Scholarly analysis can feed causally coherent terms back into participants’ vocabularies

Evidence

It is possible in principle that participants and observers of contentious politics understand what is going on so well that they give symbolically coherent names to phenomena that are also causally coherent. When analyses of contentious politics feed back to participants, they sometimes insert causally coherent explanatory terms (for example, ā€œregimesā€ and ā€œrepertoiresā€) in the participants’ vocabularies. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 302

The distinction clarifies the explanatory task at hand. It also has some interesting implications that are not obvious at first glance. It is possible in principle that participants and observers of contentious politics understand what is going on so well that they give symbolically coherent names to phenomena that are also causally coherent. When analyses of contentious politics feed back to participants, they sometimes insert causally coherent explanatory terms (for example, ā€œregimesā€ and ā€œrepertoiresā€) in the participants’ vocabularies. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 302

Categorization

  • XREF: Performativity of social-science categories; echoes a claim from the reader’s knowledge base about how analysis can alter its object. — connects to: Shared meanings can generate real empirical regularities among contenders — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 303; Pre-existing value-forms channel how foreign cultural vocabularies enter. — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 2072; New phenomena require new vocabulary, but familiar terms get repurposed — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 203 (+1 more)
  • corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 302

Broader Connections