Beyond States and collective action, a galaxy of actors
Defining the case studies spatially represented a methodological choice that allowed to take into account a variety of actors, not necessarily focusing on the State and a diversity of practices, beyond collective action. It represents a way to neutralize the possible ethnocentric but also State-centric biases present in social movement theory, as well as to defuse the methodological nationalism that often imbues the research on Israel - Palestine. As a result, I will tackle the contention as being constituted by a continuum between individual engagement and collective action, acknowledging that they can intersect and prolong each other.
Methodological nationalism establishes an equivalence between societies and nation-states and considers nation-states as a “natural” unit of human political organization, central for scientific analysis (Beck, 2003: 453; Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2003: 576). Methodological nationalism is a common bias in the social sciences and it represents the dominant paradigm in studies addressing the political situation in Israel-Palestine (Monterescu, 2015), but also the countries of the Arab-Persian Gulf (Hanieh, 2015). By entering through the local space and concentrating on the various actors interacting there, I chose to focus on the actors of the contention and to consider the systemic and multiscale complex set of relationships existing between the Palestinians of the West Bank and Israel, the Israeli citizens of various “nationalities” (Handelman, 1994, 1997; Tekiner, 1991), the Israeli State and the proto-state headed by the Palestinian Authority.1
To be clear, as wielder of the monopoly on legitimate violence (Weber, 1965) and responsible for law enforcement, States are both actors and targets in the unfolding of protests. The Israeli State has a huge power over the mere possibility of protest, including in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank, influencing and shaping its forms and occurrences through its military and administrative control. It cannot – and must not – be taken out of the equation. The conflictual and discriminatory treatment of Bedouins and other minorities makes it a force to be reckoned with also regarding contention within its borders. The PA has also been repressing violently any dissent in the West Bank over the last years, and the security cooperation established with Israel weighs heavily on the unfolding of protest. So, State power and influence are not dismissed, but they are not considered a priori a focus of the study.
Even more to the point of methodological nationalism, the claimed national envelops of borders and territories are not considered as natural units of the analysis and as impermeable to one another. Again, political delimitations have a very direct and concrete impact on the life of thousands of Palestinians who cannot leave Gaza, access Jerusalem, etc., but they cannot be considered as the sole element organizing the region. Focusing on sites of contention represents a way to take a step sideways and consider other angles – or rather, scales – in a region where States, territories and nations are disputed and often essentialized and the geopolitical lens often makes them unavoidable topics and separated entities.
Giving more space to the individual or hybrid forms of mobilization also seemed like a necessary correction of largely State-centric theories. It is necessary to acknowledge the differences that may exist between contention conducted in different societies, not necessarily corresponding to protest methods of Western settings. The structuring of protests and the dynamics of mobilization are directly connected to a society’s functioning and the political regime on which it depends or that it opposes. Protests are carried on by people belonging to groups, communities and societies that have resources, codes, routines, repertoires and traditions of mobilization rooted in particular elements such as historical events or religious references. The type of regime (democratic, authoritarian), the respect of freedom of movement and speech or the level of repression restricting them, the existence and strength of trade unions and political parties, the organization of civil society, are some of the many elements that can influence and shape protests and modify the pattern of threats and opportunities (Goldstone & Tilly, 2001).
The case studies tackled here are inscribed in a context marked by specific social, political, geographical and cultural features. In the Palestinian society as in many other societies of the Middle East, the extended family and kinship ties play a fundamental role in the structure and functioning of the social fabric, also marked by a strong informality and often by mechanisms of clientelism, nepotism and corruption. In such a context, mobilizations may rely on other types of networks and interests, on contacts that are more informal and less structured than those which are considered as models in the social movement approach, relying on primary solidarities rather than on membership in associations or formal enrolment in movements (Bayat 2000: iv). Focusing exclusively on collective action would blind us to other modalities of action and organization. Bayat for example underlines how a small protest can grow into a major display of solidarity and a massive demonstration by aggregating people sharing the same interests. However, these people can also be “strangers or casual passersby” (Bayat, 2017: 13). He terms “social nonmovements” this type of contention, which is constituted by “collective actions of noncollective actors” (Ibid.: 15). This approach adopts a wide angle, taking into account the different configurations drawn by the interactions between different levels of activism and everyday life routines, individual and collective action, as well as spontaneous and organized participation.
I will show how contention in the three case studies is structured around a multitude of different actors, rather than around a single, compact and homogeneous “movement” with internal disparities. Considering “sites of contention” allows for the engagement of the whole galaxy of actors involved in those sites: residents, political activists, NGOs, associations, religious and political organizations. It also encompasses the various practices of resistance they deploy, whether collective, individual, organized or spontaneous. Moreover, it allows for consideration of actors deriving from different backgrounds and places, notably Palestinians from the West Bank and from Israel, Bedouins, Jewish Israelis and foreigners.
Resistance as a wide-angle approach of contention
It seems important to move away from collective action also in the terminology used, to not only diversify the type of actors considered, but also to widen the scope with regards to the actions and methods deployed. As such, I favor the term “resistance” – and “contention” - as generic terms over “social movements,” as both take into account the whole range of practices existing between individual and collective action and the forms beside organized actions, acknowledging the lability of practices and strategies, while putting the stress on the question of power.
Resistance indeed makes the political dimension of the contention studied more explicit and corresponds to different categories used by actors I interviewed (with nuances, as I will show later) but also to the representations and discourses they have about their struggles. The notion of “resistance” can be rendered through several terms in Arabic, each conveying nuances according to the level of violence, organization, but also source of inspiration. The term that corresponds best in Arabic is “muqawama.” However, the term muqawama refers in the Palestinian imaginary to an active and possibly armed resistance, like that deployed during the two Intifada. Popular, secular and religious types of resistance practices for example correspond to different terms and implications (see and Chapter 5). The notion of resistance I use here encompasses various categories used in Arabic, that I will examine in the course of the analysis: “sumud” for example refers to a type of secular and individual resistance (see Chapter 2) while “ribat” refers to a religious type of resistance (see Chapter 5).
The concept of resistance is widely used in everyday life, as well as in scholarly literature (see for instance, Scott, 1985, 1990); notwithstanding, its definition remains problematic for social science. It is in fact used to describe very different practices and situations but generally designates situations of contestation and confrontation, laden with inequality in power and resources (Scott, 1985: 290), that “may be open and confrontational or hidden and range from the individual to the collective” (Routledge, 1997: 69). According to Hollander and Einwohner, if resistance necessarily includes action, as an “active behaviour, whether verbal, cognitive or physical” and struggle (or “sense of opposition”), scholars do not agree on the importance of its...
