“Protest ist, wenn ich sage, das und das passt mir nicht. Widerstand ist, wenn ich dafür sorge, dass das was mir nicht passt, nicht länger geschieht.” (Protestar es decir “no ocurrirá más” porque no me va. Resistir es cuando me ocupo de que lo que no me va, deje de suceder).
Meinhof hace una clara distinción entre el discurso de la protesta en que en la protesta, lo que “no me va” se identifica nombrándolo; el acto de resistencia, en cambio, apunta a la raíz de lo que “no me va” y tiene la meta de eliminarlo. Se hace evidente que actuar es más efectivo que decir; al actuar uno se asegura de algo que el discurso sólo puede nombrar. Es reconstituir al mundo en su potencialidad, extirpando su potencial de hacer daño. Tal vez resistir implica dejar de ser ciudadanos, una masa definida, formada y contenida por el Estado. Si dejamos de ser 'ciudadanos' podríamos involucrarnos todos en los procesos políticos.
Dominic Fox, “Cold World: The Aesthetics of Dejection and the Politics of Militant Dysphoria,” (London: Zero Books, 2010)
Poststrcript: El CIJ recomienda el excelente ensayo de Ramzy Baroud sobre la "Cultura (liberal) de la Resistencia"; he aquí un fragmento:
"Resistance is not a band of armed men hell-bent on wreaking havoc. It is not a cell of terrorists scheming ways to detonate buildings.
True resistance is a culture.
It is a collective retort to oppression.
Understanding the real nature of resistance, however, is not easy. No newsbyte could be thorough enough to explain why people, as a people, resist. Even if such an arduous task was possible, the news might not want to convey it, as it would directly clash with mainstream interpretations of violence and non-violent resistance. The Afghanistan story must remain committed to the same language: al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Lebanon must be represented in terms of a menacing Iran-backed Hizbullah. Palestine’s Hamas must be forever shown as a militant group sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state. Any attempt at offering an alternative reading is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists and justifying violence.
The deliberate conflation and misuse of terminology has made it almost impossible to understand, and thus to actually resolve bloody conflicts.
Even those who purport to sympathize with resisting nations often contribute to the confusion. Activists from Western countries tend to follow an academic comprehension of what is happening in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Thus certain ideas are perpetuated: suicide bombings bad, non-violent resistance good; Hamas rockets bad, slingshots good; armed resistance bad, vigils in front of Red Cross offices good. Many activists will quote Martin Luther King Jr., but not Malcolm X. They will infuse a selective understanding of Gandhi, but never of Guevara. This supposedly ‘strategic’ discourse has robbed many of what could be a precious understanding of resistance – as both concept and culture.
Between the reductionst mainstream understanding of resistance as violent and terrorist and the ‘alternative’ defacing of an inspiring and compelling cultural experience, resistance as a culture is lost. The two overriding definitions offer no more than narrow depictions. Both render those attempting to relay the viewpoint of the resisting culture as almost always on the defensive. Thus we repeatedly hear the same statements: no, we are not terrorists; no, we are not violent, we actually have a rich culture of non-violent resistance; no, Hamas is not affiliated with al-Qaeda; no, Hizbullah is not an Iranian agent. Ironically, Israeli writers, intellectuals and academicians own up to much less than their Palestinian counterparts, although the former tend to defend aggression and the latter defend, or at least try to explain their resistance to aggression. Also ironic is the fact that instead of seeking to understand why people resist, many wish to debate about how to suppress their resistance."
Disponible en red: http://counterpunch.com/baroud07152010.html