Skip to content

4.6 Vulnerability and Resistance

“[C]olonialism feeding the creation of hybridised, fragmented and shifting realities, but ultimately realities characterised by a healthy dose of indigenous resistance” (Oliver 2013)1.

In the context of Palestine, everyday forms of resistance are not only political acts but also deeply embodied responses to structural violence and dispossession. One such enduring form is sumud, a concept that encapsulates steadfastness, rootedness, and the will to persist in the face of colonial domination. Palestinians have practised sumud in various ways: by remaining on their land despite forced displacement, by preserving cultural traditions under occupation, and by fostering solidarity and community in conditions designed to isolate and fragment. I approach sumud through the theoretical lens of vulnerability and resistance, which allows me to frame sumud as a relational, affective, and political response to the precarities imposed by settler-colonial power. What follows is a theoretical exploration of how vulnerability and resistance operate in this context.

Throughout history, individuals and communities living in the shadow of political violence and the politics of death have faced profound vulnerability, yet they have also exhibited remarkable resilience in resisting the very forces that endanger their lives (Sousa et al. 2013; Summerfield 1999)2 3. Scholars such as Butler (Butler 2009; Butler et al. 2016)4 5 have delved into the relationship between the individual, biopolitics, power, and vulnerability, emphasising the precariousness and grievability of people and populations, particularly in conflict-ridden contexts. Drawing on the example of protesters facing police authority, Butler (Butler 2016)6 contends that their vulnerability does not originate solely from the confrontation itself but rather emerges from the precarious conditions of their everyday lives, including dispossession, poverty, insecurity, and harm. This vulnerability, in turn, becomes a catalyst for resistance.

The question arises: Is vulnerability an inherent component of resistance? Does resistance necessitate overcoming vulnerability? Can we harness our vulnerability as a mobilising force? Butler argues that mobilisation often occurs when individuals and groups seek to preserve, create, or establish platforms for political expression:

In many of the public assemblies that draw people who understand themselves to be in precarious positions, the demand to end precarity is enacted publically by those who expose their vulnerability to failing infrastructural conditions; there is plural and performative bodily resistance at work that shows how bodies are being acted on by social and economic policies that are decimating livelihoods. But these bodies, in showing this precarity, are also resisting these very powers; they enact a form of resistance that presupposes vulnerability of a specific kind and opposes precarity (Butler 2016, 15)6.

Within this framework, Butler conceptualises the person as an individual entity shaped by societal norms while also acknowledging its interdependence and reliance on social networks. They argue that while the individual has discernible boundaries, its vulnerability must be understood in relation to its material and relational context. The body cannot be discussed in isolation from the support systems that sustain it or the environmental conditions in which it exists. Thus, vulnerability not only arises from interactions with others but also signifies a broader condition of dependency and interconnectedness that challenges conventional notions of the embodied subject (Butler 2016)6.

When individuals purposefully subject themselves to power dynamics, they expose themselves to vulnerability, and this bodily enactment becomes an integral aspect of political resistance. However, it is important to note that dominant groups may also lay claim to vulnerability. For instance, in response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, some groups have countered with slogans such as “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” in support of the police. Butler argues that these discourses employed by dominant groups serve to reinforce their privilege. Similar dynamics can be observed in colonial settings, where colonisers may invoke vulnerability to elicit sympathy.

The term “vulnerability” as a political concept is sometimes contested, as it can be seen as diminishing agency. However, this perspective implies a preference for the notion that individuals are solely acting agents, disregarding the ways in which power influences and acts upon them (Butler 2016)6. According to Butler, vulnerability can be understood in two distinct ways in relation to resistance. Firstly, there is a psychic resistance to vulnerability, which challenges the imposition of external powers on our bodies and seeks to assert individual sovereignty against the influences that shape our lives. Secondly, vulnerability itself can be mobilised as a practice of political resistance, wherein the exposed and agentic body stands in opposition to the notion that agency is achieved by overcoming vulnerability, which is often rooted in masculinist ideals (Butler 2016)6.

Butler emphasises that vulnerability should be seen as a relational concept, characterised by its relation to external objects, forces, and passions that impact or affect us in various ways. Rather than viewing vulnerability solely as a subjective disposition, it is more productive to understand it as a dynamic interaction with the world (Butler 2016)6. By thinking about vulnerability and resistance together, Butler et al. (Butler 2016)6 aim to develop a fresh understanding of how people exist within and interact with current power structures as well as the social interdependency and individual or collective agency. Resistance, in this context, takes on two forms: resistance to vulnerability itself, and social and political resistance that arises from an awareness of vulnerability (Butler 2016)6.

While Butler and others discuss these concepts within a broader philosophical and socio-political context, Ehlers et al. (Ehlers et al. 2000)7 examine them through empirical psychological research, specifically looking at how individuals respond to extreme situations such as torture. Their research highlights that individuals can exhibit psychological resilience and resistance, such as maintaining a strong political commitment even in the face of severe repression. This is exemplified in political prisoners who, despite the physical and emotional impact of torture, continue to uphold and fight for their political beliefs. Ehlers et al. (Ehlers et al. 2000; Başoǧlu et al. 1997)7 8 have found that individuals who experience political imprisonment and torture can exhibit resistance through a strong political commitment to a cause. Through the connections between Butler’s theoretical framework and Ehlers’ empirical findings, we can see how the philosophical underpinnings of vulnerability help explain the psychological responses observed.

In Palestine, sumud encompasses a wide range of meanings, tactics, actions, and practices aimed at resisting colonial powers and coping with daily life under occupation (Halper 2006; Khalili 2007; Richter-Devroe 2008; Meari 2014)9 10 11 12. Sumud is a “repertoire of everyday acts of resistance” (Johansson and Vinthagen 2020)13. It is a form of everyday resistance directed against the Zionist settler-colonial project. Sumud is also an intangible mindset that compels Palestinians, despite all odds, to preserve a sense of normality and continuity in life. It fosters the ability to envision a future, maintain dignity, remember historic injustices, stand in solidarity with one another, and uphold the inner strength needed to endure the conditions created by the Nakba of 1948, all while sustaining political awareness (Morrison 2024)14.

The practices of sumud can also be understood as expressions of what Griffiths (Griffiths 2025)15 terms a decoloniality of living: forms of endurance, care, relationality, and world-making that persist even within—and often in defiance of—the hypersecuritised structures of Israeli rule. Such practices are not merely anticipatory gestures toward a decolonial future but manifestations of a decolonial present. They mark moments in which Palestinians refuse to be wholly subsumed within the logics of control, and in doing so, they expose the incompleteness of the settler-colonial project.

Decoloniality of living highlights how the everyday can unsettle colonial authority: the cultivation of land, the maintenance of kin networks, the rebuilding of homes, movement across fragmented spaces, and the preservation of cultural and epistemic life all signal modes of inhabiting the world that exceed the state’s technologies of erasure. These forms of living also resonate with the wider geographies of complicity and counter-complicity that shape Palestinian life—the international networks of military, economic, and diplomatic support that enable Israeli rule, and the sites of intervention and solidarity that seek to undo it.

In this sense, sumud is both a refusal of elimination and a form of living that gestures toward, and helps constitute, a decolonised Palestine. It persists, to borrow Griffiths’ phrasing, as something that “haunts” the colonial regime: coiled within the present and poised to unfold into political futures not yet realised.

Integrating the insights mentioned above with the concept of sumud allows for a comprehensive analysis of how political and personal vulnerabilities and resistances manifest and are navigated in the Palestinian context, revealing a deep interconnection between the theoretical, empirical, and experiential dimensions of resistance.

In their groundbreaking work, Jess Notwell (Notwell 2022)16 argues that the concept of sumud is deeply rooted in love for Palestinians and Palestine, encompassing their past, present, and future. This love manifests as a dedication to the people and the land, motivating a continuous struggle for liberation despite ongoing hardships. Notwell writes that sumud is portrayed as both an acceptance of vulnerability and pain and a form of resistance. It reflects a willingness to endure suffering as a way of honouring and protecting loved ones and the homeland. For instance, mothers who have lost their children to martyrdom continue to support the liberation struggle in their honour. This ongoing commitment, despite the profound pain of loss, illustrates how sumud involves embracing suffering as part of the struggle for freedom and dignity. This also highlights the dual nature of sumud: it is both a resistance to vulnerability, because it enables individuals to survive and remain steadfast, and an acute awareness of the vulnerability of others whom one loves and seeks to protect. This duality is evident in the way Palestinian families, even after experiencing the loss of loved ones or facing the threat of imprisonment, continue to fight for the liberation of their land and people. The love for their homeland and community drives them to persist in the face of adversity, embodying a form of resilience that is deeply connected to their identity as Palestinians.

Sumud, as Malaka Shwaikh (Shwaikh and Gould 2023)17 writes, is an act that is both agentic and active, with its origins to be found in the events of 1967 (see Chapter Three). Sumud is a choice, not an expectation, to exist on the land and resist the occupation, which also involves maintaining cultural traditions and heritage. Moreover, sumud, as Shwaikh asserts, should be regarded as inclusive to all Palestinians, including those living abroad as refugees.

References

  1. Oliver, Jeff. 2013. "Reflections on Resistance: Agency, Identity and Being Indigenous in Colonial British Columbia." In Historical Archaeologies of Cognition: Explorations into Faith, Hope and Charity. Equinox Publishing. ↩

  2. Sousa, Cindy A., Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia, Guy Feldman, and Jessica Lee. 2013. "Individual and Collective Dimensions of Resilience Within Political Violence." Trauma, Violence,\ & Abuse 14 (3): 235--54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013493520. ↩

  3. Summerfield, Derek. 1999. "A Critique of Seven Assumptions Behind Psychological Trauma Programmes in War-Affected Areas." Social Science\ & Medicine 48 (10): 1449--62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00450-X. ↩

  4. Butler, Judith. 2009. "Performativity, Precarity and Sexual Politics." Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana 4 (3): i--xiii. ↩

  5. Butler, Judith, Zeynep Gambetti, and Leticia Sabsay, eds. 2016. Vulnerability in Resistance. Duke University Press. ↩

  6. Butler, Judith. 2016. "Rethinking Vulnerability and Resistance." In Vulnerability in Resistance, edited by Judith Butler, Zeynep Gambetti, and Leticia Sabsay. Duke University Press. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  7. Ehlers, Anke, Andreas Maercker, and Anne Boos. 2000. "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Political Imprisonment: The Role of Mental Defeat, Alienation, and Perceived Permanent Change." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 109 (1): 45--55. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.109.1.45. ↩↩

  8. Başoǧlu, Metin, S. Mineka, M. Paker, T. Aker, M. Livanou, and Ş. GÖK. 1997. "Psychological Preparedness for Trauma as a Protective Factor in Survivors of Torture." Psychological Medicine 27 (6): 1421--33. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291797005679. ↩

  9. Halper, Jeff. 2006. "A Strategy Within a Non-Strategy: Sumud, Resistance, Attrition, and Advocacy." Journal of Palestine Studies 35 (3): 45--51. https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2006.35.3.45. ↩

  10. Khalili, Laleh. 2007. Heroes and Martyrs of Palestine: The Politics of National Commemoration. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press. ↩

  11. Richter-Devroe, Sophie. 2008. "Gender, Culture, and Conflict Resolution in Palestine." Journal of Middle East Women's Studies 4 (2): 30--59. https://doi.org/10.2979/mew.2008.4.2.30. ↩

  12. Meari, Lena. 2014. "Sumud: A Palestinian Philosophy of Confrontation in Colonial Prisons." South Atlantic Quarterly 113 (3): 547--78. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2692182. ↩

  13. Johansson, Anna, and Stellan Vinthagen. 2020. Conceptualizing 'Everyday Resistance': A Transdisciplinary Approach. Routledge. ↩

  14. Morrison, Heidi, ed. 2024. Lived Resistance Against the War on Palestinian Children. The University of Georgia Press. ↩

  15. Griffiths, Mark. 2025. Checkpoint 300: Colonial Space in Palestine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ↩

  16. Notwell, Jess. 2022. "Decolonization Is an Everyday Struggle in فلسطين Palestine: A Collective Practice of Freedom Rooted in Decolonial Love." PhD thesis. ↩

  17. Shwaikh, Malaka, and Rebecca Ruth Gould. 2023. Prison Hunger Strikes in Palestine: A Strategic Perspective. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict Press. ↩