Overview
1. How should we define contentious politics? When does contention and conventional politics overlap?
∙2. When studying contentious politics, what are some strengths and weaknesses of the structuralist, rational choice, and constructionist approaches?
∙3. Because of the different “repertoires” can we consider peaceful protest in democracies and more violent forms of contention in authoritarian states part of the same field?
∙4. As protests become “institutionalized” are they truly contentious anymore?
∙5. Does Scott make a convincing argument about “everyday resistance”? How does it fit into the larger field of contentious politics?
∙6. Looking at Bishara, is it more important for a social movement to “broaden” or “deepen?”
∙7. Do the realities of government make contention inevitable, even when a government was brought to power by social movements?
∙8. Do governments need to work to ensure adequate channels for bargaining with emerging social movements to avoid violence, even in seemingly democratic and stable nations?
∙9. Is the emergence of more “disenchanted critics” a worrying sign for democratic stability?