The Gandhian Repertoire as Transformative Invention

Abstract

How do people who want to fight oppression decide which protest methods to use? How do they know which strategies for interacting with authorities and wider publics will work? How do they know which organizational styles will allow for strong coalitions and mass mobilization? How do they know which forms of communication will resonate among fellow activists, bystanders, and rulers? Social movement scholars commonly employ the concept of “contentious repertoire” to respond to these questions. They suggest that people within specific contexts have access to a limited set of protest methods that they have learned from past struggles. This repertoire emerges from activities in everyday life and includes familiar ways of challenging powerful institutions, constraining what activists are capable of doing within particular circumstances. Although participants constantly improvise in the heat of contentious events, they follow shared scripts that prescribe their choices, expectations, and performances. Most social movement scholars agree that major shifts in contentious repertoire are very rare. Charles Tilly, who introduced the concept, argues that the main transformation took place in Europe, especially in Great Britain and France, between the 1750s and 1830s. While the “old” repertoire generally produced sporadic localized actions like food seizures and attacks on property, the “new” repertoire enabled large-scale direct actions like national strikes and mass marches. According to Tilly, the latter set of protest methods continues to shape contemporary social movements