Reconceiving Resistance By Understanding its Real Target

Like the word “nonviolence” (which it is commonly paired with) the expression “political resistance” is commonly assumed to have certain obvious connotations. More specifically, to our common understanding, just as nonviolence is seen to entail the refraining from certain physical acts, political resistance is seen to entail a kind of overt and dramatic refusal to comply with unacceptable demands. In what follows, I will argue that just as conceiving nonviolence solely in terms of what it is not is problematic it is also problematic to think of political resistance exclusively as a kind of direct reaction to what others are doing. Such a limited conception does not enable the kind of growth required for engendering a genuinely peaceful order. More specifically, when resistance is conceived more in terms as a reaction than as a means for inner moral development it tends to lose its value—a point underscored by the commonly held impression that resistance is futile unless it can yield tangible change in policies. I maintain that expanding our conception as well as the targets of our resistance is vital for realizing a better world. The alternative conception I call for in many ways resembles Tamara Fakhoury’s notion of “Quiet Resistance” . Unlike Fakhoury, however, I’m comfortable with thinking that resistance is necessarily tied to the pursuit of justice and the objective of creating a better world; that, in other words, it cannot remain in the private realm. Ultimately, I hope to shed light on the kind of considerations that led Jean-Paul Sartre, during his time with the French Resistance to proclaim, “Never were we so free than under the German occupation.”