This article criticizes synthetic political opportunity structure theory (SPOT) formulated by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly for insufficiently incorporating a research tradition called the technique approach to nonviolent action (TAN). My purpose is to bring nonviolence back into the study of contentious politics in two steps. First, by sketching the perspectives and comparing them to reveal undiscovered overlaps and differences in inquiry at the micro and macro levels of analysis. Second, I formulate a synthesis of TAN and SPOT with sometimes competing hypotheses structured around SPOT's key explanandum: the cycle of contention. I conclude that McAdam et al. are required to advance more explicit hypotheses to establish the stages, scope and shape of the cycle of contention and explain the conditions under which cycles of contention lead to revolutions.
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.