I think you've represented my view pretty well here--I would agree with
Giroux that there's an important distinction between resistance and
opposition, partly which resides in the degree to which the action has as its
object some kind of change in power relations in society. I would reframe
the distinction, though, more along de Certeau's lines, to distinguish
between types of resistance based on their effects.
I am also aware that resistance may be an overt, pre-conceived goal of action
(at least semi-conscious), as well as an emergent of activity. But here
emergent does not mean that someone can attibute "challenging the dominant
power relations of a society" to any action that's oppositional.
If any action is to be seen as at least partially resistant, as de Certeau
suggests, it is useful to me to distinguish between types of resistance based
on their effects and the degree to which the participants are able to shape
the terms of the debate. De Certau talks about the kind of resistance that
takes place on the Other's terms as a "tactic" of resistance, as when say, an
employee makes a personal call on company time. The employee is robbing the
company of time here, but the intent is not to change policy or the company's
values around personal time, but to "poach" from the company's existing
practice.
When participants mobilize together and are able to re-frame debate in new
terms, with new practices, these are more "strategic" forms of resistance.
This is akin to the type of resistance that Giroux is talking about as more
"real" than opposition, though its effects are no more under the control of
the resisters than the company trying to keep its employees from making
personal calls on company time.
In practice, the distinction's not so neat when I've tried to apply it to my
own work, but I think it's a useful way of framing the issue both for
research and practice.
Bill Penuel
________________________
PreventionInventions
PO Box 40692
Nashville, TN 37204
(615) 297-5923