Resistance operates by strategy and struggle, not juridical right

Evidence

If, as Foucault says m the first two lectures, power is not deployed and is not exercised in the forms of right and law, and if it is not something that can be taken or exchanged; if it does not consist of interests, a will, or an intention; if it does not originate within the State, and if it therefore cannot be deduced from or understood in terms of the juridico-political category of sovereignty (even if right, law, and sovereignty can represent a sort of coding of power, or can even remtorce it), then neither is resistance a matter of might, or of a mght. It is therefore always outside the juridical framework of what has, ever since the seventeenth century, been called “the right to resist”: it is not based upon the sovereignty of a preexisting subject. Power and resistance confront each other, and use multiple, mobile, and changing tactics, in a field of relations of force whose logic is not so much the regulated and codified logic of right and sovereignty, as the strategic and warlike logic of struggle. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 296

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Positions resistance outside the sovereignty framework — resistance has no preexisting subject and no right, only tactics.
  • XREF: This war-model of power directly feeds later readings of race-thinking and colonial psychology in the Islamophobia module. — connects to: War of position targets civil society’s institutions rather than a single decisive breach.; Subaltern forces resist rationalization intended to serve dominant interests.; Resistance to disciplinary power requires a new right, not a return to sovereignty. (+6 more)

Broader Connections