RESEARCH/ANALYSIS FINAL ASSIGNMENT

profileonthehunt2
StephenDuncombe_Resistance_.pdf

176

standard of correspondence between media lives and

people outside the stories is more likely to reproduce di-

visions among niche markets (selling to “teenage boys”

or “Hispanic women”) than to reenvision the world.

Shaw’s gamers want vision, not representation in the

conventional sense. Media can do that, too. From webi-

sodes to games to youth- authored memes for political

candidates, what world do we want, and how can we use

our new platforms to imagine it together? How do we

connect those platforms and images to the high stakes

of enfranchisement in everyday life? US children’s tele-

vision host Fred Rogers famously said that “if you know

someone’s story, you will love them.” Can we produce

and expect stories of inclusive regard and solidarity in

our representational future?

57 Resistance Stephen Duncombe

“Resistance,” as a keyword for contemporary media

studies, has a curious political lineage. It was first

adopted by the right, then crossed the aisle to the

left; its history marks the evolution of an idea and a

transformation in cultural politics.

The English word “resistance” is a derivation of “re-

sist,” stemming from the Latin— via the French— and

meaning to stand. Resistance has a technical scientific

meaning, “the opposition offered by one body to the

pressure or movement of another,” as well as a later

psychoanalytic one: the unconscious opposition to

repressed memories or desires. But it is the Oxford Eng-

lish Dictionary’s primary definition, “to stop or hinder

(a moving body); to succeed in standing against; to

prevent (a weapon, etc.) from piercing or penetrating,”

that conveys the meaning most often used in media

studies: resistance is a stand against an oppositional

power.

Writing Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790,

Edmund Burke is horrified by the French overthrow of

birthright authority, the leveling of classes, and other

such “usurpation[s] on the prerogatives of nature”

(1993, 49). (He is particularly horrified by the thought of

the hairdresser who thinks himself the equal of his bet-

ters.) The only response to such usurpations is to resist

the Revolution, and return to time- tested tradition. But,

as Burke understands, this resistance must go deeper,

for revolutionary France also holds the intimate dan-

ger of “teaching us a servile, licentious and abandoned

Keywords for Media Studies, edited by Laurie Ouellette, and Jonathan Gray, New York University Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/odu/detail.action?docID=4717750. Created from odu on 2022-09-01 00:10:57.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

r e s I s t A n C e s t e p h e n d u n c O M b e 177

insolence” (54). Resistance, as such, is a matter of sub-

jectivity as well as statecraft.

Nearly a century later, Burke’s countryman, Matthew

Arnold, takes up the call of conservative resistance. Ar-

nold’s mid- nineteenth- century England was a world of

storm and strife: urbanization, industrialization, and

class warfare. The republican ideals of the French Rev-

olution had triumphed over Burke’s beloved tradition,

and “nature,” in the age of Darwin, was harnessed to

progress. A new principle of resistance was needed, and

for Arnold it was culture. As “the best that has ever been

thought and said” (1883, xi), culture offered a means to

rise above the politics, commerce, and machinery of the

day and supply a universal standard upon which to base

“a principle of authority, to counteract the tendency to

anarchy which seems to be threatening us” (52).

Halfway around the world Mahatma Gandhi (1919)

was developing his own ideas of resistance, embracing

Arnold’s emphasis on culture, yet insisting it was the

idea that English culture constituted the “best that has

ever been thought and said” that needed to be resisted.

To free India of British soldiers and bureaucrats was one

thing, but liberation would come only when the coun-

try was free of British ideas, prejudices, and technology.

A culture of resistance was necessary, and its source, as

it was for Burke, was tradition. Gandhi counseled break-

ing India’s economic dependence on Britain by khaddar,

a return to the hand looming of cloth, and looked to

non- Westernized, rural India for political and spiritual

models.

Radical resistance, defined in part as the rejection

of foreign cultures and the celebration of indigenous

traditions, wound its way through the twentieth cen-

tury, as European colonies in Africa and Asia were swept

away by struggles of national liberation. This strain of

resistance makes its way back to the metropole with

those finding parallels between their own struggles and

anticolonialism. A key point of identification was the

fight against internalized oppression, what the Algerian

writer and activist Albert Memmi (1965/1991) referred

to as “the colonizer within.” In 1970, the US- based femi-

nist group Radicalesbians issued a manifesto calling for

“The Woman- Identified Woman” based in an under-

standing that “if we are male- identified in our heads, we

cannot realize our autonomy as human beings” (n.p.).

This sentiment was further developed by the radical

black women of the Combahee River Collective, who in

1977 asserted that “we believe that the most profound

and potentially radical politics come directly out of our

identity” (1977/1983, 272), making the case for resistance

based within and upon the unique experiences of a per-

son’s ethnicity, gender, or sexual identity.

As the necessity of resistance was recognized at the

intimate level of personal identity, the scope of what

was to be resisted expanded dramatically. The political

failures of student resistance in 1968 confirmed what

French scholar Michel Foucault suspected: that power

was not something out there, easy to identify and over-

throw; instead it was everywhere, continuous, anony-

mous, intimate and even pleasurable: “the disciplinary

grid of society” (1980, 111). Whereas previous critics of

totalitarianism, from the left and the right, elevated the

ideal of the individual subject resisting against totalizing

society, Foucault countered that the subject itself was

problematic. This Enlightenment creature that made

new ideals of personal freedom possible also opened up

a new site of oppression: the individual’s mind, body,

and spirit. Because power is impressed upon and inter-

nalized into the subject, it raised the vexing problem of

who resists and what exactly are they resisting. Can one

resist the very subject doing the resisting?

Resistance remained a stated goal for Foucault, but it

had to be reconceptualized. The ideal of developing the

pure subject in opposition to the corrupting object of

Keywords for Media Studies, edited by Laurie Ouellette, and Jonathan Gray, New York University Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/odu/detail.action?docID=4717750. Created from odu on 2022-09-01 00:10:57.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

r e s I s t A n C e s t e p h e n d u n c O M b e178

society was rejected. “Maybe the target nowadays” he

suggests, “is not to discover what we are, but to refuse

what we are” (1984, 22). Resistance, then, becomes the

only legitimate subject position, and resistance be-

comes an end in itself.

Resistance, as it is encountered in media studies, is

most often cultural resistance. As the euphoria of the

anticolonization struggles and student uprisings of the

1950s and 1960s gave way to the rise of corruption and

dictatorships, noncolonization and neoliberalism, radi-

cal scholars began looking for resistance outside of the

political sphere: on the street corner, in the living room,

or at the dance hall, that is, in cultural expression. Cul-

tural resistance was, of course, first articulated by Mat-

thew Arnold, but it was a figure on the other side of the

political spectrum, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci,

who framed the contemporary discussion.

Antonio Gramsci (1971), writing from a fascist jail in

the 1920s and early 1930s, reflected on why the com-

munist revolutions he labored for in the West had so far

failed. Part of the reason, he concluded, was a serious

underestimation of culture and civil society. Power re-

sides not just in institutions, but also in the ways people

make sense of their world; hegemony is both a politi-

cal and cultural process. Armed with culture instead of

guns, one fights a different type of fight. Whereas tradi-

tional battles were “wars of maneuver”— frontal assaults

which seized the state— cultural battles were “wars of

position”— flanking maneuvers, commando raids and

infiltrations, staking out positions from which to attack

and then reassemble civil society. Thus, part of the revo-

lutionary project was to create “counterhegemonic cul-

ture” behind enemy lines. But if this culture was to have

real power, and communist integrity, it could not be im-

posed from above; it must come out of the experiences

and consciousness of people. Thus, the job of the revo-

lutionary is to discover the progressive potentialities

that reside within popular consciousness and from this

material fashion a culture of resistance.

It was this politico- cultural mission that guided the

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the Uni-

versity of Birmingham in the 1970s. The CCCS is best

known for its subcultural studies, and it was within these

mainly working- class subcultures that researchers found

an inchoate politics of resistance: Mods one- upped their

bosses with their snappy dress; Punks performed the de-

cline of Britain with lyrics that warned “We’re your fu-

ture, no future”; Skinheads re- created a cohesive white,

masculine working- class world that no longer existed;

and Rastafarians turned the world upside down by re-

reading Christianity into a condemnation of the white

man’s Babylon. It was through resistant culture that

young people contested and rearranged the ideological

constructions— the systems of meaning— handed down

to them by the dominant powers of postwar Britain.

But cultural resistance needn’t always take place

against the dominant culture, it can also work through it.

In her groundbreaking 1984 study Reading the Romance,

folklorist Janice Radway admits the obvious: romance

novels, through their depiction of women as driven by

and dependent upon the love of a man, articulate and

reinforce patriarchal values. Yet when talking to women

who enjoyed reading romances, she found something

else: a culture of resistance. Instead of celebrating the

dependency of a woman upon a man, fans derived a

vicarious power through the agency of a heroine who

picks and pursues the man of her desire. Furthermore,

just reading itself was recognized as an act of resistance:

housewives taking time to indulge in a personal plea-

sure was a silent strike against a patriarchal society that

expected them to be entirely other- directed.

The work of the CCCS and scholars like Janice Radway

led to a flowering of cultural studies looking at “resistant

readings” of the mass media and celebrating the agency

Keywords for Media Studies, edited by Laurie Ouellette, and Jonathan Gray, New York University Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/odu/detail.action?docID=4717750. Created from odu on 2022-09-01 00:10:57.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

r e s I s t A n C e s t e p h e n d u n c O M b e 179

of cultural creation, recreation, and interpretation, yet

for the CCCS, as well as Radway, cultural resistance is

politically ambiguous. Such resistance opens up spaces

were dominant ideology is contested and counterhege-

monic culture can be created, but these contestations

and symbolic victories often remain locked in culture—

and thus don’t impact significantly the forces being re-

sisted. As John Clarke et al. write in Resistance through

Rituals, “They ‘solve,’ but in an imaginary way, problems

which at the concrete material level remain unresolved”

(2006, 47– 48).

Is cultural resistance, resistance at all? Malcolm Cowley

(1934/1976) raised this question nearly a century ago in

his memoir of his bohemian days in Greenwich Village of

the 1920s. Playful nonconformity, Cowley noted, which

may have shocked an older bourgeoisie that honored

hard work and sober thrift, no longer served the same

function. Within the context of consumer capitalism,

the bohemian call to be freed from yesterday’s conven-

tions translates all too easily into freedom to buy tomor-

row’s products. He is the jazz fan that Theodor Adorno

infamously dismissed as one who “pictures himself as

the individualist who whistles at the world. But what

he whistles is its melody” (1938/1990, 298). The cultural

rebel, far from resisting the system, is fueling its engine.

One needn’t be as pessimistic as Adorno to acknowl-

edge that resistance can be problematic. Not only is

what is being resisted dependent upon resistance, but

resistance depends upon what it resists. In other words,

resistance exits only in relation to the force it sets itself

against; without that force resistance has little coher-

ence or purpose. To return to our original Oxford Eng-

lish Dictionary definition, without something solid to

stand against, resistance tumbles over. What, then, is

the point of resistance if the very thing being resisted

must be maintained in order for there to be resistance?

If one accepts resistance as an end in itself, then there is

no problem. The point of resistance is an existential act,

a tactic of survival, as Michel de Certeau (1984) would

have it, within a larger strategy forever controlled by the

other. If, however, one pins one’s hopes upon resistance

as a means by which to contest that dominant force and

transform the larger culture, then resistance for itself is

not enough— it must pass into something else: revolu-

tion or reaction.

Reaction is the easier path. At its core resistance

was, and is, a conservative strategy. A conservative re-

sists what is new to conserve the old. If this resistance

to— this stand against— the new is successful, change is

halted, and the opposing force is vanquished, then the

conservative can fall comfortably— and victoriously—

back upon the old world he or she fought to retain. For

progressives, however, the process is more fraught. If

the stand is successful, and the force resisted is removed,

then in what direction does one fall? Forward, yes, but

forward to where? Resistance, with its eyes always upon

its adversary does little to provide a vision of the new

world to come.

Yet in acts of resistance new worlds can be glimpsed.

Culture— contra Arnold— is not delivered intact from

on high, but forged piecemeal from people’s interac-

tions with the world around them. Reacting against

dominant forces, people form new readings, new per-

spectives, new combination, and new cultures. This is

not an autonomous imagination, but a dialectical one.

Through resistance against what we do not like we begin

to figure out what we do, and standing against can be-

come a means to move forward.

For “resistance” to remain a relevant concern for me-

dia studies, it is not good enough to merely ask, resistance

to what? We must always also be posing the question, re-

sistance for what? Matthew Arnold once wrote that “free-

dom . . . is a very good horse to ride, but to ride some-

where” (1883, 344). The same might be said of resistance.

Keywords for Media Studies, edited by Laurie Ouellette, and Jonathan Gray, New York University Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/odu/detail.action?docID=4717750. Created from odu on 2022-09-01 00:10:57.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .