Contentious+Politics

The thesis of the book, I think (he’s not super clear about it), is that despite the variation in contentious politics over space and time, there are patterns to it. The guiding metaphor is of contention as “performance” with “repertoires” of different types of action. Definitions below. “//Contentious politics”// involves interactions in which actors make claims bearing on someone else’s interests, leading to coordinated efforts on behalf of shared interests or programs, in which governments are involved as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties. Contentious politics thus brings together three familiar features of social life: contention, collective action, and politics” (p. 4). • // Contention // is basically conflict, but more specifically one party (subject) making a claim against another party (object). • “//Collective action// means coordinating efforts on behalf of shared interests or programs” (p. 5). • // Politics // means having something to do with agents of government. This is a significant factor because: • Political contention thus threatens those in political power at least a little. • Governments makes rules regarding legitimate means of contention. • Governments have firepower (“coercive means”, p. 5) so that adds risk. See p. 7 for diagram showing how contention, collective action, and politics are three different things, and the subject of the book is where the three overlap. But this doesn’t mean government is necessarily the subject or the object of the contention. There’s a lot of study of social movements, but this is a subset of contentious politics, and more time- and place-specific (last few hundred years, more in the West). “Social movements combine: (1) sustained campaigns of claim making; (2) an array of public performances including marches, rallies, demonstrations… [long list]; (3) repeated public displays of worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment…. (4) the organizations, networks, traditions, and solidarities that sustain these activities--our //social movement bases//” (p. 8). As claims become collective, they will be referred to as //political actors// and may take on a //political identity// (thin meaning of identity here, I think--just what they call themselves as a group). “[A] similar group of mechanisms and processes… recur in different combinations in revolutions, social movements, ethnic conflict, nationalism, civil war, and other distinct forms of contentious politics,” so there are both “variations and regularities” (p. 10-11). These will be elaborated later in the book.
 * Tilly & Tarrow, //Contentious Politics,// 2007 **
 * Summary of Ch. 1 by Suzanne **
 * Ch. 1 “Making Claims” **

Two “related theatrical metaphors” underlie a lot of the regularities: contentious performances (familiar, standardized ways of making claims, such as demonstrations, petitions...) and contentious repertoires (the array of performances known and used by a particular set of actors) (p. 11). Modular performances are generic kinds that can be adapted to a variety of different settings. “Strong repertoires” (contrasted to weak repertoires and ritual repertoires) are those where a ritual (such as a graduation, a May Day celebration) are intervened upon to turn them into claim-making. Strong repertoires are most common in the times & places in this book. T&T next go through repertoire change in the U.S. 1955-2005. Marches happened, the sit-in was invented, the March on Washington became routinized, later public interest groups developed “checkbook activism,” the Internet started allowing new variations and tools, and some militant spin-off groups have used violence. Times of rapid political change produce a lot of innovation in repertoires, but “incremental changes are… more decisive in the long run” (p. 22).

This chapter deals with methodology, partly to convey the authors’ own methodology and partly to actually instruct readers/students in how to do similar research. They place themselves in the historical institutionalist tradition, I think, with heavy emphasis on mechanisms and processes (they don’t say “path dependence” but I think it’s implied). They say that if straight causal //x// --> //y// models are analogous to physics, their model is more analogous to the processes of biology like reproduction or evolution. Along the way, they introduce a few key concepts. I’ll focus on those in this summary and not on the data-gathering advice, though the story on the shantytown protests on U.S. college campuses in the 1980s to bring about divestment from South Africa (actually the story of a woman’s dissertation on the subject) is worth a read for its own sake (pp. 38-41). In addition to the key concepts from Ch. 1--political actors, political identities, contentious performances, and repertoires--this chapter introduces four more that “make up our elementary guide to description of the processes we mean to explain” (p. 27): • Events: [no definition given, but events constitute episodes.] “Episodes will be the main unit of analysis, events that constitute them are main unit of observation” (p. 36). • Episodes: “bounded sequences of continuous interaction, usually produced by an investigator’s chopping up longer streams contention into segments” p. 36. Can be short and simple, like prostitutes occupying a church in Lyons, to a whole revolution or civil war. • Mechanisms: “a delimited class of events that alter relations among specified sets of elements in identical or closely similar ways over a variety of situations” (p. 29). [Hopefully that one will become clearer as the book goes on.] • Processes: “regular combinations and sequences of mechanisms that produce similar (generally more complex and contingent) transformations of those elements” (p. 29). Mechanisms “combine in different settings and situations in contentious politics” (p. 30)including brokerage, diffusion, and coordinated action. • Brokerage: someone or something (sometimes the media) connects two previously unconnected “sites”. Best example was when Saakashvili of Republic of Georgia went to Serbia to learn about how they overthrew Milosevic. Saakashvili then led a movement to protest stolen elections in Georgia just as Serbians had protested stolen elections by Milosevic. • Diffusion: “spread of a form of contention, an issue, or a way of framing it from one site to another” (p. 31). Great example was spread of the shantytowns from one college campus to another. • Coordinated action: “two or more actors’ engagement in mutual signaling and parallel making of claims on the same object” (p. 31). [Geez, guys, this kind of language obscures really simple ideas.] They’re basically talking about coalition building or getting more people to join your cause. • New coordination = coordination + brokerage + diffusion. • Upward scale shift: when coordination bumps up to the next level, such as “when different neighborhood groups combine to lobby the state legislature or march on Washington” (p. 31). Additional mechanisms (all p. 34): • Social appropriation: “nonpolitical groups transform into political actors by using their organizational and institutional bases to launch movement campaigns”-- example black churches in the American South in the ‘50s & ‘60s. • Boundary activation: “creation of a new boundary or the crystallization of an existing one between challenging groups and their targets” e.g., the Census activates racial/ethnic boundaries. • Certification: “an external authority’s signal of its readiness to recognize and support the existence and claims of a political actor” e.g., UN acceptance of Israel into the General Assembly in 1948. • Identity shift: “formation of new identities within challenging groups whose coordinated action brings them together and reveals their commonalities” e.g., MLK’s “the new Negro”. Two major processes: • Mobilization--firing people up to get involved in making “contentious claims” • Demobilization--how people are made to stop claim-making. Basic idea of this chapter is that the form and content of contention change with changing regime types, and with the relations, institutions, opportunities, and threats that go along with regimes. Contention is connected with political power and with institutions--so it’s not just impulsively letting off steam //or// mere pursuit of self-interest (p. 48). Definitions: • “//Regimes// consist of regular relations among governments, established political actors, challengers, and outside political actors, including other governments” (p. 45). [Thanks Chuck and Sid, that was really helpful. Actually our common understanding of “regime” is probably more useful.] • Institutions: “established, organized, widely recognized routines, connections, and forms of organization” (p. 48). • “//Political opportunity structure// refers to features of regimes and institutions (e.g., splits in the ruling class) that facilitate or inhibit a political actors’ collective action and to changes in those features (p. 49). Big case study on Venezuela is pretty familiar after Tilly’s book on democratization. As in that book, the case study doesn’t connect all that clearly or explicitly to the arguments, but this one does give good examples of some of the concepts: • Venezuela’s many coups are types of “performance.” • The repertoire of contentious acts among Venezuelans includes such things as electoral rallies, street demonstrations, and strikes. Repertoire of contention “changes over time in response to shifts in the national regime” (p. 53). This is illustrated by the Venezuela case where ”[s]ome of what had been confrontational performances in 1983 were becoming conventional by the late 1990s. Others gave way to violence…” (pp. 52-53). The degree of democracy and capacity of the regime (similarly defined as in Tilly’s other book) matter a lot to contentious politics: “High-capacity undemocratic regimes feature both clandestine oppositions and brief confrontations that usually end in repression. Low-capacity undemocratic regimes host most of the world’s civil wars…. Low-capacity democratic regimes gather more than their share of military coups and struggles among linguistic, religious, or ethnic groups. High-capacity democratic regimes foster the bulk of the world’s social movements” (pp. 56-57). Regimes have different “political opportunity structures” which “includes six properties: 1. The multiplicity of independent centers of power within it   2. Its openness to new actors 3. The instability of current political alignments 4. The availability of influential allies or supporters for challengers 5. The extent to which the regime represses or facilitates collective claim making 6. Decisive changes in items 1 to 5” (p. 57) The contenders see themselves or their interests as threatened, prompting them to act, but they are also responding to opportunities to do so. “Regimes exert significant control over institutional operations... by //prescribing// institutions..., by //tolerating// others..., and by //forbidding// still others” (p. 60). “//Contained// contention takes place within prescribed or tolerated forms…” while //transgressive// contention is forbidden (or some new form that is frowned upon) (p. 60). Emphasized point: contention helps shape institutions and vice versa. Democratization and de-democratization “strongly affect relations, institutions, opportunities, threats, and repertoires” (p. 67). These things shape contention and contention shapes them. **Summary by Caroline Chumo for CRS November 15, 2010** **Chapter 4: Contentious Interactions** **Overview:** After the previous chapters went over the concepts of collective action (performance and repertoire), regimes, and mechanisms to link challengers (brokerage, diffusion, and coordination), this chapter looks at how interaction takes place between challengers and other actors. For example, the 1968 demonstrations in Paris were not just a performance but also a point of interaction between the protestors and other actors. It builds on the descriptive and explanatory concepts introduced earlier in answering five key questions. Question 1: “How do political actors form, change and disappear?” · Through coordination of diffusion and brokerage · Through certification by an authority · Via changes in a regime’s “political opportunity structure” · After identifying specific actors so you can see when and how they rise and fall, and form alliances Question 2: “How do actors get their identities?” · Through “boundary formation” e.g. drawing the line between us and them · Through intentional name of social groups · Through government sanctions · Through existing categories of people, e.g. ethnic and religious groups Question 3: “How do political actors interact with each other, especially with those in power?” · Identities exist in relation/opposition to the claims of other actors · These identities and their claims set the stage for interaction. · There are three types of claims: o Identity claims: We exist! o Standing claims: We belong to such-and-such group! o Program claims: pushing an agenda of objectives Question 4: “How do existing institutions promote, inhibit and shape actor constitution, identity activation and contentious interaction?” · “Political opportunity structures” determine how alliances form. · Certain claim performances are tolerated over others by the authorities. · The challenger’s repertoire of performances limits their claims. Question 5: “What kind of effects do collective claims produce and how?” · Identity claims: establish new boundaries, redrawing the lines of communication. · Standing claims exert influence (or not) on a few key gatekeepers and decision makers. · Program claims – depends on the effectiveness of identity and standing claims **Chapter 5: Mobilization and Demobilization** **Overview:** After noting that mobilization and demobilization of challengers is an important component in the success of claims, this chapter asks what are the main processes involved in mobilization. It finds that mobilization occurs in cycles at different levels of society. Escalating diffusion of the claims indicates an increase in the scale of the contentious politics. As with Chapter 3, the causal nuts and bolts of contentious politics, namely mechanisms and processes, are what drives initial mobilization and shifts in scale from local to national levels. Example 1: The prostitutes of Lyon in the 1970s were mobilized by common identity and diffusion of that identity to supporters like the Catholic church. This is a small-scale contention. Example 2: The protests in Italy in the 1960s started locally and then quickly shifted to the national scale through a series of identity transfers, due to the unique “political opportunity structure”, and due to the unique repertoire of performances that challengers had at the time. New alliances were formed through brokerage and diffusion. Despite using different examples with different outcomes, the commonalities are in the mechanisms (brokerage, diffusion, coordination), types of claims (identity, standing, program), and potential/presence of escalation (“scale shift”). **How cycles form:** Cycles start moderately and locally and then build to more conflict at the national level **Demobilization**: Less is known about demobilization. Key factors include: · Competition among supporters · Defection · Disillusionment · Repression · Institutionalization (e.g. a court case gets lost in the system) **Conclusion:** Despite using different examples with different outcomes, the commonalities are in the mechanisms (brokerage, diffusion, coordination), types of claims (identity, standing, program), and potential/presence of escalation (“scale shift”). Knowing these patterns will help us see why some episodes are brief and why others are long. When the cycles of mobilization/contention are sustained, a social movement is born. **Chapter 6: Social Movements** //Social Movement// = “sustained campaign of claim-making, using repeated performances that advertise the claim, based on organizations, networks, traditions, and solidarities that sustain these activities” (111). Poland 1956 = failed social movement · Shows that in authoritarian regimes, social movements are hard to construct even if widespread unhappiness · Shows that even in authoritarian regimes, interaction between contentious and institutional politics leads to political opportunities in the future · Demonstrates mechanisms of mobilization and demobilization //Social Movement Base// = “Movement organizations, networks, participants, and the accumulated cultural artifacts, memories, and traditions that contribute to social movement campaigns” (114). //Social Movement Campaign// = “A sustained challenge to power holders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those power holders by means of concerted public displays of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment, using such means as public meetings, demonstrations, petitions, and press releases” (114). The term //social movement// should not be synonymous with //contentious politics// because: · Makes comparison across types of contention difficult · Makes examining transitions between different forms of contention difficult · Blurs the distinction between the //bases// on which contentious politics builds its //campaigns// that launch those politics Poland 1980 = successful social movement · Solidarity strike had approval of Catholic Church (Poland’s most authoritative institution) · Rapid diffusion moved claim-making outward from origins and created a shift in scale upward to the national level · Repression was more contained in 1980 than in 1956 · Huge expansion of the //social movement base// (as illustrated by the weird diagram on p. 117) Social Movement Mechanisms: · //Campaign// = “a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on targeted authorities” (119). A campaign always links at least three parties. · //Public Self-representation// = “concerted public representations of their worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies” (119). · Associational and Action Repertoires o //Social Movement Repertoire// = “creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions; public meetings; solemn processions; vigils; rallies; demonstrations; petition drives; statements to and in public media; pamphleteering” (120). o //Modularity// of performances = “employment of similar forms of collective action by a wide variety of social actors around very different goals against similar actors” (120). New American Women’s Movement · Only by looking at both sides of the formal boundary between institutional and non-institutional politics and at their interactions can we understand the dynamics of episodes of contentious politics [deR: not sure what this means…] · Four possible processes of transformation once mobilization has petered out: o //Institutionalization// = formalization of a social movement organization’s (SMO) internal structure and integration into gov’t o //Commercialization// = transformation of a movement organization in the direction of a service organization o //Involution// = exclusive emphasis on social incentives (ie, self-help groups) o //Radicalization// = “reinvigorated mobilization” Conclusions · Not all episodes of contentious politics are social movements · Movements frequently challenge institutions · Movements also work within institutions · Movements sometimes become institutional actors · Their success sometimes defeats them (Solidarity) · Movements frequently trigger counter movements **Chapter 7: Lethal Conflicts** · Lethal conflicts have special features that distinguish them from other forms of contentious politics: o High stakes of claim-making o Problem of sustaining armed force – requires extensive resources · Large-scale lethal conflicts involve states in one or two ways: as direct participants and/or as third parties whose own power is threatened by the conflict · Two possible results: regime split and/or transfer of power Deadly Ethnic and Religious Conflict · Concentrates mostly in low-capacity undemocratic regimes but is possible in low-capacity democratic regimes – example Guyana; and is possible in high-capacity democratic regimes – example Northern Ireland · However, high-capacity democracies are better able to control use of violence because they maintain a tighter control on legitimate force Civil War · Occurs when tow or more distinct military organizations (with at least one attached to existing gov’t) battle each other for control of major governmental means within a single regime (151). · Concentrates in two kinds of regimes: relatively high-capacity regimes and low-capacity undemocratic regimes · In both types of regimes, warlords and revolutionaries have the incentives and the means to create their own armed forces and mark out their own zones of territorial control. Revolutions · “Forcible transfer of power over a state in the course of which at least two distinct blocs of contenders make incompatible claims to control the state, and some significant portion of the population subject to the state’s jurisdiction acquiesces in the claims of each bloc” (155). · //A revolutionary situation// = broad split in regime with each party controlling some substantial territory and/or instruments of government · //A revolutionary outcome// = extensive transfer of power over the government o //Defections of regime members// o //Acquisition of armed force by revolutionary coalitions// o //Neutralization or defection of the regime’s armed force// o //Control of the state apparatus by members of revolutionary coalition//
 * Tilly & Tarrow, //Contentious Politics,// 2007 **
 * Summary of Chs. 2-3 by Suzanne **
 * Ch. 2 “How to Analyze Contention” **
 * Ch. 3 “Regimes, Repertoires, and Opportunities” **
 * Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, //Contentious Politics// (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007).**
 * Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, __Contentious Politics__ (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).**