Violent collective action is a normal tactical choice, not an aberration.

Evidence

Inherency theories of collective political violence at present are less common than contingency theories. They seem more numerous than they actually are because of a proliferation of labels for the same thing: resource-mobilization theory, political-process theory, theories of group dynamics, mobilization theory, strategic interaction models, and political contention theory. “Collective action (CA) theory” is used here because the postulate of the approach is that violent collective action is not aberrant but simply one of many alternative channels of group activity; like any other it is chosen by tactical calculation. Thus it belongs on a continuum or is part of a repertoire: different, sometimes extreme, but not off the normal scale. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4299

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the core postulate of Collective Action theory: violence as a normal tactical repertoire channel, contrasted with aberration-based contingency theories.
• SEED: Potential essay angle: the repertoire framing of violence as a counter to inherited assumptions that protest violence is always deviant pathology.