Politics in Everyday Life

sources: http://resistancestudies.org/?p=325

I am now writing on a thesis about everyday politics and would like to continue on a thread written by Stellan Vinthagen in this blog the 5th of June.

The aim of the thesis is to outline different forms of everyday political acts. In studying organisations that deal with politics in everyday life I will try to see what, how and when individualised politics occur in Sweden. I can already now see that some organisations are dealing with hidden resistance, as the one Stellan wrote about, and others with more open acts that not necessarily could be called resistance.

In order to continue the categorisation I need to define what resistance is and what is not when comparing stealing from workplace, or foot-dragging, with buying fair trade or organic products. There are differences between the acts that need to be taken into consideration. They are close to categorisations such as “closer within system” or “more outside the system” (or the fields “encouraging” or “delaying” the system) or “within” or “outside norm”.

I agree with Stellan that it is highly interesting whether these informal, individual acts could be the start for uprisings. However, I was initially interested in this subject when thinking whether these individual acts could in themselves form a collective act, or even mobilisation. Though they seem to occur separately and unorganised I think that they could be collective as well. If anything, the individual acts are, according to me, organised within a discourse, especially the one of sustainable development. It dictates the time and place, and how to act.

And the question of mobilisation; could it be, that through politicising the everyday life, there is a stronger probability that people mobilise easily? If organisations give the space and forum for it, could they create another form of mobilisation of an “underground” or “quiet” uprising performed by individuals separately and anonymously? Examples of organisations are Planka.nu that encourages people to fair-dodge on public transport in protest of the capitalisation of public transport and Maska.nu that encourages, for example, foot-dragging to slow down production. They seem to organise and mobilise people, even though it is anonymously.

Also, what role could political acts performed in the everyday mean for the bigger picture? Even though the quantity of consumers boycott may not be enough to, for example, change a multi-national corporation like McDonalds, I believe that politicising food consumption at least gives a preparation for the time when the company simply can no longer continue as it does today (as the question is not if we have to change our consumption and production, rather when and how). So for example, if there is a common agreement, or discourse, that the meat industry is lethal for our planet and survival, then it could be easier to put governmental restrictions on that industry, as people will be prepared to live (nearly) without it, even though they used to consume from it. Vegetarians and vegans could be examples of individuals that are prepared for a food culture that probably most people have to live in, in the near future.

Respons:

1

Safaa! Thanks, it seems very interesting!
Just a question: How would open, well organized, every day and high risk resistance like plowshares in the US and in Scottland, or well organized, open, high risk, every day resistance in dictatorships, fit into your theory/research?

- Here I use “every day” when the resisters are doing resistance or organizing resistance 4-6 days a week (part time or full time).
- I use “high risk” when the risks are injury, death or prison more than one year.
- I use “well organized” when the resisters are planning/training more than one day before the resistance.

2

I really like the idea that individualized political acts or resistance can be (informally) organised through a discourse! That sounds like a possibility which might be true. The question then, is what kind of discourse or discourse-rules are making that possible (since not all discourses are facilitating non-hegemonic practice, or?

3

Very interesting work here! It seems that you are looking for the ‘molecular’ practices of everyday life and how they connect to organisation and form larger political aggregates.

This is a key theoretical problem, which I think resistance studies is all about. How can micro-events and molecular revolutionary acts contribute to social change that matters in a ‘bigger picture’. How can a minor act multiply and have major effects?

I think Félix Guattari’s Molecular Revolution in Brazil might be worthwile checking out (haven’t read it myself yet)

4

Per: It depends on how you define the word everyday. I have defined it so far (still some work to do) as a spontaneous, separated and individual act. I think the difference from you’re definition would be that the action is not planned together with others, nor organised. It is done rather spontaneously covered with an ideological conviction. It is rather conceived from a process of information (coming from different sources) you get about why for example it is a “good” thing to buy fair trade. You can plan to never buy anything else than fair trade, and that planning would rather be individual rather than within a group (not considering the pressure you could feel if you would be close to groups that encourage consumer’s boycott) but it can also be a spontaneous decision in the supermarket.

It is the same when it comes to nonviolence thinking and acting in the everyday life of the ideologically nonviolence convinced individual. How could a nonviolence act be spontaneous, performed by many individuals separately, without being organised in the “traditional” way? I believe that would require a well-spread culture of nonviolence thinking amongst people.

Stellan: This is a complicated question for me as I am not very familiar with the different forms of discourses. However I think, that individual separate acts could be organised within both hegemonic and non-hegemonic discourses. Like the hegemonic “sustainable development” and non-hegemonic that Maska or Planka are located in. It would be interesting to see how they relate to each other, and what dictates the actions’ when and how within them.

Christopher: I tried to open the link but nothing happened…