خرده‌‌سیاستِ زیست‌‌جنبش‌‌ها / ناجنبش‌‌های اجتماعی و دگرگونی دموکراتیک

Abstract
In recent years we have witnessed kinds of collective actions that have intensely represented characteristics of new social movements (such as weak organization, lack of leadership, and non-ideological orientation), called bio-movement and non-movement. What is the nature of such activism and its effects on democratic transformation? As a response, the paper hypothesizes that social bio-movement and non-movements can be considered micro-politics of resistance which might facilitate the democratic transformation (whether democratization or democracy). But their definite and permanent effect takes place by gradually imposing their demands on the ruling bio-political relations. To justify the hypothesis, the paper takes advantage of a combinative framework constituted of some conceptions in the late socio-political theories (postmodern and late modern theories). Three elements of this conceptual apparatus are “life politics” (Anthony Giddens), Rhizome theory (Gilles Deleuze), and the duality of “democratic and popular demands” (Ernesto Laclau and Chantel Mouffe). The finding implies the fact that although democratic transformation entails moving from the passive action of self-expressivism (resisting institutional rigidity) to the active action of creating a collective narration (mutating from passive solidarity into a counter-hegemonic movement), bio-movements and non-movements grounds for a democratic transformation in a long time by direct expressing of their demands. The present paper organizes the library-based data in a descriptive-analytical way.
Keywords: Social Non-movements, Bio-movements, Micro-politics, Life Politics, Passive Solidarity, Democracy.
 
1. Introduction
From the late 20th century, we have witnessed the emergence of new social movements, born out of decreasing public trust in the institutional structures of representative systems (parliaments and parties) to represent the diverse demands of contemporary pluralistic societies. Unlike classic social movements, these are spontaneous collective actions without centralized organization or prominent leadership, which have become the basis for protest behaviors. In recent years, due to globalization (especially the expansion of communication technologies), we have seen examples that prominently exhibit these characteristics. Experts have chosen to refer to these movements with new terms such as “non-movements” and “bio-movements”. These terms, on one hand, point to the differences in the components of these actions compared to conventional social movements, and on the other hand, indicate their inevitable classification as “a kind of movement” capable of playing a role in social and political transformations, regardless of the type of political regime (democratic, semi-democratic, authoritarian). The importance of such research lies in its ability to assess the global spread of these types of movements and their implications for political processes, beyond case studies of the failed experiences. 
 
2. Materials and Method
Analyzing the relationship between non-movements, life movements, and democratic transformation requires a conceptual framework that encompasses the nature, style of action, and agency of this type of collective action. 
- Life Politics: Micro-politics of Resistance against Governmentality
Considering Michel Foucault’s notion that “where there is power, there is resistance” and its political expansion by Laclau and Mouffe (redefining the political as the sphere of social conflicts over creating hegemony for desired norms), new social movements can be seen as the actions of the “others” of hegemonic discourse and the dominant order. According to Anthony Giddens, these actions are not framed within “emancipatory politics” but rather as “life politics,” which seek to pursue their own meaning of life, setting aside the grand emancipatory ideals of ideologies.
- Rhizomatic Structure, Fluidity, and Facelessness
These collective actions exemplify Gilles Deleuze’s concept of “rhizomatic” thinking. Unlike tree-like thinking, which involves linear, vertical, and hierarchical connections, rhizomatic thinking suggests horizontal, multiple, and holistic interactions. Similarly, rhizomatic actions reflect a non-centralized movement that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. These actions are in a state of constant “becoming,” resembling a nomadic existence that doesn’t align with limitation and stagnation.
- Democratic and Popular Demands
The mechanism of agency in this type of action can be explained through Ernesto Laclau’s concept of “demand,” ranging from requests to claims. When the logic of equivalence among diverse and separate demands emerges, two types of demands resonate in society simultaneously: distinct demands under the “logic of difference,” termed “democratic demands,” and a multitude of demands under the “logic of equivalence,” forming a broader social subjectivity known as “popular demands,” which gradually shape the people as a historical actor.
 
3. Discussion 
The micro-politics of social non-movements have emerged in a context described by terms like postmodernity and globalization. The collapse of meta-narratives, the proliferation of little-narratives, de-ideologization, individualization, and free communication in a networked society characterize this era. In such an environment, the dominance of technocracy and bureaucracy over the participatory nature of representative democracies has led to the discrediting of the representative system and the emergence of micro-politics as a new form of political action. This new form embodies life politics, expressive political belief, and direct action.
The term “social non-movements,” which are bio-movements, refers to passive networks of micro-political resistance. This type of action represents the politics of presence as a silent struggle, direct action of spontaneous passive networks in everyday life, and bio-political resistance of the marginalized.
The impact of this type of action on transformation within the “institutional structure” depends on variables such as the mutation from non-movement to movement, the structure of political opportunities, and how actors interact with institutional politics. However, this does not negate the “trickle-down effects” of the micro-political actions of non-movements and social life movements. These actions act as new agents of democratization, recognizing the loopholes for action and representing the power of the multitude.
The theory of social non-movement explains how a passive group of people becomes active citizens (a social movement) attempting to overthrow the dominant regime through confrontational politics. This theory highlights that real struggle (even silent and individual) has always been ongoing among many people. In other words, social mobilization has been forming beforehand and only becomes organized opposition politics during suitable political opportunities (such as internal conflicts, crises, international pressure, wars, etc.).
 
4. Conclusion
Democratic transformation requires reviewing the successes and failures in confronting authoritarianism and studying various forms of collective action in the present era. The transition from protest to democratic order can take multiple paths: from classic revolutionary and reformist movements focused on macro-politics (government institutions) to new social movements centered on micro-politics (defending identity and life against the norms and systems of political life). Thus, all possible scenarios of societal transformation cannot be reduced to a binary of classic reformist or revolutionary action, thereby neutralizing political imagination.
Considering the distinction between “the political” (the conflict of discourses over creating hegemony for norms) and “politics” (the institutionalization of a norm resulting from the temporary hegemony of a discourse), the direct, spontaneous, dispersed, and non-ideological actions of bio-movements and social non-movements can be effective because they aim to transcend structural rigidity. In democratic systems, such actions serve as opportunities to make technocratic-bureaucratic liberal democracies more participatory. In authoritarian regimes, the emphasis on self-chosen norms acts as micro-resistance actions that gradually contribute to democratization, especially considering that in the absence of organized civil society (due to governmental dominance), these uncontrolled actions are the only means of social agency.