Nineteenth-century claim-making became cosmopolitan, modular, and autonomous

Evidence

In contrast to the parochial, particular, and bifurcated character of eighteenth-century repertoires, then, these forms of action constitute a relatively cosmopolitan, modular, and autonomous set. They qualify as cosmopolitan because they facilitate making claims on scales far larger than the locality: whole cities, regions, countries, even international mobilizations such as the British-led antislavery movement of the 1820s and thereafter. “Modular” means that the performances in the repertoires transferred easily from place to place, issue to issue, group to group. The term “autonomous” calls attention to the greatly diminished roles of patrons and intermediary authorities in making claims; the people involved spoke directly to the objects of their claims, including national authorities. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 348

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Precise definitions of Tilly’s three defining traits of the modern repertoire: cosmopolitan, modular, autonomous.
  • XREF: Reader’s stated project tests whether institutional absorption channels subordinate-group politicization; the ‘autonomous’ trait (direct claim-making without patrons) is the connective tissue for whether constitutional regimes alter this autonomy. — connects to: In nineteenth-century discourse the present became the moment of universal truth — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 242; Regimes shape claim-making repertoires through control, constitution of claimants, and issue streams — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1168; Nineteenth-century progress dashed hopes that society could become less arbitrary — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 147 (+3 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 348

Broader Connections