Summary

The word "subversion" derives from the Latin word "subversor", meaning "a person who upsets, overthrows".  At Wikipedia subversion is described as "an act in seclusion" with the aim of overthrowing an existing order by infiltrating and undermining it. The article states further that sometimes the entire political opposition is understood as being involved in subversion. In Brockhaus subversion is defined as "an act aiming to overthrow the existing state order, often executed in seclusion". The Duden explains subversion as both destructive and revolutionary.

Subversion is thus linked to a rather destructive force. In everyday use subversion also has a negative connotation. It is linked to agitation and betrayal of the entire order. For example, an insult can be a "subversive element". The individual must be (kindly) subordinate to the people, says the common formula.

Revaluation of Subversion

The notion of subversion underwent a positive revaluation by post-structuralist approaches. However, the academic discourse has not quite yet filtered into the everyday use of language. If we ask the question "how can social structures and cultural formations, which are connected with power structures producing hegemonies, be altered by subversive (undermining) practises." (Wikipedia)

Subversion has been associated with a force which may contribute to social development; counter-cultural subversion and subversive activity seeks to break up the existing hegemony in order to find new political directions. To say it more simply, subversion in post-structuralism has a similar meaning to revolution in Marxism. There is a greater trust in subversion as a theory and practise for a better world than there is for revolution.

Subversive thought and action is required in order to attack the hegemony, the dominant discourse, without becoming state power.  This also means to intervene into the dominant system without becoming part of its representational bodies. Gilles Deleuze states that "complicity with the state has been bitten apart." (Deleuze, in: Der Faden ist gerissen)

The disappointment with Real Socialism caused a search for new forms of resistance. Michel Foucault states: "We have to start from scratch and ask: From what standpoint can we criticise our society?" He further states that there cannot be any other revolutionary movement to relate to. This sounds pessimistic. If we add Lyotard's analysis, Foucault's claim for a new beginning around 1830 becomes clearer. In the "Expeditions" Loytard writes: "The trade-unions contributed to directing the exploitation of the work force; the party served to modulate the estrangement of consciousness; socialism was a totalitarian regime, and Marxism was no more than a grid of words."