The basic arguments in this chapter are that everyday resistance is fruitfully understood as a particular form of social practice (pattern of acts) or a technique applied by subordinated subjects in a power relation. And that this way of acting is always in a relation to power (Scott), where the meaning of that practice cannot be understood without analyzing it as related to power (which we discuss in detail in the next chapter). This practice is characterized by its creative technique (de Certeau) of doing things differently from manifest design, what contemporary power holders want or what lays in the interest of existing power relations. It is, however, not enough to act with creative difference. The relation to power needs to be, at least potentially, possible to influence. The key is practices, by subordinated people in a way that might undermine, weaken, dissolve or destabilize that particular power (while perhaps utilizing or even strengthening other forms of power in the process). In this chapter, we also claim that alternative interpretations of everyday resistance (focusing on intention, consciousness, ideology, recognition or outcome/effect) are less useful.