No coherent theory links regime type to forms of contention

Evidence

So far, we have no coherent theory of links between regime change and contentious politics. We have, that is, no widely accepted, logically connected, and empirically defensible account of how prevailing forms of popular struggle vary and change from one sort of political regime to another, much less why such variation and change occur. At least two obstacles bar the path to coherent theory: first, the relationship between regime change and contentious politics is complex, contingent, and variable; second, no codification of variation in regimes or in contentious politics has commanded wide assent. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Sets up what Tilly means by ‘coherent theory’ and states the two obstacles his own matrix must surmount.
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42
  • XREF: connects to: Contention forms are regime-bound but also historically embedded — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 231; Extant theory ignores how contention itself transforms regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45; Regime capacity shapes how contention is channeled between prescribed, tolerated, and forbidden performances — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 484 (+4 more)

Broader Connections