Rethinking Method in Resistance Studies: The role of Intermediality and Multimodality

Recent debates within Resistance Studies have emphasized both the conceptual breadth of resistance and the methodological challenges posed by digitalization. Anton Törnberg (2017) has argued that digital environments transform not only repertoires and spaces of contention but also the methodological conditions for studying resistance, calling for innovative combinations of computational and qualitative approaches. While this recognition is crucial, the medial constitution of digital resistance remains undertheorized. Resistance is increasingly enacted through multimodal, platform-dependent, and intermedial practices, yet research often prioritizes actors, networks, and discourse over the mediated forms through which resistance becomes perceptible. This paper proposes a methodological expansion of Resistance Studies through the integration of intermedial and multimodal theory, drawing on Lars Elleström’s (2010) model of the four modalities of media: the material, sensorial, spatiotemporal, and semiotic. The material modality directs attention to platform infrastructures, interfaces, and algorithmic affordances that condition visibility and circulation. The sensorial modality foregrounds affective intensities and embodied perception in digitally mediated encounters. The spatiotemporal modality illuminates the interplay between ephemerality, virality, archival persistence, and cross-platform migration. The semiotic modality enables differentiation between symbolic condensation (hashtags), iconic parody (memes), and indexical claims to reality (video evidence), revealing how resistance emerges through modal tensions. Within that frame, digital resistance, besides a political act, can be understood as a modal configuration also. Beyond the four modalities, Elleström’s contextual and operational qualifying aspects offer tools for distinguishing when and how digital artifacts are recognized as resistance within specific historical, cultural, and platform regimes. These aspects help address problems of misrecognition, ambiguity, and aestheticization that increasingly characterize digital activism. By introducing modal analysis as a heuristic framework, this paper contributes to ongoing efforts to legitimate and advance Resistance Studies as an interdisciplinary field. The aim is not to expand the concept of resistance indefinitely, but to offer some methodological lens for analyzing how resistance is mediated, perceived, and transformed under conditions of platformization and algorithmic governance. In doing so, it responds directly to the challenges of digitalization identified by Törnberg and proposes a structured analytical vocabulary for the study of contemporary resistance. References Lars Elleström. (2010). “The Modalities of Media: A Model for Understanding Intermedial Relations”. In: Elleström, L. (eds) Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Anton Törnberg. (2017). Researching Resistance: Methodological Challenges, Ethical Concerns and the Future of Resistance Studies, Journal of Resistance Studies, No. II, Vol. 3.