The literature on contention tends to conflate contentious actions and audience’s interpretation of those actions. This is problematic because interpretation is central to how contention unfolds and brings about social change. We theorise that interpretation is patterned by one or more cultural models of contention. These provide background assumptions about what actions count as political and what actions are legitimate. We show the fruitfulness of our approach in two survey studies of 1429 US citizens. It allows us to explore patterns in how the US public interpret contention. Furthermore, we investigate how interpretation varies across political and apolitical contexts, finding little variation between these. Finally, we study heterogeneity in how the public interpret contention, finding variation between individuals but also shared patterns. The article contributes to the literature on contention by providing a theoretical framework to study the public’s interpretation of contention and a fine-grained empirical analysis of this interpretation.
AlexanderJ (2006) The Civil Sphere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
AltheideDLGilmoreRP (1972) The credibility of protest. American Sociological Review37(1): 99–108.
3.
AndrewsKTCarenN (2010) Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review75(6): 841–866.
4.
AndrewsKTBeyerleinKFarnumTT (2016) The legitimacy of protest: Explaining white southerners’ attitudes toward the civil rights movement. Social Forces94(3): 1021–1044.
5.
AronowPMBaronJPinsonL (2019) A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis27(4): 572–589.
6.
BenfordRDSnowDA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–639.
7.
BiggsM (2013) How repertoires evolve: The diffusion of suicide protest in the twentieth century. Mobilization: An International Quarterly18(4): 407–428.
8.
BoonenC (2020) At the outer limits of democratic division: On citizenship, conflict and violence in the work of Chantal Mouffe and Étienne Balibar. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society33(2): 529–544.
9.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
BoutylineA (2017) Improving the measurement of shared cultural schemas with correlational class analysis: Theory and method. Sociological Science4: 353–393.
11.
BoutylineASoterSK (2021) Cultural schemas: What they are, how to find them, and what to do once you’ve caught one. American Sociological Review86(4): 728–758.
12.
CottleS (2008) Reporting demonstrations: The changing media politics of dissent. Media, Culture & Society30(6): 853–872.
13.
DohertyBHayesG (2019) Tactics and strategic action. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH, et al (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 271–288.
14.
DrakulichKDenverM (2022) The partisans and the persuadables: Public vies of Black Lives Matter and the 2020 protests. Perspectives on Politics. Epub ahead of print 1 March 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721004114.
15.
FrancisMWright-RigueurL (2021) Black lives matter in historical perspective. Annual Review of Law and Social Science17: 441–458.
16.
GillanK (2020) Social Movements, Protest, and Practices of Social Change. In: RitzerGMurphyWW (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Sociology, 2nd edn.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 301–318.
17.
GoodwinJJasperJM (1999) Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum14(1): 27–54.
18.
Gøtzsche-AstrupJ (2022) A sociological perspective on the experience of contention. Sociological Theory. Epub ahead of print 2 May 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751221097115.
19.
HallRLRodeghierMUseemB (1986) Effects of education on attitude to protest. American Sociological Review51(4): 564–573.
20.
HsiaoYRadnitzS (2021) Allies or agitators? How partisan identity shapes public opinion about violent or nonviolent protests. Political Communication38(4): 479–497.
21.
HunzakerMBFValentinoL (2019) Mapping cultural schemas: From theory to method. American Sociological Review84(5): 950–981.
22.
JeffriesVTurnerRHMorrisRT (1971) The public perception of the Watts riot as social protest. American Sociological Review36(3): 443–451.
23.
KoopmansR (2004) Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society33(3): 367–391.
24.
KoopmansROlzakS (2004) Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right-wing violence in Germany. American Journal of Sociology110(1): 198–230.
25.
LamontMMolnárV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology22: 167–195.
26.
LarsonJA (2013) Social movements and tactical choice. Sociology Compass7(10): 866–879.
27.
LarsonJLizardoO (2019) Institutional movement logics and the changing shape of the US social movement field, 1960-1995. Social Forces97(4): 1389–1422.
28.
LizardoO (2010) Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell. Theory and Society39(6): 651–688.
29.
LizardoO (2017) Improving cultural analysis: Considering personal culture in its declarative and nondeclarative modes. American Sociological Review82(1): 88–115.
30.
LuhmannN (1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
McAdamDBoudetHS (2012) Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
McCurdyPFeigenbaumAFrenzelF (2016) Protest camps and repertoires of contention. Social Movement Studies15(1): 97–104.
33.
MartinAWRafailPMcCarthyJD (2017) What a story?Social Forces96(2): 779–702.
34.
OberskiD (2016) Mixture models: Latent profile and latent class analysis. In: RobertsonJKapteinM (eds) Modern Statistical Methods for HCI: A Modern Look at Data Analysis for HCI Research. Cham: Springer, 278–287.
35.
OlsenME (1968) Perceived legitimacy of social protest actions. Social Problems15(3): 297–310.
36.
PaltheJ (2014) Regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of organizations: Implications for managing change. Management and Organizational Studies1(2): 59–66.
37.
ParkSSEinwohnerRL (2019) Becoming a movement society? Patterns in the public acceptance of protest, 1985-2006. Sociological Focus52(3): 186–200.
38.
Ring-RamirezMReynolds-StensonHEarlJ (2014) Culturally constrained contention: Mapping the meaning structure of the repertoire of contention. Mobilization19(4): 405–419.
39.
RobinsonJRosenzweigCMossAJ, et al. (2019) Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the mechanical turk participant pool. PloS One14(12): e0226394.
40.
RodeghierMHallRLUseemB (1991) How education affects attitude to protest: A further test. The Sociological Quarterly32(2): 277–288.
41.
RotoloM (2021) Culture beneath discourse: A conceptual model for analyzing nondeclarative cultural knowledge. American Journal of Cultural Sociology. Epub ahead of print 11 June 2021. DOI: 10.1057/s41290-021-00135-0.
42.
ScottWR (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
43.
SeguinC (2015) Cascades of coverage: Dynamics of media attention to social movement organizations. Social Forces94(3): 997–1020.
44.
ShumanEHasan-AslihSvan ZomerenM, et al. (2022) Protest movements involving limited violence can sometimes be effective: Evidence from the 2020 BlackLivesMatter protests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(14): e2118990119.
45.
SimpsonBWillerRFeinbergM (2018) Does violent protest backfire? Testing a theory of public reactions to activist violence. Socious: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World4: 1–14.
46.
SnowDAVliegenthartRKetelaarsP (2019) The framing perspective on social movements: Its conceptual roots and architecture. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH, et al (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 392–410.
47.
SpurkDHirschiAWangM, et al. (2020) Latent profile analysis: A review and ‘how to’ guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior120: 103445.
48.
TarrowS (1993) Modular collective action and the rise of the social movement: Why the French Revolution was not enough. Politics & Society21(1): 69–90.
49.
TarrowS (2011) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
TaylorC (1971) Interpretation and the sciences of man. The Review of Metaphysics25(1): 3–51.
51.
TillyC (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain 1750–1834. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
52.
TillyC (2008) Contentious Performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TraugottM (1993) Barricades as repertoire: Continuities and discontinuities in the history of French contention. Social Science History17(2): 309–323.
54.
TurnerRH (1969) The public perception of protest. American Sociological Review34(6): 815–831.
55.
VaiseyS (2009) Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology114(6): 1675–1715.
56.
WadaT (2012) Modularity and transferability of repertoires of contention. Social Problems59(4): 544–571.
57.
WangDJSouleSA (2016) Tactical innovation in social movements: The effects of peripheral and multi-issue protest. American Sociological Review81(3): 517–548.
58.
WooSEJebbATTayL, et al. (2018) Putting the ‘person’ in the center: Review and synthesis of person-centered approaches and methods in organization science. Organizational Research Methods21(4): 814–845.
59.
WoutersR (2019) The persuasive power of protest: How protest wins public support. Social Forces98(1): 403–426.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
