Dueling Structures: The Theory of Resistance in Discourse

Abstract

A deepened understanding of resistance in discourse requires that we look beyond both structuralist and agency-based theories of discourse and power. In support ofthis argument, the essay first critiques Bourdieu's structuralist and Giddens's agency -based theories of power and discourse. I t then offers a preliminary sketch of an alternative theory, which is founded on the concept of dueling structures of meaning, oppositional and interdependent in nature, that express social class relations of domination and opposition and provide speaking subjects with the latitude to select (within limits) one structurally generated set of meanings over another.

Critical ethnography and subjective experience

“…Recently I have been writing about the workers' propensity to utilize strategically ambiguous meanings in their dealings with representatives of the dominant culture (Huspek, 1993a(Huspek, , 1993b(Huspek, , 1993c. Briefly stated, the workers seem to have competence in two codes, which I have labelled a code of deference and a code of opposition.…”

“…To this end, I attempt in the second section to sketch out in some preliminary ways how his treatment of the analyst-as-subject might be more fully integrated with a hermeneutically sensitive treatment of Other. I then also offer some empirical illustration of this preliminary integration of the hermeneutic with the phenomenological, drawing upon some of my own ethnographic work with lumber industrial workers (Huspek, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, Huspek and Rincon, 1993. .…”

Oppositional codes: The case of the penitentiary of New Mexico riot

“…Ambiguity of meaning within codes often offers agents opportunity to exploit ambiguity across codes (Huspek, 1993). By taking advantage of ambiguity that exists within an interactional other's code, agents can satisfy the requirements of a situation and so take on responsibility for their words without either losing face or suffering recriminations from others.…”

“…A code of resistance responds to a dominant code that often works against the needs and interests of subordinate group members; and no less so is a dominant code's maintenance of dominant group superiority a structured response to a code of resistance. 8 The degree of structural interdependence of oppositional codes fluctuates according to how tightly or loosely the codes are related (Huspek, 1993 structuring of codes is likely to produce a relatively limited range of available meanings for agents. Consider an interaction between dominant and subordinate group members where, because of tightly structured code opposition, the availability of code-based meanings is limited.…”

“…At an abstract level, this has involved an articulation of the theory's explanatory advantages over both structuralist and agency-based treatments of power and resistance (Huspek, 1993). In this regard, the theory has proved its effectiveness in articulating the strategic resources of agents who are locked within a dialectic of power and resistance.…”