- Convenors:
-
Tatiana Vagramenko
(University College Cork)
Olga Zaitseva-Herz (University of Alberta)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel (open)
- Mode:
- Face-to-face part of the conference
- Theme:
- Sociology & Social Issues
- Location:
- B14
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 19 November, -
Time zone: America/New_York
Description
In contexts of war or authoritarian rule, resistance is often equated with political confrontation or armed struggle. Yet the terrain of resistance extends far beyond the battlefield, encompassing subtle, embodied, and culturally embedded acts of dissent expressed through art, ritual, faith, and everyday practices. Music, literature, visual culture, religious beliefs, as well as silence itself become powerful tools—not only for protest and survival, but also for aggression and ideological indoctrination. Aesthetic forms can comfort or galvanize, subvert or seduce, pacify or, on the contrary, provoke and become alternative forms of violence.
This panel invites case studies from Eastern Europe and beyond that explore the spectrum of cultural and religious expressions, including nonviolent resistance and pacifist strategies, in contexts of war and authoritarian rule. We are interested in how resistance is enacted through "other means": the aesthetics and poetics of protest and survival, the politics of silence, as well as the limits and ethical challenges of nonviolence and pacifism when war comes to one’s doorstep.
Drawing inspiration from James Scott’s concept of “weapons of the weak” and expanding it to include “weapons of affect,” we explore whether these forms of resistance—particularly when enacted under conditions of armed aggression, occupation, or authoritarianism—should be seen as reactive survival strategies or as radical, resilient assertions of agency and power. How do art and other forms of cultural production become a weapon? When does culture cross the line from subversion into complicity?
We invite submissions that explore:
•Nonviolent communities in wartime contexts;
•The role of art, literature, performance, and body politics as nonviolent resistance and/or as forms of violence;
•The weaponization of art during wartime, in regime propaganda, or within nationalist movements;
•Nonviolent resistance and its reception under occupation, censorship, or digital surveillance;
•Faith-based, ritualized and pacifist acts of resistance as moral and political strategies;
•Gendered, affective, and embodied cultural expressions in armed contexts;
•The boundaries between resistance, endurance, and complicity: where lies the line between soft power (Nyе) and hard power?
•The ambiguities of cultural resistance and pacifism in times of war: how nonviolence is performed, imagined, and at times weaponised?
By bringing together case studies from conflict zones, contested regions, authoritarian contexts, this panel rethinks nonviolent resistance as both an intimate, affective survival strategy and a strategic political weapon—while critically addressing its limits and complexities. Our aim is to foster an interdisciplinary dialogue bridging anthropology, history, political theory, ethnomusicology, media studies, art practice.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Wednesday 19 November, 2025, -Abstract
Amina Eldarova (1921–2008), Azerbaijan’s first ethnomusicologist, spent the 1930s–1970s traveling to villages to work with rural ashiq bards even as rapid Soviet modernization threatened to subsume local performance traditions. Mentored by Azerbaijani composer Uzeyir Hajibeyov and Russian ethnomusicologist Viktor Beliaev, she became the foundational academic in her field. In 1964, Eldarova presented with two Azerbaijani musicians at the International Anthropological and Ethnological Congress in Moscow. There she met American folklorist Alan Lomax, who had been working with Anna Rudneva to copy music from state archives, including Tatar, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Ukrainian. At the conference, he asked to record songs and interview the Azerbaijani musicians. Working with Rudneva as Russian translator and Eldarova as Azerbaijani cultural translator, the sessions produced a recording (now at Lomax’s Association for Cultural Equity) whose easy rapport, despite “double translation,” shows the power of human connection through shared music and culture.
Lomax preserved the relationships he made in 1964 and would return to the Soviet Union to continue fieldwork with Rudneva’s help. In his letters, Lomax stressed the importance of the diverse peoples of the USSR—far from all “Russian,” as many Americans assumed—and advocated cultural exchange as a pathway to peace in the nuclear age. His recordings and notes were later released by Smithsonian Folkways, introducing many Americans to Central Asia and the Caucasus. In 2005, A. Oldfield returned the Azerbaijani recordings to Eldarova and Abbasov and interviewed both about their 1964 meeting.
Recently opened portions of Eldarova’s archive add further dimensions. Years of correspondence with Beliaev and Rudneva reveal mutual respect, affection, and practical cooperation that cut across hierarchies of “center” (Moscow), “periphery” (Baku), and “abroad” (United States). They also illuminate Eldarova’s fieldwork relationships with ashiqs across the urban–rural divide. Far from passively offering or receiving metropolitan expertise, Eldarova negotiated the meaning of her culture with the ashiqs she interviewed and with Russian colleagues, showing how human connections foster empathy and can turn asymmetrical power relationships into learning and growth on all sides.
This paper centers on Eldarova’s experiences as a micro history of center–periphery negotiation and grassroots cultural diplomacy. I argue that these person-to-person exchanges fostered empathy, encouraged mutual growth, challenged Cold War binaries, and modeled a practice of personal peacemaking grounded in listening, honesty, and goodwill.
Abstract
In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the battleground extends beyond territories and trenches—into digital platforms, algorithmic spaces, and the realm of aesthetics. This paper explores how AI-generated sound, music and visual art have become emerging tools in the broader landscape of resistance, political messaging, and narrative control. Far from being passive outputs of technology, these creations are often strategically designed to resist, reframe, or reclaim agency in the face of armed aggression or authoritarian discourse.
Drawing on recent case studies from the Russo-Ukrainian war, the paper examines viral media that blends synthetic voices, AI-generated visuals, and remix culture with war-related themes, ranging from songs that mourn, mock, or mobilize, to deepfaked public figures and artificially produced protest art. These digital artifacts circulate widely on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Telegram, becoming part of an emotional and ideological struggle over meaning, memory, and legitimacy.
The presentation investigates how such content engages with—or subverts—narratives imposed by the state, and how AI-generated aesthetics offer a new terrain for affective resistance. In particular, it reflects on the dual potential of such art: on the one hand, to challenge disinformation and amplify marginalized voices; on the other, to contribute to or be complicit in manipulative or aestheticized forms of warfare.
This paper argues that AI-generated sound and visuals represent a hybrid strategy of cultural resistance—part spontaneous expression, part tactical intervention. It raises urgent ethical questions: How do we distinguish between resistance and propaganda? What happens when cultural production is designed not by humans alone but in collaboration with algorithms? And how can educators and scholars responsibly engage with this evolving landscape in classrooms, archives, and public discourse?
By placing these digital artifacts within a broader history of wartime art and subversive media practices, this paper reevaluates the aesthetics of nonviolence, creativity under constraint, and the role of synthetic media in contemporary political communication.