What justifies resistance? Resistance as the necessity of freedom

Abstract

The present thesis zeroes in directly on resistance and the question of how to justify resistance. In this study, resistance as a basic relational element is discussed not only as a political event but also as a natural becoming. In sovereignty theory, the boundaries of the right of resistance are drawn in accordance with law. However, since Power spreads beyond the frame defined by law, resistance overflows this frame. Thus we face a question of justification that is not determined by legitimization. To be able to focus on an extralegal right, going back to power relations is essential. The main argument of the present thesis is that the right of resistance is an effort to stay in being naturally and to affirm its power; that it can never be handed over or limited by law and that it is opposed to all forms of Power. A natural right is preserved in civil state, as well. That is why resistance as an expression of power is first separated from the domination of the fictional subject and laid within the framework of power relations. The subjective elements of resistance are worked through on epistemological terms and its objective elements on ontological terms and these terms form the basis respectively of speculative -based on consciousness- and actual -based on power- components. A resistance, considering the way it manifests itself, can be classified according to its quantitative, contextual and instrumental features. The types are decided upon considering affirmation and negation functions independently of form. What renders resistance meaningful and valuable is its affirmative and negative role in power relations. While handling bodies and becomings in, neglecting their affections or defining them as utopic subjects lead us to fall into some kind of a fallacy incompatible with the human nature. Therefore, a body strives to stay in being and increase its power of acting to the extent that its power as its essence defines its right. Negation has to be reduced to being a speculative and secondary element of resistance in regard to increment of power. As for the right of resistance, it is justified to the extent it can lead to that and it can produce life while refraining from nihilism –which is affirming difference in other words.