Felix Anderl
I examine the use of the term “resistance” in the wake of Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel. Drawing on International Relations (IR) scholarship and its conceptual canon, I first observe that resistance is often underdetermined; it is taken for granted rather than defined or problematised. Secondly, however, I carve out the conceptual characteristics that summarise customised usage. Based on this survey of the canon, resistance is commonly understood to be an organised and principled, performative contestation of a superior power that can (but does not have to) involve violence, yet always implies a power imbalance in the situation it describes (in favour of that which is resisted). Based on the canon of IR, there is no reason not to describe the behaviour of Hamas on October 7 as resistance, without thereby justifying or theorising the specific means applied during its attacks. But what does it mean for scholars when a concept aligned with established usage provokes public outrage in a specific case? Should we focus on challenging the public, or rethink our own conceptual choices? Based on the debate over “explaining as explaining away” in the sociology of knowledge, I suggest that the given situation is not that exceptional. Scholars dealing with political subjects must consider how their concepts are perceived, anticipate their effects where possible, and publicly reflect on normativity and positionality when giving directions to their use. I make suggestions for normatively couching contested concepts in the discursive and normative opportunity structure.