{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029005524861878452, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027624309392265192, 'mean_word_length': 5.590909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Studying resistance: some cautionary notes

The question of “resistance” has oriented the field of critical ethnography for several generations now. Indeed, the reproduction–resistance binary has animated much of the most important, critical work in educational studies over the last 30 years. Yet, this reproduction–resistance binary has perhaps calcified in recent years. Such work often searches for elusive moments of “authenticity” and “resistance” in time, pulling them out, celebrating them, exporting them to understand other sets of people in other social circumstances. Comparatively little work has treated resistance as a fluid and dynamic construct. This short essay offers some cautionary notes in this regard.