How do the Powerful allow Resistance?

It would seem, following conventional wisdom, that power would not allow for resistance to thrive in any form. This freedom to resist goes precisely against the logic of power. But, no matter the amount of repression, power indeed cannot weed out all forms and elements of resistance to it. What is the mechanism of power, and power exclusively, such that resistance is allowed? Here, we begin in a way in which we defy Foucault, who always posits 'power' and 'resistance' elements to emerge together. We believe that power emerges independently of resistance, but here resistance is defined precisely as a human being, as a resisting subject, and henceforth, as a 'resistor' (which is positive here) or revolutionary (which is negative here). 

We will forward here one hypothesis: that power and resistant-human-beings do not arise at the same time. There are two types of resistance, the resistance composed of subversive knowledge elements, and the resistance composed of bodies of human beings. The hypothesis that we put forth is that in a bid to counter the knowledge based resistance, power also inadvertently creates and then counters the resisting subject, or the subject as resistor/revolutionary. What we mean is that the revolutionary figurehead of a political struggle is not the final, end-point of repression, but rather, the subversive knowledge elements which have enabled the labeling of him as revolutionary is what repressive mechanisms are after. A 'problematic' revolutionary appears such that he himself becomes the site of both the performer of a subversive knowledge and the protector of that knowledge; he aggravates the problem by eliciting the confusion between subversive knowledge and socialized bodies. In the eyes of power, when knowledge becomes seen as subversive, the subject becomes seen as revolutionary. The revolutionary is not even an effect of the knowledge he himself subscribes to, but an effect of the way this knowledge has been interpreted as 'subversive' by power.

We have started to define the subject in such a way that his/her resistive character or quality is performed; that he/she performs his/her resistance. This is the truth we have observed in Nepal, where resistance is seldom organized into a solid group, but seems to appear spontaneously depending on the policies enacted which need to be resisted; people perform the role of revolutionaries when they take to the street without realizing or having read the texts on which their resistive actions are based. The first thing we say, therefore, is that resistance is not something internalized by the subject, but rather, that the subject is called/commanded to resist, and acts as a resistor. It is precisely the dominant power which commands the resistor to resist, to act subversive, whereas the knowledge which he/she subscribes to is the only thing which is truly subversive. This performative dimension of the resistor means that he/she is not always directly interested in the struggle against power, but rather, to flip the argument, that power creates the subject as a resistor in its attempt to uncover and repress subversive knowledge. We do not have the powerless always trying to take power, but sometimes only interested in the immediate policies that they disagree with. Foucault's conception of the power-resistance dynamic only applies in radicalized settings; in non-radical settings, subjects are not interested in taking power, but are more interested in seeing the powerful do their duties properly. In fact, the resistance of the subject may come after the repression of the subject, insofar as this repression by the powerful itself is developed for subversive knowledge and the subject simply 'gets in the way.'

The subject 'gets in the way' of precisely the repression as applied to subversive knowledge. It is first knowledge which is resisted and only then, in particular cases, the subject. Why is knowledge resisted first? Because knowledge is more threatening as it attempts to change the lifestyle of power. A certain order which power maintains is threatened by knowledge. Knowledge has the ability to get too close, to get unconsciously internalized even...whereas the resistor-as-subject is further away. The subject is an indirect effect of the problematic knowledge ...it does not threaten power in the same way that direct knowledge does; the subject is an isolated case of the application of subversive knowledge and not the free flowing knowledge itself. For example, it is not of a concern for the powerful capitalist nation to really repress those who are communists, the communist subjects, but rather, to repress the knowledge of communism, the knowledge constituted as communism, because this knowledge has the potential to impact power, to get too close to power. So, it is the subject-as-resistor who gets caught up in the process of repression not as an end-point of the repressive processes but as somewhere before the end-point, with subversive knowledge being the absolute end-point. The subject is a 'resistor' or revolutionary only through a classification by mistaken power which believes the resistor as embodied in a person is the more dangerous threat. There is no resistor from which the knowledge to be resisted comes forth, rather all forms of human resistors are caught up in the game between subversive knowledge and power. It is the books, the writings, the concepts that are dangerous because they can infiltrate. This is precisely what is problematic for revolutionary struggle: that the revolutionary person believes himself to be the site of all forms of repression, and invites it towards him, but these repressive mechanisms and forces are more interested in the subversive knowledge which has shaped him, the subversive knowledge of which the resistor himself is only an effect. The subject is a 'double effect': once the effect of subversive knowledge, and second the effect of repressive mechanisms acting upon the subversive knowledge to which he/she is connected as a resistor.

In a post-Marxist era, we must not only problematize the Soviet Union and the problems of Marxism once it has been successfully turned into a powerful political movement, but also problematize the revolutionary struggle that Marxists pursue itself; Marxism is a problem even when it is not certain. In a post-political vein, we must say that the protest movement, the revolution, the guerrilla revolutionary are all in crisis, because we have realized that the subject who claims to be resisting is not in charge of resistance and the subject is never directly the concern of power. This desubjectivized, automatic character of resistance is very problematic as it may discourage resistive political participation completely. Let us end with an example of what seems true for resistors of today, such as for the Zapatista. Their goal is not to be fully vocal and revolutionary in character, to go out on the streets and take power, but rather, they realize that resistance to power only invites more repression, more violence, more negativity...what the Zapatista want is to be left alone, to be true resistance-actors, to perform an act, a theatrical performance, of resistance. They have realized that they are not what power is after, that they are only marked with the subversive knowledge which power considers infectious to its own territory...so they do not act, rather, if power wants to, it can act on them. Their main goal is to be resistive without attempting to spark a revolution; they want to be resistive in their own space, and not be overtly influential on other spaces. Today, the Americans do not want to see communism come too close to them, but they are happy to let if thrive among other people; people are further away, they occupy their own spaces and they only become problematic when power itself begins labeling them as subversive resistors, once they become embroiled in the game between power and subversive knowledge. This is how capitalism has attempted to be responsible today.