At times of global unrest and the emergence of a wide range of protest movements, recent intra-disciplinary criminological debates on the potentials and limits of resistance suggest a paradoxical trend. Critical criminologists—in particular, those associated with the ultra-realist perspective—have become increasingly skeptical of the idea of “resistance,” itself. In the context of these discussions, scholars have resorted to dismissing oppositional activities—including social movements and their different forms of protest—that are both intended and recognized as resistance. In my contribution to this debate, and in response to Jeff Ferrell’s (2019) article, “In Defense of Resistance,” I provide a critical reflection on the analysis of social movements in both ultra-realist and cultural criminological scholarship. Drawing from my ethnographic research with the (post-)Occupy movement in the United States, I argue that the dismissive reading of social movements’ resistance and the calls for stronger political leadership are the result of a narrow analytical lens applied to movements, their temporalities, and their historical context(s). In addition, I contend that the harsh criticism of social movements by ultra-realists connects to the aim of developing an intellectual leadership concerned with informing social movement practice and strategy “from above.” Here, as I maintain, the theory and practice of militant research, or militancia de investigación, as per the Colectivo Situaciones, challenges this understanding of intellectual leadership. The insights provided by radical collective knowledge production in social movements, and their critique of the institutional frameworks of the neoliberal university, allow for a critical reflection on the role of academia in resistance. This critical reflection can generate possibilities for social movements’ knowledge and radical imaginations to influence academic theorizing.

在全球动荡和广泛抗议运动出现的时期，最近关于抵抗的潜力和限制的学科内犯罪学辩论表明了一种矛盾的趋势。批判犯罪学家——尤其是那些与超现实主义观点相关的犯罪学家——越来越怀疑“抵抗”这个概念本身。在这些讨论的背景下，学者们诉诸于驳回反对活动——包括社会运动及其不同形式的抗议——既是有意的又被认为是抵抗. 在我对这场辩论的贡献中，以及对杰夫·费雷尔 (Jeff Ferrell) (2019) 的文章“捍卫抵抗”的回应中，我对超现实主义和文化犯罪学研究中的社会运动分析进行了批判性反思。根据我对美国（后）占领运动的人种学研究，我认为对社会运动抵抗的轻视阅读和对更强大政治领导的呼吁是对运动及其时间性的狭隘分析的结果，以及他们的历史背景。此外，我认为，超现实主义者对社会运动的严厉批评与发展智力领导力的目标有关，该领导力关注“自上而下”为社会运动实践和战略提供信息。在这里，正如我所坚持的，根据 Colectivo Situaciones 的说法，militancia deinvestigación 挑战了这种对知识领导力的理解。社会运动中激进的集体知识生产提供的见解，以及他们对新自由主义大学制度框架的批评，允许对学术界在抵抗中的作用进行批判性反思。这种批判性反思可以为社会运动的知识和激进的想象力产生影响学术理论的可能性。