Vol. 16 No. 32 (2025): Communities and possible worlds. Community experiences and practices of resistance in neoliberal rationality
Articles

Resistance Communities. Processes of Participation, Symbolic Conflicts and Liminality

PDF
  • Fabiana Battisti,
  • Andrea Volterrani
Fabiana Battisti
Scuola IaD, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy
Bio
Andrea Volterrani
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Impresa “Mario Lucertini”, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/smp-16190

Published 2025-10-11

Keywords

  • Resistance,
  • liminal spaces,
  • social participation

How to Cite

Battisti, F., & Volterrani, A. (2025). Resistance Communities. Processes of Participation, Symbolic Conflicts and Liminality. SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 16(32), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.36253/smp-16190

Copyright (c) 2025 Fabiana Battisti, Andrea Volterrani

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This paper examines resistance communities as critical actors in socio-political transformation within an increasingly digital society where social relationships shape collective action despite the atrophy of community norms. Investigating communities in liminal spaces facing economic, environmental, and cultural crises, we analyze how they challenge power structures through collective action and symbolic resistance. Our research examines the European Cerv Co-Green project across four countries and two grassroots associations in Rieti province defending mountain ecosystems. Through participant observation, workshops and interviews (2022-2024), we identify the forms of aggregate resistance, bonds of belonging, and differences between digital and non-digital approaches. We propose a conceptual model systematising the four activation spheres of resistance communities within the nexus identified in resistance studies concerning the interplay between the individual and collective dimensions, as well as constructive and destructive dissent. These spheres are: individual-value, communicative-relational, operational-strategic and socio-political-territorial. The model offers a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of liminal resistance experiences.

PDF

References

  1. Alaimo S. (2017), Disability Studies and the Environmental Humanities: Toward an Eco-Crip Theory, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
  2. Antonucci M.C., Sorice M. and Volterrani A. (2024), «Liminalities: Social Vulnerabilities Between Participatory Processes and Digital Space in the Neoliberal Era», in SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 15(29): 163-177, https://doi.org/10.36253/smp-15505.
  3. Balsiger P. and Lambelet A. (2014), «Participant observation», in D. Della Porta (a cura di), Methodological practices in social movement research, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 144-172.
  4. Barbas Á. and Treré E. (2022), «The rise of a new media ecosystem: exploring 15M’s educommunicative legacy for radical democracy», in Social Movement Studies, 22(3): 381-401, https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2070738.
  5. Battisti F. and Volterrani A. (2025), «I processi di educommunication nello sviluppo sociale di comunità. Esperienze di ricerca-azione nel Sud Italia», in E. Mangone, E. Martini, A. Volterrani (a cura di), Società digitale frammentata e traiettorie educative. Disuguaglianze, giustizia sociale e intelligenza artificiale, Mimesis, Milano, pp. 121-150.
  6. Bayat A. (2013), Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  7. Bennett J. (2009), Vibrant Matter. A political Ecology of Things, Duke University Press, Durham.
  8. Bonini T. and Treré E. (2024), Algorithms of Resistance: The Everyday Fight against Platform Power, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  9. Bruns A. (2019), Are Filter Bubbles Real?, Polity Press, Cambridge.
  10. Caroselli S. and Ciuffetti A. (2021), «L’urbanizzazione del Terminillo e il Progetto TSM2: la storia e gli usi civici come strumenti di lotta», in Os. Opificio della storia, 2: 66-71, https://doi.org/10.6093/2724-3192/8254.
  11. Chandra U. (2015), «Rethinking subaltern resistance», in Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45: 563-573, https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2015.1048415.
  12. Costa E. (2024). Long-term holistic ethnography for new digital worlds. Ethnography, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381241260884
  13. Couldry N. (2012), Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge.
  14. Dardot P. and Laval C. (2019), Common: On revolution in the 21st century, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
  15. Dean J. (2019), «Communicative Capitalism and Revolutionary Form», in Millennium, 47(3): 326-340, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829819840624.
  16. de Certeau M. (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  17. Della Porta D. (2022), «Progressive Social Movements and the Creation of European Public Spheres», in Theory, Culture and Society, 39(4): 51-65, https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103510.
  18. Fish S. (1980), Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  19. Freire P. (2022 [1970]), Pedagogia degli oppressi, Edizioni Gruppo Abele, Torino.
  20. Freire P. (1985), The politics of education: culture, power and liberation, Bergin & Garvey, New York.
  21. Hannouch B. and Milstein T. (2024), «Activating Ecocentrism: How Young Women Environmental Activists Produce Identity on Instagram», in Environmental Communication, 19(2): 198-217, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2376697.
  22. Kossowska M., Kłodkowski P., Siewierska-Chmaj A., Czarnek G., Wyczesany M., Sekerdej M., Szwed P., Cwik S.S. and Seroczynska M. (2023), «Internet-based micro-identities as a driver of societal disintegration», in Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 10: 955, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02441-z.
  23. Lilja M. (2022), «The definition of resistance», in Journal of Political Power, 15(2): 202-220, https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2022.2061127.
  24. Mikael B., Lilja M., Schulz M. and Vinthagen S. (2023), «The ABC of resistance: towards a new analytical framework», in Journal of Political Power, 16(1): 59-80, https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2023.2168369.
  25. Morris A. (2015), «The what and why of in-depth interviewing», in Id., A Practical Introduction to In-Depth Interviewing, SAGE Publications Ltd, New York, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921344.
  26. Reckwitz A. (2025 [2017]), La società delle singolarità. La trasformazione strutturale della modernità, Meltemi, Milano.
  27. PosTribù (2025), Acqua: a Rieti e nel Lazio compiuto il “delitto perfetto”! https://postribu.net/2025/02/02/acqua-a-rieti-e-nel-lazio-compiuto-il-delitto-perfetto/
  28. Ruiu M.L., Ruiu G. and Ragnedda M. (2024), «Between “Empowering” and “Blaming” Mechanisms in Developing Political/Economic Responses to Climate Change», in Sociol Inq, 94: 263-289, https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12538.
  29. Scott J.C. (1990), Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  30. Sorice M. and Volterrani A. (2023), «Liminalità, partecipazione ed ecosistemi mediali negli spazi urbani», in H-ermes. Journal of Communication, 24: 27-50, https://doi.org/10.1285/i22840753n24p27.
  31. Tarrow S. (2011), Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  32. Thomassen B. (2014), Liminality and the Modern: Living Through the In-Between, Routledge, London.
  33. Turner V. (1969), The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, Aldine, Chicago.
  34. Zayed H. (2021), «Researching Digital Sociality: Using WhatsApp to Study Educational Change», in Journal of Digital Social Research, 3(2): 44–69. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v3i2.80.