Many accounts of resistance within systems of migration control pivot upon a coherent migrant subject, one that is imbued with political agency and posited as oppositional to particular forms of sovereign power. Drawing upon ethnographic research into the role of creativity within the UK asylum system, I argue that grounding resistance with a stable, coherent and agentic subject, aligns with oppositional narratives (of power vs resistance), and thereby risks negating the entangled politics of the (in)coherence of subject formation, and how this can contain the potential to disrupt, disturb or interrupt the practices and premise of the UK asylum system. I suggest that charity groups and subjects should not be written out of narratives of resistance apriori because they engage with ‘the state’: firstly, because to argue that there is a particular form that resistance should take is to place limits around what counts as the political; and secondly, because to ‘remain oppositional’ is at odds with an (in)coherent subject. I show how accounts which highlight a messy and ambiguous subjectivity, could be bought into understandings of resistance. This is important because as academics, we too participate in the delineation of the political and what counts as resistance. In predetermining what subjects, and forms of political action count as resistance we risk denying recognition to those within this system.

移民控制系统内的许多抵抗都以一个连贯的移民主题为中心，这个主题充满了政治能动性，并被假定为与特定形式的主权权力相对立。根据对英国庇护系统中创造力作用的人种学研究，我认为以稳定、连贯和可动性主题为基础的抵抗与对立叙事（权力与抵抗）保持一致，从而有可能否定（在）主体形成的连贯性，以及这如何包含破坏、干扰或中断英国庇护系统的实践和前提的可能性。我建议慈善团体和主题不应该从抗拒先验的叙述中写出来，因为它们与“国家”有关：首先，因为争论应该采取一种特殊的形式来限制什么是政治；其次，因为“保持对立”与（不）连贯的主题不一致。我展示了如何将突出混乱和模棱两可的主观性的叙述纳入对抵抗的理解。这很重要，因为作为学者，我们也参与了对政治和抵抗的界定。在预先确定哪些主体和政治行动形式被视为抵抗时，我们冒着拒绝承认该系统内的人的风险。可以理解为抵抗力。这很重要，因为作为学者，我们也参与了对政治和抵抗的界定。在预先确定哪些主体和政治行动形式被视为抵抗时，我们冒着拒绝承认该系统内的人的风险。可以理解为抵抗力。这很重要，因为作为学者，我们也参与了对政治和抵抗的界定。在预先确定哪些主体和政治行动形式被视为抵抗时，我们冒着拒绝承认该系统内的人的风险。