Contentious Politics: The Development of The Concept and Analytical Framework for Studying Political Contention and Social Movements

Main Article Content

Manita Noosawat

Abstract

The conception of contentious politics is an approach for studying political struggles and social movements. Contentious politics emphasizes the relationship between politics and movements, and the development of mechanisms and processes of political contention. These mechanisms and processes explain changes and variations of peoples’ political struggles. Even though the conception of contentious politics has extensively developed to studying social movements by social science scholars in European and American societies. In Thai academic, it has a lack of studies for this conception. Therefore, this article aims to introduce readers to understand the origin and development of contentious politics, the dynamics of ideas and analytical frameworks for analyzing contentious politics, and to present the scopes and directions of contentious politics for readers who are interested in research of political struggles and social movements in the future.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Noosawat ม. . (2021). Contentious Politics: The Development of The Concept and Analytical Framework for Studying Political Contention and Social Movements. Journal of Social Sciences Naresuan University, 17(2), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.14456/jssnu.2021.8
Section
Review Paper

References

Alimi, E. Y., Demetriou, C., & Bosi, L. (2015). The dynamics of radicalization: A relational comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aslanidis, P. (2015). Occupy populism: Social movements of the great recession in comparative perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Macedonia: University of Macedonia. Retrieved from https://dspace.lib.uom.gr/bitstream/2159/18750/2/AslanidisParis_Phd2015.pdf

Benford, R. D. (1997). An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409-430.

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bergstrand, K. (2014). The mobilizing power of grievances: Applying loss aversion and omission bias to social movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19(2), 123-142.

Boudrea, V. (2004). Resisting dictatorship: Repression and protest in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boykoff, J. (2007). Limiting dissent: The mechanisms of state repression in the USA. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 281-310.

Castell, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Davenport, C. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.101405.143216

Davenport, C. (2009). Regimes, repertoires and state repression. Swiss Political Science Review, 15(2), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00138.x

Fu, D. (2017). Mobilizing without the masses: Control and contention in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fu, D., & Simmons, E. S. (2021). Ethnographic approaches to contentious politics: The what, how, and why. Comparative Political Studies, 54(10), 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211025544

Gamson, W., & Meyer, D. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspective on social movements (pp.275-290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Goldstone, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). State, parties, and social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 27-54.

Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2015). Party in the street: The antiwar movement and the democratic party after 9/11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, P., & Hussain, M. (2013). Democracy’s fourth wave?: Digital media and the Arab Spring. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, C. J. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553.

Kalyvas, S. N. (2003). The ontology of political violence: Action and identity in civil wars. Perspective on Politics, 1(3), 475-494.

Kitschelt, H. (1993). Social movements, political parties, and democratic theory. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 85, 13-29.

Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W., & Giugni, M. G. (1995). New social movements in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. London: University of Minnesota Press.

Kriesi, H. (2004). Political context and opportunity. In D. Snow, S. Soule, H. Kriesi, & H. McCammon (Eds.), The wiley blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 67-90). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Kriesi, H. (2015). Party systems, electoral systems, and social movements. In D. Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), The oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 667-680). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lichbach, M. I. (1987). Deterrence or escalation?: The puzzle of aggregate studies of repression and dissent, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(2), 266-297.

Lichbach, M. I. (1998). Contending theories of contentious politics and the structure-action problem of social order. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.401

Lim, T. (2016). Doing comparative politics: An introduction to approaches and issue (3rd ed.). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. & Zald, M. (1996). Comparative perspective on social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, D. & Tarrow, S. (2019). The Political context of social movements. In D. Snow, S. Soule, H. Kriesi, & H. McCammon (Eds.), The wiley blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 19-42). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464

Melucci, A. (1988). Getting involved: Identity and mobilization in social movements. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures (pp. 329-348). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Mosca, L. (2014). Bringing communication back in: Social movements and media. In C. Padovani & A. Calabrese (Eds.), Communication rights and social justice: Historical accounts of transnational mobilizations (pp. 219-233). The United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nuttapattanun, E. (2013a). Interactions between state, movement and countermovement: The case study of the red shirts’ political movement from 2006-2010 (Doctoral dissertation). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. [in Thai].

Nuttapattanun, E. (2013b). Interactions between state, movement and countermovement: The international literatures in the tradition of social and political movements studies (the primary survey). Journal of Social Science Chiang Mai University, 9(2), 7-60. [in Thai].

Oberschall, A. (1973). Social conflict and social movements. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1-22.

Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d.). ‘Contentious’. Retrieved May 28, 2021, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/contentious?q=contentious

Perry, E. J. (1993). Shanghai on strike: The politics of Chinese labor. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Popkin, S. L. (1979). The rational peasant: The political economy of rural society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Porta, D. (2014). Mobilizing for democracy: Comparing 1989 and 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2015). Introduction: The field of social movement studies. In Porta, D., & Diani, M. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Porta, D., Fernandez, J., Kouki, H., & Mosca, L. (2017). Movement parties against austerity. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.

Rossi, F. & Porta, D. (2015). Mobilizing for democracy: Social movements in democratization processes. In B. Klandermans & C. V. Stralen (Eds.), Movements in times of democratic transition (pp. 9-33). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sinpeng, A. (2011). From assembly to streets: Contentious politics in Thailand (1992-2010). Rian Thai: International Journal of Thai Studies, 4, 1-25

Sinpeng, A. (2014). Party-social movement coalition in Thailand’s political conflict (2005-2011). In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Contemporary socio-cultural and political perspectives in Thailand (pp. 157-168). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Slater, D. (2010). Ordering power: Contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smelser, N. (1962). Theory of collective behavior. New York: The Free Press.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286.

Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, S. (1996). Social movements in contentious politics: A review article. American Political Science Review, 90(4), 847-883.

Tarrow, S. (2001). Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 1-20.

Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, S. (2012). Strangers at the gates: Movements and states in contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, S. (2013). The language of contention: Revolutions in words, 1688–2021. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics. In D. Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), The oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 86-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thabchumpon, N. (2016). Contending political networks: A study of the yellow shirts and red shirts in Thailand’s politics. Southeast Asian Studies, 5(1), 93-113.

Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tilly, C. (1995). Popular contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Tilly, C. (2001). Mechanisms in political processes. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 21-41.

Tilly, C. (2003). The politics of collective violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, C. (2004). Social movements 1768-2004. Boulder–London: Paradigm publishers.

Tilly, C. (2006). Regimes and repertoires. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Tilly, C. (2008). Contentious performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, C. & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1957). Collective behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Weidmann, N., & Rod, E. (2019). The Internet and political protest in autocracies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zayani, M. (2015). Networked publics and digital contention: The politics of everyday life in Tunisia. New York: Oxford University Press.