Abstract
Despite its nature and consequences no longer being at the center of public and academic debates, the 2008–2010 global financial crisis represented a moment of evident systemic failure. Originating from a confluence of structural vulnerabilities within the US financial sector, the crisis was triggered by extensive deregulation and lax lending standards, which fueled a speculative housing “bubble.” The proliferation of complex, often predatory financial instruments and schemes, such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, served to amplify risks and spread them throughout the global financial system. When the “bubble” inevitably bursts, the widespread default on subprime mortgages triggered a cascade of failures, leading to the collapse of major financial institutions. The financial crisis rapidly metastasized, turning into a worldwide economic recession, which revealed deep vulnerabilities within interconnected global economies and caused a sharp contraction in economic activity in many parts of the world (Reinhart and Rogoff, 2009; Stiglitz, 2010).
While government bailouts and fiscal stimulus packages were initially implemented to avert collapse, this type of response was soon complemented, and then overtaken, by the rise and consolidation of “austerity.” The shift to this political and economic paradigm in the immediate aftermath of the crisis marked a critical turning point, with the burden resulting from the financial crash being transferred from financial institutions to governments and then to the general population, through severe cuts to public spending, infrastructure, and social programs. Many governments—particularly in Europe—adopted fiscal consolidation policies with a fervent commitment to austerity. The rationale was to reduce burgeoning public debt-to-GDP ratios and restore market confidence by aggressively cutting government spending and/or increasing taxes.
Although presented as instrumental to a necessary, technical “adjustment” in national economies, austerity measures generated significant economic and social repercussions. The impacts were multifaceted and largely regressive. Economic recovery was stifled as deep reductions in public investment, public sector wage freezes, and regressive taxation led to a decrease in aggregate demand, triggering what Keynesian economists term the “paradox of thrift” (Fornaro and Romei, 2019). This resulted in soaring unemployment, particularly among young people, and a sharp decline in real wages. Socially, the cuts disproportionately affected the most vulnerable populations. Reductions in social welfare programs, healthcare, and education funding exacerbated poverty and inequality, while also leading to a deterioration of public services and significant human costs. Rather than being a technical, neutral solution, austerity was an ideological choice that impeded economic recovery while fundamentally eroding the social contract and weakening social trust and collective ties (Blyth, 2013; Stuckler and Basu, 2013; see also Mattei, 2022).
Meanwhile, the implementation of austerity measures was not accomplished without significant resistance and political conflict, particularly in the second decade of the twenty-first century. As governments proposed and implemented deep cuts to public services, pensions, and wages, a broad and highly visible anti-austerity movement emerged. Opposition to austerity presented itself not merely as a reaction to economic hardship, but as a rejection of the political and economic ideology and practice that had led to the crisis. The initial response was characterized by widespread street protests and grassroots mobilization. Social and political movements such as Occupy in the United States, Indignados (Outraged) in Spain, and Que se Lixe a Troika! (Screw Troika!) in Portugal articulated a shared grievance about economic hardship and social inequality, and the perceived capture of the political system by economic and financial interests (“We are the 99%” became a global motto against neoliberalism and the concentration of wealth). Anti-austerity movements, sometimes collaborating with traditional political, labor, and grassroots organizations, used tactics of mass civil disobedience, including the occupation of public squares, general strikes, and direct action to disrupt daily life and challenge the status quo. In Southern Europe, and especially in Greece, austerity policies imposed by the Troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) were confronted with intense street protests, often leading to violent clashes between protesters and police (Della Porta, 2015; Fominaya and Hayes, 2019).
The political and cultural implications of the wave of political resistance and social anti-austerity protest have been profound, as suggested by several articles in this special issue of DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society. By exacerbating political polarization and fueling distrust of traditional parties and established political balances, austerity policies and measures have created fertile ground for the emergence of new anti-establishment political movements and forces. The COVID-19 pandemic accentuated these processes and contributed to multiply anti-systemic initiatives, many of them critical of neoliberal capitalism. “We are all in the same boat” and “We are in this together” were expressions that circulated repeatedly in the media in response to the pandemic, whether in brand marketing campaigns or in political speeches. But this was a narrative associated with a dangerously misleading perspective: that this crisis was universally experienced in the same way by everyone. This is, after all, a reading that obscures the extreme forms of inequality that have been exacerbated in recent years (Bennett et al., 2024).
In fact, even if everyone was affected by the crisis resulting from the global pandemic, not everyone experienced it in the same way. Language (“all,” “us,” “together”) was utilized by companies, but also by governments, in an effort to mitigate criticism surrounding wage cuts, job losses, and other economically and socially regressive measures. Inequality and structural oppression persisted and, in many cases, was exacerbated, especially for some groups: it was the poorer and more vulnerable workers that were the most affected; it was women and non-binary populations who were placed in situations of greater vulnerability; it was racialized populations that became most vulnerable to stigmatization. And if initially widespread disillusionment and revolt were channeled into left-wing anti-austerity platforms, especially in the second decade of the twenty-first century, after the pandemic the world witnessed the rise and consolidation of revanchist, populist, and right-wing nationalist forces, which seem to have capitalized on anti-system and, above all, anti-immigration sentiments, often associating the crisis and its consequences with globalism and external political pressures.
While providing the context for a broad cultural and political critique of neoliberalism and dominant political-economic structures, anti-austerity movements revealed their connections to DIY cultures and practices, and offered new opportunities and contexts for them (Imray Papineau, 2024). DIY ethics and cultures, long associated with counter-cultural tendencies and political dissent, have now become the basis not only of an alternative sector of cultural production and consumption on a global scale, but also of individual and collective life projects. They distance themselves from the social, economic, and cultural impositions of neoliberalism to help foster conditions for new forms of social relations and community cohesion (Bennett and Guerra, 2019). The articles in this special issue present a diverse set of examples of how DIY cultures and the practices they promote—from music to expression and bodily practices, from urban art to more institutionalized artistic initiatives, from community care and support to street protest, from fighting against gentrification and touristification to advocating for climate activism—constitute direct means for individuals and collectives to express their dissent and publicly assert their perspectives and proposals, bypassing corporate media, dominant institutional channels, and state-controlled initiatives. In more specific terms, the ballast of actions and practices that are presented in the articles that follow contribute to the debate on cultural, value, and political changes, by showing how practices in artistic and (sub)cultural scenes, as well in the media and political arenas, can challenge traditional instances of consecration and status quo reproduction.
By prioritizing autonomy, collaboration, and direct participation, and by creating spaces where marginalized voices and countercultural ideas and practices can be cultivated, DIY cultures, far from representing a nostalgic return to “simpler times,” become the context of prefigurative politics (Gordon, 2018; Graeber, 2009), in the sense that they prefigure the type of society they wish to build in the present, in addition to the one they resist. In a global context, where artistic and political practices are often subject to uniformizing discourses, localization politics offers an alternative that challenges the universality of dominant paradigms. DIY practices become effective instruments of resistance through allowing a reinterpretation of the symbols and discourses that shape power structures. In addition, these practices promote a dialogue between local experience and global dynamics, creating bridges that enable (or try to enable) the exchange of practices and knowledge between different contexts. This intersection between the local and the global facilitates the emergence of forms of protest and activism that are both rooted in immediate reality and capable of dialoguing with challenges and demands on an international scale (Gibas et al., 2025).
