Social & resistance movements

What are “social” and “resistance” movements ?

• In the Core topics (“Systems and interactions in global politics”), the guide lists social movements and resistance movements among the key stakeholders and actors alongside states, IGOs, civil society, the media, parties and interest groups.
• In the Thematic studies, especially Rights & justice and Peace & conflict, movements appear again when examining interactions among actors (e.g., civil society, private firms, labour unions) and debates about the legitimacy of non-violent and violent protests.
• The guide emphasizes contemporary (last ~20 years) examples; historical cases are background only.
• The course’s conceptual spine—power, sovereignty, legitimacy, interdependence—should frame any movement you teach.

Working definitions

• Social movement: Sustained, collective action (often outside formal politics) aiming for social or political change; typically relies on broad participation and public pressure. (General synthesis + guide actor list.)
• Resistance movement: Collective action explicitly aimed at opposing an occupying force, regime, policy, or social order; can be non-violent or violent, domestic or transnational. (Links to “violent and non-violent actors” + protest legitimacy debates.)

Five theoretical lenses students can apply

1. Power—how is it exercised?

• Lukes’ three dimensions: power over decisions, over agendas (non-decision), and over preferences/ideas (ideological). Movements try to shift all three—e.g., forcing an issue onto the agenda, reframing public common sense. (Wikipedia)
• Foucault: power is productive and capillary; “where there is power, there is resistance.” Movements reorganize “micro-powers” (schools, workplaces, platforms) and contest biopower (rules over bodies and life). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Arendt: power = people acting in concert; distinct from violence. Movements build power through participation and public space; violence may reveal a loss of power rather than its height. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Gramsci: movements challenge hegemony (dominant consent) via a “war of position” in civil society—media, schools, culture—before institutional change. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• The IB guide encourages engaging with diverse thinkers (Arendt, Foucault, Gramsci, Lukes, hooks, etc.).

2. Why do movements emerge and grow?

• Resource Mobilization: success depends on money, skills, networks, media access, leadership and organizations. (Wikipedia)
• Political Opportunity (Tarrow/McAdam): windows open when elite divisions, weak repression, or institutional access make protest low-cost/high-impact. (Wikipedia)
• Framing (Snow & Benford): movements win by aligning meanings—diagnosis (what’s wrong), prognosis (what to do), motivation (why act now). (Compass)
• Connective/Networked action (Castells; Bennett & Segerberg): personalized, digital mobilization; weak-tie networks scale fast, sometimes with minimal formal hierarchy. (Penn State University Library Catalog)

3. Repertoires & tactics

• Non-violent civil resistance (Gene Sharp’s catalogue): protests, strikes, boycotts, non-cooperation, sit-ins, teach-ins, blockades, etc. Movements often combine tactics across protest, non-cooperation, intervention. (The Commons)
• Direct action can be disruptive yet non-violent; public support hinges on perceived legitimacy and harm. (Wikipedia)

4. State responses (and movement outcomes)

• Repression (policing, surveillance, legal changes), concessions (policy repeal), co-optation, or agenda-setting without policy (norm/culture shift). (Synthesis + cases below.)

5. IB concepts in analysis

• Power: Which dimension is targeted? Sovereignty: Who gets to decide? Legitimacy: Are tactics seen as rightful? Interdependence: How do transnational supporters, platforms, or supply chains matter?

---

Contemporary case studies (use these as stand-alone mini-dossiers)

A. India’s Farmers’ Movement (2020–2021; renewed mobilizations in 2024–25)

Core grievance/diagnosis: Three farm laws seen as threatening small farmers’ bargaining power and mandi system. Resources/organization: Umbrella coalition (Samyukt Kisan Morcha), strong rural unions, diaspora media amplification. (Wikipedia) Framing: “No farmers, no food” universalized the issue beyond Punjab/Haryana. (Wikipedia) Tactics: Mass encampments (Delhi borders), tractor marches, sit-ins, boycotts; a dramatic 26 Jan 2021 march escalated contention. (Wikipedia) Political opportunity: Upcoming state elections increased government sensitivity to costs. (Wikipedia) Outcome: Full repeal of the three laws (Nov 2021); ongoing contestation over MSP suggests “partial victory + continued bargaining.” (Wikipedia) IB angle: Power (agenda + decisions), legitimacy (mostly non-violent), interdependence (diaspora solidarity, national supply chains).

B. #EndSARS—Nigeria (2020)

Diagnosis: Police brutality by SARS unit. Resources/networks: Decentralized youth, celebrity amplification, crowdfunding, digital logistics. Tactics: Mass demonstrations, online campaigns; symbolic spaces (Lekki Toll Gate). State response: Announced dissolution of SARS but also lethal force; Amnesty documented killings at Lekki and nationwide. (Amnesty International) Outcome: Institutional promise vs. repression/impunity dilemma; enduring grievances about reform credibility. IB angle: Legitimacy of protest vs. state coercion; rights & justice mechanisms; power (ideational frame shifted nationally).

C. “Woman, Life, Freedom”—Iran (since 2022)

Trigger: Death of Mahsa (Jina) Amini; mandatory hijab as focal grievance. Framing: Feminist, intersectional, rights-based; strong symbolism (hair cutting, unveiled presence). State response: Legal hardening (new hijab penalties, surveillance), arrests and intimidation; measures drew further outrage. (The Guardian) Outcome: Policy hardening + diffuse everyday resistance (“quiet quitting” the hijab) + diaspora lobbying; cultural norms contested despite repression. IB angle: Power (disciplinary/biopower vs. bodily autonomy), legitimacy of civil disobedience, interdependence (diaspora media ecosystems).

D. Myanmar’s Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) (since 2021)

Diagnosis: Military coup overturning election results. Resources: Horizontal networks of teachers, doctors, civil servants; ethnic armed groups’ support in some regions. Tactics: Strikes, work stoppages, boycotts, parallel governance; later, armed resistance in some areas. State response: Prolonged war-level repression; hospitals/schools attacked; mass displacement. (El País) Outcome: Stalemate shifting into multi-front conflict; high human cost; international aid and legitimacy disputes. IB angle: Sovereignty/legitimacy crisis; violent vs. non-violent repertoires; interdependence (ASEAN, UN limits).

E. Hong Kong’s Anti-Extradition/Pro-Democracy Movement (2019–2020)

Diagnosis: Extradition bill + fears about autonomy. Resources: Affinity groups, encrypted comms, diaspora media; “be water” flexible tactics. Tactics: Marches of hundreds of thousands, targeted occupations, internationalization. (Wikipedia) State response: Bill withdrawn; later National Security Law and policing curtailed movement space. Outcome: Partial short-term concession (bill) but long-term closure of political opportunity. IB angle: Power (agenda then repression), sovereignty disputes, interdependence (global finance/media vs. central state power).

F. Climate movements—Fridays for Future (FFF) & Extinction Rebellion (XR)

Diagnosis: Climate emergency; government inaction. Resources/frames: Youth moral claim (FFF), disruptive non-violence (XR); global digital networks. Tactics: School strikes; city blockades; high-visibility direct action. (Wikipedia) Outcomes/impact:

• Agenda-setting: UK’s 2019 climate emergency declaration followed a surge of climate protests (among other drivers). (TIME)
• Costs/legitimacy debates: UK govt review highlighted heavy policing costs and emergency-services disruption risks during XR actions—illustrating how legitimacy can be contested. (GOV.UK)
• Behavior/policy signals: Studies show perceived shifts in concern and engagement among publics exposed to FFF. (Impact is uneven and debated.) (SpringerLink) IB angle: Power (ideational shift), legitimacy (disruption vs. consent), interdependence (transnational networking).

G. Belarus’ 2020 Pro-Democracy Protests

Diagnosis: Fraudulent election; authoritarian consolidation. Tactics: Mass marches, strikes, symbolism (white-red-white). State response: Systematic repression—mass detentions, torture allegations, media/NGO closures. (Human Rights Watch) Outcome: Movement suppressed domestically; opposition shifted abroad; civil society severely constrained (e.g., Viasna outlawed). (AP News) IB angle: Legitimacy vs. coercion; international responses (limited leverage); sovereignty claims.

H. 2024–25 Campus Gaza-war Solidarity Protests (selected examples, U.S.)

Diagnosis: University investments linked to the Gaza war; free speech norms. Tactics: Encampments, sit-ins, divestment demands; highly mediatized confrontations with administrators/police. (Wikipedia) State/institutional response: Policing, suspensions, and—in some cases—litigation about federal funding/mandates; controversy over training modules and academic freedom. (Reuters) Outcome: Mixed—some local concessions (e.g., committees/centers), many crackdowns; enduring debate over legitimacy of tactics and definitions of (il)legality and hate speech. (Wikipedia) IB angle: Rights & justice (speech/assembly vs. safety), legitimacy of protest, interdependence (national politics, donors, federal rules).

---

How to analyze any movement (checklist)

1. Map actors: Movement orgs, coalitions, allies (media, unions, NGOs), opponents (state, counter-movements), and affected stakeholders. (Guide emphasizes stakeholder breadth.)
2. State the grievance (diagnosis), solution (prognosis), and call-to-action (motivation)—identify the frames and who crafts them. (Compass)
3. Identify resources (money, logistics, skills, influencers, diaspora) and mobilization structures (unions, parties, churches, online communities). (Wikipedia)
4. Assess political opportunity: elections, elite splits, international pressure, legal openings/constraints. (Wikipedia)
5. Catalogue tactics: where on Sharp’s spectrum (protest → non-cooperation → intervention)? Are tactics seen as legitimate locally? (The Commons)
6. Anticipate responses: repression, concessions, co-optation, disinformation; note dynamics of escalation, radicalization, or fragmentation. (Synthesis)
7. Measure outcomes on three horizons:

• Policy (laws repealed/changed?)—e.g., India farm laws. (Wikipedia)
• Politics (agenda/party shifts; institutional reforms)—e.g., emergency declarations, inquiries. (TIME)
• Culture (norms, language, visibility of marginalized groups)—e.g., sustained everyday resistance in Iran. (The Guardian)

8. Tie back to IB concepts—how are power/sovereignty/legitimacy/interdependence being re-ordered?

---

Mini-glossary (for fast revision)

• Hegemony (Gramsci): Rule by consent (cultural/ideological leadership) more than force; movements wage a war of position in civil society to erode it. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Power vs. Violence (Arendt): Power grows when people act together; violence can destroy power but cannot create legitimate power. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Micro-power (Foucault): Power is everywhere in everyday practices; resistance is immanent to power relations. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Three Faces of Power (Lukes): Decisions, non-decisions (agenda), and shaping desires/ideas. Movements try to win all three. (Wikipedia)
• Framing (Snow/Benford): Meaning-making to mobilize supporters and persuade bystanders. (Compass)
• Civil resistance tactics (Sharp): Structured catalog of non-violent methods—from petitions and boycotts to sit-ins and parallel institutions. (The Commons)

MNCs