{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017278617710583154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bringing nonviolence back into the study of contentious politics

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.