Activism and resistance: activist dispositions and the hidden hierarchies of action

Activism and resistance are often conflated and used interchangeably. Because of this coupling, assumptions around resistance are similar to those around activism e.g. intentionality and ‘form’ (Hughes, 2019). In particular, such conflation reproduces assumptions around what ‘counts’ as activism (Martin et al, 2007; Thrift, 1996), who counts as an activist, and equally what impact such acts can produce. This chapter therefore seeks to unravel this association and consider the effect of such ingrained entanglement. Firstly, such an association implies activism is always an oppositional and confrontational act, which in turn is imbued with assumptions around intentionality and power. Secondly, this association implies a hierarchy of actions, with more dramatic acts being of greater important and having greater potential of outcome, therefore, implying assumptions around scales of effect. Thirdly, such associations are not merely theoretical concerns; they are enacted in the everyday and create a privileged and exclusionary identity of the ‘activist’ (Chatterton and Pickerill, 2010). Although the critiquing of the intentionality of resistance is long established (Cresswell, 1996), the empirical focus of much activism research, namely its preoccupation with dramatic and ‘direct’ acts of activism, has hindered the ability of such critiques to permeate activism literature, particularly in relation to the potential effect of acts of activism. Even literature around more everyday and mundane acts of activism (Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006) still conceive of such acts as only important in the sense that they contributed to more dramatic and noticeable acts. While increasingly researchers are turning to ‘quiet’ (Askins, 2014, 2015; Pottinger, 2017) and ‘implicit’ (Horton and Kraftl, 2009) activism, such language still implies a hierarchy of acts of activism, as though such acts cannot simply be termed ‘activism’ and instead must be prefixed with a proviso. However, such subtler prefixes do at least counter assumptions around activism and intent, and form part of a move to break activism free of its resistance straightjacket. Additionally, the empirical focus of such research is moving beyond spaces and acts typically associated with ‘resistance’. Furthermore, more recent literature also posits whether activist propensity can in fact also be imbued in apparent inaction (Wilkinson and Ortega-Alcazar, 2019). The chapter concludes by arguing that ‘resistance’ should be considered a disposition to some, but not all, acts of activism. Although, this is not to say that such acts are always intentional in their ‘resisting’, or that such acts are more important or more effective. Researchers should continue to expand and explore activism beyond its typical confines, to enable a more empowering understanding of the agency of activism. However, reflection is needed on how activism can retain its potential and propensity as a force for change, in line with similar reflections on resistance (Hughes, 2019), despite its uncoupling with resistance and expansion into ‘quieter’ and ‘implicit’ acts and spaces. In particular, as part of an unravelling of activism and resistance, we should not assume that ways forward for the rethinking of resistance are the same as those for activism.