Total-damage measures of violence cannot explain regime-violence interactions

Evidence

If we were simply asking where and when the risk of death and destruction rises, that approach would serve us reasonably well. But it would not help us sort out interactions among regimes, repertoires, opportunity structures, and collective violence. It says too little about the what and why of the phenomena we are trying to explain. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 719

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to reader’s own hierarchicalization project — damage-oriented political science of contention likewise says too little about the ‘what and why’ of politicization asymmetry. — connects to: Low-coordination scattered violence can cause more damage than organized violence — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 733; Conflict predictors are consistent but their causal links to violence are not — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4366; Totalizing explanations of colonial violence fail when reduced to single causes — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 402 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 719

Broader Connections

• Distinct forms of violence need separate explanatory analysis #corroborates (0.85)
• Totalizing explanations of colonial violence fail when reduced to single causes #corroborates (0.82) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 402
• Low-coordination scattered violence can cause more damage than organized violence #complicates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 733
• Conflict predictors are consistent but their causal links to violence are not #expands (0.74) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4366