Modularity and Transferability of Repertoires of Contention

Abstract

A “modular repertoire of contention” denotes prevalent forms of interaction that are used by a variety of actors against a variety of targets for a variety of issues in a variety of locations. Modular repertoires are important in the literature of contentious politics and social movements because of their transferability across different contentious contexts. This study addresses three limitations in the literature. First, discussion about modular repertoires to date has been framed as if some forms of contention were modular and other forms were not—thus a dichotomy is set up between modular and nonmodular forms. Second, specific dimensions of modularity (transferability across actors, targets, issues, and locations) have been mostly ignored in the literature. Third, an empirical measure has not yet been developed for the concept. By assessing how broadly a form of contention is diffused across actors, targets, issues, and locations, this study develops a new measure of modularity. Using the measure, it evaluates Charles Tilly's modular repertoire hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, public meetings, petitions, and demonstrations became a modular repertoire in Great Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a result of Parliament's rise as the center of British national politics. The results obtained here offer new insights. The empirical measure proposed will advance our understanding of repertoires of contention and political systems.