The Paradox of Repression

• Authors: Jarosław Chodak
• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Celem artykułu jest analiza zjawiska określanego w literaturze przedmiotu jako „paradoks represji”, „backfire” lub „polityczne ju-jitsu”. W pierwszej kolejności dokonano wyjaśnienia jego istoty oraz znaczenia dla przebiegu konfliktu asymetrycznego. Następnie przedstawiono historię refleksji naukowej nad paradoksem represji. Prezentacja różnych form kontroli społecznej była punktem wyjścia do analizy sposobu zarządzania represjami przez uczestników konfliktu. Władze starają się zastosować szereg technik powstrzymania oburzenia, zaś aktywiści ruchu kontestacyjnego mogą uruchomić kontr-techniki, zwłaszcza jeśli dysponują wiedzą z zakresu strategicznej walki bez przemocy oraz alternatywnymi źródłami komunikacji. Autor argumentuje, że paradoks represji nie jest prostą konsekwencją stosowania brutalnych represji wobec słabszego przeciwnika, ale zależy w dużym stopniu od polityki komunikacyjnej obu stron konfliktu.

EN

The purpose of the article is to analyze the phenomenon described in the literature as "the paradox of repression", "backfire" or "political jiu-jitsu". First of all, the explanation of its essence and the significance for the course of asymmetric conflict. Next, the history of scientific reflection on the paradox of repression was presented. The presentation of various forms of social control is a starting point for the analysis of the way in which the participants in a conflict called "asymmetric" manage repressions. State authorities try to apply a number of techniques to stop indignation, while activists of the contestation movement may activate counter-techniques, especially if they have knowledge of the strategic nonviolent struggle and alternative sources of communication.The author argues that the paradox of repression is not a simple consequence of using brutal repression against a weaker opponent, but depends to a large extent on the communication policy of both sides of the conflict.

Keywords

PL

kontrola społeczna; represje; mobilizacja; konflikt asymetryczny; walka bez przemocy

EN

social control; repression; mobilization; asymmetrical conflict; nonviolent struggle

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Instytut Socjologii
• Journal: Konteksty Społeczne
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 2

Dates

published

2018

online

2020-07-03

Contributors

author

Jarosław Chodak

References

• Arreguín-Toft, I. (2001). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. International Security, 26(1), 93-128. doi:10.1162/016228801753212868
• Arreguín-Toft, I. (2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ash, T. G. (2009). A Century of Civil Resistance: Some Lessons and Questions. W: A. Roberts, T. G. Ash (red.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action From Gandhi to the Present (s. 371-390). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Barany, Z. (2011). The Role of The Military. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 28-39. doi:10.1353/jod.2011.0069
• Barany, Z. (2016). How Armies Respond to Revolutions and Why. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400880997
• Boulding, K. E. (1999). Nonviolence and Power in the Twentieth Century. W: S. Zunes, L. R. Kurtz, S. B. Asher (red.), Nonviolent social movements: a geographical perspective (s. 9-17). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
• Carter, A. (2009). People Power and Protest: The Literature on Civil Resistance in Historical Context. W: T. G. Ash, A. Roberts (red.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (s. 25-42). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chenoweth, E., Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Chodak, J. (2015). Walka bez przemocy w strategii ruchów rewolucyjnych na przełomie XX i XXI wieku. W: J. Wach, Ł. Janicki (red.), Opór - Protest - Wykroczenie (s. 101-111). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
• Davenport, C. (1995). Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science, 683-713. doi:10.2307/2111650
• Davenport, C. (2007). State repression and the domestic democratic peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Davenport, C., Johnston, H., Mueller, C. M. (red.). (2005). Repression and Mobilization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Earl, J. (2003). Tanks, Tear Gas, and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 44-68.
• Fernandez, L. (2009). Policing Dissent: Social Control and the Anti-Globalization Movement. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Ferree, M. M. (2005). Soft Repression: Ridicule, Stigma, and Silencing in Gender-Based Movements. W: Davenport, Christian, Johnston, Hank, C. M. Mueller (red.), Repression and Mobilization (s. 138-155). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Giugni, M. (2009). Political Opportunities: From Tilly to Tilly. Swiss Political Science Review, 15(2), 361-367. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00136.x
• Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
• Gray, T., Martin, B. (2007). Backfires: white, black and grey. Journal of Information Warfare, 7(1), 7-16.
• Gregg, R. (1960). The Power of Nonviolence (2nd revised ed.). London: James Clarke & Co.
• Hallward, M. C., Norman, J. M. (2015). Understanding Nonviolence. W: M. C. Hallward, J. M. Norman (red.), Understanding nonviolence : contours and contexts (s. 14-35). Malden, MA: Polity.
• Hess, D., Martin, B. (2006). Repression, Backfire, and the Theory of Transformative Events. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 11(2), 249-267.
• Jansen, S. C., Martin, B. (2003). Making censorship backfire. Counterpoise, 7(3), 5-15.
• Kurtz, L. R., Smithey, L. A. (red.). (2018). The Paradox of Repression and Nonviolent Movements (First edition. ed.). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Lazari-Pawłowska, I. (1967). Gandhi. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
• Lazari-Pawłowska, I. (1990). Etyczne aspekty obywatelskiego sprzeciwu. Etyka, 25, 139-172.
• Martin, B. (2004). Iraq attack backfire. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(16), 1577-1583.
• Martin, B. (2005a). How nonviolence works. Borderlands e-journal, 4(3).
• Martin, B. (2005b). The beating of Rodney King: the dynamics of backfire. Critical Criminology, 13(3), 307-326. doi:10.1007/s10612-005-3186-x
• Martin, B. (2015). From Political Jiu-jitsu to the Backfire Dynamic: How Repression Can Promote Mobilization. W: K. Schock (red.), Civil resistance: comparative perspectives on nonviolent struggle (s. 145-167). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Martin, B., Murray, I. (2005). The Parkin backfire. Social Alternatives, 24(3), 46-49.
• Martin, B., Varney, W., Vickers, A. (2001). Political Jiu-Jitsu against Indonesian Repression: Studying Lower-Profile Nonviolent Resistance. Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change, 13(2), 143-156. doi:10.1080/13239100121905
• McAdam, D. (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., Tilly, C. (2004). Dynamics of Contention (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McAuley, J. W., McGlynn, C., Tonge, J. (2008). Conflict resolution in asymmetric and symmetric situations: Northern Ireland as a case study. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 1(1), 88-102. doi:10.1080/17467580802284712
• McDonald, P., Graham, T., Martin, B. (2010). Outrage Management in Cases of Sexual Harassment as Revealed in Judicial Decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(2), 165-180. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01559.x
• Meyer, D. S., Minkoff, D. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82(4), 1457-1492. doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0082
• Mitchell, C. R. (1991). Classifying Conflicts: Asymmetry and Resolution. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 518(1), 23-38. doi:10.1177/0002716291518001003
• Nepstad, S. E. (2011). Nonviolent Revolutions: Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nepstad, S. E. (2013). Mutiny and nonviolence in the Arab Spring: Exploring military defections and loyalty in Egypt, Bahrain, and Syria. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3), 337-349. doi:10.1177/0022343313476529
• Nepstad, S. E. (2015). Nonviolent Resistance Research. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 20(4), 415-426. doi:10.17813/1086-671X-20-4-415
• Onuch, O. (2015). EuroMaidan Protests in Ukraine: Social Media Versus Social Networks. Problems of Post-Communism, 62(4), 217-235. doi:10.1080/10758216.2015.1037676
• Opp, K.-D., Roehl, W. (1990). Repression, Micomobilization, and Political Protest. Social Forces, 69, 521-547.
• Osa, M., Schock, K. (2007). A Long, Hard Slog: Political Opportunities, Social Networks and the Mobilization of Dissent in Non-Democracies. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 27, 123-153.
• Petrova, T. (2018). Diffusion Brokers and Regime Change Waves: The US Role in The Wave of Central and Eastern European Electoral Breakthroughs. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 26(2), 227-250.
• Schedler, A. (2010). Authoritarianism’s Last Line of Defense. Journal of Democracy, 21(1), 69-80. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0137
• Schock, K. (2005). Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements In Nondemocracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Schock, K. (2007). Social Movements, Nonviolent. W: G. Ritzer (red.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (s. 4458-4463). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Schock, K. (2013). The practice and study of civil resistance. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3), 277-290. doi:10.1177/0022343313476530
• Sharp, G. (1973). The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Vol. 3: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action. Boston, Mass.: Porter Sargent Publishers.
• Sharp, G. (2003). There are Realistic Alternatives. Boston, Mass.: Albert Einstein Institution.
• Shultziner, D. (2018). Transformative Events, Repression, and Regime Change: Theoretical and Psychological Aspects. W: L. R. Kurtz, L. A. Smithey (red.), The Paradox of Repression and Nonviolent Movements (s. 52-73). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Silitski, V. (2009). Tools of Autocracy. Journal of Democracy, 20(2), 42-46. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0067
• Smithey, L., Kurtz, L. R. (1999). »We Have Bare Hands«: Nonviolent Social Movements in the Soviet Bloc. W: S. Zunes, L. R. Kurtz, B. A. Sarah (red.), Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective (s. 96-124). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Smithey, L. A., Kurtz, L. R. (2018a). “Smart” Repression. W: L. R. Kurtz, L. A. Smithey (red.), The Paradox of Repression and Nonviolent Movements (s. 185-214). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Smithey, L. A., Kurtz, L. R. (2018b). Introduction: Nonviolent Strategy and Repression Management. W: L. R. Kurtz, L. A. Smithey (red.), The Paradox of Repression and Nonviolent Movements (s. 1-25). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Stephan, M. J., Chenoweth, E. (2008). Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. International Security, 33(1), 7-44. doi:10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7
• Sutton, J., Butcher, C. R., Svensson, I. (2014). Explaining political jiu-jitsu: Institution-building and the outcomes of regime violence against unarmed protests. Journal of Peace Research, 51(5), 559-573. doi:10.1177/0022343314531004
• Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Tarrow, S. (1996). States and opportunities: The political structuring of social movements. W: D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, M. N. Zald (red.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (s. 41-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tilly, C., Tarrow, S. G. (2015). Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pobrane z https://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Tear-Gas-Fragility-Networked/dp/0300215126
• Way, L. A., Levitsky, S. (2006). The dynamics of autocratic coercion after the Cold War. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39(3), 387-410. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2006.07.001