Although all the banal, institutionalised and legally codified means of action – such as demonstrations or strikes – attract analytic attention, there are only a few social science texts in English or French dedicated to hunger strikes. Psychoanalytic approaches sometimes deal with the subject and some research has been done in France focused on the penal environment. But, with one exception, these are doctoral theses and articles in medicine, criminology and criminal law. Until the 21st century, Anglo-Saxon literature, which is more plentiful, essentially focused on the Irish hunger strikes and the research dedicated to specific cases were rare until very recently.

How can this lack of interest be explained? Why would hunger strikes, just 15 years ago, provoke such comments as ‘they’re not really political’, ‘it's blackmail’, ‘it's individual’, ‘it's very rare’? What ostracism strikes this decidedly ‘different’ method of action? Categorised as a form of self-inflicted violence, along with self-immolation and self-mutilation, hunger strikes are generally assimilated with the most extreme forms of protest.

An ‘individual’ method of action?

Boltanski's observation remains true 30 years on. Sociology and history do prioritise collective forms of protest. Practices which do not necessarily require prior mobilisation (hunger strikes, but also immolation, auto-mutilation, graffiti or protest letters) attract less attention from researchers, whether they are individual or collective. It is as though all these forms are considered ‘non-political’ actions, as soon as the political is envisaged as a means to construct the collective.