s work), still
tend to privilege certain “political” forms of resistance.
Some kind of consciousness and intention are always an element in human
behavior or action. Humans always try to achieve something when they act.
Basically, the only exception is when we talk about mere reflexes, automatic

30 A Theoretical Framework
body movements. Therefore, in our proposed definition we reject the idea of
limiting the world of possible intentions and making it a necessary criterium
of the definition that actors have or can articulate a certain political intention
or a class-antagonistic consciousness. We do this in order to open up the con-
cept to other intentions. We view it as important to not exclude intentions or a
consciousness that seem non-political. There is an importance to knowing the
intentions that motivate people, of course. But, it will always be more or less
formulated or clear for people themselves, and thus for the researcher. And it
will often be hard or even impossible to know what other people (really) think.
Not everything within everyday politics or the lifestyles of subordinated
groups is a form of resistance, other patterns of acts might articulate accom-
modation or exercise power. This is somehow self-evident, but most authors
fail to point this out or draw the proper consequences of this important obser-
vation. It means that the same subordinated person might practice everyday
resistance in one typical situation, when, for example, stealing something insig-
nificant from the storage of a landlord, while exercising power in another,
when, for example, commanding a child to do some work for the landlord, and
yet again, show accommodation when the landlord enters by working harder
without being ordered to do so. It is, thus, necessary, on the one hand, to talk
about specific acts as being resistance—in the sense of a subordinate’s patterns
of acts that might undermine power ( Lilja and Vinthagen 2009 )—and, on the
other hand, acts that are part of ordinary, everyday life—in the sense of being
integrated into the actor’s way of life. Thus, certain acts might be resistance, or
not, but in a strict meaning, there are no persons that are “resisters”. Individuals
will always also, to some degree, participate in the exercise of power. If we can
identify both of these aspects—the everyday and the resistance—then we have
detected everyday resistance. Therefore, conceptualizing and analyzing every-
day resistance begins with a two-step identification of something as being part
of the everyday and that part as being an expression of resistance to power.
We, consequently, propose a definition that reserves everyday resistance to
such resistance that is done routinely (as patterns of acts), but which is not
politically articulated in public or formally organized (in that situation). This
definition will be maintained in the discussion, and we will return to it, and
specify it, in the end of the book. Everyday resistance is a form of activity that
often avoids being detected as resistance. But it might also be made politically
invisible by society, by not being recognized as resistance (as in “infrapoli-
tics”), despite that the actor is politically conscious and aims to act politically.
“Infrapolitics” ( Scott 1990 ; Mittelman 2001 ) is often used by Scott as a way to
describe everyday forms of resistance, which emphasizes the fact that certain
practices that have political intention or consequences are not treated or per-
ceived as “political” in that society. Acts that deviate from hegemonic under-
standings of politics or resistance tend not to achieve recognition. Sometimes

Everyday Resistance as a Concept 31
we have a kind of “lifestyle” or “way of life” of people, like that of vegans
for example, that makes visible everyday resistance to certain norms and dis-
courses. Despite being a visible “counter-hegemonic embodiment” ( Kwan and
Roth 2011 , 194) it is largely politically invisible, as it does not conform to
conventional understandings of politics. What you eat is seen as “private”. In
relation to a hegemony of meat-eating norms, living as a vegan is, we main-
tain, everyday resistance. As an individual pattern of acting, it undermines that
dominance of the norm in that person’s life, and as a public position it chal-
lenges the legitimacy of the norm, at dinners, lunch counters, and schools. If
many do the same, or it is made impossible to ignore by becoming visible, it
might even transform the hegemony to at least respect and give an established
space for non-meat eating.
There are several alternative concepts that cover aspects of resistance that
are done in the everyday. “Off-kilter resistance” is one possible concept and
form that is not following any strategic principles, but tactical opportuni-
ties ( Butz and Ripmeester 1999 ). “Embedded resistance” is a kind of “almost
unwitting resistance” in which subordinated people “influence the nature of
the hegemonic structure as they broaden their roles by working within the
system . . . [and] continue to “embrace their role in the hegemonic system,
and because, in hegemonic fashion, they are not motivated by a consciously
articulated resistance” ( Mihelich and Storrs 2003 , 419). Recently, there have
been those suggesting “resilience” as a key concept that can replace resistance
(see, e.g., Chandler 2015 ), but we regard it more as an aspect or dimension of
resistance, entangled with power relations (Butler, Gambetti, and Sabsay 2016,
chap. 3 ). It is rather common to use “worker resistance” or “peasant resistance”
as a concept, based on the actor category, or “anti-capitalist resistance”, based
on the target category. Since we are not focusing on the actor or the target, but
the resistance itself, we have chosen “everyday resistance” as our concept. It is
intuitively understood and encompasses many variations, yet it easily relates
to other resistance concepts (e.g. armed resistance, nonviolent resistance, eco-
nomic resistance, etc.). We choose the concept despite being aware of a cri-
tique that it is difficult to distinguish between coping, survival techniques and
compliance. In our view, these problems are possible to deal with by focusing
on the act of resistance and its relation to domination, and by avoiding the
trap of privileging the acting subjects or the political consciousness of actors—
something we will develop in the following chapters.
Note
1. “Urban young adults, who compose almost two-thirds of Iran’s population, are
highly mobile, highly educated (84 percent of young Tehrani’s are currently enrolled
in university or are university graduates; 64 percent of these graduates are women),
and underemployed” (2009, 9).

32 A Theoretical Framework
2. This “zone of struggle exists in between the public and hidden ‘transcripts’ of native
discourse, a construction of resistance not dissimilar to Bhabha’s ‘Third Space’ of
colonial discourse” ( Jefferess 2008 , 38).
3. “Subaltern” has become popular in social science through postcolonial studies and
subaltern studies, but came originally from Antonio Gramsci, who used it to indicate
a broader cultural understanding of the “working class” than in orthodox Marxism.
Gramsci chose the concept from the military ranking of a lower officer, not the low-
est of soldiers.
4. The empirical illustrations all deal with “everyday resistance” (seen in an inclusive
sense). They illustrate different theoretical points, deal with issues from different
fields of studies and together show a variation of intersections, space and time. When
possible, we use complex theories of power and resistance with empirical richness
to illustrate various dimensions and aspects of resistance. When not possible, we use
different illustrations that together show complexity and variation.
5 . We need more systematic and empirical studies to determine its actual frequency
and integration in the everyday of different contexts.
6 . Bhabha calls hidden resistance “sly civility”, which he distinguishes from “spectacu-
lar resistance” ( Jefferess 2008 , 37–44).

In this chapter, we draw our theoretical framework from a discussion of what
we see as the two main competing theoretical perspectives, developed by James
C. Scott and Michel de Certeau. With the help of these theorists we develop the
ways in which everyday resistance can be understood as oppositional (James C
Scott) and an activity (Michel de Certeau). We could as well have chosen Michel
Foucault instead of de Certeau, as the representative of the micro-techniques of
resistance, but the advantage with de Certeau is that he—contrary to Foucault—
speaks more explicitly about the connections between the everyday and resis-
tance, while for Foucault it is more appearing in an implicit way, as a part of
the analysis of power and dominance ( Lilja and Vinthagen 2014 ).
The link between Scott and de Certeau is obvious. Whereas Scott speaks
of the “weapons of the weak” as hidden transcripts, infrapolitics and everyday
resistance, de Certeau speaks about how “a tactic is an art of the weak”, “deter-
mined by the absence of a proper locus” as “a maneuver ‘within the enemy’s field
of vision’ . . . and within enemy territory . . . [that] operates in isolated actions,
blow by blow.” ( de Certeau 1984 , 37). For both of them, everyday resistance is a
matter of the less visible and small actions by subordinated. This is not in any way
surprising since Scott explicitly mentions that he draws on de Certeau’s work.
Scott looks on class struggles in repressive contexts from anthropological
and political science perspectives, while de Certeau looks on creative prac-
tices in liberal-democratic contexts from a perspective of cultural studies. Scott
comes from a social science perspective on everyday resistance, while de Cer-
teau comes from the humanities. The typical actor in Scott’s texts is the peas-
ant, while we encounter the consumer in texts by de Certeau. In this discussion
we argue that it is necessary to build on both of them but move beyond certain
key limitations. In our attempt to go beyond both Scott and de Certeau, we
2
A THEORETICAL APPROACH
BEYOND SCOTT AND
DE CERTEAU

34 A Theoretical Framework
will focus the rest of the book on a discussion of what it means to understand
everyday resistance as a practice that is entangled in a dynamic with power.
James C. Scott—Class War of Infrapolitics
In his book Decoding Subaltern Politics ( 2013 ), Scott summarizes in a condensed
way his understanding of everyday resistance and its relation to “the little tradi-
tion” of peasants, ultimately the conflict between the state and “the vernacular
world”. Scott argues that villages are “face-to-face communities and, as such,
resist abstractions” ( 2013 , 4). Therefore, peasants do not have general “class
relations” but particular landlords with vital personalities and social relations.
Furthermore, small-scale agriculturalists or peasants are importantly following
a “subsistence ethic” that aims to minimize risks, not maximize profit, and
where maintaining good social relations and solidarity with everyone, includ-
ing patrons, is essential to their social security. Thus, “social and economic
arrangements are judged more by how well they protect against the most cata-
strophic outcomes than by how quantitatively exploitative (e.g. how much of
the harvest a landlord takes) they are.” ( 2013 , 5). Finally, this way of life means
that the social and economic are interwoven in the way that social status is
connected to the ability to maintain subsistence over time. Therefore, (eco-
nomic) risk aversion is also about a claim for cultural dignity and respect. Scott
demonstrates how great traditions of written, codified doctrine (religions or
political ideologies) display a systematic “gap or slippage” when they meet folk
culture. For example, the ecclesiastical orthodoxy of Catholicism is meeting
a “folk heterodoxy, not to say heresy”, while Communism has had problems
with “‘folk’ communism” ( 2013 , 7–8).
The opposition to ruling elites (and sometimes also oppositional elites) comes
from “a distinct vernacular perspective that is more than simply a parochial
version of cosmopolitan forms and values” ( 2013 , 10), and often amounts to
a “‘shadow society’ . . . opposition to the politico-religious tradition of rul-
ing elites”, particularly during rebellious periods ( 2013 , 10), something that is
described by Christopher Hill ( The World Turned Upside Down , 1972, on the
English Revolution) and Richard Cobb ( The Police and the People , 1970, on the
French Revolution). This “little tradition” has some “more salient themes—
localism, syncretism, and profanation” as opposition to both elite versions of
religion and politics ( 2013 , 24–63). “Much as the official religious doctrine
is selected, reworked, and profaned in little tradition cults, so is the existing
political order symbolically negated in popular millennarian [sic] traditions”
( 2013 , 60). So, Scott’s conclusion is that “there is no such thing as a perfect
ideological hegemony. . . . [Instead] it would appear that the growth of oppres-
sion dialectically produces its own negation in the symbolic and religious life
of the oppressed” ( 2013 , 61). Therefore, Scott suggests a fundamental conflict

Beyond Scott and de Certeau 35
between peasants and their elites, and an everyday practical manipulation of
dominant ideologies, mitigating their domination.
These forms of dissimulation and small acts of resistance, since they indeed
“all involve immediate self-interested behavior” and are not principled, at least
not in a self-conscious way, “might be termed opportunistic , unorganized , and pre-
political ” by a skeptic. But the real problem, according to Scott, is “the tendency
to assign greater historical priority and weight to the organized and political
than to everyday resistance, a position that, in my view, fundamentally mis-
construes the very basis of economic and political struggle conducted daily by
subordinate classes—not just the peasantry—in repressive settings” ( 2013 , 93).
“Class conflict is, first and foremost, a struggle over the appropriation of work,
production, property, and taxes” ( 2013 , 94). Scott even suggests that we recog-
nize that everyday forms of resistance,
at least that in terms of durability, persistence, tactical wisdom, and flex-
ibility, as well as results . . . may well eclipse the achievements of what
normally are considered social movements . . . Acts which, taken indi-
vidually, may be trivial need not have trivial consequences when taken
cumulatively . . . As a case in point . . . [we find] the collapse of the Con-
federacy . . . [where] Robinson estimates that as many as 250, 000 deserted
or avoided conscription altogether . . . [and these] were compounded by
massive shirking, insubordination, and flight among the slave population.
( 2013 , 92–93)
And, in a similar manner, Scott suggests that the collapse of the Tsarist repressive
force in 1917 was in large degree a matter of “desertions from the largely peas-
ant rank-and-file” ( 1986 , 25).
Despite these cases showing indications of the political potency of everyday
resistance, Scott has often heard the critique that everyday resistance is not “real
resistance”, and, as such, it is claimed that it should not be called “resistance”.
For example, Scott looks at studies of slavery and resistance (Gerald Mullin
and Eugene Genovese) and concludes that the authors tend to view everyday
resistance as “pre-political” or not “real resistance”, basically since it, in the
view of the authors, lacks the proper qualities of consequences and intentions
( 1986 , 23–24).
Combining these overlapping perspectives, the result is something of a
dichotomy between real resistance on the one hand and “token”, inciden-
tal, or even epiphenomenal ‘activities’ on the other. “Real” resistance, it
is argued, is (a) organized, systematic, and co-operative, (b) principled or
selfless, (c) has revolutionary consequences, and/or (d) embodies ideas or
intentions that negate the basis of domination itself. “Token”, incidental,

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

And, laughing, he began to clap Pan Ignas time after time on the
shoulder; then he put the ends of his fingers to his lips, took
farewell, and walked off.
But his voice, slightly quivering, came to Pan Ignas from a distance,
—
“There is nothing to surpass young married women.” Noise on the
street drowned the rest.

CHAPTER XLV.
From that time Pan Ignas went every day to Aunt Bronich’s. He
found Kopovski there frequently, for toward the end something had
been spoiled in the portrait of “Antinoüs.” Lineta said that she had
not been able to bring everything out of that face yet; that the
expression in the picture was not perhaps what it should be,—in a
word, she needed time for reflection. With Pan Ignas her work went
more easily.
“With such a head as Pan Kopovski’s,” said she once, “it is enough to
change the least line, it is enough to have the light wrong, to ruin
everything. While with Pan Zavilovski one must seize first of all the
character.”
On hearing this, both were satisfied. Kopovski declared even that it
was not his fault; that God had created him so. Pani Bronich said
later on that Lineta had said apropos of that: “God created him; the
Son of God redeemed him; but the Holy Ghost forgot to illuminate
him.” That witticism on poor Kopovski was repeated throughout
Warsaw.
Pan Ignas liked him well enough. After a few meetings he seemed to
him so unfathomably stupid that it did not occur to him that any one
could be jealous of the man. On the contrary, it was always pleasant
to look at him. Those ladies too liked him, though they permitted
themselves to jest with him; and sometimes he served them simply
as a ball, which they tossed from hand to hand. Kopovski’s stupidity
was not gloomy, however, nor suspicious. He possessed a uniform
temper and a smile really wonderful; of this last he was aware,
perhaps, hence he preferred to smile rather than frown. He was
well-bred, accustomed to society, and dressed excellently; in this
regard he might have served as a model to Pan Ignas.

From time to time he put astonishing questions, which filled the
young ladies with merriment. Once, hearing Pani Bronich talk of
poetic inspirations, he asked Pan Ignas, “If anything was taken for it
or not,” and at the first moment confused him, for Pan Ignas did not
know what to answer.
Another time Pani Aneta said to him,—
“Have you ever written poetry? Make some rhyme, then.”
Kopovski asked time till next day; but next day he had forgotten the
request, or could not make the verses. The ladies were too well-bred
to remind him of his promise. It was always so agreeable to look at
him that they did not wish to cause him unpleasantness.
Meanwhile spring ended, and the races began. Pan Ignas was
invited for the whole time of their continuance to the carriage of the
Osnovskis. They gave him a place opposite Lineta; and he admired
her with all his soul. In bright dresses, in bright hats, with laughter
in her dreamy eyes, with her calm face flushing somewhat under the
breath of fresh breezes, she seemed to him spring and paradise.
Returning home, he had his eyes full of her, his mind and his heart
full. In that world in which they lived, in the society of those young
men, who came up to the carriage to entertain the ladies, he was
not at home, but the sight of Lineta recompensed him for
everything. Under the influence of sunny days, fair weather, broad
summer breezes, and that youthful maiden, who began to be dear
to him, he lived, as it were, in a continuous intoxication; he felt
youth and power in himself. In his face there was at times
something truly eagle-like. At moments it seemed to him that he
was a ringing bell, sounding and sounding, heralding the delight of
life, the delight of love, the delight of happiness,—a great jubilee of
loving.
He wrote much, and more easily than ever before; there was
besides in his verses that which recalled the fresh odor of newly
ploughed fields, the vigor of young leaves, the sound of wings of

birds flying on to fallow land to the immense breadth of plains and
meadows. He felt his own power, and ceased to be timid about
poetry even before strangers, for he understood that there was
something about him, something within him, and that he had
something to lay at the feet of a loved one.
Pan Stanislav, who, in spite of his mercantile life, had an
irrestrainable passion for horses, and never neglected the races, saw
Pan Ignas every day with the Osnovskis and Panna Castelli, and
gazing at the latter as at a rainbow; when he teased him in the
counting-house for being in love, the young poet answered,—
“It is not I, but my eyes. The Osnovskis will go soon, those ladies
too; and all will disappear like a dream.”
But he did not speak truth, for he did not believe that all could
disappear like a dream. On the contrary, he felt that for him a new
life had begun, which with the departure of Panna Lineta might be
broken.
“And where are Pani Bronich and Panna Castelli going?” continued
Pan Stanislav.
“For the rest of June and during July they will remain with the
Osnovskis, and then go, as they say, to Scheveningen; but this is not
certain yet.”
“Osnovski’s Prytulov is fifteen miles from Warsaw,” said Pan
Stanislav.
For some days Pan Ignas had been asking himself, with heart
beating, whether they would invite him or not; but when they invited
him, and besides very cordially, he did not promise to go, and with
all his expressions of gratitude held back, excusing himself with the
plea of occupation and lack of time. Lineta, who was sitting apart,
heard him, and raised her golden brows. When he was going, she
approached him and asked,—
“Why will you not come to Prytulov?”

He, seeing that no one could hear them, said, looking into her eyes,
—
“I am afraid.”
She began to laugh, and inquired, repeating Kopovski’s words,—
“Is it necessary to take anything for that?”
“It is,” answered he, with a voice somewhat trembling; “I need to
take the word, come, from you!”
She hesitated a moment; perhaps she did not dare to tell him
directly in that form which he required, but she blushed suddenly
and whispered;—
“Come.”
Then she fled, as if ashamed of those colors on her face, which, in
spite of the darkness, were increasingly evident.
On the way home it seemed to Pan Ignas that a shower of stars was
raining down on him.
The departure of the Osnovskis was to take place in ten days only.
Up to that time, the painting of portraits was to continue its usual
course, and to go on in the same fashion till the last day, for Lineta
did not wish to lose time. Pani Aneta persuaded her to paint Pan
Ignas exclusively, since Kopovski would need only as many sittings
as could be arranged in Prytulov just before their departure for
Scheveningen. For Pan Ignas those sittings had become the first
need of his life, as it were; and if by chance there was any
interruption, he looked on that day as lost. Pani Bronich was present
at the sittings most frequently. But he divined in her a friendly soul;
and at last the manner in which she spoke of Lineta began to please
him. They both just composed hymns in honor of Lineta, whom in
confidential conversation Pani Bronich called “Nitechka.”[10] This
name pleased Pan Ignas the more clearly he felt how that “Nitechka”
(thread) was winding around his heart.

Frequently, however, it seemed to him that Pani Bronich was
narrating improbable things. It was easy to believe that Lineta was
and could be Svirski’s most capable pupil; that Svirski might have
called her “La Perla;” that he might have fallen in love with her, as
Pani Bronich gave one to understand. But that Svirski, known in all
Europe, and rewarded with gold medals at all the exhibitions, could
declare with tears, while looking at some sketch of hers, that saving
technique, he ought rather to take lessons of her, of this even Pan
Ignas permitted himself to doubt. And somewhere, in some corner
of his soul, in which there was hidden yet a small dose of sobriety,
he wondered that Panna “Nitechka” did not contradict directly, but
limited herself to her words usual on such occasions: “Aunt! thou
knowest that I do not wish you to repeat such things.”
But at last he lost even those final gleams of sobriety, and began to
have feelings of tenderness even over the late Bronich, and almost
fell in love with Pani Bronich, for this alone,—that he could talk with
her from morning till night of Lineta.
In consequence of this repeated insistence of Pani Bronich, he
visited also, at this time, old Pan Zavilovski, that Crsus, at whose
house he had never been before. The old noble, with milk-white
mustaches, a ruddy complexion, and gray hair closely trimmed,
received him with his foot in an armchair, and with that peculiar
great-lord familiarity of a man accustomed to this,—that people
count more with him than he with them.
“I beg pardon for not standing,” said he, “but the gout is no joke.
Ha, what is to be done! An inheritance! It seems that this will be
attached to the name for the ages of ages. But hast thou not a twist
in thy thumb sometimes?”
“No,” answered Pan Ignas, who was a little astonished, as well at the
manner of reception as that the old noble said thou to him from the
first moment.
“Wait; old age will come.”

Then, calling his daughter, he presented Pan Ignas to her, and began
to speak of the family, explaining to the young man how they were
related. At last he said,—
“Well, I have not written verses, for I am too dull; but I must tell
thee that thou hast written them for me, and that I was not
ashamed, though I read my name under the verses.”
But the visit was not to end successfully. Panna Zavilovski, a person
of thirty years, good-looking, but, as it were, untimely faded and
gloomy, wishing to take some part in the conversation, began to
inquire of her “cousin” whom he knew, and where he visited. To
every name mentioned, the old noble appended, in one or two
words, his opinion. At mention of Pan Stanislav, he said, “Good
blood!” at Bigiel’s, he inquired, “How?” and when the name was
repeated, he said, “Connais pas;” Pani Aneta he outlined with the
phrase, “Crested lark!” at mention of Pani Bronich he muttered,
“Babbler;” at last, when the young man named, with a certain
confusion, Panna Castelli, the noble, whose leg twitched evidently at
that moment, twisted his face terribly, and exclaimed, “Ei! a Venetian
half-devil!”
At this, it grew dark in the eyes of Pan Ignas, who, notwithstanding
his shyness, was impulsive; his lower jaw came forward more than
ever, and, rising, he measured with a glance the old man from his
aching foot to his crown, and said,—
“You have a way of giving sharp judgments, which does not suit me;
therefore it is pleasant to take farewell.”
And, bowing, he took his hat and departed.
Old Pan Zavilovski, who permitted himself everything, and to whom
everything was forgiven, looked at his daughter some time with
amazement, and only after long silence exclaimed,—
“What! has he gone mad?”

The young man did not tell Pani Bronich what had happened. He
said merely that he had made a visit, and that father and daughter
alike did not please him. She learned everything, however, from the
old man himself, who, for that matter, did not call Lineta anything
but “Venetian half-devil,” even to her eyes.
“But to make the matter perfect, you have sent me a full devil,” said
he; “it is well that he did not break my head.”
Still in his voice one might note a species of satisfaction that it was a
Zavilovski who had shown himself so resolute; but Pani Bronich did
not note it. She took the affair somewhat to heart, and, to the great
astonishment of the “full-devil,” said to him,—
“He is wild about Lineta, and with him this is a sort of term of
tenderness; besides, one should forgive a man much who has such a
position, and in this age. It must be that you haven’t read
Krashevski’s novel, ‘Venetian Half-Devil.’ This is a title in which there
is a certain poetry ever since that author used it. When the old man
grows good-natured, write him a couple of words, will you not? Such
relations should be kept up.”
“Pani,” answered Pan Ignas, “I would not write to him for anything in
the world.”
“Even if some one besides me should ask?”
“That is—again, I am not a stone.”
Lineta laughed when she heard these words. In secret she was
pleased that Pan Ignas, at one word touching her which to him
seemed offensive, sprang up as if he had heard a blasphemy. So
that during the sitting, when for a while they were alone, she said,—
“It is wonderful how little I believe in the sincerity of people. So
difficult is it for me to believe that any one, except aunt, should wish
me well really.”
“Why?”

“I don’t know. I cannot explain it to myself.”
“But, for example, the Osnovskis? Pani Aneta?”
“Pani Aneta?” repeated Lineta.
And she began to paint diligently, as if she had forgotten the
question.
“But I?” asked Pan Ignas, in a lower voice.
“You—yes. You, I am sure, would not let any one speak ill of me. I
feel that you are sincerely well-wishing, though I know not why, for
in general I am of so little worth.”
“You of little worth!” cried Pan Ignas, springing up. “Remember that,
in truth, I will let no one speak ill of you, not even you yourself.”
Lineta laughed and said,—
“Very well; but sit down, for I cannot paint.”
He sat down; but he looked at her with a gaze so full of love and
enchantment that it began to confuse her.
“What a disobedient model!” said she; “turn your head to the right a
little, and do not look at me.”
“I cannot! I cannot!” answered Pan Ignas.
“And I, in truth, cannot paint, for the head was begun in another
position. Wait!”
Then she approached him, and, taking his temples with her fingers,
turned his head toward the right slightly. His heart began to beat like
a hammer; everything went around in his eyes; and, holding the
hand of Lineta, he pressed her warm palm to his lips, and made no
answer,—he only pressed it more firmly.
“Talk with aunt,” said she, hurriedly. “We are going to-morrow.”

They could not say more, for that moment Osnovski, Kopovski, and
Pani Aneta, who had been sitting in the drawing-room adjoining,
came into the studio.
Pani Aneta, seeing Lineta’s blushing cheeks, looked quickly at Pan
Ignas, and asked,—
“How is it going with you to-day?”
“Where is aunt?” inquired Lineta.
“She went out to make visits.”
“Long since?”
“A few minutes ago. How has it gone with you?”
“Well; but enough for to-day.”
Lineta put down her brush, and after a moment went to wash her
hands. Pan Ignas remained there, answering, with more or less
presence of mind, questions put to him; but he wanted to go. He
feared the conversation with Pani Bronich, and, with the habit of
cowards, he wished to defer it till the morrow; he wanted, besides,
to remain a while with his own thoughts, to arrange them, to
estimate better the significance of what had happened. For at that
moment he had in his head merely a certain chaos of indefinite
thoughts; he understood that something unparalleled had happened,
—something from which a new epoch in life would begin. At the very
thought of this, a quiver of happiness passed through him, but also
a quiver of fear, for he felt that now it was too late to withdraw;
through love, through confession, through declaration to the lady
and to her family, he must advance to the altar. He desired this with
his whole soul; but he was so accustomed to consider everything
that was happiness as a poetic imagining, as something belonging
exclusively to the world of thought, art, and dreams, that he almost
lacked daring to believe that Lineta could become his wife really.
Meanwhile he had barely endurance to sit out the time; and when
Lineta returned, he rose to take leave.

She gave him her hand, cooled by fresh water, and said,—
“Will you not wait for aunt?”
“I must go; and to-morrow I will take farewell of you and Pani
Bronich.”
“Then till our next meeting!”
This farewell seemed to Pan Ignas, after what had happened, so
inappropriate and cold that despair seized him; but he had not the
daring to part before people otherwise, all the more that Pani Aneta
was looking at him with uncommon attention.
“Wait! I have something to do in the city; we’ll go together,” said
Osnovski, as he was going out.
And they went together; but barely were they outside the gate of
the villa, when Pan Osnovski stopped, and put his hand on the poet’s
arm.
“Pan Ignas, have you not quarrelled a little with Lineta?”
Pan Ignas looked at him with great eyes.
“I? with Panna Lineta?”
“Yes, for you parted somehow coldly. I thought you were as far, at
least, as hand-kissing.”
Pan Ignas’s eyes grew still larger; Osnovski laughed, and said,—
“Well, I’ll tell you the truth. My wife, as a woman who is curious,
looked at you, and said that something had happened. My Pan
Ignas, you have in me a great friend, who, besides, knows what it is
to love. I can say to you only one thing,—God grant you to be as
happy as I am!”
When he had said this, he began to shake his guest’s hand; and Pan
Ignas, though confused to the highest degree, was barely able to

refrain from falling on his neck.
“Have you really some work to-day? Why did you go?”
“I will tell you sincerely. I wanted to collect my thoughts, and,
besides, fear of Pani Bronich seized me.”
“Then you do not know aunt? Her head, too, is warm with the
question. Come with me a bit of the road, and then go back without
ceremony. On the way you will collect your thoughts; by that time
Pani Bronich will be at home, and you will tell her your little story, at
which she will weep. Nothing else threatens you. Remember, too,
that if you are fortunate you are to thank mainly my Aneta, for, as
God lives, she has filled Castelka’s head, as your own sister might.
She has such an impetuous head, and at the same time such an
honest heart. Equally good women there may be, but a better there
is not on earth. It seemed to us a little that that fool Kopovski was
inclined to Castelka, and Aneta was tremendously angry. They like
Kopovski; but to let her marry such a man—that would be too
much.”
Thus talking, he took Pan Ignas by the hand, and after a moment,
continued, “We are to be relatives soon; let us drop ceremony and
say thou to each other. I must tell thee further: I have no doubt
Castelka loves thee with her whole heart, for she is a true woman
also. Besides, they have turned her head with thee greatly; but she
is so young yet that I tell thee to throw fuel on the fire—throw it!
Dost understand? What is begun should become rooted; this can
happen easily, for hers is really an uncommon nature. Do not think
that I wish to forewarn or to frighten thee. No; it is a question only
of making things permanent. That she loves thee is not subject to
doubt. If thy eyes had but seen her when she was carrying thy book
around, or what happened when she and thou were returning from
the theatre. A stupid thought came to my head then. I spoke of
having heard that old Zavilovski wished to make thy acquaintance
because he had planned to marry thee to his daughter, so that his
property might not leave the name; and imagine to thyself, that poor

girl, when she heard this, became as pale as paper, so that I was
frightened, and took back my words in all haste. What is thy answer
to this?”
Pan Ignas wanted to laugh and to weep; but he merely pressed to
his side, and pressed with all his force, Osnovski’s hand, which he
held under his arm, and said, after a while,—
“I am not worthy of her, no.”
“Well, and after that ‘no’ perhaps thou wilt say, ‘No, I do not love her
properly.’”
“That may be true,” answered Pan Ignas, raising his eyes.
“Well, go back now, and tell thy little story to Aunt Bronich. Do not
fear being too pathetic; she likes that. Till we meet again, Ignas! I
shall be back myself in an hour or so, and we shall have a betrothal
evening.”
They pressed each other’s hands, and Osnovski said, with a feeling
which was quite brotherly,—
“I repeat once more: God grant thee to find in Castelka such a wife
as my Anetka!”
On the way back Pan Ignas thought that Osnovski was an angel,
Pani Osnovski another, Pani Bronich a third, and Lineta, soaring
above them all on the wings of an archangel, something divine and
sacred. He understood at that moment that a heart might love to
pain. In his soul he was kneeling at her knees, bowing to the earth
at her feet; he loved her, deified her, and to all these feelings, which
were playing in him one great hymn, as it were, to greet the dawn,
was joined a feeling of such tenderness, as if that magnified woman
was also a little child, alone, and wonderfully loved, but a little thing,
needing care. He recalled Osnovski’s story of how she had grown
pale when they told her that there was a plan to marry him to
another; and in his soul he repeated, “Ah, but thou art mine, thou
art mine!” He grew tender beyond measure, and gratitude so filled

his heart that it seemed to him that he could not repay her in a
lifetime for that one moment of paleness. He felt happier than ever
before; and at moments the immensity of this happiness almost
frightened him. Hitherto he had been a theoretical pessimist, but
now reality gave the lie to those passing theories with such power
that it was hard for him to believe that he could have deceived
himself to such a degree.
Meanwhile he was returning to the villa, inhaling along the way the
odor of blooming jasmines, and having some species of dim feeling
that that intoxicating odor was nothing external, but simply a part
and component of his happiness. “What people! what a house! what
a family!” said he to himself; “only among them could my White One
be reared!” Then he looked on the sun, setting in calmness; he
looked at the golden curtains of evening, bordered with purple; and
that calmness began to possess him. In those immense lights he felt
boundless love and kindness, which look on the world, cherish, and
bless it. He did not pray in words, it is true; but everything was
singing one thanksgiving prayer in his soul.
At the gate of the villa he recovered as if from a dream; he saw an
old serving-man of the Osnovskis, who was looking at the passing
carriages.
“Good-evening, Stanislav,” said he; “but has not Pani Bronich
returned?”
“I am just looking, but I do not see her.”
“Are the ladies in the drawing-room yet?”
“They are; and Pan Kopovski, too.”
“But who will open for me?”
“The door is open. I’ve come out only this minute.”
Pan Ignas went up; but, finding no one in the common drawing-
room, he went to the studio. There, too, he found no one; but in the

adjoining smaller chamber certain low voices reached him through
the portière dividing that room from the studio. Thinking to find
there both ladies and Kopovski, he drew aside the portière slightly,
and, looking in, was stupefied.
Lineta was not in the room; but Kopovski was kneeling before Pani
Osnovski, who, holding her hands thrust into his abundant hair, was
bending his head back, inclining her face at the same time, as if to
place a kiss on his forehead.
“Anetka, if thou love me—” said Kopovski, with a voice stifled from
passion.
“I love—but no! I don’t want that,” answered Pani Osnovski, pushing
him away somewhat.
Pan Ignas dropped the portière with an involuntary movement; for a
moment he stood before it as if his feet had grown leaden. Finally,
without giving himself a clear account of what he was doing, he
passed through the studio, where the sound of his steps was
deadened on the thick carpet, as it had been when he entered; he
passed the main drawing-room, the entrance, the front steps, and
came to himself at the gate of the villa.
“Is the serene lord going out?” inquired the old serving-man.
“Yes,” answered Pan Ignas.
He walked away as quickly as if escaping from something. After a
time, however, he stopped, and said aloud to himself,—
“Why have I not gone mad?”
And suddenly madness seemed to him possible, for he felt that he
was losing the thread of his thoughts; that he could not give himself
an account of anything; that he understood nothing, believed
nothing. Something began to tear in him, fall away. How was it?
That house which a moment before he thought to be some kind of
blessed retreat of exceptional souls, conceals the usual falsehood,

the usual wickedness, the usual vileness of life,—a wretched and
shameful comedy. And his Lineta, his White One, is breathing such
an atmosphere, living in such an environment, existing with such
beings! Here Osnovski’s words occurred to him: “God grant thee to
find in Castelka such a wife as I have in my Anetka!” “I thank thee,”
thought Pan Ignas, and he began to laugh, in spite of himself.
Neither evil nor vileness were to him a novelty: he had seen them,
and he knew that they existed; but for the first time life showed
them to him with such a merciless irony, as that through which Pan
Osnovski,—a man who had shown him the heart of a brother; a man
honest, just, kind as few people in the world are—turned out to be
also a fool, a kind of exalted idiot, exalted through his faith and his
feeling; an idiot through a woman. And for the first time, too, he
saw clearly what a bad and contemptible woman may make of a
man, without any fault of his. On a sudden new, dreadful horizons of
life opened before him,—whole regions, the existence of which he
had not suspected; he had understood before that an evil woman,
like a vampire, may suck the life out of a man, and kill him, and that
seemed to him demonic, but he had not imagined that she could
make a fool of him also. He could not master that thought. But still,
Osnovski was ridiculous when he wished him to be as happy with his
future wife as he with Anetka; there was no help for this case either.
One should not so love as to grow blind to that degree.
Here his thoughts passed to Lineta. At the first moment he had a
feeling that from that vileness in the house of the Osnovskis, and
from that doubt which was born in his heart, a certain shadow fell
on her also. After a while he began, however, to cast out that feeling
as though it were profanation, treason against innocence, treason
against a being as pure as she was beloved, and defiling in thought
her and her angelic plumage. Indignation at himself seized him.
“Does such a dove even think evil?” asked he, in his soul. And his
love rose still more at the thought that “such a super-pure child”
must come in contact with such depravity. He would take her with
the utmost haste possible from Pani Osnovski’s, guard her from that
woman’s influence, seize her in his arms, and bear her from that

house, in which her innocent eyes might be opened on evil and
depravity. A certain demon whispered at moments to his ear, it is
true, that Osnovski, too, believes as he does, and that he would give
his own blood in pledge for his wife’s honesty; he too would count
every doubt a profanation of her sacredness. But Pan Ignas drove
away those whisperings with dread. “It is enough to look into her
eyes,” said he; and at the mere thought of those eyes, he was ready
to beat his own breast, as if lie had sinned most grievously. He was
also angry at himself because he had come out, because he had not
waited for Pani Bronich, and had not strengthened himself with the
sight of Lineta. He remembered now how he had pressed her hand
to his lips; how she, changing from emotion, said to him, “Speak
with aunt.” How much angelic simplicity and purity there was in
those words! what honesty of a soul, which, loving, wishes to be
free to love before the whole world! Pan Ignas, when he thought of
this, was seized by a desire to return; but he felt that he was too
much excited, and that he could not explain his former presence if
the servant should mention it.
Then again the picture rose before his eyes of Kopovski kneeling to
Pani Osnovski; and he fell to inquiring of himself what he was to do
in view of this, and how he was to act. Warn Osnovski? he rejected
this thought at once with indignation. Shut himself in with Pani
Osnovski, and give her a sermon, eye to eye? She would show him
the door. After a time it came to his head to threaten Kopovski, and
force from him a promise to cease visiting the Osnovskis. But soon
he saw that that, too, was useless. Kopovski, if he had even a small
share of courage, would give him the lie, challenge him; in such a
case he would have to be silent, and people would think that the
scandal rose because of Panna Castelli. Pan Ignas was sorry for
Osnovski; he had conceived for the man a true friendship, and, on
the other hand, he was too young to be reconciled at once with the
thought that evil and human crookedness were to continue
unpunished. Ah! but if at that juncture he could have counselled
with some one,—for instance, with Pan Stanislav or Marynia. But

that could not be. And after long thought he resolved to bury all in
himself, and be silent.
At the same time, from the passionate prayer of Kopovski and the
answer of Pani Aneta, he inferred that the evil might not have
passed yet into complete fall. He did not know women; but he had
read no little about them. He knew that there exists some for whom
the form of evil has more charm than the substance; that there are
women devoid of moral sense, but also of passion, who have just as
much desire for a prohibited adventure as they have repugnance to
complete fall,—in a word, those who are incapable of loving
anybody, who deceive their lovers as well as their husbands. He
recalled the words of a certain Frenchman: “If Eve had been Polish,
she would have plucked the apple, but not eaten it.” A similar type
seemed to him Pani Aneta; vice might be in her as superficial as
virtue, and in such case the forbidden relation might annoy her very
soon, especially with a man like Kopovski.
Here, however, Pan Ignas lost the basis of reasoning and the key to
the soul of Pani Aneta. He would have understood relations with any
other man more readily than with Kopovski,—that archangel with the
brains of an idiot. “A poodle understands more of what is said to
him,” thought Pan Ignas; “and a woman with such aspirations to
reason, to science, to art, to the understanding of every thought and
feeling, could lower herself for such a head!” He could not explain
this to himself, even with what he had read about women.
And still reality said more definitely than all books that it was so.
Suddenly Pan Ignas remembered what Osnovski had said to him
about their fear lest that fool might have plans against Castelka, that
the mention of this had angered Pani Aneta immensely, and that she
filled Lineta’s head with feeling for another. So then, for Pani Aneta
the question consisted in this, that Kopovski should not pay court to
Lineta. She wanted to save him for herself. Here Pan Ignas shivered
all at once, for the thought struck him, that if that were true,
Kopovski must have had some chance of success; and again a
shadow pursued the bright form of Lineta. If that were true, she

would fall in his eyes to the level of Pani Aneta. After a time he felt
bitterness in his mouth and fire in his brain. Anger sprang upon him,
like a tempest; he could not forgive her this, and the very suspicion
would have poisoned him. Halting again on the street, he felt that he
must throttle that thought in himself, or go mad from it.
In fact, he put it down so effectively that he recognized himself as
the lowest fool for this alone,—that the thought could come to him.
That Lineta was incapable of loving Kopovski was shown best by
this,—that she had fallen in love with him, Pan Ignas; and the fears
and suspicions of Pani Aneta flowed only from the self-love of a vain
woman, who was afraid that another might be recognized as more
attractive and beautiful than she was. Pan Ignas had the feeling of
having pushed from his breast a stone, which had oppressed him.
He began then in spirit to implore on his knees pardon of the
unspotted one; and thenceforth his thoughts touching her were full
of love, homage, and contrition.
Now he made the remark to himself that evil, though committed by
another, bears evil; how many foul thoughts had passed through his
mind only because he had seen a fool at the feet of a giddy head!
He noted that consideration down in his memory.
When near his lodgings he met Pan Stanislav with Pani Mashko on
his arm; and that day had so poisoned him that a sudden suspicion
flashed through his mind. But Pan Stanislav recognized him in the
light of the moon and a lamp, and had no desire to hide evidently,
for he stopped him.
“Good-evening,” said he. “Why home so early to-day?”
“I was at Pani Bronich’s, and I am just strolling about, for the
evening is beautiful.”
“Then step in to us. As soon as I conduct this lady home, I will
return. My wife has not seen you this long time.”
“I will go,” said Pan Ignas.

And a desire to see Pani Marynia had seized him really. So many
thoughts and feelings had rushed through him that he was weary;
and he knew that the calm and kind face of Marynia would act on
him soothingly.
Soon he rang the bell at Pan Stanislav’s. When he had entered, he
explained, after the greeting, that he came at the request of her
husband, to which she answered,—
“Of course! I am very glad. My husband at this moment is escorting
home Pani Mashko, who visited me, but he will return to tea. The
Bigiels will be here surely, and perhaps my father will come, if he has
not gone to the theatre.”
Then she indicated a place at the table to him, and, straightening
the lamp shade, began on the work with which she was occupied
previously,—making little rosettes of narrow red and blue ribbons, of
which there was a pile lying before her.
“What are you making?” asked Pan Ignas.
“Rosettes. They are sewed to various costumes.”
After a while she added,—
“But this is far more interesting,—what are you doing? Do you know
that all Warsaw is marrying you to Lineta Castelli? They have seen
you both in the theatre, at the races; they see you at the
promenades; and it is impossible to persuade them that the affair is
not decided already.”
“Since I have spoken with you so openly, I will tell you now that it is
almost decided.”
Marynia raised to him eyes enlivened with a smile and with curiosity.
“Is that true? Ah, that is a perfect piece of news! May God give you
such happiness as we wish you!”

Then she stretched her hand to him, and afterward inquired with
roused curiosity,—
“Have you spoken with Lineta?”
Pan Ignas told her how it was, and acknowledged his conversation
with Lineta and with Osnovski; then, letting himself be borne away
in the narrative, he confessed everything that had happened to him
—how, from the beginning, he had observed, criticised, and
struggled with himself; how he had not dared to hope; how he had
tried to drive that feeling from his head, or rather, from his heart,
and how he could not resist it. He assured her that he had promised
himself a number of times to cut short the acquaintance and the
visits, but strength failed him each time; each time he saw with
amazement that the whole world, the whole object of his life, was
there; that without her, without Lineta, he would not know what to
do with his life—and he went back to her.
Pan Ignas had not observed himself less truthfully, but he criticised
and struggled less than he said. He spoke sincerely, however. He
added at the end that he knew with certainty that he loved, not his
own feelings involved in Lineta, but Lineta herself, for herself, and
that she was the dearest person on earth to him.
“Think,” said he, “others have families, mothers, sisters, brothers; I,
except my unfortunate father, have no one, and therefore my love
for the whole world is centred in her.”
“True,” said Marynia; “that had to come.”
“This seems a dream to me,” continued he; “it cannot find place in
my head that she will be my wife really. At times it seems to me that
this cannot happen; that something will intervene; that all will be
lost.”
In fact, this feeling was strengthened in him by exaltation, to which
he was more inclined than other men, and at last he began to

tremble nervously; then he covered his eyes with his hands, and
said,—
“You see I must shield my eyes to imagine this properly. Such
happiness! such fabulous happiness! What does a man seek in life,
and in marriage? Just that, and in its own course that exceeds his
strength. I do not know whether I am so weak or what? but I say
sincerely that at times breath fails me.”
Marynia placed her rosette on the table, and, putting her hands on
it, looked at him for a while, then said,—
“You are a poet, and are carried away too much; you should look
more calmly. Listen to what I will tell you. I have a little book from
my mother, in which, while she was sick and without hope of
recovery, she wrote for me what she thought was good. About
marriage she wrote down something which later I have not heard
from any one, and have not read in any book,—that is, that one
should not marry to be happy, but to accomplish those duties which
God imposes at marriage; and that happiness is only an addition, a
gift of God. You see how simple this is; and still it is true that not
only have I not heard it since, but I have not seen any woman or
any man about to marry who thought more of duty than of
happiness. Remember this, and repeat it to Lineta,—will you?”
Pan Ignas looked at her with astonishment.
“Do you know this is so simple that really it will never come to any
one’s mind?”
She laughed a little sadly, and, taking her rosette, began again to
sew. After a while she repeated,—
“Tell that to Lineta.”
And she sewed on, drawing out with quick movement her somewhat
thin hand, together with the needle.

“You will understand that if one has such a principle in the heart,
one has perpetual peace, more joyous, or sadder, as God grants, but
still deep. But without that there is only a kind of feverish happiness,
and deceptions always at hand, even if only for this reason,—that
happiness may be different from what we imagine it.” And she
sewed on.
He looked at her inclined head, at her moving hand, at her work; he
heard her voice; and it seemed to him that that peace of which she
had spoken was floating above her, was filling the whole
atmosphere, was suspended above the table, was burning mildly in
the lamp, and finally, was entering him.
He was so occupied with himself, with his love, that it did not even
occur to him that her heart could be sad. Meanwhile he was
penetrated, as it were, by a double astonishment: first, that these
truths which she had told him were such an a, b, c, that they ought
to lie on the very surface of every thought; and second, that in spite
of this, his own thought had not worked them out of itself, or, at
least, had not looked at them. “What is that,” thought he, “our
wisdom, bookish in comparison with that simple wisdom of an
honest woman’s heart?” Then, recalling Pani Aneta, and looking at
Marynia, he began this monologue in his soul, “That woman and this
woman!” And suddenly there came to him immense solace; all his
disturbed thoughts settled down to their level. He felt that he was
resting while looking at that noble woman. “In Lineta,” said he to
himself, “there is the same calmness, the same simplicity, and the
same honesty.”
Now Pan Stanislav came, a little later the Bigiels, after which the
violoncello was brought. At tea Pan Stanislav spoke of Mashko.
Mashko conducted the suit against the will with all energy, and it
advanced, though there were difficulties at every step. The advocate
on the side of the benevolent institutions—that young Sledz
(herring), whom Mashko promised to sprinkle with pepper, cover
with oil, and swallow—turned out not to be so easily eaten as had

seemed. Pan Stanislav heard that he was a man cool, resolute, and
at the same time a skilled lawyer.
“What is amusing, withal,” said he, “is, that Mashko, as Mashko,
considers himself a kind of patrician, who is fighting with a plebeian,
and says this will be a test of whose blood is thicker. It is a pity that
Bukatski is not living; this would give him amusement.”
“But is Mashko in St. Petersburg all this time?” asked Bigiel.
“He returns to-day; for that reason she could not stay for the
evening,” answered Pan Stanislav; after a while he added, “I had in
my time a prejudice against her; but I have convinced myself that
she is not a bad woman, and, besides, is poor.”
“How poor? Mashko hasn’t lost the case yet,” said Pani Bigiel.
“But he is always from home. Pani Mashko’s mother is in an optical
hospital in Vienna, and will lose her eyes, perhaps. Pani Mashko is
alone whole days, like a hermitess. I say that I had a prejudice
against her, but now I am sorry for her.”
“It is true,” said Marynia, “that since marriage she has become far
more sympathetic.”
“Yes,” answered Pan Stanislav; “and besides she has lost no charm.
Red eyes injured her formerly; but now the redness has vanished,
and she is as maiden-like as ever.”
“But it is unknown whether Mashko is equally pleased with that,”
remarked Bigiel.
Marynia was anxious to tell those present the news about Pan Ignas;
but since he was not betrothed yet officially, she did not know that it
might be mentioned. When, however, after tea, Pani Bigiel began to
inquire of him how the matter stood, he himself said that it was as
good as finished, and Marynia put in her word announcing that the
matter stood in this form,—that they might congratulate Pan Ignas.
All began then to press his hand with that true friendship which they

had for him, and genuine gladness possessed all. Bigiel, from
delight, kissed Pani Bigiel; Pan Stanislav commanded to bring
glasses and a bottle of champagne, to drink the health of the “most
splendid couple” in Warsaw; Pani Bigiel began to joke with Pan
Ignas, predicting what the housekeeping of a poet and an artist
would be. He laughed; but was really moved by this, that his dreams
were beginning to be real.
A little later, Pan Stanislav punched him, and said,—
“The happiness of God, but I will give you one advice: what you
have in poetry, put into business, into work; be a realist in life, and
remember that marriage is no romance.”
But he did not finish, for Marynia put her hand suddenly over his
mouth, and said, laughing, “Silence, thou wise head!”
And then to Pan Ignas, “Don’t listen to this grave pate: make no
theories beforehand for yourself; only love.”
“True, Pani, true,” answered Pan Ignas.
“In that case, buy a harp for yourself,” added Pan Stanislav, jeeringly.
At mention of the harp, Bigiel seized his violoncello, saying that they
ought to end such an evening with music. Marynia sat at the piano,
and they began one of Handel’s serenades. Pan Ignas had the
impression that the soul was going out of him. He took those mild
tones into himself, and was flying amid the night, lulling Lineta to
sleep with them. Late in the evening, he came out, as if
strengthened with the sight of those worthy people.

CHAPTER XLVI.
Marynia had such peace “as God gave,” but really deep. A great aid
to finding it was that voice from beyond the grave,—the little book,
yellowed by years, in which she read “that a woman should not
marry to be happy, but to fulfil the duties which God imposes on her
then.” Marynia, who looked frequently into this little book, had read
more than once those lines before that; but real meaning they had
taken on for her only of late, in that spiritual process through which
she had passed after her return from Italy. It ended in this way, that
she was not only reconciled with fate, but at present she did not
admit even the thought that she was unhappy. She repeated to
herself that it was a happiness different, it is true, from what she
had imagined, but none the less real. It is certain that, if God had
given her the power of arranging people’s hearts, she would have
wished “Stas” to show her, not more honor, but more of that
tenderness of which he was capable, and which he had shown in her
time to Litka; that his feeling for her might be less sober, and have
in it a certain kernel of poetry which her own love had. But, on the
other hand, she cherished always somewhere, in some little corner
of her heart,—first, the hope that that might come to pass; and,
second, she thought in her soul that, even if it did not, then, as
matters stood, she ought to thank God for having given her a brave
and honest man, whom she could not only love, but esteem. More
than once she stopped to compare him with others, and could not
find any one to sustain the comparison. Bigiel was worthy, but he
had not that dash; Osnovski, with all his goodness, lacked practical
knowledge of life and work; Mashko was a person a hundred times
lower in everything; Pan Ignas seemed to her rather a genial child
than a man,—in a word, from every comparison “Stas” came out
always victorious, and the one result was that she felt for him an
increasing trust as to vital questions, and loved him more and more.

At the same time, while denying herself, subjecting to him her own
I, bringing in sacrifice her imaginings and her selfishness, she had
the feeling that she was developing more and more in a spiritual
sense, that she was perfecting herself, that she was becoming
better, that she was not descending to any level, but rising to some
height, whence the soul would be nearer to God; and all at once she
saw that in such a feeling lies the whole world of happiness. Pan
Stanislav at that time was away from home often, therefore she was
alone frequently; and, more than once, she reasoned with the great
simplicity of an honest woman: “People should strive to be better
and better; but if I am not worse than I was, it is well. Were it
otherwise, maybe I should be spoiled.” She did not come, however,
to the thought that there was more wisdom in this than in all the
ideas and talks of Pani Osnovski. It seemed to her natural, too, that
she had less charm at that time for “Stas” than formerly. Looking
into her mirror, she said to herself: “Well, the eyes do not change,
but what a figure! what a face! If I were Stas, I would run out of the
house!” And she thought an untruth, for she would not have run
out; but it seemed to her that in this way she was increasing “Stas’s”
merit. She got comfort, too, from Pani Bigiel, who said that
afterward she would be fairer than ever, “just like some young girl.”
And, at times, joy and thankfulness rose in her heart, because all is
so wisely arranged; and if, at first, one is a little uglier and must
suffer a little, not only does all return, but, as a reward, there is a
beloved “bobo” which attaches one to life, and creates a new bond
between wife and husband. In this way, she had times, not only of
peace, but simply of joyfulness, and sometimes she said to Pani
Bigiel,—
“Dost thou know what I think?—it is possible to be happy always,
only we must fear God.”
“What has one to do with the other?” asked Pani Bigiel, who from
her husband had gained a love of clear thinking.
“This,” answered Marynia,—”that we should rest with what He gives
us, and not importune Him, because He hasn’t given that which

seems to us better.”
Then she added joyously, “We mustn’t tease for happiness.” And
both began to laugh.
Frequently, too, in the tenderness almost exaggerated which Pan
Stanislav showed his wife, it was clearly evident that he was thinking
chiefly of the child; but Marynia did not take that ill of him now. In
truth, she never had; but at present she was willing to count it a
merit in him, for she thought it the duty of both to care above all for
the child, as for their future mutual love. Yielding up daily in this way
something of her own care for self, she gained more and more
peace, more and more calmness; these feelings were reflected in
her eyes, which were more beautiful than ever. Her main anxiety
now was that it should be a daughter. She was ready even in this to
yield to the will of God, but she feared “Stas” a little; and one day
she asked him in jest,—
“Stas, and thou wilt not kill me if it is a son?”
“No,” answered he, laughing and kissing her hand; “but I should
prefer a daughter.”
“But I have heard from Pani Bigiel that men always prefer sons.”
“But I am such a man that I prefer a daughter.”
Not always, however, were her thoughts so joyous. At times it came
to her head that she might die, for she knew that death happens in
such cases; and she prayed earnestly that it should not happen, for
first she feared it, second, she would be sorry to go away, even to
heaven, when she had such a prospect of loving, and finally she
imagined to herself that “Stas” would mourn for her immensely. And
at that thought she grew as tender over him as if he had been at
that moment a man more deserving of pity than all other
unfortunates living. Never had she spoken to him of this, though it
seemed to her that sometimes he had feared it.

But she deceived herself thoroughly. The doctor, who came to
Marynia weekly, assured both her and her husband after each visit
that all was and would be most regular; hence Pan Stanislav had no
fear for his wife’s future. The cause of his alarm was something
quite different, which happily for herself Marynia had not suspected,
and which Pan Stanislav himself had not dared even to name in his
own mind. For some time something had begun to go wrong in his
life calculations, of which he had been so proud, and which had
given him such internal security. A little while before he had
considered that his theories of life were like a house built of firm
timbers, resting on solid foundations. In his soul he was proud of
that house, and in secret exalted himself above those who had not
the skill to build anything like it. Speaking briefly, he thought himself
a better life architect than others. He judged that the labor was
finished from foundation to summit, only go in, live, and rest there.
He forgot that a human soul, like a bird when it has soared to a
given height, not only is not free to rest, but must work its wings
hard to support itself, otherwise the very first temptation will bring it
to the earth again.
The worse and vainer the temptation, the more was he enraged at
himself because he gave way to it. A mean desire, a low object,—he
had not even anything to explain to himself; and still the walls of his
house had begun to crack. Pan Stanislav was a religious man now,
and that from conviction; he was too sincere with himself to enter
into a compromise with his own principles, and say to himself that
such things happen even to the firmest of believers. No! He was by
nature a man rather unsparing, and logic said to him “either, or;”
hence he felt that speaking thus it spoke justly. Hitherto he had not
given way to temptation; but still he was angry because he was
tempted, for temptation brought him to doubt his own character.
Considering himself as better than others, he stood suddenly in face
of the question, was he not worse than others, for not only had
temptation attacked him, but he felt that in a given case he might
yield to it.

More than once, while looking at Pani Osnovski, he repeated to
himself the opinion of Confucius: “An ordinary woman has as much
reason as a hen; an extraordinary woman as much as two hens.” In
view of Pani Mashko, it occurred to him that there are women with
reference to whom this Chinese truth, which makes one indignant, is
flattery. Had it been at least possible to say of Pani Mashko that she
was honestly stupid, it would become a certain individual trait of
hers; but she was not. A few, or a few tens of formulas had made of
her a polite nonentity. Just as two or three hundred phrases make
up the whole language of the inhabitants of New Guinea, and satisfy
all their wants, so those formulas satisfied Pani Mashko as to social
relations, thoughts, and life. For that matter, she was as completely
passive within that shade of automatic dignity which narrowness of
mind produces, and a blind faith that if proper formalities are
observed, there can be no error. Pan Stanislav knew her as such,
and as such ridiculed her more than once while she was unmarried.
He called her a puppet, a manikin; he felt enraged at her because of
that doctor who had perished for her in some place where pepper
grows; he disregarded her and did not like her. But even then, as
often as he saw her, whether at the Bigiels’, or when on Mashko’s
business he went to Pani Kraslavski, he always returned under the
physical impression which she made on him, of which he gave
himself an account. That quenched face, that passive, vegetable
calm of expression, that coldness of bearing, that frequent
reddening of the eyes, that slender form, had in them something
which affected him unusually. He explained that to himself then by
some law of natural selection; and when he had outlined the thing
technically, he stopped there, for the impression which Marynia had
made on him was still greater, hence he had followed it. At present,
however, Marynia was his, and he had grown used to her beauty,
which, moreover, had disappeared for a period. It so happened that
because of Mashko’s frequent journeys, he saw Pani Mashko almost
daily, in consequence of which former impressions not only revived,
but, in the conditions in which Pan Stanislav found himself with
reference to Marynia, they revived with unexpected vigor. And it
happened finally that he who would not consent to be in leading

strings for the ten times more beautiful and charming Pani Osnovski;
he, who had resisted her Roman fantasies; he, who had looked on
himself as a man of principles, stronger in character and firmer in
mind than most people,—saw now that if Pani Mashko wished to
push that edifice with her foot, all its bindings might be loosened,
and the ceiling tumble on his head. Of a certainty, he would not
cease to love his wife, for he was sincerely and profoundly attached
to her; but he felt that he might be in a condition to betray her,—and
then not only her, but himself, his principles, his conceptions of what
an honest and a moral man should be. With a certain terror as well
as anger, he found in himself not merely the human beast, but a
weak beast. He was alarmed by this, he rebelled against this
weakness; but still he could not overcome it. It was a simple thing in
view of this, not to see Pani Mashko, or to see her as seldom as
possible; meanwhile he was finding reasons to see her the oftenest
possible. At first he wanted to lull himself with these reasons; but, in
view of his innate consistency, that was impossible, and it ended
with this, that he merely invented them. Straightway, he deceived
with them his wife, and whomever he wished. When in company
with Pani Mashko, he could not refrain from looking at her, from
embracing with his glance her face and whole person. A sickly
curiosity seized him as to how she would bear herself in case he
appeared before her with what was happening within him. What
would she say then? And he took pleasure in spite of himself in
supposing that she would bear herself with perfect passiveness. He
despised her beforehand for this; but she became the more desired
by him thereby. In himself he discovered whole mountains of
depravity, which he referred to long stay in foreign countries; and,
having considered himself up to that time a fresh and healthy
nature, he began to grow alarmed. Had he not been deceived in
himself, and was not that wonderful impression produced on him by
a being so little attractive the appearance of some neurosis
consuming him without his knowledge? It had not occurred to him
that there might exist even such conditions in which the soul of a
man simply despises a woman, but the human beast longs for her.

In her, instinct had taken the place of mental keenness; besides, she
was not so naïve as not to know what his glance meant as it slipped
over her form, or what his eyes said when talking, especially when
they were alone, and he looked into her face with a certain
persistence. At first she felt a kind of satisfaction for her self-love,
which it is difficult for even an honest woman to resist when she
sees the impression produced by her; when she feels herself
distinguished, desired beyond others,—in a word, victorious.
Besides, she was ready not to recognize and not to see the danger,
just as a partridge does not wish to see it, when it hides its head in
the snow, on feeling the hawk circling above it. For Pani Mashko
appearances were this snow; and Pan Stanislav felt that. He knew
also from his experience as a single man that there are women for
whom it is a question above all of preserving certain, frequently
even strange, appearances. He remembered some who burst out in
indignation when he said to them in Polish that which they heard in
French with a smile; he had met even those who were
unapproachably firm at home and in the city, and so free in summer
residences, at watering, or bathing places, and others who endured
an attempt, but could not endure words, and others for whom the
decisive thing was light or darkness. In all places where virtue did
not come from the soul, and from principles ingrafted like
vaccination into the blood, resistance or fall depended on accident or
surroundings, or external, frequently favoring circumstances,
personal ideas of polite appearances. He judged that it might be
thus with Pani Mashko; and if hitherto he had not entered the road
of testing and trying, it was simply because he was battling with
himself, because he did not wish to give way, and, despising her in
the bottom of his soul, he wished to escape the position of despising
himself. Attachment to Marynia restrained him too, and sympathy, as
it were, mingled with respect for her condition and gratitude to her,
and the hope of fatherhood, which moved him, and a remembrance
of the shortness of the time which they had lived together, and
honesty, and a religious feeling. These were chains, as it were, at
which the human beast was still tugging.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance A Transdisciplinary Approach Anna Johansson

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance A Transdisciplinary Approach Anna Johansson

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82