Social Network Analysis

The Resistance Hub

Mapping Resistance: The Power of Social Network Analysis

Whether peaceful or armed, resistance movements don’t just emerge out of thin air. They thrive—or fail—based on the networks that sustain them. Trust, communication, and influence are the lifeblood of any movement, and Social Network Analysis (SNA) gives us the tools to map and understand these intricate relationships. From guerrilla cells to nonviolent protests, SNA helps us see the hidden structures of resistance, revealing their strengths, weaknesses, and adaptability under pressure.

So, what makes a network resilient? What vulnerabilities can bring it down? And how can activists, analysts, and strategists use this knowledge effectively? Let’s break it down.

The Basics: How Social Networks Work

At its core, SNA is about mapping connections. Think of it like a web, where nodes represent individuals, groups, or organizations, and edges are the relationships that link them. These maps help us visualize who holds influence, how information flows, and where the weak points are.

Key Network Concepts

• Directed vs. Undirected Networks: In resistance movements, some connections are hierarchical—orders flow from leaders to foot soldiers—while others are peer-to-peer, based on mutual trust. The balance between these determines how flexible and resilient a movement is. For example, in a well-organized insurgency, commanders might give orders that cascade down through layers of leadership (a directed network). In contrast, activist groups might rely on cooperation without a formal hierarchy (an undirected network). The French Resistance during World War II had a mix of both—regional leaders received intelligence from London but worked with loosely connected cells to execute operations.
• Ego Networks vs. Whole Networks: Studying one person’s connections (ego networks) can tell us much about their role, while looking at the entire movement (whole networks) exposes broader strengths and vulnerabilities. Picture a local labor activist who knows key figures in different unions. By analyzing their ego network, you might discover they bridge several groups that otherwise wouldn’t collaborate. Now, zooming out to the whole network could show that while some areas are well-connected, others are isolated, which could be a liability in coordinating a strike.

These fundamentals set the stage for more profound analysis—because in resistance, who you know (and how you’re connected) can be as important as what you know.

Measuring Power and Vulnerability in Resistance Networks

SNA isn’t just about drawing maps; it’s about interpreting them. Several key metrics help us assess who matters most in a movement and where potential vulnerabilities lie.

Centrality Measures: Who Holds the Power?

• Degree Centrality: The most connected individuals often hold leadership, logistics, or communication roles. Think of Gandhi in the Indian independence movement—he wasn’t just an icon but the hub linking different factions. If an activist in a digital movement has thousands of followers, they may not have direct power, but their ability to spread information gives them significant influence.
• Betweenness Centrality: Some people act as bridges between different groups, like T.E. Lawrence during the Arab Revolt. Take them out, and coordination collapses. Imagine a resistance movement where different factions don’t fully trust each other, but one respected commander mediates and keeps them working toward the same goal. Removing this commander—through arrest, assassination, or defection—could fracture the movement entirely.
• Eigenvector Centrality: Influence isn’t just about direct connections; it’s about who’s connected to the powerful. This is how ideologues and charismatic leaders sway entire movements. A historical example is Martin Luther King Jr., who, beyond his direct influence, was connected to other influential figures in churches, student movements, and political organizations, amplifying his reach.

Network Resilience and Weaknesses

• Density: Tight-knit groups are more complicated to break but easier to infiltrate. Loose networks are more complex to control but may struggle with coordination—Al-Qaeda’s early decentralized structure made it highly resilient. The Irish Republican Army (IRA), for example, used both dense local cells for security and looser political networks for broader mobilization.
• Clustering Coefficient: Resistance cells cluster tightly for security, slowing communication and adaptation. Imagine a network of environmental activists who only communicate within their immediate circles. While this protects against infiltration, it also means that new tactics or urgent developments take longer to spread.
• Network Diameter & Path Length: Movements with long communication chains struggle with efficiency. Che Guevara’s failed Bolivian campaign suffered from this issue. His forces were isolated, had difficulty communicating with local allies, and couldn’t effectively adapt to changing circumstances.

These metrics don’t just apply to history—they’re in play, shaping modern conflicts and resistance movements worldwide.

The Anatomy of Resistance Networks

The shape of a network says a lot about how it functions—and how it can be disrupted or strengthened.

• Homophily and Community Detection: Movements form around shared identities—whether political, religious, or ideological. For example, the U.S. Civil Rights Movement leaned on church networks for logistical and moral support.
• Cliques and Subgroups: Small, tight-knit cells form the backbone of many resistance movements, ensuring operational security while remaining linked to the more significant cause. The underground resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe often relied on independent cells that could function even if part of the network was compromised.
• Structural Holes and Bridges: Some leaders exist in gaps between groups, controlling the flow of information. They’re often the most powerful—and the most vulnerable. A modern example is the role of social media influencers in protest movements—those who connect different activist communities often shape the overall movement’s direction.

Robert Taber’s The War of the Flea warns of the fine line between decentralization and fragmentation. Too much autonomy weakens coordination, but too much centralization creates easy targets.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

SNA isn’t just a strategic tool—it raises real ethical questions.

• State Surveillance: Governments exploit SNA to monitor and disrupt movements. Where’s the line between security and oppression? In some cases, like China’s monitoring of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, SNA has been used to dismantle opposition.
• Bias in Network Mapping: Overreliance on numbers can miss cultural and contextual nuances, leading to flawed strategies. Not all connections carry the same weight—an informal bond of trust might be more critical than a formal organizational link.
• Ethical Use of Data: Activists and researchers must balance insight with security—exposing vulnerabilities can do more harm than good. Some organizations create ‘dummy networks’ to mislead surveillance efforts, which requires careful planning.

Final Thoughts: The Power of Networks in Resistance

Social Network Analysis isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a real-world tool that shapes conflicts, revolutions, and justice movements. As Robert Taber famously wrote, successful resistance isn’t just about firepower, endurance, adaptability, and the power of human connections.