Repertoire clustering stems from daily organization, contention history, and regime operations

Evidence

What does account for the clustering of claim-making performances in repertoires? The major causes sort into three main categories: (1) connections between claim-making and everyday social organization, (2) cumulative creation of a signaling system by contention itself, and (3) operation of the regime as such. Repertoires draw on the identities, social ties, and organizational forms that constitute everyday social life. From those identities, social ties, and organizational forms emerge both the collective claims that people make and the means they have for making them. In the course of contending or watching others contend, people learn the interactions that can make a political difference as well as the locally shared meanings of those interactions. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 270

Categorization

• DEFINE: Concisely names Tilly’s three causal inputs to repertoire formation — the connective tissue the reader needs to test whether institutional absorption can be derived from the framework.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 270
• XREF: connects to: Most contention strongly reuses familiar performance forms rather than innovating; Stable regimes sustain strong flexible repertoires shaped jointly by culture and structure — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 273; Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes #complicates (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669
• Exhaustive enumeration reveals contention falls into a limited set of recurring forms #expands (0.70)