and Rachel Einwohner (2004) urge in the quote above, my analysis will be framed not only around speaking and acting subjects but around listening and witnessing subjects as well. By examining the interactional nature of resistance, I argue, the role of power inside detention is problematised; therefore, we can better examine the multifaceted forms of violence nurtured inside Greek detention centres. As feminist scholars have argued, resistance and domination have a cyclical relationship (Faith, 1993; Flowerdew, 1997). Drawing on this, I view resistance as the predictable product of the Greek detention system. In fact, its predictability is what makes resistance the ultimate quest for freedom; a practice and force that challenges their presumed absence and unwantedness (Stierl, 2019). While this may lead to the further exercise of power by dominators, resistance will also be further provoked, and so on, creating a cycle of interrelated actions. Previous chapters sought to understand how extreme violence and abjection became so normalised and institutionalised inside Greece’s detention regime. This concluding chapter adds another layer to the analysis foregrounded in the thesis by highlighting that inside a detention setting, violence can better be conceptualised within the context of the resistance strategies with which it is confronted and which it seeks to overcome (Flowerdew, 1997). In other words, resistance inside immigration detention centres is such an inherent aspect of the detention system, that an exploration of what goes on behind bars without at the same time paying attention to how harmful practices and mechanisms are resisted, would be a fatal oversight. Resistant acts can no longer be left unaddressed, often covered up with the blood of those attempting to break free from the system of detention in Greece. The chapter is divided in three parts. First, I will identify types of protest, including riots and demand-led protests and second move on to consider self-harm and other forms of corporal resistance. While these two broad types may differ immensely, they have one thing in common; they both have invited a militarised knee-jerk reaction, which is violent, spectacular and very politicised, and a bureaucratised response, which anonymizes, routinises and depoliticises challenges against the system. These responses I will show are not mutually exclusive and are often times overlapping and have a shared aim, to protect, legitimise and exonerate the system. The third part engages with the antiauthoritarian movement in order to explore the bond between the inside and the outside and the productive nature of resistance (Lilja et al., 2017). Here, the potential connection between resistance and social change is a particularly compelling avenue towards finding the light in the bleakness I have described in the previous chapters. In doing so, this chapter will 178