Contingency and inherency always mix but cannot both be equally basic

Evidence

In the concrete world, contingency and inherency are almost always intertwined and hard to disentangle. What seems manifestly contingent to one observer may seem just as obviously inherent to another. This has been the case with studies of collective political violence. Occurrences, at bottom, must always be regarded as the one or the other. Consequently the issue of contingency versus inherency always arises. Both always occur in a mix hard to disentangle, but they cannot, logically, both be equally basic. Any theory that supposes the contrary, or avoids the issue, must end by making experience illogical, hence unintelligible. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4270

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the contingency-vs-necessity debate in historical explanation and to social science disputes over whether outcomes like revolution are overdetermined or chancy. — connects to: Initial conditions shape but do not determine contentious processes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 815
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that both cannot logically be equally basic, and that theories evading the choice render experience unintelligible, is a dense epistemological challenge to pluralist or agnostic approaches.