A method of action that is ‘not quite like others’ because of its moral connotations and the risk of death that it implies, hunger strikes have progressively become a part of the protest actions of the 20th century. It has become possible to envisage this form of protest both individually and collectively.

Today, hunger strikes have a prominent place in the protest arsenal of low-resource groups, such as prisoners and undocumented immigrants. It is typically a weapon of last resort, used with urgency; a weapon of indignation, refusal of cooperation. It is often a weapon of extreme action in deadlocked situations. We might be tempted to consider it the weapon of the weak, but it is also used by those who are famous, well-known and respected, who see it as a way to add their weight to the balance.

Nor are hunger strikes a method of protest reserved for democratic countries, a reflection of humanitarian feeling and the weight of the media in Western democracies. They have shown their effectiveness in authoritarian regimes and their prisons; they have brought dictatorships to their knees. This technique reveals the minimal room for manoeuvre opponents have in the most repressive regimes; but also the variable tolerance of authorities in democratic countries regarding certain protest groups. When each and every person can protest or strike without fear, the groups who use hunger strikes are often those who have the most difficulty mobilising more ‘traditional’ methods of action.

The place hunger strikes have come to occupy in the repertoires of protest action does not contribute to its banalisation, nor to its perception as a legitimate form of protest ‘like any other’. The emotion (and sometimes the irony) that this method provokes is proof of this, as are the accusations of moral blackmail it often attracts.

Other forms of protest action are similarly criticised when they interrupt the ordinary course of things to establish a power relationship and propose an alternative voice to that resulting from the ballot box. The risk of death is not sufficient in itself to set hunger strikes apart.

So what can be said of unease felt by many observers when faced with hunger strikes with apparently far-fetched or superficial motives? It is true that it is possible to undertake a hunger strike to obtain the replacement of a faulty vehicle, or because one's business is in financial straits.