Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current reflections on practices of opposition are informed by the resistance/hegemony paradigm. The shortcomings of the resistance/hegemony paradigm are, as many critics have pointed, both a result of the wide extension and romanticization of resistance, and the mis-construal of hegemony as a top/down process of manipulating consciousness. The present article proposes to address some of the limitations of the resistance/hegemony paradigm by pondering when practices of resistance may be considered part of a counter-hegemonic struggle. To answer this question, it presents a typology of the different forms of resistance according to their relationship with counter-hegemony. This typology is based on the degree to which certain practices are incorporated or tolerated by the hegemonic model; how they articulate between challenges at the symbolic level and challenges to the production and distribution of material resources; and whether there is a process of articulation at play among different practices that may create a collective subject capable of putting forward claims to achieve political power.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dani Filc (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: