Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

CONCEPTUAL TYPOLOGY OF RESISTANCE

United States Army Special Operations Command

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

CONCEPTUAL TYPOLOGY OF RESISTANCE

Paul J. Tompkins Jr., USASOC Project Lead

Jonathon B. Cosgrove and Erin N. Hahn, Authors

United States Army Special Operations Command

and

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

National Security Analysis Department
This publication is a work of the United States Government in accordance with Title 17, United States Code, sections 101 and 105.

Published by:

The United States Army Special Operations Command

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the 

United States government. Nonmateriel research on special warfare is 

performed in support of the requirements stated by the United States 

Army Special Operations Command, Department of the Army. This 

research is accomplished at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory by the National Security Analysis Department, a nongovernmental agency operating under the supervision of the USASOC 

Sensitive Activities Division, Department of the Army.

The analysis and the opinions expressed within this document 

are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the US Army or the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics 

Laboratory.

Comments correcting errors of fact and opinion, filling or indicating gaps of information, and suggesting other changes that may be 

appropriate should be addressed to:

United States Army Special Operations Command

G-3X, Sensitive Activities Division

2929 Desert Storm Drive

Fort Bragg, NC 28310

All ARIS products are available from USASOC at www.soc.mil

under the ARIS link.
ASSESSING REVOLUTIONARY AND 

INSURGENT STRATEGIES

The Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies (ARIS) series consists of a set of case studies and research conducted for the US Army Special 

Operations Command by the National Security Analysis Department of the 

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

The purpose of the ARIS series is to produce a collection of academically 

rigorous yet operationally relevant research materials to develop and illustrate a common understanding of insurgency and revolution. This research, 

intended to form a bedrock body of knowledge for members of the Special 

Forces, will allow users to distill vast amounts of material from a wide array 

of campaigns and extract relevant lessons, thereby enabling the development 

of future doctrine, professional education, and training.

From its inception, ARIS has been focused on exploring historical and 

current revolutions and insurgencies for the purpose of identifying emerging trends in operational designs and patterns. ARIS encompasses research 

and studies on the general characteristics of revolutionary movements and 

insurgencies and examines unique adaptations by specific organizations or 

groups to overcome various environmental and contextual challenges.

The ARIS series follows in the tradition of research conducted by the 

Special Operations Research Office (SORO) of American University in the 

1950s and 1960s, by adding new research to that body of work and in several 

instances releasing updated editions of original SORO studies.

VOLUMES IN THE ARIS SERIES

Casebook on Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare, Volume I: 1927–1962 (Rev. Ed.)

Casebook on Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare, Volume II: 1962–2009

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare: Algeria 1954–1962 (pub. 1963)

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare—Colombia (1964–2009)

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare: Cuba 1953–1959 (pub. 1963)

Case Study in Guerrilla War: Greece During World War II (pub. 1961)

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare: Guatemala 1944–1954 (pub. 1964)

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare—Palestine Series

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare—Sri Lanka (1976–2009)

Unconventional Warfare Case Study: The Relationship between Iran and Lebanese Hizbollah

Unconventional Warfare Case Study: The Rhodesian Insurgency and the Role of External 

Support: 1961–1979

Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies (2nd Ed.)

Irregular Warfare Annotated Bibliography

Legal Implications of the Status of Persons in Resistance

Narratives and Competing Messages

Special Topics in Irregular Warfare: Understanding Resistance

Threshold of Violence

Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare (2nd Ed.)

SORO STUDIES

Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare: Vietnam 1941–1954 (pub. 1964)

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................x

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY..................................................2

ATTRIBUTES ........................................................................................5

WHERE RESISTANCE BELONGS IN THE IDEATIONAL SPACE... 6

ACTORS ...............................................................................................7

Leadership...........................................................................................9

Types of Leadership........................................................................9

Leadership Characteristics...........................................................10

Participants........................................................................................11

Core Membership and Underground..........................................12

Supporters and Auxiliary .............................................................13

Fighters..........................................................................................13

Sleeper Cells..................................................................................13

Participant Characteristics........................................................... 14

General Population........................................................................... 14

Other Resistance Organizations......................................................16

External Support ..............................................................................16

CAUSES .............................................................................................. 17

Rationale ...........................................................................................19

Structural Focuses of Resistance Rationales...............................19

Resistance Movement Rationale ..................................................20

Revolutionary Movement Rationales ........................................... 21

Reformative Movement Rationales..............................................22

Redemptive Movement Rationales...............................................22

Alterative Movement Rationales .................................................. 23

Strategic Dilemmas Pertaining to Rationale...............................23

Motivations........................................................................................24

ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................25

Notable Characteristics ....................................................................25

Characteristics of the State ..........................................................27
vi

Social Structures...........................................................................27

Law .............................................................................................27

Economy ........................................................................................28

Technology ....................................................................................28

Communications...........................................................................28

Education ......................................................................................28

Geography.....................................................................................29

Time .............................................................................................29

Relationships.................................................................................29

Typologically Relevant Environmental Characteristics..................30

Counterinsurgency Efforts...........................................................30

Wartime Political Orders..............................................................32

Environment as an Independent Variable.......................................33

Environment as a Dependent Variable............................................34

ORGANIZATION ................................................................................35

The Movement ..................................................................................35

Movement Structures....................................................................37

Concept of Replication.................................................................38

The Organization .............................................................................38

Dynamics and Characteristics......................................................39

The Dynamics of Resistance Movements or Organizations.......39

Foreign and Domestic Characteristics of Resistance 

Movements or Organizations...........................................40

Messaging of Resistance Organizations or Movements..............41

Organizational Position in Overall Movement ...........................42

Organizational Theories and Membership.................................43

Theory of Organization................................................................43

Membership Strategies .................................................................44

Internal Governance.....................................................................45

Discipline and Rules .....................................................................45

Organizational Culture ................................................................46

Organization Strategic Dilemmas ...............................................48

Security Environment...................................................................49

ACTIONS..............................................................................................50

Tactics................................................................................................51

Violent Tactics...............................................................................53

Nonviolent and Rightful Resistance Tactics................................53

Fund-Raising .....................................................................................60
vii

Strategic Characteristics...................................................................62

Attribution of Actions...................................................................62

Outreach and Engagement..........................................................63

Action and Information Strategic Dilemmas..............................64

Action Dilemmas...........................................................................65

Information Dilemmas.................................................................66

CONCLUSION.....................................................................................67

GLOSSARY...........................................................................................69

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 81

INDEX ..............................................................................................95
viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Template for typological kind hierarchies............................4

Figure 2. The attributes of resistance. ..................................................5

Figure 3. Actors kind hierarchy.............................................................8

Figure 4. General population.............................................................. 15

Figure 5. Range of popular support presented in FM 3-24.2............ 16

Figure 6. Causes kind hierarchy.......................................................... 18

Figure 7. Environment relative to kind hierarchies. ..........................26

Figure 8. Types of counterinsurgency models....................................30

Figure 9. Organization kind hierarchy. ..............................................36

Figure 10. Movement structures..........................................................38

Figure 11. Actions kind hierarchy. ...................................................... 51
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Template for two-dimensional conceptual typologies. ..........3

Table 2. Types of participants.............................................................. 11

Table 3. Types of external support...................................................... 17

Table 4. Types of resistance movement rationales .............................20

Table 5. Types of wartime political orders..........................................32

Table 6. Types of movement structures between organizations. .......37

Table 7. Types of dynamics in resistance movements 

or organizations...................................................................39

Table 8. Types of foreign and domestic characteristics in 

resistance movements or organizations..............................41

Table 9. Types of unity of message for resistance movements...........42

Table 10. Types of organizational positions in 

resistance movements. .........................................................43

Table 11. Types of theories for authority in 

a resistance organization.....................................................44

Table 12. Types of membership strategies in 

resistance organizations. .....................................................45

Table 13. Types of organizational cultures......................................... 47

Table 14. Types of security environments...........................................50

Table 15. Types of resistance tactics....................................................52

Table 16. Types of nonviolent and rightful resistance tactics............54

Table 17. Types of resistance fund-raising. ......................................... 61

Table 18. Types of action attribution. .................................................63

Table 19. Types of outreach and engagement. ...................................64
x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following authors and publishers for permitting the use of material in this report.

Figure 8. Types of counterinsurgency models. Reproduced with permission from RAND Corporation (Santa Monica, CA): Stephen Watts, 

Jason H. Campbell, Patrick B. Johnston, Sameer Lalwani, and Sarah H. 

Bana, Countering Others’ Insurgencies: Understanding U.S. Small-Footprint 

Interventions in Local Context (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 

2014). © RAND Corporation.

Figure 10. Movement structures. Reproduced with permission from 

ANSESRJ: Jurgen Willems and Marc Jegers, “Social Movement Structures in Relation to Goals and Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model,” 

Canadian Journal of Nonprofit & Social Economy Research (ANSESRJ) 3, 

no. 2 (Autumn 2012): 67–81.

James Jasper’s strategic dilemmas pertaining to rationale are presented with permission from Mobilization: James M. Jasper, “A Strategic 

Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agency in Social-Movement 

Choices.” Mobilization: An International Journal 9, no. 1 (February 2004): 

1–16.

Table 5 is reproduced with permission from Perspectives on Politics: 

Paul Staniland, “States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 2 (June 2012): 243–264.

Content in Table  16, Types of nonviolent and rightful resistance 

tactics, published with permission from the Albert Einstein Institution. 

Originally published in Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action 

(Boston: Portor Sargent, 1973), and reproduced by the Albert Einstein 

Institution, “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” http://www.aeinstein.

org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/198_methods-1.pdf.
1

INTRODUCTION

The Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies (ARIS) project consists of a series of case studies and research conducted for the 

US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) by the National 

Security Analysis Department (NSAD) of the Johns Hopkins University 

Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). Current and ongoing research 

efforts expand the ARIS mission into the development of analytical 

tools and methodologies to facilitate the deep and robust study of resistance, which is conceptually framed as the overarching phenomenona

that encompasses a broad spectrum of disruptive movement types, 

both violent and nonviolent.

Resistance is defined in this work as a form of contention or asymmetric conflict involving participants’ limited or collective mobilization 

of subversive and/or disruptive efforts against an authority or structure. 

To better understand the fundamental attributesb of this phenomenon, 

the ARIS team developed this conceptual typology of resistance (hereinafter called “the typology” or “ARIS typology”). This effort seeks to 

both organize the interrelated conceptsc essential to resistance in a formalized kind hierarchy and identify how these concepts are related to 

each other.

The typology is best described as an integrated kind hierarchy of 

individual concept typologies directly applicable to resistance groups 

and movements. The conceptual typologies are organized within the 

overarching attributes of resistance and their interior categories. As 

will be outlined in this work, the typology incorporates original, adaptive, and derivative work into a single construct, contributing to the 

research and literature as an instrument for concept development in 

the study of resistance. In this way, the typology provides a starting 

point for the formulation and evaluation of explanatory claims that 

can then be tested and verified through both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.1

a The term phenomenon here refers to an event or series of events that can be observed 

and studied. In this typology, phenomenon is used only in reference to resistance—the 

complex phenomenon the authors seek to organize by identifying related attributes and 

concepts.

b The term attribute here refers to an inherent or fundamental characteristic, and 

characteristic refers more generally to a distinguishing trait or quality.

c The term concept here refers to an abstract idea or notion.
2

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

The kind hierarchy of conceptual typologiesd proposed here for 

the phenomenological study of resistance is part of the ongoing ARIS 

project. Since its inception, ARIS has explored past and current revolutions and insurgencies to identify emerging trends, an effort that has 

revealed two major takeaways:

1. Resistance, which encompasses a broad spectrum of disruptive 

movement types and manifestations, is an observable 

phenomenon with complex and dynamic characteristics and 

concepts.

2. The study of this phenomenon is spread across numerous 

disciplines, with little to no structure or common terminology 

through which one can apply research results outside his or 

her disciplinary context.3

These takeaways revealed a need in the research of resistance for the 

development of a typology of the phenomenon—a structured conceptual organization of the fundamental attributes of resistance, further 

detailing typologies of the related concepts within each attribute.

Conceptual typologies are descriptive, establishing space within 

which to characterize types that constitute “a kind of” in relation to an 

overarching concept and its defining attributes. In academic research, 

conceptual typologies are used for “rigorous concept formation and 

measurement” at the foundation of studies that are both methodologically robust and conceptually innovative.4

 The ARIS typology is 

best described as a hierarchical system of discrete concept typologies 

directly applicable to resistance groups and movements. The conceptual typologies are organized within the overarching attributes of 

resistance and their interior categories. This effort seeks to contribute 

original, adaptive, and derivative work to the research and literature as 

an instrument for concept development in the study of resistance. The 

ARIS typology provides a starting point for the formulation and evaluation of explanatory claims that can then be tested and verified through 

case study and other research methodologies.5

d Herein the word typology is used in reference to conceptual typologies, defined as “a 

form of typology that explicates the meaning of a concept by mapping out its dimensions, 

which correspond to the rows and columns in the typology. The cell types are defined by 

their position vis-à-vis the rows and columns. May also be called a descriptive typology.”2
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

3

The methodological development of the conceptual typology of 

resistance included an interdisciplinary literature review (covering the 

fields of political science, sociology, economics, history, and law) and 

multiple collaborative analysis events with subject matter experts in 

December  2014 and February  2015. Subject matter experts included 

thought leaders in each of the disciplines addressed in the literature 

review, as well as numerous members of the USASOC community 

of interest. The events facilitated the review and discussion of issues 

concerning the study of resistance, eventually leading to the development of five primary attributes of resistance, each accompanied by 

numerous related concepts for further development. The team then 

adopted the collaborative research results as the structural and ideational foundation on which to build a deeper, more comprehensive, 

and rigorous typological construct through both original work and the 

integration or adaptation of typologies proposed in the literature by 

numerous scholars.

Table 1. Template for two-dimensional conceptual typologies.

Variable 1

Value 1a Value 1b

Variable 2

Value 2a Type A Type C

Value 2b Type B Type D

Note: The title of each table is used to present the overarching concept of each typology.

Whenever possible, this effort uses the basic template for conceptual typologies and categorical variables shown in Table 1; this template 

was outlined by David Collier, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright in 

both The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology and their 2012 Political 

Research Quarterly article, “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor.”6

 Two-dimensional typologies 

first depict the overarching concept being described, presenting two 

or more variables and their potential values. The cross-tabulation of 

component variables and their values then creates a matrix, and these 

values are then characterized as conceptual types in relation to the 

overarching concept.7 Although primarily two-dimensional typologies are presented in this multifaceted and multilayered attempt to 
4

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

conceptualize resistance typologically, binary, unidimensional, and 

three-dimensional typologies are also presented.

Attribute

Phenomenon

Attribute

Simplied type(s) Simplied type(s)

Overarching

concept

Overarching

concept

Simplied type(s)

Simplied type(s)

Overarching

concept

Category Category

Simplied type(s) Simplied type(s)

Attribute Attribute

Figure 1. Template for typological kind hierarchies.

Each individual typology is organized within a five-tiered kind hierarchy (see Figure 1), which describes the “ordered relationship among 

concepts, in which subordinate concepts may be understood as ‘a kind 

of’ in relation to superordinate concepts.”8 The first level is the phenomenon itself (resistance). Second, the phenomenon is broken down 

into its fundamental attributes. Third, each attribute is divided into 

two or more categories. Fourth, discrete conceptual typologies are then 

presented within their applicable categories, indicated by their overarching concept and divided into two or more distinct types. Finally, 

in some cases there is a fifth level of typological subcategories within 

each distinct type. To begin each relevant section of this paper, kind 

hierarchies present the typological structure within each attribute. It 

is important to note that the graphical representation of each kind 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

5

hierarchy contains only simplified portrayals of individual typologies 

and indicates ideational context rather than an exhaustive or formal 

development of each concept.

This comprehensive conceptual typology of resistance enables the 

formulation of rigorous questions for comparative research within a 

common framework, allowing for the cross-examination and applicability of research results. When applied in concert with an improved 

theoretical phasing construct of resistance (an ARIS task in parallel 

development), research based on this typology can then be further 

refined for operational applicability based on the movement’s state of 

development. In this way, the typology of resistance can be the foundation on which a methodologically robust science of resistance can 

be built. For USASOC, this science of resistance would constitute the 

bedrock of scholarly knowledge informing its key mission areas—a 

robust and organized field of study answering key strategic questions 

of relevance to the operator, which are then considered and filtered for 

contribution to the development of training, doctrine, and depth of 

strategic thinking.

ATTRIBUTES

The attributes of resistance are the essential components of the 

phenomenon, arrived at through the course of two collective analysis 

meetings (December 2–3, 2014, and February 11–12, 2015) of interdisciplinary subject matter experts. This process resulted in five distinct 

yet interrelated attributes (see Figure 2).

Actions

Resistance

Actors Causes Environment Organization

Figure 2. The attributes of resistance.
6

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

1. Actors: The individual and potential participants in an 

organized resistance, as well as external contributors and 

either competing or cooperating resistance groups

2. Causes: The collectively expressed rationales for resistance 

and the individual motivations for participation

3. Environment: The preexisting and emerging conditions 

within the political, social, physical, or interpersonal contexts 

that enable or constrain the mobilization of resistance, 

directly or indirectly

4. Organization: “The internal characteristics of a movement: 

its membership, policies, structures, and culture”9

5. Actions: The means by which actors carry out resistance as 

they engage in behaviors and activities in opposition to a 

resisted structure; can encompass both the specific tactics 

used by a resistance movement and the broader characteristics 

or repertoires for action (i.e., strategy)

Each attribute contains a series of relevant typologies (one-, two-, 

and three-dimensional), defined by their key characteristics. This paper 

presents a high-level view of the typological content of each attribute 

before presenting each typology in detail. Many scholars and researchers who have engaged the topic of resistance have proposed useful 

typological contributions to the body of knowledge, many of which are 

presented here either in whole or in an adapted form. This typology 

aims to be as thorough as possible while simultaneously restricting its 

scope to resistance as a phenomenon of human behavior (meaning the 

individuals, organizations, and movements), rather than encompassing 

the factors that have impacted or can impact cases of resistance across 

the disciplines ad infinitum.

WHERE RESISTANCE BELONGS IN THE 

IDEATIONAL SPACE

A preceding ARIS manuscript supporting this effort, titled Developing a Typology of Resistance: A Structure to Understand the Phenomenon, 

presented a multidisciplinary review of how the phenomenon of resistance is diversely studied, demonstrated the academic and operational 

need for a conceptual typology of resistance, and established an ideational foundation from which to move forward in development of a 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

7

typology.10 Essential characteristics of resistance include participants’ 

foundational use of agency against an opposed structure, the asymmetry (at least initially) of the resistance group or movement relative 

to the opposition, the largely contentious nature of confrontations, 

and the subversive nature and tactics used by the group, movement, 

and participants.

Resistance is a form of conflict involving the collective and subversive efforts of participants against an authority or structure. Broad in 

conceptual scope, but also limited in reach, resistance can be carried 

out through either violent or nonviolent means (or both) on either an 

international or an intranational scale. While this conceptualization is 

deceptively far-reaching in nature, resistance is particularly concerned 

with participants’ collective, asymmetric action against a relatively wellestablished opponent, excluding much of traditional political conflict 

as a whole (i.e., interstate conflict and disputes). Resistance need not 

be political; some resistance movements are focused on purely social, 

religious, economic, or ethnic factors, or on a complicated layering 

of two or more such focuses (see “Structural Focuses of Resistance 

Rationales”).

ACTORS

The actors attribute broadly encompasses the individual and 

potential participants in an organized resistance, as well as external 

contributors and either competing or cooperating resistance groups. 

Direct actors are those who will inevitably emerge as actors within any 

resistance group or movement, namely the leadership and participants 

thereof. Other actors are classified as indirect or potential. This categorization includes members of the general population who may be loyal 

to or sympathize with the resistance, other resistance groups operating 

in the same operational or rhetorical space, and potential external supporters of the resistance (see Figure 3).

Direct actors are those individuals active within the resistance 

group or movement itself, while indirect or potential actors are those 

who are either peripheral to the conflict (general population) or may 

or may not enter into the resistance scenario or efforts (other resistance 

groups and external support). Conceptually, any resistance group or 

movement must have leaders and participants, no matter how small in 
8

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

number or informal in execution. Indirect or potential actors, on the 

other hand, either may not leverage their influence (e.g., the public 

may remain indifferent, or external support may not materialize) or 

may not exist (e.g., there may be no other active resistance groups).

Actors

Types of participants

Founding Recruit

Types of external supporters

Types of support

Competing Cooperating

Scale between support of resistance 

and competing inuence

Leadership Participants

Direct actors

Types of leadership

General 

population

Other

resistance

groups

External

support

Indirect or potential actors

Actions

Formal Informal

Foreign Domestic

Figure 3. Actors kind hierarchy.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

9

Leadership

The leaders of resistance movements are those individuals within 

a movement or organization who “provide strategic and tactical direction, organization, and the ideology of the movement,” performing 

“these functions within the unique and compelling context of their 

country, culture, and political economy.”11 In both violent and nonviolent resistance, leadership roles and functions are extremely diverse 

across roles, functional areas, styles, and other characteristics.

Types of Leadership

The types of dominant leadership in a given resistance movement 

or organization can be characterized according to style, function, or 

both. It should be noted that stylistic and functional typologies of 

resistance leadership overlap in some respects but are both nevertheless valuable in their own right and merit inclusion in the typology for 

potential use in the study of resistance.

A stylistic typology of resistance leadership is offered by Rex D. 

Hopper in his seminal article, “The Revolutionary Process: A Frame 

of Reference for the Study of Revolutionary Movements,” presenting 

the leadership roles of agitator, prophet, reformer, statesman, and 

administrator-executive. First, the agitator is usually informal, being 

either one who “stirs the people not by what he does, but by what he 

says . . . [leading] people to challenge and question . . . [the status quo 

and] create unrest” or one who serves “to intensify, release, and direct 

tensions which people already have.”12

Second, a prophet is a leader who “feels set apart or called to leadership” and claims “special and separate knowledge of the causes of 

unrest and discontent,” speaking “with an air of authority . . . in general 

terms.” Usually instrumental in the formulation and promulgation of 

“the social myth” of the resistance, a prophet leader uses “his belief in 

himself and his confidence in his message as a means of articulating 

the hopes and wishes of the people.”13 Third, a reformer is one who 

“attacks specific evils and develops a clearly defined program,” attempting “to change conditions in conformity with his own conceptions of 

what is good and desirable.”14

Fourth, a statesman is one who is “able to formulate policies and will 

attempt to carry social policy into practice” and who “will propose the 

program which promises to resolve the issues and realize the objectives 
10

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

of which the people have become aware.”15 Finally, an administratorexecutive is one who fully implements the policies of the movement, 

completing the formal institutionalization of the goals of the resistance. Such a leader is likely to present dynamics and characteristics of 

the other four stylistic types but is distinguished from the rest through 

the concrete implementation of policies.16

Beyond the more broad-stroke stylistic typology of resistance leadership as outlined by Hopper, the type of leadership can also be characterized according to more discrete categories of functional role, 

expertise, or particular authority within the movement or organization. 

Composed of those categories produced by both ARIS collaborative 

analysis event participants and other sources, these functional leader 

types include political, military, ideological, religious, intellectual, economic, diplomatic, financial, administrative, scientific, technical, and 

professional leaders.17

Leadership Characteristics

The leadership of a resistance group or movement can be typified 

according to several other characteristics. First, a resistance leader or 

cadre of leaders can be geographically foreign or domestic. Top leaders 

for some movements, particularly those that are violent and seek broad 

international impact, may choose to direct resistance efforts from a 

remote or foreign location. Conversely, domestic leaders conduct their 

business within the country or region where resistance activities are 

taking place.

 Second, the leadership of a resistance group or movement can be 

characteristically formal or informal. Formal leaders or leadership cadres are those that are either established or assigned to their posts by 

superior authorities in the group or movement or chosen by the group 

through a predetermined and legitimized process. Informal leaders, 

on the other hand, naturally emerge to or seize the position through 

charisma, personal ambition, or magnetic dynamism in the form of a 

cult of personality. Most of the types of leaders delineated above typically fall into the category of formal (e.g., statesman, administratorexecutive) or informal (e.g., agitator, prophet), but this is not an 

ironclad principle, and deviations from these norms would prove to be 

analytically significant.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

11

Participants

The participants in the resistance movement or organization can 

be sorted within a two-dimensional typology, dependent on their role 

and level of participation (see Table 2). The first significant variable 

in discerning types is identifying a participant’s role as either martial 

(i.e., militaristic, meaning an at least partially formalized armed role 

within the organization or movement) or nonmartial. Martial roles 

are characterized by an armed and violent participation in resistance, 

particularly within a stronger and more formal hierarchical command 

and control structure. While all martial roles are inherently violent in 

nature, not all nonmartial roles are nonviolent; nonmartial participants can serve as violent agitators or provocateurs. Participation levels 

are divided between high, meaning a deep, nearly full-time dedication 

to the resistance effort, and low, meaning a superficial but recurring 

part-time participation.

Table 2. Types of participants.

Role of Participant

Martial Nonmartial

Level of Participation

High (deep; 

full-time)

Fighters Core membership/ 

underground

Low (superficial; 

part-time)

Sleeper cell Supporter/auxiliary

Note: Core membership and supporter roles/functions are included to ensure that the 

category of participants is not exclusive to armed resistance, allowing for its use in 

studying nonviolent resistance movements.

Those participants with a high participation level in nonmartial 

roles in the movement or organization can be considered among the 

core membership or underground. Those serving nonmartial roles at 

a low level of participation can be considered supporters or auxiliary. 

On the other hand, those who participate at a high level in a martial 

role are fighters, variously referred to as guerrillas, insurgents, or other 

paramilitaries within the movement or organization. Similarly, those 

participants who serve a martial role at a low participation level can be 

considered violent actors in sleeper cells.
12

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Information technology’s rapid emergence and the Internet’s wide 

proliferation have far-reaching implications on many aspects of human 

society, including warfare and resistance. Cyberspace has been recognized as a new domain in the practice of warfare,18 and the United 

States and other nations (as well as resistance groups) continue to 

develop both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. Although there 

are well-established perceptions of what military operations look like 

in the land, air, sea and space domains, activities in cyberspace are so 

young that no clear differentiation has yet been made between military 

cyber warfare and other nonmartial, subversive cyber actions. However, 

research and legal necessity will increase demand for this distinction to 

become a major point of research in the coming years.

Core Membership and Underground

This type of participant is primarily dedicated to the resistance, 

devoting the majority of his or her time to its pursuit and activities. 

Core membership can be defined as those participants integrated into 

at least one facet of the resistance organization’s operations on a fulltime basis. In violent resistance, the core membership participants 

manifest as an underground because they must operate secretly. The 

underground is “a clandestine organization established to operate in 

areas denied to armed or public components [of a resistance] or conduct operations not suitable for the armed or public components.”19

The functions performed by the core nonmilitant membership 

of resistance movements are numerous. Some of these functions may 

be shared or supported by auxiliary participants.e Functions typically 

unique to core membership and undergrounds include strategic planning, finances, security, and various operational functions including 

subversion, psychological operations, sabotage, shadow government 

management, and selective recruitment for leadership, intelligence, 

and other special tasks. Psychological operations may include public 

relations, broad communication, mass response, and violent coercion. 

Certain types of particularly sensitive intelligence activities (scene-ofbattle, sabotage, scientific, military, and political) will also typically fall 

to core membership in the underground.20 Likewise, human resource 

e Some functions may also be rendered unnecessary in the case of nonviolent 

resistances.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

13

management, basic administrative tasks, and research and development tasks are functions normally reserved for core membership.

Supporters and Auxiliary

Supporters can be defined as those participants who are actively 

dedicated to supporting the resistance but do so only on a part-time 

basis on the periphery of their work and lifestyle, contributing their 

efforts when needed. In the context of violent resistance and parallel to 

an underground, the auxiliary are

the support element of the [resistance] organization 

whose organization and operations are clandestine 

in nature and whose members do not openly indicate 

their sympathy or involvement with the [resistance] 

movement. Members of the auxiliary are more likely 

to be occasional participants of the insurgency with 

other full-time occupations.21

Auxiliary participants often share or support some functional roles 

largely pursued by the underground component. These functions 

overlap with some filled by the underground and core membership 

and include mass recruitment, communications (as couriers and 

messengers), logistics, storage, procurement, labor for material fabrication, transportation, intelligence collection, propaganda distribution, early warning security, safe house management, and medical/

social services.22

Fighters

The fighters type of participant can be defined as those “organized 

along military lines to conduct military and paramilitary operations”23

in a resistance, but this type also includes those similarly organized for 

other forms of “subversion and violence.”24 Although underground and 

core members may be used for similar violent and subversive functions, 

the distinct organization of fighters according to military principles 

makes them typologically different.

Sleeper Cells

The category of sleeper cells emerged from the typological research 

as a potential type in the two-dimensional relationship between participant roles and participation level. Theoretically, these participants 
14

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

would be organizationally managed in a military fashion but would 

remain dormant within a given population until called on to conduct 

guerrilla or terrorist operations.

Participant Characteristics

While the individual participants’ motivations to join the resistance 

group or movement are covered in the “Causes” section, another typologically significant aspect of individual participants is the differentiation between founding members and recruits. A founding member is 

one who was a participant in the resistance group in its earliest stages. 

Recruits, however, are those who were incorporated into the group or 

movement as participants once the resistance was already under way 

and seeking to grow its ranks. This typological distinction in research 

and analysis of historical cases could yield numerous operationally vital 

insights into movement dynamics.

Researching questions concerning whether participants are founding or recruited members could potentially lead to significant insights 

on emerging resistance movements and their viability for growth or 

success. Such questions could include the average proportion between 

founding members and recruits under certain operational or security 

environments, the tendency of certain types of movements or groups 

to have more or fewer founding participants on average, and the average recruitment rate of violent as opposed to nonviolent resistance 

movements. These factors could in turn be examined in relation to the 

movement’s relative success or failure in achieving objectives or perpetuating its influence.

General Population

Support from the general population (or mass base) is an important 

factor in any type of resistance movement and a vital asset to both resistance organizations and those loyal to the resisted structure or government. This typology is expressed on three one-dimensional scales (see 

Figure 4), each traveling in different directions away from indifference 

or fence-sitting (when an individual holds no preferential sentiment or 

loyalty toward either faction):
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

15

1. Support for the resistance movement or organization (left)

2. Support for the resisted structure, organization, or 

government (right)

3. Support for other parallel resistance groups or movements 

that may exist (center)

The scale or commitment of support for any of these competing interests ranges in descending value from committed support as a participant in resistance or loyalist to the resisted authority, passive support, 

sympathy, and bystander interest in either cause.

Resistance

sympathizer

Interested

bystander

Indifferent/

fence-sitter

Interested

bystander

Government/

other

sympathizer

Passive

supporter

of

Participant

resistance

Passive

Loyalist

supporter

of

resisted

(Committed support for resistance) (Committed support for resisted)

Committed,

passive,

sympathetic,

or interested

support for 

other resistance

groups or

movements

Figure 4. General population.

Ideally, appropriate data for the weighting or statistical distribution 

of popular support among the general population would be collected 

through polling data precise enough for this five-valued scale. If existing data is not precise enough for this typology, one can use a simplified typology of popular support. One example would be the “range of 

popular support” presented in US Army doctrine on Tactics in Counterinsurgency (FM 3-24.2), which presents three more generalized values of 

popular support to a government or insurgency that are applicable to 

resistance as a whole: indifference, passive support, and active support 

(see Figure 5).25
16

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Active

support Passive support Indifferent POPULATION Passive support

For Against

Indifferent Active

support

INSURGENCY

Against GOVERNMENT For

Figure 5. Range of popular support presented in FM 3-24.2.

Other Resistance Organizations

As stated above, the context of any given resistance is not a vacuum, 

and other resistance groups or organizations may exist at the same time 

and in the same geographic space, ideational space, or both.

Typologically, when considering or studying a single resistance 

group or movement, one can categorize other organizations within 

the same national or regional context as competing, cooperating, or 

unrelated resistance organizations. Competing groups may be either 

counterresistance movements or members of the same resistance movement in contention over ideational goals, strategic issues, or limited 

resources. Additionally, the range of competition between groups can 

vary from secretive tensions to vocal opposition to open and violent 

hostilities.

Cooperating resistance organizations may or may not be members 

of the same overall movement and may cooperate for a range of practical, tacit, ideological, or strategic reasons. Merely expedient cooperation may prevail when the groups’ goals intersect over the short term, 

reverting to competition and back to cooperation as circumstances 

change. Finally, unrelated resistance organizations are only unrelated 

in their (possibly intentional or temporary) lack of a positive or negative relationship with the group or movement in question. The typological title of unrelated does not signify that the two movements have 

no overlap whatsoever but merely that a cooperative or competing relationship with the given resistance is not emergent at that time.

External Support

The provision of support by entities or individuals external to the 

country can be a decisive factor for the longevity and potential victory 

of a resistance group or movement. For this reason, obtaining effective and consistent external support is often a high priority for modern resistance movements. The types of potential external supporters 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

17

include foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations, transnational criminal groups, other non-state actors (similar resistance 

groups, private interests, etc.), diaspora from abroad, and foreign fighters who travel to support the conflict.

Table 3. Types of external support.

Form of Support

Nonmaterial Material

Assertiveness of Support

Passive Moral Sanctuary

Active Political Resources

How external actors support a resistance can be effectively portrayed with a two-dimensional typology, with cell types derived from 

US Army doctrine (see Table  3).26 When the overarching concept is 

external support, one can organize the four types according to the 

form of the support (nonmaterial or material) and the assertiveness of 

that support (passive or active). First, moral support constitutes a nonmaterial form of passive or tacit support, only going so far as sympathetic public statements or similar measures. Second, political support 

is active and nonmaterial, including advocacy and symbolic actions to 

express committed support. Third, sanctuary constitutes a material 

form of passive support through the provision of secure training sites, 

operational bases, protection from extradition, or other shields from 

adversary actions through the inaction of the external supporter (e.g., 

failure to extradite is not activity but a failure or refusal to act). Finally, 

the provision of resources (funds, weapons, food, advisers, training, 

foreign fighters, etc.) is active material assistance, the most involved 

type of resistance support that can be offered by an external actor.

CAUSES

Simply put, this attribute encompasses the collectively expressed 

rationales for resistance and the individual motivations for participation. The rationale for resistance has two primary components: first, 

the structural focus (i.e., the portion or portions of society in which 

the movement or group seeks to enact change); and second, the type of 
18

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

rationale, characterized by what change is sought as well as how radically and on what scale it is sought. Individual motivations, however, 

include the motivations for initial participation, those for continued 

participation, and those for exiting the movement or organization (see 

Figure 6).

Causes strategic dilemmas

Structural focuses of rationale—

political, economic, social, religious, ethnic

Type of resistance rationale—

revolutionary, reformative, 

redemptive, alterative

Collective Social Reward

Causes

Motivations Rationale

Figure 6. Causes kind hierarchy.

It is important to note that in this typology, the word causes is not 

used in reference to theoretical causality but instead in reference to, 

as defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “something (such 

as an organization, belief, idea, or goal) that a group or people support or fight for” or “a reason for doing or feeling something.”27 Conceptually, this attribute is related to narrative frames in the study of 

social movements and contentious politics. This concept was framed 

as “orientation” by Patrick Regan and “aims and motives” by Bruce 

Hoffman.28 Clarification of causes as a concept distinct from causality 

is best presented by Daniel Byman, who posited that insurgents need 

“a cause, and with it a narrative and associated propaganda.” Byman 

continues, “rebels fight for, or at least against, something  .  .  . [and] 

often turn this cause into a broader narrative that includes a critique 

of the current order and plans for how the rebels would rule should 

they come to power.”29 In this way, the causes attribute is concerned 

with the expressed goals and fixation of the resistance movement and 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

19

participants. Causal relationships between variables, on the other hand, 

should be developed through careful research and analysis.

Rationale

The rationale of a given resistance movement or organization is 

the collectively or organizationally propagated narrative for collective 

action, outlining the resistance movement’s values, claims, and objectives. A group uses a narrative to delegitimize the resisted authority, 

legitimize its own claims, garner the general population’s sympathy or 

support, and encourage recruitment. In other words, an organization 

or movement uses a narrative to make its case as to why its cause is right 

and that of its adversary is wrong.

The rationale serves as the overall structure to provide what social 

movement theory characterizes as narrative frames for mobilization of 

collective action among groups. As described by Robert D. Benford and 

David A. Snow, the narrative structures of social movements are divided 

into diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames. Diagnostic frames 

describe the problem and identify victims, prognostic frames articulate 

a proposed solution and strategy, and motivational frames provide the 

population with the reason for engaging in collective action, including 

the development of a suitable vocabulary to mobilize individuals.30 The 

rationale propagated by a resistance group is effectively the whole, with 

each of the three narrative frames forming the essential components.

Structural Focuses of Resistance Rationales

Resistance movements develop rationales that seek to credit their 

actions as proscriptive to solve one or more structural issues in society. 

These issues can be political, economic, social, religious, and/or ethnic. 

While formalized here, this reality is reflected in the common descriptions of resistance movements in academic, military, and press analyses 

when one seeks to typify a particular movement (e.g., is the Islamic 

State primarily a religious, political, or social movement, or a weighted 

combination of all three?). In this way, one can describe a resistance 

movement as sociopolitical, ethnosectarian, socioeconomic, or politicized socioreligious, or by evoking numerous other societal focuses.

By identifying the particular spheres of life and society a resistance 

movement seeks to impact, an analyst can refine the selection of cases 
20

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

in order to isolate and consider variations in movements. Including 

this additional typological layer when studying the internal workings of 

otherwise typologically identical resistance rationales allows the analyst 

to examine potential deviations in the data. This rigor is enabled by an 

explicit statement of research assumptions and limitations on the data. 

For example, “This research will assume that the slightly divergent 

weighting of resistance rationale priorities between socioeconomic 

movements X and Y are not a significant factor in relation to the dependent variable and therefore can both be considered types in kind.”

Resistance Movement Rationale

The typology of rationales for resistance is two-tiered in nature, 

first differentiating between four macro-types, each of which contains 

numerous discrete types (see Table  4). The first level is an adapted 

form of David F. Aberle’s seminal classification of social movements as 

presented in his book The Peyote Religion among the Navaho, which differentiates movements along two dimensions: “the locus [or scope] of 

the change sought” and “the amount [or extent] of change sought.”31

Table 4. Types of resistance movement rationales

Extent of Impact Sought

Limited/Specified Radical/Total

Scope of Impact Sought

Sweeping (societal, 

national)

Reformative Revolutionary

Specified (communities, individuals)Alterative Redemptive

Adapted from David F. Aberle’s typology of social movements.32

Aberle’s construct defined the locus values as “individual” and 

“supra-individual.”33 However, it is important to note that within the 

context of resistance movements (as opposed to social movements as a 

whole), even those movements that seek a limited or specified impact 

are less concerned with enacting change in individual circumstances 

than with achieving their goals or vision at a local or community 

scale. For this reason, the values for scope have been adapted to be 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

21

characterized as either sweeping (societal, national) or specified (communities, individuals).

The resulting macro-types of resistance movements according to 

rationale are revolutionary, redemptive, reformative, and alterative 

movements (each defined below). Distributed between these four 

macro-level typological categories of resistance rationale are several further distinguished micro-level types. While the macro level is defined 

by the scope and extent of change sought by the movement, the microlevel types are discerned according to what kind of change is sought in 

relation to the existing status quo. The majority of these subtypes were 

derived and adapted from the nine “types of insurgency” developed by 

Bard E. O’Neill in his book Insurgency & Terrorism: From Revolution to 

Apocalypse, with limited contributions from elsewhere in the literature.34

The hierarchical juxtaposition of O’Neill’s types within the larger 

framework of Aberle’s typology demonstrates within the literature a 

multidimensional approach to examining resistance movements’ rationales and objectives.

Revolutionary Movement Rationales

Revolutionary movements seek to overthrow the standing system to 

which they are subject. Depending on the particular movement’s objectives, it may seek to establish a new structure in place of the old. This is 

often characterized as a transformation of society, wholly or partially. 

There are five general subtypes of revolutionary movement rationales: 

pluralist, egalitarian, traditionalist, anarchist, and apocalyptic-utopian.

First, pluralist revolutions seek to destroy or displace the existing 

system or status quo in favor of a new structure beneficial to participants, usually rationalized as promoting individual freedoms. Second, 

egalitarian revolutions are those that wish to destroy the existing system or structure to impose one founded on equal distribution of social 

and/or physical goods (often through centralized control) and the 

mobilization of groups to radically transform community structures to 

this end. Third, traditionalist revolutions seek to replace a given system 

or structure with one based on the application of articulated “primordial and sacred values,” often rooted in ancestral or religious lineage. 

Fourth, anarchist revolutions strive for the permanent destruction of 

a given institutionalized system or structure, discarding all authority 

patterns as illegitimate and unnecessary. Finally, apocalyptic-utopian 
22

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

revolutions (which are usually partially religious in nature) are those 

that either “envisage establishing a world order  .  .  . as the result of 

an apocalypse” or seek to destroy the current order in preparation for 

such an eschatological event.35

Reformative Movement Rationales

Reformative movements seek a specific change or changes to the 

existing structure or system on a large scale, often characterizing the 

targeted change as key to improving society as a whole. The three general types of reformative rationales are reformist, preservationist, and 

restorationist.

First, reformist resistance movements are those that seek either 

autonomy within the current system or relatively modest change to the 

status quo. Second, preservationist reformative movements are those 

that seek change to maintain the existing system or structure. Such 

movements may engage in actions against nonruling groups or movements or those authorities who are acting to disrupt the status quo.36

Finally, restorationist movements seek “to restore an elite group 

opposed to an occupying authority [or any other authority to recently 

gain influence] in order to regain power.”37

Redemptive Movement Rationales

Redemptive movements seek dramatic change among some individuals or a specified community, often in the form of a complete 

transformation of the specified person(s) or their circumstance. In 

the context of resistance, two types of redemptive movements can take 

shape: secessionist or fundamentalist. First, secessionist or separatist 

resistance movements are those that seek to withdraw from the status quo system or structure (rather than destroy it) to establish a new, 

independent system or structure.38 Political secessionist movements in 

particular are dynamically different from other resistance movements 

because they are not center-oriented toward power or influence held 

by their opponents. Second, fundamentalist resistance movements seek 

the significant transformation of community or individual behavior 

and self-governance according to stringent ideological principles, usually as separate from the rest of society.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

23

Alterative Movement Rationales

Alterative movements seek limited or specified change among some 

individuals or a particular community, often concerning the way people 

think about certain behaviors or issues within a given system or structure. In the context of resistance, at least three alterative movements can 

be observed: migratory, expressivist, and commercialist. First, migratory resistance movements are those in which participants make or seek 

a physical or associational move from one system, structure, or country 

to another. Second, expressivist resistance movements are those that 

wish to modify individuals’ reactions to and thinking about unpleasant 

external realities that participants feel powerless to change.39 Finally, 

commercialist resistance movements are those that are driven primarily by participants’ acquisition of material resources and wealth through 

the very act of resistance or the acquisition of power.40

Strategic Dilemmas Pertaining to Rationale

As presented in James M. Jasper’s article “A Strategic Approach to 

Collective Action: Looking for Agency in Social-Movement Choices” 

(and presented here with permission), studying explicit choices and 

implicit trade-offs resistance organizers and participants face opens a 

“fruitful new path of research” that can “represent agency in contrast 

to the structure that has interested scholars for so long.”41 Typologically, 

a resistance group or movement confronts strategic dilemmas of rationale, organization, action, and information. Each type of dilemma is 

presented in the section describing its respective attribute (information 

dilemmas are presented with actions). In research, strategic decisions 

may present both compelling dependent and independent variables, 

asking either how the strategic decisions of the group or movement 

impact later development or how characteristics of the resistance or the 

environment may impact strategic decisions.

The rationale for resistance presents at least two strategic dilemmas for the group or movement. First, the shifting goals dilemma asks 

whether the resistance should “stick with [its] original goals” and try 

“to find the right means” to achieve them or whether the goals should 

be adjusted to fit the present “abilities and opportunities.” Although 

the former option might make the movement more likely to succeed, 

it may also alienate participants and undermine the legitimacy of the 

movement.42 Second is the dilemma of inevitability, in which “an ideology that suggests you must eventually win offers confidence but makes 
24

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

collective action less critical,”43 potentially undermining recruitment 

and participation.

Motivations

The motivations for resistance are the factors that drive individuals 

to participate in a resistance, manifesting “as a function of the perceived 

attractiveness or aversiveness of the expected consequences [costs and 

benefits] of participation.”44 There are three overarching types of motivation for participation in a resistance movement, originally developed 

by Bert Klandermans in his American Sociological Review article “Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource 

Mobilization Theory.”45 Each type of motivation is theoretically in play 

and “no one factor is preeminent,” collectively forming a “multiplicity 

of motives” in the participant, each of which is valued more or valued 

less relative to the other motives.46

First, the collective motive is a function of the personal “expectation 

that participation will help to produce [a] collective good and the value 

of [said] collective good.”47 The ARIS publication Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies frames the collective motivation 

as “belief in the cause or political factors” as ideology can play a role 

in both recruitment and retention.48 In this way, the collective motive 

constitutes the only type of individual motivation directly related to 

the collective rationale of the resistance. The remaining motives that 

incentivize (or disincentivize) participation in resistance are at most 

indirectly related to the resistance rationale.

Second, social motives emerge from the costs and benefits of participation “as distinguished in the reactions of significant others.”49 Such 

motives can include group norms (including “what their friends and 

comrades think of them”), prestige or recognition (when a group seeks 

to retain participants, this is accomplished through “morale-sustaining 

techniques”), and the avoidance of social alienation or condemnation. 

The simple inertia of mobilization and habit toward resistance can also 

constitute a motive for joining, or staying with, a resistance group or 

movement.50

Finally, the reward motive includes the “non-social costs and benefits” that result from participation in collective action toward resistance.51 Most numerous, and likely most influential, among the three 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

25

motive types, the reward motive can include numerous “personal and 

situational factors” related to the individual participant’s “problems 

and . . . immediate needs,” which are leveraged by the resistance for 

recruitment through “propaganda and promises” of both reward and 

the removal of “government persecution.” However, these positive 

incentives can be paired with measures of coercion against the individual, constituting a promise of nonsocial costs associated with refusal 

to participate.52 Once a participant has already joined the resistance, 

the group may use surveillance and threats of retaliation to keep the 

participant within the ranks of the group.53

ENVIRONMENT

The broadest attribute of resistance, the environment encompasses 

the preexisting and emerging conditions within the political, social, 

physical, or interpersonal contexts that may enable or constrain the 

mobilization of resistance, directly or indirectly. In other words, the 

environment is everything outside of the resistance that can impact or 

shape it (see Figure 7). The consideration and study of environmental factors is integral to the study of any social phenomenon, so this 

section reviews several factors and characteristics believed to be formative or impactful on resistance according to existing research literature. However, this typology seeks to conceptualize the components of 

”resistance” for future systematic study by testing hypotheses against 

both component and environmental factors. Because most environmental factors are conceptually separate and distinct from resistance 

itself (e.g., although regime type may impact the formation or practice of a resistance, it is not a component of the resistance itself), the 

environmental factors reviewed here are not developed into formal 

typologies. The only exception to this rule are environmental factors 

or characteristics that exist because of the presence of resistance (e.g., 

counterinsurgency efforts by a government), thus making them part of 

the phenomenon itself.

Notable Characteristics

Potentially preexisting or emerging factors external to resistance 

are nearly infinite, requiring the researcher to seek out and investigate 
26

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

those factors that may significantly affect the shape or outcome of 

resistance movements, or those environmental outcomes of resistance 

movements (e.g., failed states, authoritarian regimes, democratic institutions) that are strategically significant. During an ARIS collaborative 

analysis event (February 2015), participants offered numerous notable 

factors and characteristics of the environment that merit special consideration in the analysis of resistance. Although typological elucidation of the majority of these environmental characteristics falls outside 

the scope of a typology of resistance, these factors nevertheless stand 

as some of the most compelling variables for consideration in the 

comparative study of resistance movements and provide an opportunity for introducing an interdisciplinary scope to the investigation of 

this phenomenon.

Centralized Clustered

Foreign Domestic

Hierarchal

organization

Formal rules No formal rules

Organizational culture

Organizational strategic dilemmas

Security environment

Movement

structure

Concept of 

replication

Message of

participants

Place in

movement Dynamics

Organizational 

structure and

membership

Internal

governance

Organization

Movement

Flat

organization

Found new

organizations

Adopt

organizations

Commonality Division

Match leaders Rebut leaders

Subordinate Ind. Leading

Mass Elite/

mass-front Elite

Actors Organization Actions

Types of participants

Founding Recruit

Types of external supporters

Types of support

Competing Cooperating

Scale between support of resistance 

and competing inuence

Leadership Participants

Direct actors

Types of leadership

General 

population

Other

resistance

groups

External

support

Indirect or potential actors

Actions

Formal Informal

Foreign Domestic

Causes strategic dilemmas

Structural focuses of rationale—

political, economic, social, religious, ethnic

Type of resistance rationale— revolutionary, reformative, 

redemptive, alterative

Collective Social Reward

Motivations Rationale

Action strategic dilemmas

Information strategic dilemmas

Public channels Private channels

Conceal role Publicize Role

Lethal tactics Nonlethal tactics

Illegal tactics Rightful resistance

Nonviolent

tactics

Violent

tactics

Outreach/

engagement

Attribution

of actions

Other

dilemmas

Fundraising

Predatory/

parasitic

Symbolic/

voluntary

Strategic characteristics Tactics

Causes

Environment

Resistance

Figure 7. Environment relative to kind hierarchies.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

27

Environmental factors and characteristics that merit special consideration in the formation of research questions when examining 

the phenomenon of resistance include those listed in the following 

subsections.

Characteristics of the State

Particularly in relation to political resistance movements and any 

resistance that uses illegal and/or violent tactics, the characteristics 

of the state are extremely relevant environmental factors for analysis. First, some characteristics may serve to fuel or defuse a resistance 

movement’s rationale. Such factors as state rigidity, the distribution of 

power, elections, popular access to institutions, and the ability to meet 

the population’s needs may be considered. Second, some state characteristics may be instrumental in determining the failure, success, or 

stalemate of a political resistance against political authorities. Examples of these include military and law enforcement capacity and government structure.

Social Structures

The dominant patterns and customs of the country, region, and 

participants can also play a key role in the shape and development 

of resistance movements, whether that movement is at least partially 

political or concerned with other issues (economic, social, religious, 

ethnic). Cultural, ethical, religious, familial, ethnic, gender-based, and 

many other accepted societal patterns can be compelling attributes of 

violent and nonviolent resistance movements for the purpose of analysis. How old or entrenched is the norm, and how did it impact perception of or participation in the resistance? How do resistance movements 

address societal norms—do they reject them as counter to the cause or 

appeal to them for mass support? Is there a relationship between these 

approaches and various types of resistance rationales?

Law

The legal contexts (local, national, regional, international, religious, the philosophical basis of law, etc.) within which a resistance 

must operate can be a fundamental factor, particularly in the analysis 

of resistance strategy, tactics, and the barrier to collective action. While 

many means of nonviolent public activism are legal and protected in 
28

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Western and industrialized countries, the imposing legal structures of 

authoritarian and totalitarian countries can strictly outlaw even some 

forms of speech or association, a factor that could greatly impact participation, organization, strategy, and tactics.

Economy

The economic environment, both preexisting and resulting from 

resistance, can be examined as either potentially causal to resistance or 

resulting from the success, failure, or stalemate of certain types of resistance movements. Such factors include unemployment, gross domestic 

product, recession, social mobility, inflation, private ownership, and 

many others.

Technology

Popular access to, and the growing capabilities of, various technologies is a factor that can be examined as potentially directly formative 

on tactics and strategy, as well as indirectly on the shape or rationale of 

resistance movements.

Communications

Arguably the most central arena of resistance movements is that of 

ideas and their dissemination, making the popular modes of communication and Internet penetration a notable variable for analysis against 

the other attributes and characteristics of resistance. The means and 

instruments of communication available to a resistance movement can 

be particularly influential on a resistance movement’s organization, 

coordination, growth, strategy, and tactics.

Education

The availability, quality, and average level of education among the 

general population can be examined as both a causal factor in various 

types of resistance (e.g., is there a relationship between the average 

level of education and participation in political versus social or religious resistance movements?) and a formative variable on the rationale, 

information, engagement, and recruitment strategies of the resistance.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

29

Geography

The various types and details of geography (terrain, etc.) and climate, as well as the distribution and density of the human geography, 

can impact the formation and development of resistance movements.

Time

On multiple levels, time is a notable variable for the analysis of 

resistance. Important considerations include the longevity of different 

types of resistance movements (based on any one of their numerous 

attributes and characteristics), the ability of past events or injustices 

featured in resistance rationales to affect participation and sympathy 

among the general population, and the strategic and informational 

value of symbolic dates.

Relationships

Preexisting and emerging relationships among individuals, organizations, various social groups (social, class-based, religious, ethnic), 

and governments through personal, diplomatic, security, historical, or 

other channels and contexts can be significant in the analysis of the formation, shape, and success of resistance movements. A contemporary 

example of preexisting relationships shaping resistance movements is 

the role of Baathist military officers in the growth, organization, and 

rise of the Islamic State, which later became the most prolific insurgent 

terrorist group in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the region.54

Many such relationships become central to resistance networks 

and dynamics (see “Movement Structures” and “The Dynamics of 

Resistance Movements or Organizations”), but some connections may 

emerge from the event of resistance itself. For this reason, preexisting 

relationships among resistance participants should be conceptualized 

as an environmental factor, while those concurrent with or emerging 

from resistance are more suitably considered an organization attribute. 

The relationships among the opponents of resistance, both preexisting 

and emerging, are conceptualized as environmental factors relative to 

the resistance movement.
30

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Typologically Relevant Environmental Characteristics

Some environmental factors are particularly relevant to resistance 

movements, and thus more detailed typologies are presented here. 

These environmental conditions are directly related to resistance, in 

that they cannot occur outside the existence of a resistance movement.

Counterinsurgency Efforts

The operations and policies of a government entity “designed to 

simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency” and potentially “address 

its root causes”55 are typologically relevant environmental factors that 

usually exist only when a resistance movement is developing or present. 

These operations and policies are intentionally targeted and meant to 

negatively impact resistance efforts. While many characteristics of the 

state (see above) undoubtedly impact the efficacy of any given type of 

counterinsurgency model, such factors (e.g., state resources, efficacy of 

law enforcement or military) can be accounted for among the research 

assumptions and limitations of a given historical case study.

High

Low

High High

Low

Low

Political

accommodation

of reconcilable

opposition

Public-goods 

provision to 

disaffected

Discrimination in use communities

of violence against

irreconcilable opposition 

4

1

3

2

1. Classic counterinsurgency

2. Strong-state repression

3. Informal accommodation

4. Containment

Figure 8. Types of counterinsurgency models.

A robust three-dimensional typology of counterinsurgency models (see Figure 8) was developed by Stephen Watts et al. in the RAND 

National Security Research Division study Countering Others’ Insurgencies: Understanding U.S. Small-Footprint Interventions in Local Context. 

This typology, presented here with permission, represents an exemplary breakdown of the categories that can be deduced regarding 

models for counterinsurgency. It is important to note that these are 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

31

four “ideal types,” and many counterinsurgency models will differ in 

some respects.56

In a three-dimensional structure, the typology of counterinsurgency 

models outlines types based on their combination of either high or low 

emphasis on three principles: political accommodation of reconcilable 

opposition, discrimination in the use of violence against irreconcilable 

opposition, and public-goods provision to disaffected communities. 

Although the intersection of factors allows for eight possible typological combinations, only the four most noted permutations are developed. First, a classic counterinsurgency model emphasizes high values 

in all three principles (i.e., striving for accommodation, limited or carefully targeted use of violence, and the provision of public goods) and is 

“most often associated with . . . highly capable Western democracies.”57

Second, although the strong-state repression counterinsurgency 

model emphasizes the provision of public goods to assuage discontent, 

the state is nevertheless “unable or unwilling to offer accommodations 

to any part of the opposition, relying instead on broad, often indiscriminate use of force and terror to suppress organized dissent” (e.g., 

Russia in Chechnya or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan).58

Third, an informal accommodation counterinsurgency model is 

apparent when the state is unable or unwilling to provide public goods 

to discontented communities, although “this does not mean that the 

regime cannot reach an accommodation with the armed opposition.” 

Accommodation could range from the opposition’s incorporation into 

the regime to the state’s tacit allowance of the opposition’s territorial 

control, a dynamic that also results in the selective use of violence 

against irreconcilable opposition.59

Finally, a containment counterinsurgency model describes situations in which a state is “unable or unwilling to accommodate the 

reconcilable opposition” and “uses force—usually indiscriminately—to 

repress insurgent activity,” accepting risk of residual violence as long 

as the resistance is relegated to certain, often poorly defined, bounds. 

Regimes that leverage the containment model are also usually content 

with “concomitant limits on its control over portions of its population 

and territory,” resulting in little to no concern for the provision of public goods to disaffected populations.60
32

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Wartime Political Orders

In cases of violent resistance resulting in a state of civil war, various types of wartime political orders can emerge in the relationship 

between the distribution of contested control and the level of cooperation between the state and the resistance. The typological model of 

these power relationships, presented with permission in Table 5, were 

developed by Paul Staniland in his 2012 Perspectives in Politics article, 

“States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders.”61

Table 5. Types of wartime political orders.

State–Resistance Cooperation

Active Passive Nonexistent

Distribution of Control

Segmented Shared 

sovereignty

Spheres of 

influence

Clashing 

monopolies

Fragmented Collusion Tacit 

coexistence

Guerrilla 

disorder

A segmented distribution of territorial control is one “in which 

each side controls some territory,” whereas fragmented distribution of 

control constitutes those in which “both sides have presence throughout the area under contestation.” The level of cooperation between the 

state and the resistance signifies the “dynamics of cooperation and bargaining” that operates “alongside violence and conflict” in civil war 

contexts.62 When the state and resistance “actively cooperate towards a 

shared goal,” this can result in a situation of shared sovereignty or collusion. Shared sovereignty “is a negotiated form of political order” in 

which “the state has not shattered its foe but instead the two sides have 

arranged a clear division of influence and authority that satisfies both 

in the pursuit of mutual gains.”63 Collusion, on the other hand, “is a 

situation in which the state actively cooperates with non-state armed 

actors that are geographically intermeshed with its areas of operation” 

in the “coordinated pursuit of a shared goal.”64

The state and resistance can reach a level of passive cooperation 

through “live-and-let-live bargains and tacit deals that create implicit 

but often incomplete and tenuous arrangements for the management 

of violence.” Spheres of influence emerge from arrangements “to limit 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

33

the boundary violations against each sphere . . . [and] where state and 

[resistance] forces will tread,” intending “to manage spirals of escalation.”65 Tacit coexistence, however, is characterized by the “fragmented, 

overlapping control” in “careful attempts to limit the degree of active 

conflict and violence between states and non-state armed groups in 

intermixed daily life.”66 Finally, the context of no cooperation “along 

any dimension” between the violent resistance and the state is when one 

observes total civil war, in which “unpredictable violence and unclear 

lines of authority and control characterize the interactions between 

fighters.” The absence of cooperation in a segmented context causes 

clashing monopolies, where each side controls “distinct territory” and 

“the boundaries between state and non-state forces are rigid and easy 

to identify.” Guerrilla disorder, however, “is a situation of fluid violence 

in which there are few clear norms or rules about the infliction of 

lethal violence when insurgent and state forces are intertwined in the 

same physical spaces” and “violence is an embedded part of political, 

economic, and social life.”67

Environment as an Independent Variable

This attribute represents a rich source of independent variables, 

many of which are most intriguing in reference to macro-level questions of causality behind resistance movements. By including environmental characteristics as independent variables in research questions, 

analysts can pursue the variables’ impact on the success or failure of 

the resistance itself (i.e., X variable is an enabler of resistance, or Y variable is a constraint to resistance). They can also address potential relationships between the characteristics of an emerging resistance and 

the persistent environmental conditions (i.e., there is a significant relationship between X environmental characteristic and Y organizational 

characteristic).

Examples of compelling research questions derived from this typology that use environmental factors as independent variables include 

the following:

• Is there a significant relationship between the presence 

of regional traditions of informal community leadership 

and the emergence of informal leadership as dominant in 

resistance movements?
34

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

• Is there a significant relationship between the established 

presence of authoritarian systems of government and 

the development of reformative rationales in resistance 

movements?

• Is there a significant relationship between high Internet 

penetration and the interorganizational structure of 

resistance movements?

• Is there a significant relationship between the use of lethal 

violent tactics in resistance movements and the presence of 

legal frameworks that highly restrict nonviolent means of 

political engagement and expression?

Environment as a Dependent Variable

Emerging environmental characteristics can also be examined as 

variables dependent on resistance characteristics. Significant historical 

and political science scholarship has examined the relationship between 

revolutionary movements and the emergence of certain types of political contexts (e.g., the use of terror by the revolutionary government, 

concentration of power, single-party system). However, there remains a 

persistent need for more precise strategic analysis of the relationships 

among the attributes of resistance movements and the emerging environmental factors resulting from their success, stalemate, or failure.

The strategically targeted broadening of formal, rigorous knowledge and the study of these relationships will allow for informed strategies and planning in both counterinsurgency and unconventional 

warfare operations. In the context of counterinsurgency planning, 

for instance, formal comparative studies of the relationship between 

sectarian-nationalist political resistance movements (e.g., the Muslim 

Brotherhood) and the types of regimes that usually emerge would provide a level of strategic awareness of the potential outcomes of such 

movements (e.g., the Arab Spring). Likewise, in unconventional warfare, the knowledge of the relationship between certain types of resistance movements and the regimes or outcomes that result could inform 

policy making and planning to determine which resistance movements 

should (or should not) be supported to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow 

a regime.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

35

Examples of compelling research questions derived from this typology that use environmental factors as dependent variables include the 

following:

• Is there a significant relationship between the success 

of resistance movements that have charismatic informal 

leadership and the emergence of highly restrictive legal 

systems?

• Is there a significant relationship between the failure of 

ethno-religious preservationist resistance movements and 

the secularization of theocratic regimes?

• Is there a significant relationship between the repression 

of resistance movements with centrifugal or polycentric 

dynamics and the persistence of cadre relationships into 

future resistance efforts?

• Is there a significant relationship between the stalemate of a 

resistance movement that uses lethal violent tactics and the 

sharp decline in national gross domestic product?

ORGANIZATION

The organization attribute concerns “the internal characteristics 

of a movement [or group]: its membership, policies, structures, and 

culture.”68 A key distinction is required here between a resistance organization and a resistance movement. Resistance organizations are the 

individual groups acting for the cause, whereas the resistance movement constitutes the collective effort of one or more resistance organizations allied or coordinated toward similar or identical objectives. 

Although a resistance movement may be represented by only one organization, several typologies apply specifically to those that are composed of multiple groups. Likewise, several typologies apply to both 

movements and organization, and others apply only to the resistance 

organization (see Figure 9).

The Movement

Several types and dynamics are particular to the multiorganization 

resistance movement. Many of these have been the subject of extensive 

typological study in the past and have been adapted for presentation 

here.
36

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Organization

Centralized Clustered

Foreign Domestic

Hierarchal

organization

Formal rules No formal rules

Organizational culture

Organizational strategic dilemmas

Security environment

Movement

structure

Concept of 

replication

Message of

participants

Place in

movement Dynamics

Organizational 

structure and

membership

Internal

governance

Organization

Movement

Flat

organization

Found new

organizations

Adopt

organizations

Commonality Division

Match leaders Rebut leaders

Subordinate Ind. Leading

Mass Elite/

mass-front Elite

Figure 9. Organization kind hierarchy.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

37

Movement Structures

The structure of a resistance movement can be defined “as the 

system of relations that exist between all entities involved in a given 

[resistance] movement” (or part thereof). This structure is defined 

by the degree of formality (i.e., the strength of network ties between 

the organizational nodes of the movement)f and the centralization of 

organized efforts under a single group or collective entity (i.e., hierarchical or lateral). Adapted from the typology proposed by Jurgen Willems and Marc Jegers69 and presented here with permission, these two 

factors can be portrayed in a two-dimensional typology, where resistance movement structures can be categorized as formal-centralized, 

informal-centralized, formal-clustered, and informal-clustered relationships between resistance organizations (see Table 6 and Figure 10).

Table 6. Types of movement structures between organizations.

Formality of Organizational Relationships

Formal Informal

Authority Relationships 

between Organizations

Hierarchical Formal-centralized Informal-centralized

Lateral Formal-clustered Informal-clustered

Hierarchical organizational relationships are characterized by one 

actor having authority or a decisive role over the other, which is derived 

from the actor’s “ability and/or willingness to keep or share information [or other resources] with another actor.”70 Alternatively, lateral 

relationships demonstrate relatively equal power status and reciprocity 

between organizations, “based on mutual exchange of information [or 

resources].”71 Regarding formality, informal relationships are characterized by their flexible “implicit and unwritten” nature, are primarily “trust based,” and are derived from “culture, habits, and beliefs.”72

f Several organization typologies concern networks, which can be analyzed and 

defined according to their nodes (individuals or organizations) and the ties between 

nodes. Ties can be strong or weak and vary by direction, density (number of ties), transitivity (influence of ties), connectivity (shortest paths between nodes), and betweenness 

(number of shortest paths through a particular node). Although thorough analysis and 

literature exist on these issues, the ARIS typology is concerned with conceptualization on 

the macro-scale and will use this terminology only for clarification purposes.
38

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Formal organizational relationships, on the other hand, are “externalized and/or recorded,” reducing “uncertainty in the future” through a 

more “rigid” structure “based on a legal system and/or a set of widely 

accepted rules.”73

Formal structure

Informal structure

Clustered

structure

IV. III.

I. II.

Centralized

structure

Figure 10. Movement structures.

Concept of Replication

Many resistance movements adopt a concept of replication to facilitate a strategy for growth. Whether this is organized around the foundation of affiliated parties or groups or the adoption of existing groups 

into the movement, the concept of replication is characterized by the 

movement’s growth outside the organization itself. Recruitment to the 

organization itself does not constitute a concept of replication. One can 

think typologically of resistance movements that do or do not adopt a 

concept of replication, and these concepts can include either or both 

the foundation of new movement organizations and the adoption of 

existing organizations into the resistance movement.

The Organization

Numerous dynamics and characteristics of the resistance organization can be shared with and typologically applied to the movement as a 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

39

whole. However, values of some attributes apply to a specific organization and should be considered only within that organizational context 

(e.g., organization-specific typologies used in the study of the Muslim 

Brotherhood in Egypt would exclude sister movement organizations 

elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East, despite their being organizations within the broader Society of the Muslim Brothers). Each typology will specify whether it applies to both resistance organizations and 

movements, or to only organizations, and group can be considered synonymous with the word organization.

Dynamics and Characteristics

The Dynamics of Resistance Movements or Organizations

Resistance movements and organizations are never completely 

united in all things, and although participants share some sources of 

commonality, they inevitably have sources of division that come into 

play. The dynamic interaction between the sources of commonality and 

division can also be thought of as centrifugal and centripetal dynamics 

(i.e., those forces that drive participants apart or draw them together). 

The typology of these movement or organization dynamics is twodimensional, defined by the combinations of strong or weak sources 

of division and commonality (see Table 7), which can emerge among 

or between leaders and participants from ideological, religious, social, 

ethnic, strategic, personal, or other sources. The terminology for this 

typology is largely derived from the SPIN (segmentary, polycentric, 

and integrated network) categorization of American social movements 

developed by Luther P. Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine.74

Table 7. Types of dynamics in resistance movements or 

organizations.

Sources of Division

Strong Weak

Sources of Commonality

Strong Polycentric dynamics Cohesive dynamics

Weak Segmentary dynamics Networked dynamics

Movements or organizations with strong sources of commonality 

and weak sources of division among participants may be characterized 
40

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

as cohesive, possessing largely centripetal dynamics that reinforce unity 

of collective effort and identity. Likewise, those with strong sources of 

division and weak sources of commonality are segmentary (“composed 

of many diverse groups, which grow and die, divide and fuse, proliferate and contract”) and characterized by centrifugal dynamics that drive 

participants apart and toward potential fissures. Those movements or 

organizations that exhibit strong sources of both commonality and division may be described as having polycentric dynamics (“having multiple, often temporary, and sometimes competing leaders or centers of 

influence”). Finally, those with weak sources of both commonality and 

division can be regarded as exhibiting networked dynamics (“forming 

a loose, reticulate, integrated network with multiple linkages”). Common manifestations of networked dynamics in resistance are alliances 

of convenience, in which there may be no strong division between the 

groups but their common enemy is one of only scarce reasons for them 

to cooperate. Networked dynamics can include “overlapping membership, joint activities, common reading matter, and shared ideas and 

opponents.”75 In other words, groups or movements with networked 

dynamics involve participants who have a high density of weak ties.

Foreign and Domestic Characteristics of Resistance Movements or 

Organizations

Any resistance group or movement will have foreign or domestic 

characteristics relative to its audience in the general population. These 

characteristics can be important in popular support, recruitment, strategy, tactics, and many other attributes of a resistance organization or 

movement. The typology of foreign and domestic characteristics of an 

organization or movement is two-dimensional, defined by the combination of the geographic base of operations and the popular perception 

of the group or movement (its leadership or participants) as foreign or 

domestic (see Table 8).

When a resistance organization or movement is perceived as domestic and operates primarily within the given country, it is a domestic 

resistance. Those organizations or movements perceived as foreign 

and that operate inside the country are transnational. It is important 

to note that a group or movement could conduct some transnational 

operations and activities but still be considered domestic in the relative 

context of the given country where it is most prevalent. However, those 

resistance groups or movements that are seen as foreign and operate 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

41

primarily outside the given country are foreign (e.g., in the context of 

the United States, the Irish Republican Army is a foreign resistance 

group, as it is both rooted and active in foreign contexts). Finally, groups 

or movements that are perceived as domestic but primarily operate in 

foreign contexts are displaced, the most notable example being governments in exile and other resistance groups forced out of their domestic 

context by environmental factors (e.g., government oppression) or strategic choice.

Table 8. Types of foreign and domestic characteristics in resistance 

movements or organizations.

Geographic Base of Operations

Operates 

Primarily Inside 

Given Country

Operates Primarily 

Outside Given 

Country

Perception of Group/Movement as Local or Foreign

Perceived as foreign Transnational Foreign

Perceived as domestic Domestic Displaced

Messaging of Resistance Organizations or Movements

The strategic imperative of effective messaging and representation 

of the resistance movement or organization to various audiences can 

play a significant role in the apparent efficacy or appeal of resistance 

efforts. All movements seek to appear united, as the emergence of visibly centrifugal dynamics among participants may invite skepticism 

or reveal weakness, leading some resistance leaders to try and impose 

unity of message on the movement or group. A two-dimensional typology of unity of message in external representation is therefore shaped 

by whether the leadership seeks to impose the perception of a united 

front and whether the messaging matches or differs from that of the 

leadership (see Table 9).

When resistance participants mirror the narratives and objectives 

of a leadership that seeks to impose such a unity of message through 

either positive or coercive incentive systems, the external representation of the group or movement is a controlled message. However, when 

the leadership tries and fails to impose a unity of message, conflicting 
42

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

messages emerge as participants contradict the line propagated by 

resistance authorities. However, some resistance movements and organizations may not seek to impose a united message, instead inviting 

diversity of opinion among participants. In this context, an open forum 

may take shape where participant’s messages differ from that of leadership, or coordinated messages can emerge, either through naturally cohesive dynamics with messages derived from leadership or in a 

bottom-up, populist model that steers the messaging of the leadership 

based on that of participants.

Table 9. Types of unity of message for resistance movements.

Messaging Goal of Leadership

Impose Unity of 

Message

Invite Diversity 

of Message in 

Participants

Message of Participants

Matches 

leadership

Controlled 

messages

Coordinated 

messages

Differs from 

Leadership

Conflicting 

messages

Open 

forum

Organizational Position in Overall Movement

A resistance organization can hold numerous positions within 

the wider resistance movement, depending on the level of coordination within the movement and the subordinate, autonomous, or leading role played by the organization (see Table 10). Within collectively 

coordinated efforts, there are dependent organizations, autonomous 

members of coalitions, and head organizations. However, within separate and uncoordinated efforts, there are mother and spin-off organizations, as well as autonomous resistance groups.76
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

43

Table 10. Types of organizational positions in resistance movements.

Organization Independence and Seniority

Subordinate Autonomous Leading Role

Coordination of Efforts 

between Resistance 

Organizations

Collective effort Dependent 

organization

Member of 

coalition

Head 

organization

Separate efforts 

(uncoordinated)

Client 

organization

Resistance 

organization

Mother 

organization

Organizational Theories and Membership

Theory of Organization

Resistance groups organize according to competing theories of how 

they should be structured, and many strategic, ideological, and other 

factors influence their choice of structure. These theories of resistance 

organization can be differentiated along a two-dimensional typology, 

based on the interaction between the concentration of organizational 

authority and the degree of organizational separation between the 

group leadership and the rank-and-file participants (see Table 11).

When authority is consolidated in a hierarchical structure, the 

result is vanguardism, in which a single leader (or small group) is the 

sole leadership and guardian of the cause. However, when consolidated 

authority exists in a flatter organizational structure, this is a mass line 

structure, in which key members of the leadership seek to reduce the 

participants’ feelings of separation from the leader, likely casting him 

or her as “one of the people.” When authority is shared or diffused at 

the top of a hierarchical structure, this can be characterized as decentralized or conciliar governance, in which numerous figures share 

authority, likely each over numerous branches of the organization. 

When this diffused authority exists in a flat organization, the theory of 

organization becomes consensual, with many decisions likely put to the 

group as a whole or heavily impacted by participants.
44

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Table 11. Types of theories for authority in a resistance organization.

Concentration of Authority

Consolidated Diffused or Shared

Organizational Separation between the Leadership and Participants

High (hierarchical) Vanguardism Conciliar

Low (flat) Mass line Consensual/democratic

Membership Strategies

Resistance organizations that seek internal growth must implement a strategy to incorporate recruits and new members. The core 

dynamics defining types of membership strategies are the barrier to 

membership and whether new participants are integrated into the core 

membership or used in front organizations. These characteristics create a two-dimensional typology of strategies that groups may use for 

security-related, strategic, and other reasons (see Table 12). The typology is primarily derived from Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, 

and Resistance Warfare, originally written in 1963 and updated by the 

ARIS team in 2013.77

Exclusive or elite groups with a high barrier to membership (which 

can often incorporate tiered, trial-based membership processes) can 

either incorporate new participants into the core organization (elite 

organization) or use those new members in a front group outside the 

primary group (elite front organization). Inclusive groups with low barriers to membership, however, can either incorporate all new recruits 

into the mass organization or similarly incorporate the broad swath 

of recruits into front organizations despite the open membership 

approach (mass front organization). This conceptualization of ideal 

types, however, should not be construed to suggest that membership 

processes for most resistance organizations are overly formalized or 

orderly. In many movements, they are chaotic, ad hoc, and vary widely 

across the movement in absence of, or despite, a centralized strategy. 

Such inevitable complexities must not be ignored in the study of membership in a given movement.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

45

Table 12. Types of membership strategies in resistance 

organizations.

Barrier to Membership

High (Exclusive) Low (Inclusive)

Integration of New 

Participants

Integrated in base 

organization

Elite 

organization

Mass 

organization

Mostly leveraged through 

front organizations

Elite front 

organization

Mass front 

organization

Internal Governance

The internal governance of a resistance organization can take several forms, fitting within four general categories. First, there are formalized measures of discipline and rules, established by the group and 

leadership for the governance of participants. Second, the organizational culture constitutes the informal management of participants’ 

behavior within the group. Third, decisions on various strategic dilemmas regarding the effective organization of the resistance group also 

contribute to internal governance. Finally, the security environment 

imposed on participants in the resistance governs the functions and 

communications among portions of the organization.

Discipline and Rules

Olivier Bangerter’s research note Regulating Armed Groups from 

Within: A Typology, published by the Small Arms Survey in 2012, outlines eight types of internal discipline and rules a group may use for 

internal governance. This typology lists and defines several mechanisms, including oaths; codes of conduct (“the set of rules an organization expects its members to respect under all circumstances”); 

standing orders (which “differ from codes of conduct in that they 

define [behavior] that is expected in a specific situation as opposed to 

at all times. . . . Standing operating procedures—a subset of standing 

orders—spell out what a fighter or a unit must do when confronted 

with a given challenge”); operation orders; military manuals; internal 

organization documents (which “spell out the procedures to follow 
46

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

when taking decisions . . . address[ing] issues such as the command 

structure, the decision-making process, the responsibilities and powers 

associated with different positions . . . and how group members have 

to work together”); and penal or disciplinary codes.78 Another instrument for internal governance are founding charters, which differ from 

internal organization documents because they more generally address 

the goals and vision of the resistance and are written for both internal 

and public audiences.

Organizational Culture

Resistance organizations, although unique from other organizations in many critical respects, can nevertheless be examined culturally 

along similar typological lines. Akin to other organizations, resistance 

groups are composed of individuals who must collectively order their 

efforts toward the achievement of collective goals. For this reason, 

a typology of cultures developed in the field of organizational studies and dependent on how members of the organization interact and 

relate to one another is compatible, despite not being developed with 

resistance groups in mind. However, there may be room for improvement or a need for the thorough development of an exclusive typology 

of resistance organizational cultures derived from the case literature.

In his 2002 book Kultura Organizacyjna, Dr. Czesław Sikorski presented a division of cultures according to “the attitude of the organisation members to cultural dissonance.”g

 This concept was adapted 

by Łukasz Sułkowski of the University of Social Sciences in Poland 

(Społeczna Akademia Nauk) in his review of the literature, “Typologies of organisational culture—multi-dimentional [sic] classifications.” 

The variable shown in the columns is the acceptance of cultural dissonance in the group, and the variable shown in the rows concerns the 

antagonism of interpersonal relationships between participants (see 

Table 13).80

g Sułkowski clarifies that “cultural dissonance is related to the existing differences 

between the ways [participants] think and behave in organisations, which are the most 

often reasons for conflicts and misunderstandings.”79
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

47

Table 13. Types of organizational cultures (Sikorski and Sułkowski).

Acceptance of Cultural Dissonance

Acceptance Lack of Acceptance

Interpersonal 

Relations

Antagonistic Culture of rivalry Culture of dominance

Nonantagonistic Culture of cooperation Culture of adaptation

First, an organizational culture of rivalry exists when cultural dissonance is accepted but interpersonal relations are antagonistic, resulting 

in a culture characterized “by strong rivalry” and in which “members 

believe that it is necessary to prove their superiority.” Rivalry cultures 

can also be described as participatory, “collectivist,” “heterogenic,” “presence-oriented,” and having “a clash of different cultural problems.”81

Second, organizations have a culture of dominance when interpersonal relations are antagonistic and there is a lack of acceptance of cultural dissonance; characteristically, members hold the “belief that they 

are superior” to others. Typically homogeneous, traditional, and past 

oriented, dominance cultures also tend toward subordinating an organization’s activities to proscribed cultural models and exhibit an aversion to uncertainty in favor of security.82 Because of the fundamental 

nature of resistance and the groups that practice it, cultures of dominance should theoretically make up the vast majority of resistance organizations and movements, particularly those that use violent tactics.

Third, in a culture of adaptation, the organization remains unaccepting of cultural dissonance, but interpersonal relationships are nonantagonistic. “Oriented towards non-routine activities in a competitive 

environment,” adaptation cultures place significant weight on the quality of interpersonal bonds and communication, the formal aims of the 

organization, and motivation for achievements. Tolerant of uncertainty 

and future oriented, adaptive cultures are “homogenous in the area of 

values” and exhibit partner-like power relationships.83

Finally, organizational cultures of cooperation (likely the least 

common organizational culture among resistance groups), with both 

the acceptance of cultural dissonance and nonantagonistic interpersonal relations, are characterized by “the rule of harmony with the 
48

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

environment” and the avoidance of “conflicts and rivalry.” Instead, 

these heterogenic cultures employ democratic management styles 

that value personal bonds and dialogue under “the rules of autonomy, 

equality, [and] respect for differences.”84

Environmental factors may significantly influence how the culture 

of a resistance organization develops, and many organizational facets 

may be dependent on, or causal toward, the organizational culture of 

the resistance group. In particular, security demands forced on both 

violent and nonviolent resistance movements to counter their opponents can deeply impact the culture of an organization. Such impacts 

result from endemic distrust and lead to dominance cultures. Cultural dissonance is often discouraged as threatening in resistance, as 

some differences may be perceived as signs of disloyalty. This potential 

dynamic is magnified in demanding security environments, as the fear 

of discovery or espionage can breed distrust and antagonism, affecting 

participants’ interpersonal relationships.

Organization Strategic Dilemmas

The organization attribute presents at least six significant strategic 

dilemmas to resistance leaders. First, the organization dilemma refers 

to the pitfalls and benefits of the movement’s formal bureaucratization. 

Although formal, hierarchic, and centralized structures may produce 

more coordinated efforts and legitimacy in the public sphere, they may 

also entail the abandonment of the movement’s core goals or alienation of the grass roots.85 Second, the band-of-brothers dilemma concerns the idea that although “affective loyalties to the broader group 

are essential,” dependence on this dynamic for cohesion may become 

the lone incentive for continued participation “at the expense of the 

larger collectivity.”86 Third, the money’s curse dilemma describes the 

tendency of some ideological social movements to view money as “dirtying [their] hands, yet even organizations that are ‘above’ such mundane issues nonetheless depend on financial resources,”87 presenting 

the dilemma of how openly or shamelessly the group addresses its monetary needs.

The extension dilemma is the problem presented by the movement’s growth: the further the group expands, “the less coherent [its] 

goals and actions can be.” Additionally, although growth can increase 

a movement’s power and reach, it also magnifies coordination problems. The potential for internal tensions also increases with group 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

49

expansion.88 Typologies related to the extension dilemma include membership strategies and the concept of replication. An adaptation of the 

extension dilemma is that of the ambitious leader, which stipulates that 

although a resistance may “want strong and competent leaders,” there 

is a potential that “if they are too ambitious they may substitute their 

own goals for those of the group.”89 Finally, the dilemma of leadership 

distance (directly related to the theory of organization and leadership 

characteristic typologies) poses the question of whether the leadership 

will “be more appealing” as either a “lofty and unique . . . superhuman 

saint” or “a regular type, one of the guys.”90

Security Environment

The security environment constitutes the procedural, communication, and structural measures imposed on participants and enforced by 

the resistance leadership in order to protect the activities of the group 

or movement from penetration by, or exposure to, its opponents. The 

overall security environment can include the compartmentalization of 

information between functional cells, the use of intermediary communication methods and recognition signals, the limiting of the size of 

functional cells, organizational redundancy through the maintenance 

of parallel cells, the screening of new members, and the inclusion of 

oaths and other checks on the loyalty of participants to prevent penetration by opponents.91

A few factors relevant to the security environment are considered 

elsewhere in this ARIS typology, and nearly all organizational issues 

have security implications. Specifically, oaths and loyalty checks are 

considered in the “Discipline and Rules” section describing a onedimensional typology. Likewise, screening new members is effectively 

addressed in the variables in the columns in Table 12. The typology 

of security environments presented here forgoes these factors, instead 

examining the conceptual management of information and communication within the group (see Table 14).

Organized two-dimensionally, the typology of security environments is a product of the separation between functional cells within the 

organization and the depth of intermediary communications between 

cells and either leadership or other cells. Functional cells within the 

resistance organization may be isolated from one another, unaware 

of either the membership of other portions of the organization or of 

the existence of other functional cells. On the other hand, cells may 
50

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

be networked and aware of each other, able to communicate laterally 

rather than only through leadership. Their use of intermediary communication techniques (such as mail drops or anonymous messengers) 

can be categorized as either limited (a single point or not used at all) or 

extensive (layered and/or redundant use of intermediaries).

Table 14. Types of security environments.

Separation of Functional Cells

Isolated Networked

Use of Intermediary 

Communication

Limited 

(none or single)

Secured 

cells

Unprotected 

network

Extensive 

(layered/redundant)

Highly secured 

cells

Protected 

network

First, an unprotected network exists when the resistance organization allows for lateral networking between functional cells and only 

enforces the limited use of intermediary communications. Second, 

a protected network exists when laterally connected functional cells 

ensure the extensive use of intermediary communication precautions. 

Third, a resistance organization has created secured cells (also known 

as “cells-in-series”)92 when the cells are isolated from one another but 

they make only limited use of intermediary communications. Finally, 

highly secured cells exist when they are isolated and secured through 

multiple layers of intermediary communication links. (“Parallel cells,” 

redundant functional cells that are isolated in case one is compromised 

by opponents, would also constitute a security environment composed 

of highly secured cells.)93

ACTIONS

The actions attribute is concerned with the means by which actors 

carry out resistance as they engage in behaviors and activities in opposition to a resisted structure. Actions can encompass both the specific 

tactics used by a resistance movement and the broader characteristics 

or repertoires for action (i.e., strategy; see Figure 11).
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

51

Action strategic dilemmas

Information strategic dilemmas

Public channels Private channels

Conceal role Publicize Role

Lethal tactics Nonlethal tactics

Actions

Illegal tactics Rightful resistance

Nonviolent

tactics

Violent

tactics

Outreach/

engagement

Attribution

of actions

Other

dilemmas

Fundraising

Predatory/

parasitic

Symbolic/

voluntary

Strategic characteristics Tactics

Figure 11. Actions kind hierarchy.

Tactics

Tactics are the methods and acts through which participants carry 

out resistance. As illustrated in the two-dimensional typology presented 

here (see Table 15), the types of tactics leveraged by a resistance group 

or movement can be legal or illegal, violent or nonviolent. When considering legality, it is important to distinguish between jurisdictions. 

There is only a very narrow aperture for legal nonviolent tactics (to the 

point that conceptualizing them as resistance tactics is a topic of debate 

among scholars), and violent tactics can be considered legal only when 

the conflict escalates past domestic jurisdiction into the international 

laws of war. Violence is used here to mean physical force to kill, hurt, or 

damage, as opposed to structural, direct political, symbolic, or everyday conceptualizations of violence.
52

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Table 15. Types of resistance tactics.

Legality (Do the Tactics Violate the Law?)

Legal Illegal

Violence (Do the 

Tactics Inflict 

Physical Harm?)

Violent Military operations of a belligerency in accordance with 

international laws of war

Violent tactics

Nonviolent Rightful resistance tactics Nonviolent tactics

Nonviolent resistance tactics are often illegal, but those that fall 

within the legal parameters can be characterized as rightful resistance 

tactics (a distinction in resistance proposed by Kevin J. O’Brien in his 

1996 World Politics article, “Rightful Resistance”).94 Many rightful resistance tactics are arguably identical to those used in conventional political and activist efforts. Nevertheless, they are included in this typology 

for two reasons. First, all resistance movements have these tactics at 

their disposal and likely use them in conjunction with other types 

of actions. Second, rightful resistance tactics uniquely operate “near 

the boundary of an authorized channel” and hinge “on locating and 

exploiting divisions among the powerful,”95 thus maintaining the disruptive and subversive nature of resistance as a phenomenon.

The vast majority of violent resistance tactics are illegal, but some 

militarized political movements may be permitted to implement violent 

tactics that are considered legal in the context of the international laws 

of war (although they will continue to be illicit under domestic laws). 

This distinction applies when such movements progress to the point 

of recognition as an insurgency, where there exists a recognized noninternational armed conflict (civil war), or are considered belligerents 

(in which case the conflict looks more like traditional interstate war 

and the belligerents control substantial territory). Violent tactics are 

permitted in these cases because in a noninternational armed conflict 

or an international armed conflict, the law of war applies (but different provisions are applicable depending on the nature of the conflict).
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

53

Violent Tactics

The use of physical violence by resistance movements can be further typified according to the lethality of the tactics. Lethal violent tactics are those intended or reasonably expected to result in the death of 

target or collateral persons. The most obvious of these in the history of 

resistance movements are the paramilitary operations of guerrilla and 

insurgent groups, including but not limited to small-arms and lightweapons combat and the use of explosive mines and improvised explosive devices, mortar and rocket attacks, and other lethal weapons systems 

in a framework similar to that of conventional military operations. Targeted killings and assassinations would also be considered a lethal tactic. Resistance movements willing to use lethal violent tactics, often at 

an asymmetric disadvantage in numbers and resources, may resort to 

terrorism. Such measures can be either targeted or indiscriminate.

Nonlethal violent tactics are those that inflict physical harm to persons or property with the reasonable expectation that the violent action 

will not result in loss of human life. Such tactics include violent demonstrations in the form of nonlethal riots and mobs (although provocations can escalate such actions into lethal confrontations), as well as 

various forms of nonlethal crime and intimidation (such as extortion 

and kidnapping). Sexual violence is another demonstrated tactic in 

this subset. Additionally, some violent means and methods often considered lethal could be used in a nonlethal manner. Examples include 

bombing without killing and the demonstration of lethal capabilities 

while avoiding loss of life.96

Nonviolent and Rightful Resistance Tactics

In his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action, scholar Gene Sharp presented a thorough accounting of the types of nonviolent resistance, 

which became widely known as his 198 methods.97 Although they have 

been presented elsewhere in the ARIS body of work,98 Sharp’s 198 methods are reproduced here because they are typologically exhaustive of 

the nonviolent and rightful resistance tactics available to movements, 

groups, and participants. There has been no effort here to differentiate between particular methods as either legal (rightful resistance) 

or illegal (nonviolent tactic), as this categorization will differ for every 

national and local context according to the laws in place, and such 

detailed differentiation can take place on a case-by-case basis in the 

coding of data for research.
54

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Although certainly exhaustive when originally written in 1973, the 

advent of the Internet and the widespread availability of innovative 

information technologies have dramatically changed the face of resistance movements and created a vast number of completely new tactics. 

For the thorough and effective analysis of modern cases of resistance, 

there is a glaring need to expand Sharp’s methods to include both 

methods of cyber protest and noncooperation and methods of nonviolent cyber intervention (see Table 16).

Table 16. Types of nonviolent and rightful resistance tactics.

Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion

Formal Statements

Public speeches

Letters of opposition or support

Declarations by organizations and institutions

Signed public statements

Declarations of indictment and intention

Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider 

Audience

Slogans, caricatures, and symbols

Banners, posters, and displayed communications

Leaflets, pamphlets, and books

Newspapers and journals

Records, radio, and television

Sky/earth writing

Group 

Representations

Deputations

Mock awards

Group lobbying

Picketing

Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts

Displays of flags and symbolic colors

Wearing of symbols

Prayer and worship

Delivering symbolic objects

Protest disrobings

Destruction of own property

Symbolic lights
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

55

Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion (continued)

Symbolic Public Acts 

(continued)

Displays of portraits

Paint as protest

New signs and names

Symbolic sounds

Symbolic reclamations

Rude gestures

Pressures on 

Individuals

“Haunting” officials

Taunting officials

Fraternization

Vigils

Drama and Music

Humorous skits and pranks

Performances of plays and music

Singing

Processions

Marches

Parades

Religious processions

Pilgrimages

Motorcades

Honoring the Dead

Political mourning

Mock funerals

Demonstrative funerals

Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies

Assemblies of protest or support

Protest meetings

Camouflaged meetings of protest

Teach-ins

Withdrawal and 

Renunciation

Walk-outs

Silence

Renouncing honors

Turning one’s back

Methods of Social Noncooperation

Ostracism of Persons

Social boycott

Selective social boycott

Lysistratic nonaction
56

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Methods of Social Noncooperation (continued)

Ostracism of Persons 

(continued)

Excommunication

Interdict

Noncooperation 

with Social Events, 

Customs, and 

Institutions

Suspension of social and sports activities

Boycott of social affairs

Student strike

Social disobedience

Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the 

Social System

Stay-at-home

Total personal noncooperation

“Flight” of workers

Sanctuary

Collective disappearance

Protest emigration (hijrat)

Methods of Economic Noncooperation: Economic Boycotts

Actions by 

Consumers

Consumers’ boycott

Nonconsumption of boycotted goods

Policy of austerity

Rent withholding

Refusal to rent

National consumers’ boycott

International consumers’ boycott

Action by Workers 

and Producers

Workman’s boycott

Producers’ boycott

Action by Middlemen Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott

Action by Owners 

and Management

Traders’ boycott

Refusal to let or sell property

Lockout

Refusal of industrial assistance

Merchants’ “general strike”

Action by Holders of 

Financial Resources

Withdrawal of bank deposits

Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments

Refusal to pay debts or interest

Severance of funds and credit

Revenue refusal

Refusal of a government’s money
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

57

Methods of Economic Noncooperation: Economic Boycotts (continued)

Actions by 

Governments

Domestic embargo

Blacklisting of traders

International sellers’ embargo

International buyers’ embargo

International trade embargo

Methods of Economic Noncooperation: The Strike

Symbolic Strikes

Protest strike

Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes

Peasant strike

Farm workers’ strike

Strikes by Special 

Groups

Refusal of impressed labor

Prisoners’ strike

Craft strike

Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial 

Strikes

Establishment strike

Industry strike

Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes

Detailed strike

Bumper strike

Slowdown strike

Working-to-rule strike

Reporting “sick” (sick-in)

Strike by resignation

Limited strike

Selective strike

Multi-Industry 

Strikes

Generalized strike

General strike

Combination of 

Strikes and Economic 

Closures

Hartal

Economic shutdown

Methods of Political Noncooperation

Rejection of 

Authority

Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance

Refusal of public support

Literature and speeches advocating resistance
58

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Methods of Political Noncooperation (continued)

Citizens’ Noncooperation with 

Government

Boycott of legislative bodies

Boycott of elections

Boycott of government employment and positions

Boycott of government departments, agencies, 

and other bodies

Boycott of government-supported organizations

Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents

Removal of own signs and placemarks

Refusal to accept appointed officials

Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

Citizens’ Alternatives 

to Obedience

Reluctant and slow compliance

Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision

Popular nonobedience

Disguised nonobedience

Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse

Sitdown

Noncooperation with conscription and 

deportation

Hiding, escape, and false identities

Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws

Action by Government Personnel

Selective refusal of assistance by government 

aides

Blocking of lines of command and information

Stalling and obstruction

General administrative noncooperation

Judicial noncooperation

Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents

Mutiny

Domestic Governmental Action

Quasi-legal evasions and delays

Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

International Governmental Action

Changes in diplomatic and other representations

Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events

Withholding of diplomatic recognition
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

59

Methods of Political Noncooperation (continued)

International Governmental Action 

(continued)

Severance of diplomatic relations

Withdrawal from international organizations

Refusal of membership in international bodies

Expulsion from international organizations

Methods of Nonviolent Intervention

Psychological 

Intervention

Self-exposure to the elements

The fast (fast of moral pressure, hunger strike, or 

satyagrahic fast)

Reverse trial

Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention

Sit-in

Stand-in

Ride-in

Wade-in

Mill-in

Pray-in

Nonviolent raids

Nonviolent air raids

Nonviolent invasion

Nonviolent interjection

Nonviolent obstruction

Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention

Establishing new social patterns

Overloading of facilities

Stall-in

Speak-in

Guerrilla theater

Alternative social institutions

Alternative communication system

Economic 

Intervention

Reverse strike

Stay-in strike

Nonviolent land seizure

Defiance of blockades
60

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Methods of Nonviolent Intervention (continued)

Economic Intervention (continued)

Politically motivated counterfeiting

Preclusive purchasing

Seizure of assets

Dumping

Selective patronage

Alternative markets

Alternative transportation systems

Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention

Overloading of administrative systems

Disclosing identities of secret agents

Seeking imprisonment

Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws

Work-on without collaboration

Dual sovereignty and parallel government

Fund-Raising

Resistance organizations and movements must raise funds for their 

operations if they are to achieve their objectives and functional longevity. R. T. Naylor analyzed the illicit fund-raising activities of specifically 

violent resistance groups in his Crime, Law and Social Change article, 

“The Insurgent Economy: Black Market Operations of Guerrilla Organizations,” and presented three typological fund-raising categories: 

predatory, parasitical, and symbiotic.

Predatory resistance fund-raising, Naylor contests, consists of primarily “once-for-all [or one-off] activities,” largely akin to “simple 

blue-collar criminal activities” such as robbery, ransom kidnapping, 

maritime fraud, and counterfeiting.99 Second, parasitical fund-raising 

is characterized as “on-going sources like embezzlment [sic] and extortion . . . more akin to the activities of ‘organized crime’ syndicates.”100

While this type can take the shape of “revolutionary taxation” levied 

“on the income or wealth of well-to-do individuals or businesses,” it can 

also emerge as more conventional “protection” fees imposed on smugglers, trade groups, or others.101 Third, symbiotic fund-raising emerges 

when the resistance group gains the “capacity to profiteer  .  .  . from 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

61

the impact of its own [activities],” establishing its own profitable enterprises (both legal and illicit, including the production, smuggling, and 

sale of narcotics), as well as potential “parallel taxation” or “foreign 

trade taxes” to support its continued activities.102

Although typologically incisive and useful, Naylor’s three categories of resistance fund-raising are nevertheless particular to violent 

insurgencies and thus require some slight addition and revision for 

use in the study of resistance as a whole. To this end, voluntary fundraising, by which a group or movement acquires revenue through the 

solicitation of potentially sympathetic individuals, demographics, or 

organizations for financial support, may be considered a fourth category alongside the three types detailed above. Voluntary efforts would 

likely include both publicly and privately targeted messaging efforts to 

convince (rather than compel) financial support. Similarly, although 

predatory and parasitical fund-raising activities are almost exclusively 

reserved to those groups willing to use or threaten violence, symbiotic 

efforts can conceivably exist in the realm of nonviolent resistance via 

the provision of services, the quid pro quo offer of messaging or political favors in return for voluntary contributions, and many other symbiotic relationships.

Table 17. Types of resistance fund-raising.

Original Source of Wealth Creation

Labor of Those 

outside the Resistance Group

Labor of the 

Resistance 

Group

Labor of 

Resistance 

Supporters

Nature of 

Funding Actions

Once-for-all 

(one-off)

Predatory Symbiotic Voluntary

Ongoing Parasitic

These four types of resistance fund-raising (predatory, parasitic, 

symbiotic, and voluntary) can be conceptually deconstructed and categorized in a two-dimensional typology (see Table 17). The defining 

characteristics are the original source of wealth creation (either those 

outside or within the movement) and the nature of funding actions 

(one-off or ongoing). Fund-raising efforts that draw from the wealth of 
62

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

those outside the movement are differentiated between predatory and 

parasitic according to their one-off or ongoing nature. However, symbiotic and voluntary fund-raising can be of either nature. Instead, they 

are specified according to the source of wealth: symbiotic fund-raising 

is direct wealth creation by the resistance group, while voluntary fundraising draws from the contributions of those supporters outside the 

group itself.

Strategic Characteristics

The strategic characteristics of actions are the aspects over which 

the resistance group or movement can either practice agency or attempt 

to do so. This agency, or strategic choice, is practiced in regard to attribution, outreach, and other strategic dilemmas concerning actions 

and information operations. However, some discrete types (see attribution of actions) apply when the agency of the resistance is overcome by 

external factors.

Attribution of Actions

The attribution of resistance actions is a critical strategic characteristic, particularly for violent movements that might seek to either 

take credit for successful strikes against opponents or, conversely, avoid 

culpability for potentially unpopular operations or gaffes. An original 

conceptual typology of attribution can be characterized in two dimensions, one being the resistance organization’s strategic intent regarding 

attribution and the other being the public’s or opponent’s knowledge 

of the resistance movement’s role in the given action (see Table 18), 

resulting in four types: clandestine operations, exposed operations, 

public operations, and suppressed or ignored operations.

First, clandestine operations are those in which the role of the 

resistance organization is successfully concealed from the public and 

opponent. Suspicions about the resistance group’s involvement may 

exist, but the group does not openly take credit for the action and may 

actively deny involvement. Second, exposed operations are those in 

which the resistance tried to conceal its role in a given action but was 

exposed by its opponents or other external actors. This type can take 

shape as blame for the consequences of an action, the prosecution of 

participants for their roles, or the propagation of a conspicuous failure.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

63

Third, public operations are those in which the resistance group 

readily and publicly accepts attribution for given actions. This type will 

often take shape as either open identification as participants in a given 

group during the given action or announcements claiming attribution 

for the action. Finally, suppressed or ignored operations are those in 

which the resistance group seeks to propagate its role in a given action 

but that attribution is overshadowed, with knowledge of the group’s 

role either suppressed or diverted to another actor.

Table 18. Types of action attribution.

Strategic Intent of Resistance 

Organization

Conceal Role in 

Action

Publicize Role in 

Action

Public and/or Opponent 

Knowledge of Resistance 

Organization Role in Action

Aware of resistance role in 

action

Exposed 

operations

Public 

operations

Unaware of resistance role 

in action

Clandestine 

operations

Suppressed or 

ignored operations

Outreach and Engagement

Resistance groups and organizations must be able to communicate 

with the public and potential participants in order to succeed or persevere, necessitating the use of various means of outreach and engagement. David A. Snow, Louis A. Zurcher Jr., and Sheldon Ekland-Olson 

contest that outreach and engagement serve three purposes for social 

movements (information dissemination and operations, movement and 

organization promotion, and movement or organization recruitment) 

and propose a “classification of general outreach and engagement possibilities for movement information dissemination, promotion, and 

recruitment.” This classification is adapted below as a two-dimensional 

typology (see Table 19).103
64

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Table 19. Types of outreach and engagement.

Visibility of Communication Channels

Public Private

Intimacy of Engagement

Face to face Direct public Direct network

Mediated Intermediate public Intermediate network

The two defining factors of this typology of outreach and engagement methods are the intimacy of the engagement (“whether they are 

face to face or mediated”) and the openness or visibility of that engagement (“a continuum ranging from public to private”). More specifically, face to face is defined as “all information, whether it be verbal or 

nonverbal, that is imparted when two or more individuals or groups 

are physically present,” whereas mediated engagement “refers to information dissemination through institutionalized mass communication 

mechanisms . . . or through institutionalized, but individualized and 

privatized, communication mechanisms.”104 The intersection of these 

factors results in four typological categories of outreach and engagement methods: direct public, intermediate public, direct network, and 

intermediate network.

First, direct public engagement involves face-to-face interaction in 

an open setting, including public “leafleting, petitioning, and proselytizing  .  .  . participation in public events  .  .  . [and staged] events for 

public consumption, such as sit-ins, protests . . . conventions and festivals.” Second, intermediate public engagement primarily entails the 

use of mass media for broad dissemination (Internet, television, radio, 

and newspaper). Third, direct network engagement involves “information dissemination and recruitment” through either “door-to-door 

leafleting, petitioning, and proselytizing” or “among familiar others 

along the lines of . . . extra-movement interpersonal networks.” Finally, 

intermediate network engagement is conducted through ostensibly private communications, including mail, telephone, and private Internet 

communications.105

Action and Information Strategic Dilemmas

Most strategic dilemmas may be categorized under the actions attribute and subdivided into action and information dilemmas, where the 

former concern the decision on and coordination of certain tactics 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

65

and the latter address propaganda, public relations, and other issues 

related to public appeals.

Action Dilemmas

Six strategic dilemmas particularly concern the actions and tactics 

of a resistance group or movement. First, the direct or indirect moves 

dilemma concerns the strategic weight of confrontations, which can 

either be “direct confrontations with opponents” or “indirect moves 

such as persuading third parties, gathering resources, building networks, and so on.”106 A group may choose consistent and open confrontations, a more clandestine or subtle rallying of support and resources, 

or a mix of the two. Second, the plans versus opportunity dilemma 

determines whether a group or movement plans initiatives of its own or 

“wait[s] for opponents to make mistakes” before finally taking action.107

Planned initiatives allow for strategic latitude of choice and strong 

preparation but also carry the risk of conspicuous failure that may 

undermine the viability of the movement. A lie-in-wait strategy, however, allows for a higher likelihood of success because the group acts in 

the opponent’s moment of weakness, but this strategy carries the risk of 

allowing the group or movement to fall into crippling obscurity.

Third, the basket dilemma may be characterized as the choice 

between “one decisive engagement” in a “winner-take-all” ultimatum 

and spreading risk “over many small engagements” with the opponent 

of resistance.108 Although the majority of resistance movements are 

small challengers that take the path of dispersed risk through asymmetric conflict, some may choose decisive engagements. Fourth, the 

engagement dilemma concerns the decision to move from a state of 

latency to open resistance activity, given that “visibility brings a number 

of risks, such as external repression or misrepresentation and internal 

conflicts over strategy.”109

Fifth, the dirty hands dilemma largely concerns a resistance movement’s transition from using primarily rightful resistance tactics to 

leveraging illicit and/or violent tactics as well, recognizing that “some 

goals are only—or more easily—attained through unsavory means.”110

Finally, the familiar and the new dilemma concerns the fact that 

although “new tactics surprise opponents and authorities . . . it is typically hard for [a resistance] group to pull them off.”111 Tactical innovation may provide a strategic edge, but it may also constitute a stumbling 

block for the resistance group by complicating planning and logistics.
66

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Information Dilemmas

Because perceptions and the rhetorical contest of propaganda form 

much of any resistance group’s strategic center of gravity, the information and messaging sphere provides the greatest variety of strategic 

dilemmas for consideration by a resistance effort (totaling nine). First, 

the form or content dilemma is the option between using “procedural 

rhetoric” and “substantive rhetoric.” While the resistance can “switch 

attention and rhetoric from the content of [claims] to the formal mechanisms for handling [them],” such information maneuvers heighten the 

risk of “losing sight of the original issue.”112 Second, the reaching-out or 

reaching-in dilemma concerns how actions are oriented to participants 

in resistance or to outsiders. Related to the extension dilemma, reaching in may serve to provide symbolic or material rewards to preserve a 

sense of exclusivity, homogeneity, and/or doctrinal purity as the movement seeks to expand.113

Third, the dilemma of cultural innovation addresses the tension 

between the change the resistance seeks and the group’s need to 

appeal to various audiences by using “the meanings they already hold, 

[where] pushing too far may cause” alienation and undermine messaging campaigns.114 Fourth, the victim or hero dilemma concerns how the 

resistance group portrays itself in messaging, either “as wronged victim 

in need of help or as [a] strong, avenging hero.”115 Each role may be 

useful at different times, depending on the need to inspire confidence 

or attract external support. Similarly, the villain or clown dilemma concerns the strategic portrayal of resistance opponents, either “as strong 

and dangerous or as silly and contemptible.”116

Sixth, the radical-flank dilemma concerns whether or not to radicalize rhetoric, tactics, or both, given that “extreme words and actions get 

attention, and often take opponents by surprise, but they usually play 

poorly with bystanders and authorities.”117 Seventh, the media dilemma 

addresses the choice of whether to depend on popular media as an 

avenue to propagate the resistance message, considering that popular 

media sources reach “broad audiences, but . . . they are likely to distort [the message] in doing so.”118 Eighth, the bridge-builders dilemma 

highlights the choice whether to leverage “individuals who can mediate between groups, or different sides in a conflict,” given that such 

actors or leaders “often lose the trust of their own groups by doing 

so.”119 Finally, the segregating audiences dilemma concerns the strategic desire of the resistance “to send different messages to different 
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

67

players.” Such dual messaging makes the group vulnerable to countermessaging where both messages “can be used to make [the group] look 

duplicitous.”120

CONCLUSION

Resistance is a phenomenon of human behavior, society, and politics 

that is broader than formal insurgencies and self-proclaimed revolutions. Nonviolent contentious movements have had increasingly highprofile effects on regimes and world affairs, as demonstrated by the 

Arab Spring and Euromaidan. The conceptual desegregation of resistance for holistic study continues to progress, and rightly so. USASOC 

and the ARIS team hope that this typology, in conjunction with other 

efforts, will make worthwhile contributions to future research into this 

phenomenon. The ARIS typology can be an instrument that is adapted, 

built on, and deviated from as required for the shared conceptualization of resistance in all its manifestations, thus providing a resource for 

robust interdisciplinary study into the phenomenon as a whole, rather 

than only its parts.

Conceptual Typology of Resistance

69

GLOSSARY

Actions: The means by which actors carry out resistance as they engage 

in behaviors and activities in opposition to a resisted structure. Actions 

can encompass both the specific tactics used by a resistance movement 

and the broader characteristics or repertoires for action (i.e., strategy).

Actors: The individual and potential participants in an organized resistance, as well as external contributors and either competing or cooperating resistance groups.

Actors, Direct: Those actors who will inevitably emerge within any resistance group or movement, namely the leadership and participants 

thereof.

Actors, Indirect: Those actors who indirectly impact or may emerge in 

or around a resistance movement, including the general population, 

other resistance groups, and external supporters.

Administrator-Executive: A leader who implements the policies of the 

movement, completing the formal institutionalization of the goals of 

the resistance.121 (See Leadership.)

Agitator: A leader who “stirs the people not by what he does, but by 

what he says . . . [leading] people to challenge and question . . . [the 

status quo and] create unrest,” or who serves “to intensify, release, and 

direct tensions which people already have.”122 (See Leadership.)

Alterative Rationale: A resistance rationale that seeks limited or specified change among some individuals or a particular community, often 

concerning the way people think about certain behaviors or issues 

within a given system or structure. (See Rationale.)

Attribute: An inherent or fundamental characteristic.

Auxiliary: Also referred to as supporters, the auxiliary are nonmartial 

participants who actively support the resistance effort on a part-time 

basis and on the periphery of their work and lifestyle.
70

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Causes: The collectively expressed rationales for resistance and the individual motivations for participation.

Characteristic: A distinguishing trait or quality.

Classic Counterinsurgency: A counterinsurgency model “most often 

associated with . . . highly capable Western democracies” that seeks to 

accommodate and provide public goods while limiting or carefully targeting any use of violence.123 (See Counterinsurgency.)

Concept: “An idea of a phenomenon formed by combining its attributes  .  .  . alternatively, a mental image that, when operationalized, 

helps to organize the data analysis.”124

Concept of Replication: Facilitates a strategy for a movement’s growth 

outside the core organization through the foundation of affiliated parties or groups or the adoption of existing groups into the movement.

Containment: A counterinsurgency model in which a state is “unable 

or unwilling to accommodate the reconcilable opposition” and “uses 

force—usually indiscriminately—to repress insurgent activity,” accepting risk of residual violence as long as the resistance is relegated to certain, often poorly defined, bounds.125 (See Counterinsurgency.)

Core Membership: See Underground.

Counterinsurgency: The operations and policies of a government entity 

“designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency” and potentially “address its root causes.”126

Environment: The preexisting and emerging conditions within the 

political, social, physical, or interpersonal contexts that enable or constrain the mobilization of resistance, directly or indirectly.

External Support: The provision of support to a resistance group or 

movement by entities or individuals external to the country.

Fighters: Those participants “organized along military lines to conduct 

military and paramilitary operations” in a resistance but also including 

those similarly organized for other forms of “subversion and violence.”127
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

71

Founding Members: Participants who contribute to the resistance group 

or movement in its earliest stages.

Informal Accommodation: A counterinsurgency model in which the state 

is unable or unwilling to provide public goods to discontented communities but is willing to compromise with components of the resistance.128 (See Counterinsurgency.)

Kind Hierarchy: “An ordered relationship among concepts, in which 

subordinate concepts may be understood as ‘a kind of’ in relation to 

superordinate concepts. This is a basic feature of conceptual structure, 

both in social science and in ordinary usage.”129

Leadership: Those individuals within a movement or organization who 

“provide strategic and tactical direction, organization, and the ideology 

of the movement,” performing “these functions within the unique and 

compelling context of their country, culture, and political economy.”130

Moral Support: A nonmaterial form of passive or tacit external support, 

only going so far as sympathetic public statements or similar measures. 

(See External Support.)

Motivations: The sources of willingness for individuals to participate in 

a resistance, manifesting “as a function of the perceived attractiveness 

or aversiveness of the expected consequences [costs and benefits] of 

participation.”131

Motives, Collective: A function of the personal “expectation that participation will help to produce [a] collective good and the value of [said] 

collective good.”132 (See Motivations.)

Motives, Reward: Willingness to participate in resistance derived from 

associated “non-social costs and benefits.”133 (See Motivations.)

Motives, Social: A function of the costs and benefits of participation “as distinguished in the reactions of significant others.”134 (See 

Motivations.)

Movement: The overall collective effort of resistance, potentially encompassing multiple organizations and other actors.
72

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Organization: “The internal characteristics of a movement: its membership, policies, structures, and culture.”135

Participants: The individuals acting in concert with, or in support of, a 

resistance movement or organization and its efforts.

Phenomenon: An event or series of events that can be observed and studied; used in reference to resistance.

Political Support: Active and nonmaterial external support to resistance, including advocacy and symbolic actions to express committed 

support. (See External Support.)

Prophet: A leader who “feels set apart or called to leadership” and 

claims “special and separate knowledge of the causes of unrest and 

discontent,” speaking “with an air of authority . . . in general terms.”136

(See Leadership.)

Rationale: The collectively or organizationally propagated narrative for 

collective action, outlining the resistance movement’s values, claims, 

and objectives.

Recruits: Participants in resistance who were incorporated into the 

group or movement once the effort was already under way.

Redemptive Rationale: A resistance rationale that seeks dramatic change 

among some individuals or a specified community, often in the form of 

a complete transformation of the specified person(s) or their circumstances. (See Rationale.)

Reformative Rationale: A resistance rationale that seeks a specific 

change or changes to the existing structure or system on a large scale, 

often characterizing the targeted change as key to improving society as 

a whole. (See Rationale.)

Reformer: A leader who “attacks specific evils and develops a clearly 

defined program,” attempting “to change conditions in conformity with 

his own conceptions of what is good and desirable.”137 (See Leadership.)
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

73

Resistance: A form of contention or asymmetric conflict involving participants’ limited or collective mobilization of subversive and/or disruptive efforts against an authority or structure.

Resources: External support for resistance through the active provision 

of material aid. (See External Support.)

Revolutionary Rationale: A resistance rationale that seeks to overthrow 

the standing system to which participants are subject. Depending on 

the movement’s objectives, it may seek to establish a new structure in 

place of the old. This is often characterized as a transformation of society, wholly or partially. (See Rationale.)

Sanctuary: An external supporter’s provision of passive material aid in 

the form of safe havens, secure training sites, operational bases, protection from extradition, or other shields from the adversary’s actions. 

(See External Support.)

Sleeper Cell: Includes participants in resistance who are organized in a 

martial fashion but contribute on only a part-time basis peripheral to 

their normal work and lifestyle, likely dormant within a given population until called on to conduct resistance activities.

Statesman: A leader “able to formulate policies and [who] will attempt 

to carry social policy into practice” and “will propose the program 

which promises to resolve the issues and realize the objectives of which 

the people have become aware.”138 (See Leadership.)

Strategic Dilemmas: Explicit choices concerning implicit trade-offs resistance organizers and participants face regarding their rationale, organization, actions, and information operations.139

Strong-State Repression: A counterinsurgency model in which the state 

emphasizes the provision of public goods to assuage discontent but 

is nevertheless “unable or unwilling to offer accommodations to any 

part of the opposition, relying instead on broad, often indiscriminate use of force and terror to suppress organized dissent.”140 (See 

Counterinsurgency.)
74

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Structural Focus: The portion or portions of society in which the resistance movement or group seeks to enact change, as characterized in 

the rationale.

Supporter: See Auxiliary.

Tactics: The methods and actions through which participants carry out 

resistance.

Tactics, Nonviolent: Illicit actions and methods in resistance that do not 

inflict physical harm on people or property. (See Tactics.)

Tactics, Rightful Resistance: Actions and methods in resistance that 

uniquely operate “near the boundary of an authorized channel,” 

remaining legal while hinging “on locating and exploiting divisions 

among the powerful,”141 thus maintaining the disruptive and subversive 

nature of resistance as a phenomenon. (See Tactics.)

Tactics, Violent: Actions and methods in resistance that inflict physical 

harm on people or property. (See Tactics.)

Typology: “An organized system of types that breaks down an overarching concept into component dimensions and types.”142

Typology, Conceptual: “A form of typology that explicates the meaning 

of a concept by mapping out its dimensions, which correspond to the 

rows and columns in the typology. The cell types are defined by their 

position vis-à-vis the rows and columns. May also be called a descriptive 

typology.”143

Underground: Also referred to as core membership, the underground 

describes those participants integrated into at least one facet of resistance organization operations on a full-time basis.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

75

NOTES

1 David Collier, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright, “Typologies: Forming Concepts 

and Creating Categorical Variables,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, 

ed. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

2 David Collier, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor,” Political Research Quarterly 65, no. 1 

(2012): Appendix 2.

3 Erin Hahn et al., Developing a Typology of Resistance: A Structure to Understand the Phenomenon (Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2015).

4 Collier, LaPorte, and Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work,” 228.

5 Collier, LaPorte, and Seawright, “Typologies.”

6 Ibid.; and Collier, LaPorte, and Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work,” 217–232.

7 Collier, LaPorte, and Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work,” 223.

8 Ibid., Appendix 1.

9 Jeremy M. Weinstein, Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 19.

10 Hahn et al., Developing a Typology of Resistance, 17–21.

11 Robert Leonhard (ed.), Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare, 

2nd ed. (Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2013), ix.

12 Rex D. Hopper, “The Revolutionary Process: A Frame of Reference for the Study of Revolutionary Movements,” Social Forces 28, no. 3 (March 1950): 272.

13 Ibid., 275.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., 277.

16 Ibid., 278–279.

17 Ernesto Che Guevara, “The Cadres: Backbone of the Revolution,” Cuba Socialista, September 1962, published online in 2002 to the Ernesto Che Guevara Internet Archive, 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1962/09/misc/x01.htm.

18 Cheryl Pellerin, “Lynn: Cyberspace is the New Domain of Warfare,” DoD News, October 18, 2010, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61310.

19 Andrew R. Molnar et al., Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare

(Washington, DC: Special Operations Research Office, 1963), 371.

20 Ibid., 47–126.

21 Ibid., 365.

22 Ibid., 47–126.

23 US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 

Joint Publication 1-02 (JP 1-02) (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 15, 

2015), 103.

24 Ibid., 119.

25 US Department of the Army, Tactics in Counterinsurgency, Field Manual 3-24.2 (FM 3-24.2) 

(Washington, DC: Headquarters of the Department of the Army, April 2, 2009), 2–12.

26 Ibid., 4–11.
76

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

27 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., s.v. “cause,” http://www.merriam-webster.

com/dictionary/cause.

28 Sydney G. Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, rev. and 

updated 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 140–156; Patrick M. 

Regan, Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict (Ann 

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 21–24; and Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 43.

29 Daniel Byman, “Outside Support for Insurgent Movements.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 36, no. 12 (2013): 982.

30 Robert D. Benford and David A. Snow, “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An 

Overview and Assessment,” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 611–639.

31 David F. Aberle, The Peyote Religion among the Navaho, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press, 1982), 316.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 316–317.

34 Bard E. O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse, 2nd ed., rev. (Sterling, 

VA: Potomac Books, 2005); Christopher Alexander, Charles Kyle, and William S. McCallister, The Iraqi Insurgent Movement (Cambridge, MA: Commonwealth Institute, November 

14, 2003); and Shelly Shah, “Social Movements: Meaning, Causes, Types, Revolution and 

Role,” Sociology Discussion (online forum), 2013, http://www.sociologydiscussion.com/

social-movements/social-movements-meaning-causes-types-revolution-and-role/2248.

35 O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism, 20–24; and Alexander et al., Iraqi Insurgent Movement, 3.

36 O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism, 26–28; and Alexander et al., Iraqi Insurgent Movement, 3.

37 Alexander et al., Iraqi Insurgent Movement, 3.

38 O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism, 24–26.

39 Shah, “Social Movements.”

40 O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism, 28–29.

41 James M. Jasper, “A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agency in SocialMovement Choices,” Mobilization: An International Journal 9, no. 1 (February 2004): 1.

42 Ibid., 8–9.

43 Ibid., 13.

44 Bert Klandermans, “Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of 

Resource Mobilization Theory,” American Sociological Review 49, no. 5 (October 1984): 586.

45 Ibid., 583–600.

46 Nathan Bos (ed.), Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies, 2nd ed. 

(Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2013), 132.

47 Klandermans, “Mobilization and Participation,” 586.

48 Bos, Human Factors, 131–132, 134.

49 Klandermans, “Mobilization and Participation,” 586.

50 Bos, Human Factors, 132–135.

51 Klandermans, “Mobilization and Participation,” 586.

52 Bos, Human Factors, 131–132.

53 Ibid., 132–135.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

77

54 Christoph Reuter, “The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic 

State,” Spiegel Online, April 18, 2015, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamicstate-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html.

55 US Department of the Army, Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies, Field Manual 3-24 

(FM 3-24) (Washington, DC: Headquarters of the Department of the Army, May 2014), 

Glossary-2.

56 Stephen Watts et al., Countering Others’ Insurgencies: Understanding U.S. Small-Footprint 

Interventions in Local Context (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2014), 18.

57 Ibid., 19.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid., 19–20.

60 Ibid., 20.

61 Paul Staniland, “States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders,” Perspectives on Politics

10, no. 2 (June 2012): 243–264.

62 Ibid., 247.

63 Ibid., 248.

64 Ibid., 249.

65 Ibid., 250.

66 Ibid., 251.

67 Ibid., 252.

68 Weinstein, Inside Rebellion, 19.

69 Jurgen Willems and Marc Jegers, “Social Movement Structures in Relation to Goals and 

Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model,” Canadian Journal of Nonprofit & Social Economy 

Research (ANSESRJ) 3, no. 2 (Autumn 2012): 67–81.

70 Ibid., 71.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., 70.

73 Ibid.

74 Luther P. Gerlach, “The Structure of Social Movements: Environmental Activism and Its 

Opponents,” in Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy, ed. John 

Arquilla and David Ronfeldt (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), 289–310.

75 Ibid., 289–290.

76 Adapted from typologies proposed by Boaz Ganor, “Terrorist Organization Typologies 

and the Probability of a Boomerang Effect,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 31, no. 4 

(2008): 269–283.

77 Leonhard, Undergrounds, 10–12; and Molnar et al., Undergrounds, 49–51.

78 Olivier Bangerter, Regulating Armed Groups from Within: A Typology, Research Note 13 

(Geneva: Small Arms Survey, January 2012).

79 Quoted in Łukasz Sułkowski, “Typologies of Organisational Culture – Multi-dimentional 

Classifications,” Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie 14, no. 2 (2013): 180.

80 Czesław Sikorski, Kultura Organizacyjna (Warsaw: C. H. Beck, 2002), quoted in Sułkowski, 

“Typologies,” 173–182.

81 Sułkowski, “Typologies,” 181.

82 Ibid.
78

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Jasper, “Strategic Approach to Collective Action,” 7.

86 Ibid., 13.

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid., 7–8.

89 Ibid., 13.

90 Ibid.

91 Leonhard, Undergrounds, 117–129; and Bos, Human Factors, 40–42.

92 Bos, Human Factors, 40–42.

93 Ibid.

94 Kevin J. O’Brien, “Rightful Resistance,” World Politics 49, no. 1 (October 1996): 31–55.

95 Ibid., 33.

96 Roger D. Peterson, Western Intervention in the Balkans: The Strategic Use of Emotion in Conflict

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 17.

97 Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Portor Sargent, 1973), reproduced 

by the Albert Einstein Institution as “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” http://www.

aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/198_methods-1.pdf.

98 Bos, Human Factors, 280–283.

99 R. T. Naylor, “The Insurgent Economy: Black Market Operations of Guerrilla Organizations,” Crime, Law and Social Change 20, no. 1 (1993): 24–25, 28.

100 Ibid., 29.

101 Ibid., 29–30.

102 Ibid., 31–33.

103David A. Snow, Louis A. Zurcher Jr., and Sheldon Ekland-Olson, “Social Networks and 

Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment,” American 

Sociological Review 45, no. 5 (October 1980): 789–790.

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid., 790.

106 Jasper, “Strategic Approach to Collective Action,” 13.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid., 9–10.

113 Ibid., 10.

114 Ibid., 13.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

79

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

121 Hopper, “Revolutionary Process,” 278–279.

122 Ibid., 272.

123Watts et al., Countering Others’ Insurgencies, 19.

124Collier et al., “Putting Typologies to Work,” Appendix 1.

125Watts et al., Countering Others’ Insurgencies, 20.

126US Department of the Army, FM 3-24, Glossary-2.

127US Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 1-02, 103, 119.

128Watts et al., Countering Others’ Insurgencies, 19–20.

129Collier et al., “Putting Typologies to Work,” Appendix 1.

130Leonhard, Undergrounds, ix.

131Klandermans, “Mobilization and Participation,” 586.

132 Ibid.

133 Ibid.

134 Ibid.

135Weinstein, Inside Rebellion, 19.

136Hopper, “Revolutionary Process,” 275.

137 Ibid.

138 Ibid., 277.

139 Jasper, “Strategic Approach to Collective Action,” 1.

140 Ibid., 19.

141 O’Brien, “Rightful Resistance,” 33.

142Collier et al., “Putting Typologies to Work,” Appendix 2.

143 Ibid.

Conceptual Typology of Resistance

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdel Salam, El-fatih A. “A Typology of Conflicts and Conflict Resolution in the Muslim World.” Peace Research 38, no. 1 (2006): 9–28.

Aberle, David F. The Peyote Religion among the Navaho. 2nd ed. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Abrahms, Max. “Why Terrorism Does Not Work.” International Security

31, no. 2 (2006): 42–78.

Aguilar, Anthony B. “On Insurgency.” Master’s thesis, United States 

Army Command and General Staff College, 2008.

Alexander, Christopher, Charles Kyle, and William S. McCallister. 

The Iraqi Insurgent Movement. Cambridge, MA: Commonwealth 

Institute, November 14, 2003. http://www.comw.org/warreport/

fulltext/03alexander.pdf.

Arendt, Hannah. On Revolution. New York: The Viking Press, 1963.

Armitage, David. “What’s the Big Idea?” The Times Literary Supplement, September 20, 2012. http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1129685.ece.

Bangerter, Olivier. Regulating Armed Groups from Within: A Typology. 

Research Note 13. Geneva: Small Arms Survey, January 2012.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage, 2011.

Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. “Transformational Leadership 

and Organizational Culture.” Public Administration Quarterly 17, no. 1 

(Spring 1993): 112–121.

Beckett, Ian F. W. Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas 

and Their Opponents since 1750. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. “Framing Processes and Social 

Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 611–639.

———. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” 

International Social Movement Research 1, no. 1 (1998): 197–217.

Bennett, Richard R. “Presidential Address: Comparative Criminology 

and Criminal Justice Research: The State of Our Knowledge.” Justice 

Quarterly 21, no. 1 (2004): 1–21.

Berlet, Chip, and Stanislav Vysotsky. “Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 31, no. 1 (2006): 

11–48.
82

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Berman, Eli. Radical, Religious, and Violent the New Economics of Terrorism. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2009).

Blaser, Mario. “Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in Spite 

of Europe: Toward a Conversation on Political Ontology.” Current 

Anthropology 54, no. 5 (2013): 547–568.

Blattman, Christopher, and Edward Miguel. “Civil War.” Journal of Economic Literature 48, no. 1 (2010): 3–57.

Bos, Nathan, ed. Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies. 2nd ed. Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2013.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Bruce, Gary. Resistance with the People: Repression and Resistance in Eastern 

Germany, 1945–1955. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2003.

Burgin, Martin. Insurgency and Counterinsurgency as Historiographical 

Subjects: A Selected Bibliography. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: International Commission of Military History, 2010. http://www.icmh.

info/assets/userFiles/Ablage/Texte/Buergin,%20Insurgency%20

and%20COIN.pdf.

Byman, Daniel. “Outside Support for Insurgent Movements.” Studies in 

Conflict & Terrorism 36, no. 12 (2013): 981–1004.

———. Understanding Proto-Insurgencies. RAND Counterinsurgency 

Study Paper 3. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007.

Campomanes, Oscar V. “Images of Filipino Racialization in the Anthropological Laboratories of the American Empire: The Case of Daniel Folkmar.” PMLA 123, no. 5 (2008): 1692–1699.

Caygill, Howard. On Resistance: A Philosophy of Defiance. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.

Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs. Low-Intensity Conflict: Support for 

Democratic Resistance Movements—Report on a Colloquium Co-Sponsored 

by the Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, and 

the United States Army Command and General Staff College, 7 January 

1988. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute; US Department 

of State, 1988.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

83

Chasdi, Richard J. “Middle East Terrorism 1968–1993: An Empirical 

Analysis of Terrorist Group-Type Behavior.” The Journal of Conflict 

Studies 17, no. 2 (1997): 1–4.

Chenoweth, Erica, and Orion A. Lewis. “Unpacking Nonviolent Campaigns: Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research

50, no. 3 (2013): 415–423.

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Translated and edited by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Clemhout, Simone. “Typology of Nativistic Movements.” Man 64 

(January–February 1964): 14–15.

Collier, David, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright. “Putting Typologies 

to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor.” 

Political Research Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2012): 217–232.

———. “Typologies: Forming Concepts and Creating Categorical 

Variables.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited 

by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Collier, Paul. Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for 

Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, April 2006.

Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffle. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” 

Oxford Economic Papers 56 (2004): 563–595.

Collier, Paul, and Nicholas Sambanis, eds. Understanding Civil War, Volume 1: Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2005.

Connable, Ben, and Martin C. Libicki. How Insurgencies End. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010.

Dassel, Kurt. “Civilians, Soldiers, and Strife: Domestic Sources of International Aggression.” International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 107–140.

Dassel, Kurt, and Eric Reinhardt. “Domestic Strife and the Initiation of 

Violence at Home and Abroad.” American Journal of Political Science

43, no. 1 (1999): 56–85.

Davis, Gerald F., Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald, 

eds. Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
84

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Davis, Paul K., and Kim Cragin (ed.), Darcy Noricks, Todd C. Helmus, 

Christopher Paul, Claude Berrebi, Brian A. Jackson, Gaga Gvineria, 

Michael Egner, and Benjamin Bahney. Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces Together. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009.

Elman, Colin. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of 

International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 2 (2005): 

293–326.

———. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Analysis.” Memo, Arizona State University, 2005.

Fearon, James D. “Iraq’s Civil War.” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007. 

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62443/james-d-fearon/

iraqs-civil-war.

———. “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last so Much Longer Than Others?” 

Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, July 12, 2002. 

http://web.stanford.edu/group/ethnic/workingpapers/dur3.pdf.

Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace 

Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167–191.

Gamson, William, A. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University 

Press, 1992.

Gann, Lewis H. Guerrillas in History. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution 

Press, 1971.

Ganor, Boaz. “Terrorist Organization Typologies and the Probability of 

a Boomerang Effect.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31, no. 4 (2008): 

269–283.

Gerlach, Luther P. “The Structure of Social Movements: Environmental Activism and Its Opponents.” In Networks and Netwars: The Future 

of Terror, Crime, and Militancy, edited by John Arquilla and David 

Ronfeldt, 289–310. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001.

Geyer, Michael. “Resistance as an Ongoing Project: Visions of Order, 

Obligations to Strangers, Struggles for Civil Society.” Journal of Modern History 64, suppl. (1992): S217–S241.

Glenn, Russell W. Counterinsurgency in a Test Tube: Analyzing the Success 

of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI). Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

85

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and 

Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 2012.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon, 1974.

Gottlieb, Roger S. “The Concept of Resistance: Jewish Resistance during the Holocaust.” Social Theory and Practice 9, no. 1 (1983): 31–49.

Granovetter, Mark. “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 6 (1978): 1420–1443.

Gros, Jean-Germain. “Towards a Taxonomy of Failed States in the New 

World Order: Decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti.” Third 

World Quarterly 17, no. 3 (1996): 455–471.

Grossman, Herschell I. “A General Equilibrium Model of Insurrections.” The American Economic Review 81, no. 4 (1991): 912–921.

Guevara, Ernesto Che. “The Cadres: Backbone of the Revolution.” Cuba 

Socialista, September 1962. Published online in 2002 to the Ernesto 

Che Guevara Internet Archive, https://www.marxists.org/archive/

guevara/1962/09/misc/x01.htm.

Gurr, Ted Robert. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 1970.

Hahn, Erin, Jonathon Cosgrove, William Lauber, Guillermo Pinczuk, 

and David Danelo. Developing a Typology of Resistance: A Structure to 

Understand the Phenomenon. Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2015.

Hahn, Erin, and William Lauber. Legal Implications of the Status of Persons 

in Resistance. Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2014.

Heemsbergen, Luke, and Asaf Siniver. “New Routes to Power: Towards 

a Typology of Power Mediation.” Review of International Studies 37, 

no. 3 (2011): 1169–1190.

Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research. Conflict Barometer 2010: 19th Annual Conflict Analysis. Heidelberg: Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, 2010. http://hiik.de/en/

konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2010.pdf.

———. Conflict Barometer 2013. Heidelberg: Heidelberg Institute for 

International Conflict Research, 2014. http://hiik.de/de/downloads/data/downloads_2013/ConflictBarometer2013.pdf.
86

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Hironaka, Ann. Neverending Wars: The International Community, Weak 

States, and the Perpetuation of Civil War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 2005.

Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 

1998.

Hollander, Jocelyn A., and Rachel L. Einwohner. “Conceptualizing 

Resistance.” Sociological Forum 19, no. 4 (2004): 533–554.

Hopper, Rex D. “The Revolutionary Process: A Frame of Reference 

for the Study of Revolutionary Movements.” Social Forces 28, no. 3 

(March 1950): 270–279.

Huang, Hua-Lin. “Dragon Brothers and Tiger Sisters: A Conceptual 

Typology of Counter-Cultural Actors and Activities of American 

Chinatowns, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, 1912–2004.” Crime, 

Law & Social Change 45, no. 1 (2006): 71–91.

Huntington, S. P. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: 

Yale University Press, 1968.

Jackson, Richard, and Helen Dexter. “The Social Construction of 

Organised Political Violence: An Analytical Framework.” Civil Wars

16, no. 1 (2014): 1–23.

Jasper, James M. “A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking 

for Agency in Social-Movement Choices.” Mobilization: An International Journal 9, no. 1 (February 2004): 1–16.

Joes, Anthony James. Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2004.

Johnston, Hank. “A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse 

to Cognitive Schemata.” In Social Movements and Culture, edited by 

Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, 339–380. London: Routledge, 2003.

Judd, Nick. “Upgrading Civil Resistance? Gene Sharp’s ‘Methods,’ Rewritten for 2012.” TechPresident (blog), May 8, 2012. 

http://techpresident.com/news/22159/upg rading- civ il 

-resistance-gene-sharps-methods-rewritten-2012.

Jütersonke, Oliver, Keith Krause, and Robert Muggah. “Guns in the 

City: Urban Landscapes of Armed Violence.” In Small Arms Survey 

2007: Guns and the City, edited by Eric G. Berman, Keith Krause, 

Emile LeBrun, and Glenn McDonald, 161–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

87

Kalyvas, Stathis N. “The Ontology of ‘Political Violence’: Action and 

Identity in Civil Wars.” Perspectives in Politics 1, no. 3 (2003): 475–494.

Kalyvas, Stathis N., and Matthew Adam Kocher. “Ethnic Cleavages and 

Irregular War: Iraq and Vietnam.” Politics & Society 35, no. 2 (2007): 

183–223.

Klandermans, Bert. “Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory.” American Sociological Review 49, no. 5 (October 1984): 583–600.

Krause, Lincoln B. “Playing for the Breaks: Insurgent Mistakes.” Parameters 39, no. 3 (2009): 49–64.

Kuran, Timur. “Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East 

European Revolution of 1989.” World Politics 44, no. 1 (1991): 7–48.

———. “Sparks and Prairie Fires: A Theory of Unanticipated Political 

Revolution.” Public Choice 61, no. 1 (1989): 41–74.

Larson, Eric V., Derek Eaton, Brian Nichiporuk, and Thomas S. Szayna. 

Assessing Irregular Warfare: A Framework for Intelligence Analysis. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, January 2009.

Leonhard, Robert, ed. Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and 

Resistance Warfare. 2nd ed. Fort Bragg, NC: United States Army Special Operations Command, 2013.

Leslie, Glaister. Confronting the Don: The Political Economy of Gang Violence 

in Jamaica. Occasional Paper 26. Geneva, Small Arms Survey, 2010.

Lofland, John. “Charting Degrees of Movement Culture: Tasks of the 

Cultural Cartographer.” In Social Movements and Culture, edited by 

Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, 294–338. London: Routledge, 2003.

Lund, Daulatram B. “Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction.” 

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 3, no. 3 (2003): 219–236.

Mabry, Tristan James. “Language and Conflict.” International Political 

Science Review 32, no. 2 (2011): 189–207.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. Art of War. Translated and edited by Christopher 

Lynch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Machlis, Gary E., and Thor Hanson. “Warfare Ecology.” BioScience 58, 

no. 8 (2008): 729–736.

Mampilly, Zachariah Cherian. Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and 

Civilian Life during War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011.
88

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Marrus, Michael R. “Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust.” Journal of Contemporary History 30, no. 1 (1995): 83–110.

Marshall, Monty G., and Benjamin R. Cole. Global Report 2014: Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility. Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic 

Peace, 2014.

Marshall, Monty G., Ted Robert Gurr, and Barbara Harff. PITF Problem 

Set Codebook. Arlington, VA: Center for Global Policy, April 2009. 

http://globalpolicy.gmu.edu/political-instability-task-force-home/

pitf-problem-set-codebook/.

Martin, Brian. “Online Onslaught: Internet-Based Methods for Attacking and Defending Citizens’ Organisations.” First Monday 17, 

no.  12 (2012). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/

view/4032/3379.

McAdam, Doug. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 

1930–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. “Resource Mobilization and 

Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology

82, no. 6 (1977): 1212–1241.

McCormick, Gordon H., and Frank Giordano. “Things Come Together: 

Symbolic Violence and Guerrilla Mobilisation.” Third World Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2007): 295–320.

McCormick, Gordon H., Steven B. Horton, and Lauren A. Harrison. 

“Things Fall Apart: The Endgame Dynamics of Internal Wars.” 

Third World Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2007): 321–367.

Merari, Ariel. “A Classification of Terrorist Groups.” Terrorism: An International Journal 1, no. 3/4 (1978): 331–346.

———. “Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency.” Terrorism and Political 

Violence 5, no. 4 (1993): 213–251.

Miller, Benjamin, and Uri Resnick. “Conflict in the Balkans (1830–

1913): Combining Levels of Analysis.” International Politics 40, no. 3 

(2003): 365–407.

Molnar, Andrew R., William A. Lybrand, Lorna Hahn, James L. Kirkman, and Peter B. Riddleberger. Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare. Washington, DC: Special Operations 

Research Office, 1963.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

89

Naylor, R. T., “The Insurgent Economy: Black Market Operations of 

Guerrilla Organizations.” Crime, Law and Social Change 20, no. 1 

(1993): 13–51.

Negri, Antonio. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State. 

Translated by Maurizia Boscagli. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota Press, 2009.

Noakes, Lindsey. “Violent Divisions: Explaining Violence through Borders.” Master’s thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2014.

O’Brien, Kevin J. “Rightful Resistance.” World Politics 49, no. 1 (1996): 

31–55.

Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory 

of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Olsson, Christian. “ ‘Legitimate Violence’ in the Prose of Counterinsurgency: An Impossible Necessity?” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political

38, no. 2 (2013): 1–17.

O’Neill, Bard E. Insurgency & Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse. 

2nd ed., rev. Sterling: Potomac Books, 2005.

———. “Towards a Typology of Political Terrorism: The Palestinian Resistance Movement.” Journal of International Affairs 32, no. 1 

(1978): 17–42.

Pantucci, Raffaello. Developments in Radicalisation and Political Violence: 

A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists. London: The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, March 2011.

Paret, Peter, and John W. Shy. Guerrillas in the 1960’s. Princeton Studies 

in World Politics; no. 1. New York: Praeger, 1962.

Paul, Christopher, Agnes Gereben Schaefer, and Colin P. Clarke. The 

Challenge of Violent Drug-Trafficking Organizations: An Assessment of 

Mexican Security Based on Existing RAND Research on Urban Unrest, 

Insurgency, and Defense-Sector Reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2011.

Paul, Christopher, Colin P. Clarke, and Chad C. Serena. Mexico Is Not 

Colombia: Alternative Historical Analogies for Responding to the Challenge 

of Violent Drug-Trafficking Organizations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation, 2014.
90

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Pellerin, Cheryl. “Lynn: Cyberspace is the New Domain of Warfare.” 

DoD News, October 18, 2010. http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61310.

Perry, Walter L., and John Gordon. Analytic Support to Intelligence in 

Counterinsurgencies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

Petersen, Roger D. Resistance and Rebellion Lessons from Eastern Europe. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

———. Western Intervention in the Balkans: The Strategic Use of Emotion in 

Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Peukert, Detlev. “Working-Class Resistance: Problems and Options.” In 

Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance to the Third Reich, 

edited by David Clay Large, 35–48. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature. New York: Viking, 2011.

Poland, James M. Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and 

Responses. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.

Polletta, Francesca. “ ‘Free Spaces’ in Collective Action.” Theory and Society 28 (1999): 1–38.

Porta, Donatella della. “Organizational Structures and Visions of 

Democracy in the Global Justice Movement: An Introduction.” 

In Democracy in Social Movements, edited by Donatella della Porta, 

16–43. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Price, David H. “Counterinsurgency and the M-VICO System: Human 

Relations Area Files and Anthropology’s Dual-Use Legacy.” Anthropology Today 28, no. 1 (2012): 16–20.

Ramsbotham, Oliver. “The Analysis of Protracted Social Conflict: 

A Tribute to Edward Azar.” Review of International Studies 31, no. 1 

(2005): 109–126.

Record, Jeffrey. Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. Washington, DC: 

Potomac Books, 2007.

Regan, Patrick M. Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in 

Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 

2000.

Reuter, Christoph. “The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State.” Spiegel Online, April 18, 2015. http://www.

spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structureof-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

91

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday 

Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

Schmid, Alex P. “Statistics on Terrorism: The Challenge of Measuring 

Trends in Global Terrorism.” Forum on Crime and Society 4, nos. 1 and 

2 (2004): 49–69.

Scobell, Andrew, and Brad Hammitt. “Goons, Gunmen, and Gendarmerie: Toward a Reconceptualization of Paramilitary Formations.” 

Journal of Political and Military Sociology 26, no. 2 (1998): 213–227.

Segal, David R., and Molly Clever. “The Sociology of War.” In Oxford 

Bibliographies in Sociology. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/

view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0161.

xml.

Shah, Shelly. “Social Movements: Meaning, Causes, Types, Revolution and Role,” Sociology Discussion (online forum), 2013. 

http://w w w.sociolog ydiscussion.com/social-movements/

social-movements-meaning-causes-types-revolution-and-role/2248.

Shapiro, Jacob N. The Terrorist’s Dilemma Managing Violent Covert Organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Sharp, Gene. “The Meanings of Non-Violence: A Typology (Revised).” 

The Journal of Conflict Resolution 3, no. 1 (1959): 41–66.

———. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Portor Sargent, 1973.

Shultz, Richard H. “Conceptualizing Political Terrorism: A Typology.” 

Journal of International Affairs 32, no. 1 (1978): 7–15.

———. Global Insurgency Strategy and the Salafi Jihad Movement. INSS 

Occasional Paper 66. USAF Academy, CO: US Air Force Academy, 

April 2008.

Shy, John, and Thomas W. Collier, “Revolutionary War.” In Makers of 

Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited by Peter 

Paret, Gordon Alexander Craig, and Felix Gilbert. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 1986.

Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher Jr., and Sheldon Ekland-Olson. “Social 

Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to 

Differential Recruitment.” American Sociological Review 45, no. 5 

(October 1980): 787–801.

Snow, David A., and Remy Cross. “Radicalism within the Context of 

Social Movements: Processes and Types.” Journal of Strategic Security

4, no. 4 (2011): 115–130.
92

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Sobek, David. “Rallying around the Podesta: Testing Diversionary Theory across Time.” Journal of Peace Research 44, no. 1 (2007): 29–45.

Staniland, Paul. Networks of Rebellion: Explaining Insurgent Cohesion and 

Collapse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014.

———. “Organizing Insurgency: Networks, Resources, and Rebellion 

in South Asia.” International Security 37, no. 1 (2012): 142–177.

———. “States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders.” Perspectives 

on Politics 10, no. 2 (June 2012): 243–264.

Sułkowski, Łukasz. “Typologies of organisational culture—multidimentional classifications.” Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie 14, no. 2 

(2013): 173–182.

Sutton, Jonathan, Charles R. Butcher, and Isak Svensson. “Explaining 

Political Jiu-jitsu: Institution-Building and the Outcomes of Regime 

Violence against Unarmed Protests.” Journal of Peace Research 51, 

no. 5 (2014): 559–573.

Symmons-Symonolewicz, Konstantin. “Nationalist Movements: An 

Attempt at a Comparative Typology.” Comparative Studies in Society 

and History 7, no. 2 (1965): 221–230.

Tarrow, Sydney G. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious 

Politics. Rev. and updated 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, 2011.

Tilly, Charles. Contentious Performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

———. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press, 1995.

Treverton, Gregory F., and Seth G. Jones. Measuring National Power. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2005.

US Department of the Army. Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies. 

Field Manual 3-24 (FM 3-24). Washington, DC: Headquarters of the 

Department of the Army, May 2014.

US Department of the Army. Tactics in Counterinsurgency. Field Manual 

3-24.2( FM 3-24.2). Washington, DC: Headquarters of the Department of the Army, April 2, 2009.

US Government. Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency. Washington, DC: 

US Government, 2012.
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

93

US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and 

Associated Terms. Joint Publication 1-02 (JP 1-02). Washington, DC: 

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 15, 2015.

Voorhoeve, Joris. From War to the Rule of Law: Peace Building after Violent 

Conflicts. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 2007.

Walder, Andrew G. “Political Sociology and Social Movements.” Annual 

Review of Sociology 35 (2009): 393–412.

Watts, Stephen, Jason H. Campbell, Patrick B. Johnston, Sameer Lalwani, and Sarah H. Bana. Countering Others’ Insurgencies: Understanding U.S. Small-Footprint Interventions in Local Context. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 2014.

Weber, Max. “The Types of Legitimate Domination.” In Economy and 

Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth 

and Claus Wittich, 212–216. Berkeley: University of California Press, 

1978.

Weede, Erich. “On Political Violence and Its Avoidance.” Acta Politica

39, no. 2 (July 2004): 152–178.

Weininger, Elliot B. “Pierre Bourdieu on Social Class and Symbolic Violence.” In Alternative Foundations of Class Analysis, edited by Erik Olin 

Wright, 116–166. Madison, WI: Social Science Computing Cooperative, University of Wisconsin Madison, 2002.

Weinstein, Jeremy M. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Willems, Jurgen, and Marc Jegers. “Social Movement Structures in 

Relation to Goals and Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model.” 

Canadian Journal of Nonprofit & Social Economy Research (ANSESRJ) 3, 

no. 2 (2012): 67–81.

Young, Aaron M. “Insurgency, Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism: Conflict and its Application for the Future.” Global Security Studies 2, 

no. 4 (2011): 65–76.

Yu, Zhiyuan, and Dingxin Zhao. “Differential Participation and the 

Nature of a Movement: A Study of the 1999 Anti-U.S. Beijing Student Demonstrations.” Social Forces 84, no. 3 (2006): 1755–1777.

Conceptual Typology of Resistance

95

INDEX

A

Aberle, David F., 20

Accommodation, informal, 31, 71

Action dilemmas, 62, 64–65

Actions, 50–67

asymmetric, 7

as attribute of resistance, 6

attribution of, 62–63

collective, 7, 19

in cyberspace, 12

defined, 69

fund-raising, 60–62

strategic characteristics of, 62–67

tactics, 51–60

Active external support, 17

Actors, 7–17

as attribute of resistance, 6

defined, 69

direct, 7–8, 69

external support, 16–17

general population, 14–16

indirect or potential, 7, 8, 69

leadership, 9–10

other resistance organizations, 16

participants, 11–14

violent, 11

Adaptation, cultures of, 47

Administrator-executive, 10, 69

Advocacy, 17

Agitators, 9, 69

Alliances of convenience, 40

Alterative movements, 21, 23

Alterative rationale, 23, 69

Anarchist revolutions, 21

Apocalyptic-utopian revolutions, 21–22

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent 

Strategies (ARIS) project, 1, 2, 

26

Asymmetric actions, 7

Attribute(s)

defined, 69

of resistance, 5–6

Attribution of actions, 62–63

Authority, 43–44

Autonomous groups, 42–43

Auxiliary

defined, 69

functional roles of, 13

participation level of, 11

B

Band-of-brothers dilemma, 48

Bangerter, Olivier, 45

Basket dilemma, 65

Benford, Robert D., 19

Bombing, 53

Bridge-builders dilemma, 66

Byman, Daniel, 18

C

Causes, 17–25

as attribute of resistance, 6

defined, 18, 70

motivations, 18, 24–25

rationale, 17–24

Cells

communication between, 49–50

highly secured, 50

secured, 50
96

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

separation between, 49–50

sleeper, 11, 13–14, 73

Cells-in-series, 50

Centralized organizational 

relationships, 48

Characteristic(s)

defined, 70

of environment, 25–29

of leadership, 10

of organization, 40–41

of participants, 14

of the state, 27

strategic, of actions, 62–67

Charters, 46

Clandestine operations, 62–63

Clashing monopolies, 33

Classic counterinsurgency, 31, 70

Codes of conduct, 45

Cohesive movements/organizations, 40

Collective actions, 7, 19

Collective motives, 24, 71

Collier, David, 3

Collusion, 32

Commercialist movements, 23

Communication(s), 28

between cells, 49–50

for outreach and engagement, 

63–64

Competing resistance organizations, 

16

Concept

defined, 70

of replication, 38, 70

Conceptual typology(-ies)

in academic research, 2

basic template for, 3–4

defined, 2, 74

Conceptual typology of resistance, 1–5

described, 2

methodological development of, 3

template for, 3–4

as typological kind hierarchy, 1

Conciliar governance, 43–44

Conflicting messages, 41–42

Consensual governance, 43–44

Containment, 31, 70

Controlled messages, 41

Cooperating resistance organizations, 

16

Cooperation

absence of, 33

cultures of, 47–48

Coordinated messages, 42

Core membership (underground), 

12–13

nonmartial roles of, 12–13

participation level of, 11

violent and subversive functions of, 

13

Countering Others’ Insurgencies (Watts), 

30

Counterinsurgency, 30–31

classic, 31, 70

containment, 31

defined, 70

informal accommodation, 31

strong-state repression, 31

Counterresistance movements, 16

Crime, nonlethal, 53

Cultural dissonance, 48

Cultural innovation dilemma, 66

Culture, organizational, 46–48

Cyber capabilities, 12
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

97

D

Decentralized governance, 43–44

Democratic governance, 43–44

Demonstrations, 53

Dependent variable, environment as, 

34–35

Developing a Typology of Resistance, 6

Direct actors, 7–8, 69

Direct network engagement, 64

Direct or indirect moves dilemma, 65

Direct public engagement, 64

Dirty hands dilemma, 65

Disciplinary codes, 46

Discipline, 45–46

Displaced groups/movements, 41

Domestic groups/movements, 40–41

Domestic leaders, 10

Dominance, cultures of, 47, 48

E

Economic environment, 28

Education, level of, 28

Egalitarian revolutions, 21

Ekland-Olson, Sheldon, 63

Elite front groups, 44–45

Elite groups, 44–45

Engagement, 63–64

Engagement dilemma, 65

Environment, 25–35

as attribute of resistance, 6

defined, 70

as dependent variable, 34–35

as independent variable, 33–34

notable characteristics and factors 

of, 25–29

and organizational culture, 48

security, 49–50

typologically relevant factors in, 

30–33

Exclusive groups, 44–45

Exposed operations, 62–63

Expressivist movements, 23

Extension dilemma, 48–49

External support, 7, 16–17, 70

F

Face to face engagement, 64

The familiar and the new dilemma, 65

Fighters, 11, 13, 70

Foreign groups/movements, 41

Foreign leaders, 10

Formal leaders, 10

Formal organizational relationships, 

38, 48

Form or content dilemma, 66

Founding charters, 46

Founding members, 14, 71

Fragmented distribution of control, 32

Functional cells, separation between, 

49–50

Functional leader types, 10

Fundamentalist movements, 22

Fund-raising, 60–62

G

General population (as actor), 7, 

14–16, 28

Geography, 29

Gerlach, Luther P., 39

Governance

discipline and rules, 45–46

internal, of resistance 

organizations, 45–50

organizational culture, 46–48

security environment, 49–50
98

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

strategic dilemmas, 48–49

in theory of organization, 43–44

Guerrilla disorder, 33

Guerrillas, participation level of, 11

H

Hierarchical organizational 

relationships, 37, 48

Highly secured cells, 50

Hine, Virginia H., 39

Hoffman, Bruce, 18

Hopper, Rex D., 9

Human Factors Considerations of 

Undergrounds in Insurgencies, 24

I

Ideational space, resistance in, 6–7

Ignored operations, 62–63

Illegal tactics, 51–52

Inclusive groups, 44–45

Independent variable, environment as, 

33–34

Indirect actors, 7, 8, 69

Inevitability dilemma, 23–24

Informal accommodation, 31, 71

Informal leaders, 10

Information dilemmas, 62, 64–67

Information technology, 12

Insurgency & Terrorism (O’Neill), 21

“The Insurgent Economy” (Naylor), 60

Insurgents

cause needed by, 18

participation level of, 11

Intelligence activities, 12

Intermediate network engagement, 64

Intermediate public engagement, 64

Internal governance, 45–50

Internal organization documents, 

45–46

Intimidation, 53

Islamic State, 29

J

Jasper, James M., 23

Jegers, Marc, 37

K

Kind hierarchy(-ies)

actions, 51

actors, 8

causes, 18

conceptual typology of resistance 

as, 1

defined, 71

environment relative to, 26

organization, 36

template for, 3–4

Klandermans, Bert, 24

Kultura Organizacyjna (Sikorski), 46

L

LaPorte, Jody, 3

Law, 27–28

Leadership, 9–10

characteristics of, 10

defined, 71

types of, 9–10

unity of message from, 41–42

Leadership distance dilemma, 49

Leading role groups, 42–43

Legal contexts, 27–28

Legal tactics, 51–52

Lethal violent tactics, 53

Lie-in-wait strategy, 65

Loyalty checks, 49
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

99

M

Martial roles (for participants), 11

Mass base; See General population

Mass front organization, 44–45

Mass line structure, 43–44

Mass organization, 44–45

Material external support, 17

Media dilemma, 66

Mediated engagement, 64

Membership

core (underground), 12–13, 74

screening new members, 49

strategies for, 44–45

Messaging, 41–42, 66–67

Migratory movements, 23

Militarized political movements, 52

Military manuals, 45

“Mobilization and Participation” 

(Klandermans), 24

Mobs, 53

Money’s curse dilemma, 48

Moral support, 17, 71

Motivations, 18, 24–25

defined, 71

of individual participants, 14

Motive(s)

collective, 24, 71

reward, 24–25, 71

social, 24, 71

Movements; See also Resistance 

movements

alterative, 21, 23

counterresistance, 16

defined, 71

redemptive, 21, 22

reformative, 21, 22

revolutionary, 21–22

N

Narrative frames, 19

Naylor, R. T., 60

Networked dynamics, 40

Network(s), 37n.f

engagement with, 64

protected, 50

unprotected, 50

Noninternational armed conflict (civil 

war), 52

Nonlethal violent tactics, 53

Nonmartial roles (for participants), 11, 

12

Nonmaterial external support, 17

Nonviolent tactics, 51–52

defined, 74

types of, 53–60

O

Oaths, 45, 49

O’Brien, Kevin J., 52

O’Neill, Bard E., 21

Open forums, 42

Operation orders, 45

Organization, 35–50

as attribute of resistance, 6

characteristics of, 40–41

defined, 72

dynamics of, 39–40

internal governance, 45–50

membership strategies, 44–45

messaging of, 41–42

and organizational position in 

overall movements, 42–43

resistance movements, 35, 37–38

specific resistance organizations, 

38–39

theory of, 43–44
100

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

Organizational culture, 46–48

Organization dilemma, 48

Other resistance organizations, 7, 16

Outreach, 63–64

The Oxford Handbook of Political 

Methodology, 4

P

Parallel cells, 50

Paramilitaries, participation level of, 

11

Parasitical fund-raising, 60–62

Participants, 11–14

characteristics of, 14

core membership and 

underground, 12–13

defined, 72

fighters, 13

level of participation, 11

sleeper cells, 13–14

supporters, 13

Passive external support, 17

Penal codes, 46

The Peyote Religion among the Navaho

(Aberle), 20

Phenomenon, 1, 2, 4, 72

Plans versus opportunity dilemma, 65

Pluralist revolutions, 21

Political secessionist movements, 22

Political support, 17, 72

The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Sharp), 

53

Polycentric dynamics, 40

Potential actors; See Indirect actors

Predatory fund-raising, 60–62

Preservationist movements, 22

Prophet, 9, 72

Protected network, 50

Psychological operations, 12

Public operations, 62–63

“Putting Typologies to Work” (Collier, 

LaPorte, and Seawright), 3

R

Radical-flank dilemma, 66

Range of popular support, 15–16

Rationale(s), 17–24

alterative, 69

defined, 72

redemptive, 72

reformative, 72

for resistance movements, 20–23

revolutionary, 73

strategic dilemmas of, 23–24

structural focus of, 19–20

Reaching-out or reaching-in dilemma, 

66

Recruits, 14, 72

Redemptive movements, 21, 22

Redemptive rationale, 22, 72

Reformative movements, 21, 22

Reformative rationale, 22, 72

Reformers, 9, 72

Reformist movements, 22

Regan, Patrick, 18

Regulating Armed Groups from Within

(Bangerter), 45

Relationships, resistance movements 

and, 29

Replication, concept of, 38, 70

Research on resistance, 2, 33–35

Resistance, 2; See also Conceptual 

typology of resistance

actions of, 50–67

actors in, 7–17

attributes of, 5–6
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

101

causes of, 17–25

defined, 1, 7, 73

environment for, 25–35

in ideational space, 6–7

organization of, 35–50

study of, 2

Resistance movements, 35, 37–38

characteristics of, 40–41

defined, 35

dynamics of, 39–40

nonpolitical, 7

organizational position in, 42–43

rationales for, 20–23

Resistance organizations, 38–39

characteristics of, 40–41

defined, 35

dynamics of, 39–40

internal governance of, 45–50

membership strategies of, 44–45

movement structures between, 

37–38

other, 7, 16

position in overall movements, 

42–43

Resources

defined, 73

as material support, 17

Restorationist movements, 22

Revolutionary movements, 21–22

“The Revolutionary Process” (Hopper), 

9

Revolutionary rationale, 21–22, 73

Reward motive, 24–25, 71

Rightful resistance, 53–60

“Rightful Resistance” (O’Brien), 52

Rightful resistance tactics, 52

defined, 74

types of, 53–60

Riots, 53

Rivalry, cultures of, 47

Rules, 45–46

S

Sanctuary, 17, 73

Seawright, Jason, 3

Secessionist movements, 22

Secured cells, 50

Security environment, 48–50

Segmentary movements/organizations, 

40

Segmented distribution of control, 32

Segregating audiences dilemma, 66–67

Separatist movements, 22

Sexual violence, 53

Shared sovereignty, 32

Sharp, Gene, 53

Shifting goals dilemma, 23

Sikorski, Czeslaw, 46

Sleeper cell(s), 13–14

defined, 73

participation level of, 11

Snow, David A., 19, 63

Social motives, 24, 71

Social structures, 27

Spheres of influence, 32–33

SPIN, 39

Standing orders, 45

Staniland, Paul, 32

State

characteristics of, 27

counterinsurgency models, 30–31

wartime political orders, 32–33

“States, Insurgents, and Wartime 

Political Orders” (Staniland), 32

Statesmen, 9–10, 73
102

Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies

“A Strategic Approach to Collective 

Action” (Jasper), 23

Strategic dilemmas

for actions and information 

operations, 62, 64–67

defined, 73

organizational, 48–49

pertaining to rational, 23–24

Strategies

membership, 44–45

strategic characteristics of actions, 

62–67

Strong-state repression, 31, 73

Structural focus, 3, 17, 19–20, 74

Subordinate groups, 42–43

Sulkowski, Lukasz, 46

Support

external, 7, 16–17, 70

from general population, 14–16

moral, 17, 71

political, 17, 72

resources, 17

sanctuary, 17

Supporters, 13

external, 7

participation level of, 11

Suppressed operations, 62–63

Symbiotic fund-raising, 60–62

T

Tacit coexistence, 32

Tactics, 51–60

defined, 74

illegal, 51–52

legal, 51–52

nonviolent, 51–60, 74

rightful resistance, 52–60, 74

violent, 51–53, 74

Tactics in Counterinsurgency, 15

Technologies, 28

Theory of organization, 43–44

Time, resistance movements and, 29

Traditionalist revolutions, 21

Transnational groups/movements, 40

Typological kind hierarchy; See also

Kind hierarchy(-ies)

conceptual typology of resistance 

as, 1

template for, 3–4

“Typologies of organisational 

culture–multi-dimensional 

classifications” (Sulkowski), 46

Typology(-ies)

conceptual, 74 (See also Conceptual 

typology(-ies))

of counterinsurgency models, 

30–31

defined, 74

of resistance attributes, 6

U

Underground, 12; See also Core 

membership

Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, 

and Resistance Warfare (ARIS), 44

Unity of message, 41–42

Unprotected network, 50

Unrelated resistance organizations, 16

V

Vanguardism, 43–44

Variable(s)

causal relationships between, 19

environment as, 33–35

Victim or hero dilemma, 66

Villain or clown dilemma, 66

Violence, 51
Conceptual Typology of Resistance

103

Violent actors, participation level of, 11

Violent tactics, 51–53

defined, 74

lethal, 53

nonlethal, 53

Voluntary fund-raising, 61–62

W

Wartime political orders, 32–33

Watts, Stephen, 30

Willems, Jurgen, 37

Z

Zurcher, Louis A., Jr., 63