The new claim-making repertoire was less revolutionary than the old one

Evidence

Neither the new tasks nor the new forms of action were intrinsically revolutionary. After all, the English had managed two revolutions in the seventeenth century with repertoires similar to those that prevailed in the eighteenth, but never managed to make one in the nineteenth or the twentieth century with their new repertoires. A larger share of actions in the older repertoire (such as Rough Music and the pulling down of poorhouses) involved direct action against adversaries, while a much greater proportion of the actions in the newer repertoire (such as the public meeting and the mass petition) took for granted the continued existence of the national structure of power. Furthermore, large segments of the population (for example, agricultural laborers and women who worked at home) lost their major means of making collective claims as the new repertoire replaced the old. In all these regards, the old repertoire was arguably more revolutionary than the new. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 351

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s thesis: Tilly himself notes the modern repertoire ‘took for granted the continued existence of the national structure of power’ — evidence that institutionalized (constitutional, parliamentary) claim-making channels rather than radicalizes contention, and marginalized whole groups (agricultural laborers, home-working women) whose old capacities for claim-making were erased. Central to testing the absorption asymmetry. — connects to: Nonrevolutionary claim-making forms later become available as revolutionary instruments when repertoires diffuse — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 984; Innovation in claim-making is bounded by established repertoire limits — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 235; Law changes by layered accretion rather than revolutionary overhaul. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 75 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Tilly lists groups who LOST their claim-making means in the new repertoire — agricultural laborers and women who worked at home — which suggests institutional absorption benefits some subordinate groups while actively disempowering others. Worth chasing whether Tilly develops this exclusionary side of repertoire change anywhere.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 351

Broader Connections

• Most contention strongly reuses familiar performance forms rather than innovating #corroborates (0.88)
• Innovation in claim-making is bounded by established repertoire limits #corroborates (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 235
• Law changes by layered accretion rather than revolutionary overhaul. #exemplifies (0.72) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 75
• Postmodernists borrow modernism’s features to claim a false novelty #complicates (0.72) — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 128