Extant theory ignores how contention itself transforms regimes.

Evidence

Existing formulations, furthermore, suffer major weaknesses. They offer little insight into two-way interactions between contentious political processes and their social settings, especially into the processes by which contentious politics incited by certain sorts of regime (for example, authoritarian states) in turn transforms those regimes. Nor do they offer a plausible account of interpretation—for example, the interplay between understandings that pervade routine politics and those that inform contentious claims. Much less, then, do we have a dynamic causal account that explains interconnections between regimes and contention. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45

Categorization

• XREF: The two-way interaction claim — contention transforming regimes — is precisely the mechanism the reader wants to stress-test on the asymmetry question, since Tilly here admits the framework underplays reverse causation. — connects to: No coherent theory links regime type to forms of contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42; Communization theory Endnotes rejects fixed theory for phenomenology of revolt. — Anna Kornbluh, Immediacy, or The Style of Too Late…, 322; Contention forms are regime-bound but also historically embedded — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 231 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45

Broader Connections

• Contention forms are regime-bound but also historically embedded #complicates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 231
• Communization theory Endnotes rejects fixed theory for phenomenology of revolt. #qualifies (0.72) — Anna Kornbluh, Immediacy, or The Style of Too Late…, 322