Mobilizing Care in the Polycrisis: A New Political Grammar for Eco-Social Activism

In a newly published article in Environmental Politics, Sustain Action researchers Luca Sára Bródy, Michaela Pixová, and Elżbieta Korolczuk explore how grassroots movements in Hungary, Czechia, and Poland are navigating the "polycrisis"—a term describing the interconnected and reinforcing nature of ecological collapse, democratic erosion, and social inequality (Bródy et al. 2026). The authors argue that in response to these systemic threats, activists are increasingly turning to the concept of "care" as a powerful strategic and political framework to bridge divides and sustain their work.

“Safe space” of activist solidarity and mutual care. Illustration by Terezie Unzeitigová, @terezie_un

The researchers observe an ongoing shift away from single-issue activism toward "eco-social activism," in which environmental, feminist, and social justice struggles are increasingly intersecting. By adopting a "political grammar" of care, movements can challenge the neoliberal emphasis on individualism and market logic, and instead prioritize interdependence, empathy, and collective responsibility.

The study identifies three key dimensions of care which are currently being mobilized in the explored post-socialist contexts.

The first dimension encompasses “affective care”. This type of care concerns the way activists mobilize emotions such as concern, empathy, and hope to frame social and environmental issues as moral responsibilities. For instance, parental groups often use motherhood as a culturally resonant frame to portray environmental protection as a duty to ensure their children's future. Critical role is also played by "radical anger" as a productive and motivating force for confronting the exploitative structures of patriarchal capitalism and for transforming outrage at injustice into assertive, proactive action.

Second dimension, titled as “relational care”, focuses on the strategic work of building cross-movement solidarity and collective responsibility. Rather than centring on the individual emotional experience, it functions as a "discursive bridge" that allows activists from different spheres—such as environmental, housing, and feminist movements—to articulate shared goals and form powerful, broad-based coalitions. By means of radical care activists can transform passive compassion into a proactive political force and channel "radical anger" to demand accountability and confront the overlapping violence, inequality and harm.

Finaly, the third dimension of “reproductive care” shifts focus inward, prioritizing the practices and infrastructures needed to sustain activist communities long term. It supports movements’ internal health by fostering emotional resilience, mutual aid, and burnout prevention. Groups cultivate “low‑pressure” environments where well‑being matters as much as political outcomes, creating spaces for activists to recharge, share struggles, and find joy—making engagement with the polycrisis more sustainable and even fulfilling. Reproductive care also resists the gendered crisis of social reproduction. By recognizing that climate change and inequality disproportionately burden caregivers, mainly women, movements work to make emotional labour a shared responsibility rather than an invisible weight. In this way movements ensure their inclusivity and resilience to face future challenges.

According to the authors, the language of care is particularly effective in Central and Eastern Europe. In a region where terms like "solidarity" or "redistribution" may carry heavy ideological baggage from the socialist past, care offers a less confrontational, more culturally legible vocabulary. It allows activists to articulate shared grievances and build coalitions without triggering the "anti-communist" sentiments often invoked by more traditional political labels.

Last but not least, the authors also acknowledge potential risks arising from care narratives. While care can be mobilized in ways which are transformative, it is also traditionally associated with female roles, leading to the reinforcement of gender stereotypes or to overburdening women with emotional labour within activist spaces. However, by reframing care as a collective, public duty rather than a private obligation, these movements are reclaiming it as a vital tool for systemic change.

Ultimately, the paper suggests that by embracing care as an ethical and strategic foundation, eco-social movements are better equipped to navigate the complexities of the current polycrisis and build more resilient, inclusive coalitions for the future.

Reference to the published paper:

Bródy, L. S., Pixová, M., & Korolczuk, E. (2026). Mobilising care in the polycrisis: framing eco-social activism in Hungary, Czechia, and Poland. Environmental Politics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2026.2681301