Within the field of resistance studies, various concepts have been used for theorizing different forms and goals of political activism. One of the most recent conceptualizations, ‘constructive resistance’ (Sørensen, Vinthagen & Johansen 2023), helps us understand how individuals, groups and communities strive to create autonomous spaces where they can resist oppression, exploitation and dehumanization while experimenting with alternative ways of living. Another key concept is ‘everyday resistance’ (Scott 1985, 1990; Johansson & Vinthagen 2014, 2020), referring to resistance that is not necessarily organized or openly visible. While these concepts are extremely important for understanding various forms of resistance, they provide less in terms of analytical tools for exploring broader societal developments, such as the current erosion of democracy taking place at multiple levels across the globe, that shape the conditions where resistance emerges and unfolds.

In recent years, the operational environment for resistance has changed rapidly. The deepening crisis of democracy and increased repression of civil society actors have narrowed possibilities for resistance in many countries, and societal attitudes towards activism have become increasingly negative. Consequently, there has been a noticeable return to approaches that, instead of focusing on autonomous, prefigurative and other ‘delinked’ forms of resistance, seek to effect change within existing socio-political structures. Many movements aim to influence democratic institutions and policies in the present, either by appealing directly to policymakers or indirectly by shaping public discourse. In doing so, some are using unconventional methods of activism.

In this special issue, we focus on activism that appears strange, meaning it is culturally distant from what is considered ‘normal’ in a specific context. The strangeness of activism can, first, relate to its goals, such as advocating for changes to democratic practices that are considered self-evident, or causes that seem unusual or morally questionable. For example, challenging the foundational assumptions of representative democracy or demanding radically new governance models may seem strange to mainstream audiences. Second, strangeness may stem from methods of activism that do not align with traditionally accepted frameworks of democratic influence. In some contexts, for instance, disruptive tactics, civil disobedience, and direct-action campaigns can be considered antithetical to parliamentary democracy, even though they have historically played crucial roles in democratic change.

Strange forms of activism are often emotionally, socially, or politically disruptive. In public discourse, they are frequently placed on the (far)right or (far)left of the political spectrum. Yet, activists’ political backgrounds, views, and aims are highly diverse. Some align with a liberal–conservative rather than a left–right axis. Some are deeply committed to democratic values, while others pursue anti-democratic, reactionary, or revolutionary goals. Some have ambiguous or original aims that require novel conceptual frameworks for description. 

We propose that the concept of strange activism is useful for exploring activism that is considered unexpected, perplexing, or inappropriate in a particular context. By navigating the fine line between acceptability and unacceptability, it marks the frontier of social and political norms and demonstrates both constraints and opportunities for change. From a societal perspective, identifying strangeness reveals where the boundaries of acceptable political thought lie. Demands that are excessively strange may struggle to gain credibility, whereas those that are ‘tolerably strange’ can find traction at the edge of possibility. The concept of strange activism allows for an examination of the complex dynamics between resistance and society, activists and the state. 

We invite empirical and theoretical contributions that explore strange activism across various contexts. Despite the broad definition offered here, we encourage authors to engage with various interpretations of ‘strange’ and ‘strangeness’ in their contributions.

We welcome papers on following topics but are also open to other contributions:

• What types of activism are considered strange in different contexts, and why? 
• Why do activists choose methods or goals that appear strange to the rest of society?
• How do activists balance between recognition and rejection? 
• What are the limits of strangeness in different contexts?
• How have different societal actors responded to various forms of strange activism?
• How does democracy accommodate strange forms and goals of activism?
• What kind of democratizing potential might strange activism have? 
• Why and how might strange activism be harmful to democracy? What kinds of delegitimizing and anti-democratic elements may it carry?
• How can the effects of strange activism be evaluated?

Submit an abstract (max 500 words) through the form below, or by email to all four guest editors. If you have any questions, please email the guest editors (see the emails at the top of the page).

All papers will undergo peer review by two anonymous reviewers. Acceptance of the abstract does not guarantee publication.

Important dates: 

Deadline for abstracts: 16 May 2025

Notification of acceptance of abstracts: 30 June 2025

Submission of full papers: 1 October 2025

Published in fall issue of 2026