5th ISA Forum of Sociology (6-11 July 2025)

Most environmental movements have until recently refrained from the exercise of physical force as a mode of action, irreproachable in the application of non-violence and irreducible in the defence of their pacifist ethos, with engaging and exuberant street demonstrations, but marked by strict self-discipline. For years, activists have been blocking the streets at peak hours, chaining themselves to the gates of government offices, organising marches or sit-ins, and yet politics seems to react with cold disregard to their ever so civilised protests.

There is now a shift to radical militancy justified by the realisation that there is no more time for patronised gradualism: the common view among activists is that conventional methods have failed to produce any significant change on climate issues. The radical actions of the climate movement are in fact gaining in popularity. From Just Stop Oil in the UK to Save Old Growth in Canada to Letzte Generation in Germany, or Ultima Generazione in Italy are using increasingly disruptive tactics to demand climate action.

What are the reasons for this change of course? Are activists trying to raise awareness of an issue, inspire people to join the movement, influence public opinion, build support for policies, or something else? Does the use of such tactics increase support for environmental movements or decrease it? And above all, does it produce real consequences on social life at the micro, meso and macro levels? How radical fringes (i.e. ‘radical ecology’) see themselves in this respect?