Review of: Tarrow, S. (2015). War, states, and contention: A comparative historical study. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Language of Contention: Revolutions in Words, 1688-2012 and Strangers at the Gates: Movements and States in Contentious Politics.His book, War, States and Contention.A Comparative Historical Study, is a splendid and ground-breaking contribution to the comprehension of how war and states converge with contentious political issues.Through a double accentuation on the structural foundations of war and dispute, from one perspective, and actor mobilization and repertories of contentious political issues from the other perspective, Sidney Tarrow addresses issues that lie at the heart of contemporary investigation on the restructuring of the state and on the obscuring of territories between internal and external politics.Beginning from the famous contention progressed by Charles Tilly that "states make war, war also makes states," the book adds contentious politics to the equation.This adjunction provides further understandings of the relationship between states and war; contentious politics clarifies why and how states participate in wars, and the impacts of war on states.But the book additionally reveals insight into a second, less known equation of Tilly's, which builds up a relationship between war and natives' rights.Tarrow talks about how war prompts the employment of emergency measures that lessen rights, regardless of whether they are reinstated later.In other words, when a state rolls out war this involves changes in: the nature of internal contentious politics, the state's reactions to conflict, and in state organization.Tarrow examines these issues through a comparative historical study that uncovers how current structural changes in states, fighting, and types of contentious politics alter what we might see in the time of Western state-building.Drawing on these mechanisms connected to the formation and union of Western European states, Tarrow acknowledges two pivotal upturns.On the one hand, it puts contention between war and the state, considering both opposition from within national boundaries and from outside.Through this, he also studies the various forms through which domestic and international conflict stand in relation to each other.On the other hand, Tarrow updates these issues to the present in the analysis of the U.S. state and the War on Terror.He reveals how structural changes linked to globalisation and internationalisation alter the relationships between states, warfare, and forms of contention.The author's argument is built around a triptych-war, state, and contention-and bridges the gap between social movement studies, comparative historical sociology studies, and international relations.The relevance of this approach relies not only on placing three usually separate strands of literature in dialogue with one another, but also on the major results that the book offers.Powerful hypotheses for further research are provided.The present discussion engages with the book's arguments on three intertwined topics, which Mushtaq, 2016
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".