Grand theories of popular dissent cannot capture the intricate functioning of cross-territorial power relations. So demonstrated a reading of the East German revolution in chapter 4. Power must be understood in discursive and transversal terms. But what happens if one ignores the complex, constituted and constantly shifting aspects of power, if one continues to rely on grand theories and refuses to accept the death of God, the contingent character of foundations? Resulting essentialist and positivist approaches, I suggested, uphold a specific image of dissent, one that becomes frozen in time and space – an image that forecloses alternative views and thereby runs the risk of entrenching some forms of domination.

The present chapter sustains these claims by demonstrating how prevalent images and practices of popular dissent, even if they transgress political boundaries, are often unable to deal with subtle discursive forms of domination. To acknowledge this problematic aspect of dissent is to take one more step in the shift away from grand theories towards an articulation of human agency that is not anchored in stable foundations, but revolves around a discursive understanding of power relations. This is no easy task, for the power contained in discourses is slippery and difficult to detect. Discursive forms of domination rarely appear as what they are. Only seldom, if ever, William Connolly notes, ‘does a policy of repression or marginalisation simply present itself as such’.