SPACES OF CONTENTION*

Charles Tilly

Spatial organization interacts significantly with contentious politics, but figures uncertainly in
current theories of the subject. A review of writing on the subject permits a rough distinction
among bare space analyses using location and time-distance for non-spatial effects, textured
space analyses introducing location and time-distance as explicit causes and effects, and place
analyses treating interaction among location, time-distance, and representations of spaces as
explicit causes and effects. Drawing chiefly on examples from England and France between 1750
and 1900, observations on four varieties of space-contention interactionthe geography of
policing, safe spaces, spatial claim making, and control of places as stakes of contention
illustrate the promise of place analyses for new investigations. An ample bibliography displays
the range of resources available to students of contention.

November 1830 brought London to one of the greatest nineteenth-century peaks of its visible,
vigorous, and often violent popular contention. When King William IV rode in state through
Westminster from St. James to the opening of Parliament on 2 November, people who gathered
along the streets cheered the king but jeered prime minister Wellington. Onlookers roared
"Down with the New Police! No martial law!" (MC [Morning Chronicle] 3 November 1830).
Near Parliament, two people waved tricolor flags, ten or a dozen men wore tricolor cockades,
and members of the crowd cried out "No police" or "Vote by ballot" (LT [Times of London], 3
November 1830).
Throughout London's festive day, Londoners denounced Wellington's likely opposition
to parliamentary reform, decried Home Secretary Robert Peel's new police force, and physically
attacked New Police officers. Over the next few days numerous hostile gatherings formed in
London's financial and legal quarters. (Sensitive to the concentration of financial, commercial,
and legal power in the largely autonomous City of London, Peel had left the City its own police
force, keeping his New Police out of that jurisdiction.) Warned of a likely attack on Wellington,
the king and queen canceled their engagement for a City of London dinner at Guildhall on Lord
Mayor's Day, 9 November. City dignitaries would have to dine without the royal family.
One day before the scheduled dinner, a meeting of the Radical Reform Association at
the Rotunda (Blackfriars Road, Southwark) passed a resolution condemning the ministry for
fearing to bring the king among his own people. As the session ended, meeting chair and radical
firebrand Henry Hunt went outside and spoke to a thousand or so followers who had gathered
____________________________________

* This paper first saw light as my part of a joint effort with William H. Sewell Jr. Our schedules made collaboration too
difficult, so we decided to write up our ideas separately. In addition to Sewell, I am grateful for criticism to Ronald
Aminzade, Viviana Zelizer, and three anonymous reviewers.

Charles Tilly is Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science at Columbia University, New York 10027-7001. E-
mail: ct135@columbia.edu.

Mobilization: An International Journal, 2000, 5(2): 135-159

135
136 Mobilization

there. Thereafter members of Hunt's audience rushed over Blackfriars Bridge, "headed by a man
bearing a tri-coloured flag" and shouting "No Wellington," "No Peel," and "Down with the
Police." They cheered the statue of Charles Ionly British king to lose his head in a popular re-
bellionat Charing Cross. Then they toured various public offices, Downing Street, and the
Houses of Parliament before running into a cordon of New Police who dispersed them with
truncheons (MC 9 November 1830). The same day, government opponents stoned Wellington in
Downing Street.
On the afternoon of 9 November, a thousand persons or so gathered near Richard
Carlile's shop in Fleet Street, heard a speech from radical activist William Wiblin, then rushed
down Fleet Street, through Temple Bar, and along the Strand until they met detachments of New
Police. On the way they shouted "Down with the police!", "No Peel!" and "No Wellington!"
(MC and LT 10 November 1830). Police drove the marchers back in what may have been
history's first organized baton charge by otherwise unarmed police. In the evening City Police
protected Guildhall and the Lord Mayor's carriage from an "immense crowd" whose members
forced passersby to doff their hats and shout "Huzzah." But toward 10 P.M. "perhaps three
hundred men" from Spitalfields arrived at the City's edge, Temple Bar, armed with clubs; they
found that the New Police had barred the gate from Westminster territory, which lay just
outside. Francis Place reported that the Spitalfields men had armed themselves by pulling down
part of the Public Record Office, then under construction in Chancery Lane, and seizing its
staves (BL ADD [British Library, London, Additional MSS] 227789).
In an assertion of their prerogative to control the Temple Bar gate, City Police forced
open the gate, but also sought to disarm the Spitalfields workers. From inside the gate members
of the crowd pelted New Police on the Westminster side with stones and wood. Later, a band of
200-300 men (no doubt essentially the same group) carried tricolor flags into Spitalfields, the
silk-weaving district at the far side of London's East End. They broke windows at a police
station and elsewhere, then disappeared (Annual Register 1830; Spitalfields silk weavers had
long supplied cudgel-bearers for Henry Hunt and his program of parliamentary reform; see
Steinberg 1994). Faced with near-insurrection, the government hastily filled the Tower of
London's moats with water to forestall an attack on the citadel. It also ringed London with 7,000
troops and stationed 2,000 New Police in Westminster alone.
What was happening? On the model of the constabulary he had organized in Ireland as
Chief Secretary there between 1812 and 1818, in September 1829 Peel had installed his
uniformed, disciplined Metropolitan Police in Westminster and a number of adjacent parishes
although not in the City of London. He placed the new force under direct control of his Home
Office, abolished the old parish constabularies, yet levied higher taxes on parishes to pay for the
new constables. The establishment of those police bothered not only the workers, radicals, and
street criminals they were designed to control but also London ratepayers, parish officers, and
magistrates whose previous authority over policing the New Police had escaped.
Thus a variety of people saw the creation of "gendarmes" (in William Cobbett's epithet)
as one more governmental tyranny. In contrast, political organizer and former tailor Francis
Place was much more sympathetic to the New Police than his crustily radical rival Cobbett.
Indeed, Place took credit in his memoirs for advising Peel's police on methods for containing
crowds without excessive violence, including the baton charge. To Place's consternation, people
fought the new force in Parliament, in public meetings, and on the streets. "Large mobs,"
recalled Place, "now assembled in the streets and assailed the police men, with all sorts of bad
language, mud and stones, and on two or three occasions fighting with them" (BL ADD 27789).
In these vignettes of London's popular contention from 1830 we see early stages of the
mobilization that produced the Reform Act of 1832. The November events glitter with intriguing
sidelights:
Spaces of Contention 137

z display of tricolors as emblems of solidarity with the French revolution of July 1830

z coupling of demands for parliamentary reform with resistance to centralized policing

z use of unpoliced Southwark (site of gambling, drinking, prostititution, rollicking fairs, and the
Rotunda's radical meetings) as a political "safe space" and a staging area for marches
into Westminster and the City

z adaptation of royal ceremonies, with their obligatory authorization of gathering in public

places, into expressions of opposition to the regime

z maneuvering of Place, Carlile, Hunt, Cobbett, and other popular leaders for influence over
popular contention and its interpretation

In the background we see two phenomena of great importance to our understanding of

spatial elements in contentious politics: (1) co-evolution of spatially organized policing with
prevailing routines of popular politics, and (2) salience of symbolic geography in popular
struggles. Bureaucratized and spatially organized police certainly proliferated during the
nineteenth century in response to ruling-class demands for governmental control of working-
class areas, of property crime, and of political surveillance. Yet the creation of what authorities
came to call "public order" as an antidote to public disorder played a significant part in the
evolution of police practice. On the side of popular claim making, negotiation with police
agentssometimes violent, sometimes otherwisebecame an inseparable element of public
performances.
When it comes to symbolic geography, spatial patterns figure in contentious politics as
established and meaningful itineraries for public displays of force, as use of emblematic
monuments, locales, or buildings in dramatization of demands, as struggle for control of crucial
public spaces in validation of claims to political power, and as conversion of authorized public
assemblies into occasions for otherwise forbidden or unfeasible political expression. In
nineteenth century London, Rotunda, Guildhall, Parliament, St. James, Fleet Street, Strand, and
Temple Bar all had their own meanings as sites, destinations, and objects of contention. In
contemporary New York, Wall Street, City Hall, Times Square, Williamsburg, and Harlem
likewise call up different meanings as locales for making claims.
This paper looks hard at spatial aspects of contentious politics in London and Paris
during the fifteen decades following 1750 to raise issues bearing on a much broader geographic
and temporal range (for general background and bibliography, see Tilly 1986, 1995). It
concentrates on well-documented events in circumscribed historical locales precisely because
effective analysis of spatial processes requires knowledge of cultures implantation in particular
places and times. Practices, representations, and social relations embed in spatial patterns, then
constrain subsequent social interaction, including the interaction we call contentious politics.
In this paper, contentious politics means episodic, collective interaction among makers
of claims and their objects when a) at least one government is a claimant, an object of claims, or
a party to the claims and b) the claims would, if realized, affect the interests of at least one of the
claimants. (Exercise of police jurisdiction or the raising of claims concerning governmental
policy suffices to qualify government as a party.) Roughly translated, the definition refers to
collective political struggle. It excludes regular bureaucratic work, string-pulling, favor-giving,
private claim making, and workaday conformity to governmental edicts concerning taxes,
censuses, registration of vital events, and the like. In short, it excludes the bulk of political
activity in most polities. Yet it includes just about any episode that political analysts call war,
138 Mobilization

revolution, rebellion, protest, genocide, or social movement activism.

Contentious claims bear on the interests of persons other than the claimants. We can
generally summarize them as transitive verbs: demand, attack, assert, request, petition, support,
and so on. Spatial arrangements and representations can enter either the form or the content of a
claim. Political actors can spell out their insistence by forming and/or referring to a spatial
pattern, as when demonstrators march in well-disciplined blocks segregated by place of origin.
They can also make claims with respect to spatial patterns and processes, as when rebels demand
admission to a forbidden citadel.
We can make a rough distinction between two varieties of contentious politics:
contained and transgressive. Contained contention refers to those cases where all parties are
previously established actors employing well established means of claim making:

Contained contention consists of episodic, public, collective interaction among makers

of claims and their objects when (a) at least one government is a claimant, an object of
claims, or a party to the claims, (b) the claims would, if realized, affect the interests of
at least one of the claimants, where (c) all parties to the conflict were previously
established as constituted political actors and (d) all parties employ well established
means of public claim making.

In the case of transgressive contention, the actors and/or their means of action differ:

Transgressive contention consists of episodic, public, collective interaction among

makers of claims and their objects when (a) at least one government is a claimant, an
object of claims, or a party to the claims, (b) the claims would, if realized, affect the
interests of at least one of the claimants, (c) at least some parties to the conflict are
newly self-identified political actors, and/or (d) at least some parties employ innovative
means of collective action.

The distinction matters because transgressive contention more often disrupts existing
spatial routines in its setting, and more often involves deliberate occupation, reorganization, or
dramatization of public space.

Why should space matter to contentious politics, and vice versa? Here are the main
arguments underlying this papers highly selective review of concrete spatial phenomena and
influences:

1. To begin with the obvious, contention always takes place in humanly occupied space,
often including the built environment. Hence not only time-distance costs but also
spatial configurations present both opportunities and constraints to participants in
public claim making.
2. Everyday spatial distributions, proximities, and routines of potential participants in
contention significantly affect their patterns of mobilization, for example in the
distinction between workers who gather daily in the same workplace and revolutionary
conspirators who improvise new meeting places day by day.
3. By definition, governments always play some part in contentious politics. Governments
always organize at least some of their power around places and spatial routines. Hence
contentious politics often challenges or disrupts governmental activity, and thereby
incites governmental intervention.
4. Routine political life, including the contained contention of parades, parliaments, public
Spaces of Contention 139

ceremonies, and the like, endows different places and spatial routines (e.g. surrounding
the dwelling of a reprobate or gathering in a public square to hear a speaker) with
symbolic significance, which is then available for adoption, parody, or transmutation
by participants in transgressive politics.
5. Contention itself transforms the political significance of particular sites and spatial
routines, as when locations of massacres become objects of pilgrimage or when
funerals become major occasions for expressions of political preference.

Our challenge is then to examine confrontations of top-down and bottom-up power by

identifying spatially bound and/or space-affecting mechanisms and processes (Tilly 1999).
The five arguments stem from close studiesmy own and other peoplesof popular
public claim making in Europe and North America since 1600. In principle, they ought to apply
much more broadly, to all of the world in which people occupy relatively fixed clustered
settlements and governments exercise territorially continuous jurisdiction. Since students of
Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania have so far produced far less documentation
concerning spatial patterns of popular contention, prudence calls for treatment of the arguments
as likely working hypotheses for Europe and North America since 1600, but as conjectures for
other times and places.
What tools have analysts of contentious politics given us for integrating space into our
understanding of contention, or for explaining its spatial patterns? Spatial dynamics often stand
out in descriptions of contentious politics, but rarely play a significant part in analysts'
explanations of what is going on, much less in general formulations concerning social
movements, industrial conflict, revolutions, democratization, or ethnic struggle. This paper seeks
to remedy that imbalance first by mapping the major ways that students of contentious politics
have treated spatial processes when they have done so at all, then by reviewing some
characteristic spatial processes in contentious politics. For convenience and clarity, examples
come from the relatively well documented experiences of London and Paris, 1750-1900.
How valuable readers will find my proposals depends in part on readers views of
explanation. Leaving aside those who think social life is so chaotic, individual, or impenetrable
that all explanation is futile, social scientists generally choose among four rather different ideas
of explanation: systems, covering laws, mechanisms, and propensities.
System explanations consist of specifying the place of some event, structure, or process
within a larger self-maintaining set of interdependent elements, showing how the event,
structure, or process in question serves and/or results from interactions among the larger set of
elements. Human ecologists have often proposed explanations of spatial phenomena in terms of
their functions within self-maintaining urban systems. Similarly, a recurrent idea in analyses of
contention treats collective conflicts as disturbances resulting from system malfunctions.
Covering law accounts consider explanation to consist of subjecting robust empirical
generalizations to higher and higher level generalizations, the most general of all standing as
laws. In such accounts, models are invariant work the same in all conditions. Investigators
search for necessary and sufficient conditions of stipulated outcomes, those outcomes often
conceived of as dependent variables. Studies of covariation among presumed causes and
presumed effects therefore serve as validity tests for proposed explanations. Urbanists have
repeatedly sought to identify laws of rank-size distribution among urban places as well as of land
use distribution within urban regions. In a parallel way, students of contentious politics have
often formulated general models for certain types of collective action, such as revolutions,
strikes, wars, and social movements.
140 Mobilization

Propensity accounts consider explanation to consist of reconstructing a given actors

state at the threshold of action, with that state variously stipulated as motivation, consciousness,
need, organization, or momentum. Explanatory methods of choice then range from sympathetic
interpretation to reductionism, psychological or otherwise. In the case of social movements,
analysts commonly seek to reconstruct the motives of participants on the assumption that
motivation prior to action explains that action. Analysts of contention tend to favor propensity
accounts on the ground that motives, beliefs, and/or impulses drive individual participation in
collective struggles. Propensity accounts of spatial processes divide especially between
economistic choice models and culturalist models of local attachment.
Mechanism-based accounts select salient features of episodes, or significant differences
among episodes, and explain them by identifying robust mechanisms of relatively general scope
within those episodes. In analyses of biological evolution, for example, genetic mutation and
sexual selection serve as mechanisms of extremely general scope without in the least producing
the same outcomes wherever they operate. Social scientists have not identified any mechanisms
so robust and well defined as genetic mutation, but such mechanisms as brokerage and identity
shift do recur over a wide variety of political processes. In spatial analysis, many a historian has
traced the mechanisms by which the laying out of a ground plan for a new settlement leaves its
stamp on the settlements subsequent growth.
I have made my case for preferring mechanism-based explanations to system, covering
law, and propensity accounts at length elsewhere (e.g. in Tilly 2000). I hammer out the
ponderous distinctions here in order to make clear the criteria of explanation that underlie the
following proposals. Since the journals reviewers of the papers preliminary version who had
other criteria of explanation in mind objected that the five organizing arguments above could not
possibly explain spatial processes in political contention, the precaution seems necessary.
Schematically, we may divide existing analyses of space in contentious politics into
three categories: bare space, textured space, and place. As represented in figure 1:
Bare space analyses of space-time simply use location and time-distance as proxies for
non-spatial effects, for example by asking whether the pattern of geographic variation in
revolutionary participation within Paris corresponds to some hypothesis about differential class
involvement. Sometimes spatial distributions provide compelling evidence for or against
explanations of contention that are not intrinsically spatial, notably when (a) social composition
of actors figures prominently in explanations and (b) locations differ significantly in social
composition.
Textured space analyses of space-time introduce location and time-distance as explicit
causes and effects in contention, although primarily as constraint and facilitation, for example by
showing that diffusion of a movement or an organizational form follows previously established
lines of communication. Sometimes costs and benefits that are spatially distributed and mediated
by accessibility of one location to another strongly affect the character of contention, especially
when movement of information, resources, or persons from place to place enter directly into the
action. Epidemiological analyses of contentious politicstreating events as similar to episodes
of infection or death during a contagioncan fall into either the first (bare space) or second
(textured space) category.
Place-oriented analyses of space-time treat interactions among a) location, b) time-
distance and c) representations of spaces as explicit causes and effects in contention, for example
by investigating how actors underscore contentious claims through collective performances in
symbolically charged public spaces. Often, as in the London incidents with which we began,
understandings and representations of space interact strongly with location and time-distance in
the unfolding of contentious politics. In London, Spitalfields weavers had been plying the streets
between their East London base and Parliament for a century before their involvement in the anti-
142 Mobilization

police protests of 1830. Their itineraries down the Strand, past the West End, and into
Whitehall, furthermore, ostentatiously brought massed poor men past England's greatest
visible concentrations of wealth and power. That space-bound confrontation of numbers with
power transmitted its own symbolic message.
In the bare space panel of figure 1, space-time has no texture, while locations and
relations among them actually stand for non-spatial causes and effects. In the textured space
panel, space-time acquires substance, at least to the extent of imposing costs and benefits on
contentious actors in the various locations involved. In the place panel, actors attribute
meaning to particular objects and relations within textured space-time, while that attribution
of meaning affects their interaction. As we move from bare space to place, space-time grows
more complex and plays a more direct causal role in contention. Geographers themselves
divide along this continuum of placeness, some seeking to subsume geographic phenomena
under economic laws having no intrinsic spatial component, some reveling in the complexity
of particular places, and some seeking a coherent causal ground between the two extremes
(see Miller and Martin 1998 for a helpful recent review).
In identifying missed opportunities for spatial analysis in contentious politics, let me
concentrate on the place end of our continuum. That strategy does not stem from disdain for
bare space and textured representations of space-time, which I have used extensively in my
own work. This paper stresses place representations of spatial processes because they
intersect with high-priority agendas in contentious politics as a whole. The greatest theoretical
and methodological difficulties analysts of political contention now face concern
contradiction and integration among structural, rational-action, phenomenological, and
cultural accounts of political processes (Lichbach 1998, Lichbach and Zuckerman 1997,
Goodwin et al. 1999). As the examples to follow illustrate, spatial processes provide great
opportunities for investigation and resolution of those difficulties.
We can detect both spatial constraints and spatial creativity in each aspect of
transgressive contention the remainder of this paper takes up: (1) the geography of policing,
(2) safe spaces, (3) spatial claim making, and (4) control of places as stakes of contentious
politics. These topics cover, of course, only a small portion of all spatial problems that
deserve investigation and integration into the study of contention. Together, nevertheless,
they point toward an important research agenda on space in contentious politics.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF POLICING

Well over thirty years ago, Arthur Stinchcombe (1963) pointed out strong implications for
policing of private and public space's differential distribution within metropolitan areas of
capitalist democracies: areas near the center full of public space, areas toward the periphery
largely private except for streets and roads. Police in central areas easily patrol most of their
territory, and peer into the rest; police-initiated arrests and crimes whose detection depends
heavily on police presence (e.g. disorderly conduct) thus loom large in central districts. Police
in peripheral areas patrol perimeters, rely heavily on complaints by victims or observers, and
expend much less of their effort on crimes of public order. Stinchcombe's telling
simplification calls attention to a much more general phenomenon: the spatial organization of
surveillance, repression, political control, and their evasion (see, e.g., Agnew 1987,
Andreucci and Pescarola 1989, Bayley 1985, Beattie 1986, Brewer et al. 1988, Broeker 1970,
Brogden 1987, Chapman 1970, Cobb 1970, Deflem 1996, Duchacek 1986, Emsley 1983,
Emsley and Weinberger 1991, Gillis 1989, Goldstein 1983, Gurr 1986, Gurr, Grabosky and
Hula 1977, Hughes 1994, Husung 1983, Jessen 1994, Khawaja 1993, Kirby 1993, Kraska and
Spaces of Contention 143

Kappeler 1997, Liang 1992, Lucassen 1996, Ldtke 1989, 1992, Mellor 1989, Merriman
1985, Munger 1979, 1981, Olivier 1991, sterberg and Linidstrm 1988, Paddison 1983,
Palmer 1988, Parker 1988, Sampson, Morenoff and Earls 1999, Sampson and Raudenbush
1999, Schwartz 1988, Tilly 1991, Worrall 1992).
The spatial organization of repressive activities and their evasion significantly af-
fects viability for different forms of contentious politics. As the adventures of Peel's New
Police should remind us, during the nineteenth century both France and Britain created
comprehensive systems of governmental policing, with France's being much more uniform
and centralized than Britain's. By so doing, the two countries generated and modified political
contention. But their new systems of policing also responded to contention; the origins of
models for the New Police in Peel's experience as Irish Secretary should remind us of that
side as well.
France provides a remarkable case in point. If we exclude local forces such as game
wardens, the Revolution and Empire consolidated official policing into two forces. France's
Gendarmerie Nationale was the force that fed Cobbett's critique of the New Police in 1829
and 1830. Reporting to the minister of war and responsible for the patrolling of highways and
rural areas, the Gendarmerie took over the functions of the Marchausse, which in 1720 had
itself consolidated earlier scattered police forces under the same auspices and for essentially
the same activities. The Sret Nationale extended to urban France in general the
organization of the pre-revolutionary Parisian police force, putting the system's control into
the interior ministry. In good Stinchcombian fashion, the Sret not only patrolled streets and
tracked down thieves but also pumped a regular stream of political intelligence from every
region and major city to the capital. In the process, the Sret steadily absorbed existing
municipal police forcestaking over, for example, the police of Lyon in 1851, of Marseille
in 1908, of Toulon in 1918, of Nice in 1920.
The Gendarmerie and, especially, the Sret continued to grow through much of the
nineteenth century. The trend of expenditure for Gendarmerie was already running upward
during the 1840s. Louis Napoleon (who became president in 1848 and emperor in 1852)
accelerated the Gendarmerie's expansion during the first few years after his seizure of power,
then let the force level off. After investment in the Gendarmerie declined during the last years
of the Second Empire, the regime that came to power in the 1870 revolution (and almost lost
that power in the Commune of 1871) again pumped strength into the force.
Sret Nationale fluctuated more dramatically than Gendarmerie. After each nine-
teenth-century revolution1830, 1848, 1870-71the new regime consolidated its control
over France by vigorously expanding the police force. The significant partial exception to that
rule is the Second Republic, which cut expenditures in half before Louis Napoleon, as
president from the end of 1848, tightened his grip on state machinery. On the whole, policing
and political repression waxed and waned together. Governmental efforts finally lay down a
uniform net of control over the entire country.
An ironic consequence follows: as compared to their counterparts in Britain and
other European countries, historians of post-revolutionary popular contention in France
regularly draw voluminous acounts of local political activity throughout France from police
reports conveniently centralized in Parisian national archives of the interior, justice, and war
ministries. These historiansI include myselfbecome clients and confidants of the very
spies and police agents whom local political activists spent much of their time reviling and
evading.
The difference between France and its neighbors goes far beyond historians' prac-
tices: it bespeaks considerable difference in day-to-day interactions between participants in
contentious politics, on one side, and authorities, on the other. As recent studies of French
144 Mobilization

demonstrations have revealed in detail, negotiation with police agents and local authorities
before, during, and after concerted public statements of claims has long shaped the character
and outcome of street politics (Favre 1990, Favre, Fillieule and Mayer 1997, Fillieule 1997a,
1997b, Robert 1996, Sommier 1993, Tartakowsky 1997; cf. Bayat 1997, Lindenberger 1993,
1995, Oliver and Myers 1999, della Porta and Reiter 1998). Parallel interactions and their
consequences cry out for attention in other periods and regimes.

SAFE SPACES

The salience of Southwark, immediately across the Thames from Westminster and the City of
London, as a staging area for popular contention in 1830 has already alerted us to the likely
significance of safe spaces places whose occupants enjoy some protection from intervention
of authorities and enemies. Although the concept itself has not spread like wildfire, an
abundant literature documents the operation of such spaces (e.g. Baer 1992, Bayat 1997,
Butsch 1995, Cope 1996, Kakar 1996, Lindenberger 1995, McAdam 1982, Morris 1984,
Polletta 1999, Schweitzer and Tilly 1982, Singerman 1995, Tambiah 1997, Wang 2000, Zhao
2000). We might usefully distinguish three versions of interaction between contentious
politics and safe spaces:

1. existence of geographic areas where contentious claim making gains protection from
routine surveillance and repression because of terrain, built environment, or legal status,
as in the Parisian Palais Royal of 1788-89, where the Duke of Orleans' patronage made
possible seditious discussion and speech-making that would have brought rapid
incarceration to their participants elsewhere in the metropolis
2. The formation of segregated institutions in which legal privilege, organizational struc-
ture, social composition, or governmental neglect permits otherwise forbidden
conversation and action, as in the ostensibly private dinners, replete with drink, toasts,
and speeches, during which eighteenth-century British elites regularly planned
interventions into public politics
3. public occasions on which authorities tolerate or even encourage large, extraordinary
assemblies in selected sites, thus providing opportunities for both airing of generally
forbidden claims and access to large audiences for those claims, as in France's Mardi
Gras celebrations before 1789, during which shouts against popular enemies, seditious
songs, satirical performances, and physical attacks on symbols or personnel of public
authority often occurred.

All three increase the ease with which potential dissidents meet, communicate, organize, act,
and evade repression.
All three sorts of safe spaces figured in British popular mobilization around John Wilkes
between 1763 and 1770. Wilkes had entered Parliament for Aylesbury in 1757. In April 1763
issue 45 of Wilkes's paper, The North Briton, printed veiled criticism of the king's speech at
the close of Parliament; the king's speech had praised the Treaty of Paris, settling the Seven
Years War. For that article, Wilkes spent a brief term in the Tower of London. The sheriff
and the hangman tried to burn No. 45 publicly in Cheapside, only to be pelted by a crowd that
rescued the condemned paper. Wilkes' judicial appearances during 1763 brought out cheering
throngs and launched the enduring slogan "Wilkes and Liberty." Contemporaries saw him as
a reembodiment of seventeenth-century Leveller John Lilburne, so much so that at a public
dinner an admirer presented him with the 1710 edition of The Tryal of Lieutenant Colonel
Spaces of Contention 145

John Lilburne. In both Britain and North America, the number 45embodied in forty-five
candles, forty-five toasts, forty-five marching men, or a coach bearing the number 45
became an instantly recognized symbol of opposition to arbitrary rule.

Wilkes' public career repeatedly overflowed from safe spaces. Two examples will
suffice. In 1764, Wilkes was expelled from the House of Commons, sentenced to jail, then
declared an outlaw. He had not only reprinted the infamous No. 45 but also produced a
pornographic parody of Pope's Essay on Man (entitled Essay on Woman), then fled the
country. His publisher Williams sufferedor enjoyedthe consequences. Wilkes' lawyer
and close collaborator, Serjeant Glynn, argued in court that the jury, not the judge, had the
right to decide whether a publication constituted libel, therefore whether Williams was guilty
of libel. The presiding judge ruled otherwise, and the jury convicted Williams. On Thursday,
14 February 1765,

Mr. Williams, bookseller in Fleet Street, stood on the pillory in New Palace Yard,
Westminster, pursuant to his sentence . . . for re-publishing the North Briton No. 45 in
volumes. The coach that carried him from the King's Bench prison to the pillory was No. 45.
He was received by the acclamations of a prodigious concourse of people. Opposite to the
pillory were erected four ladders, with cords running from each other, on which were hung a
Jack Boot, an axe, and a Scotch bonnet. The latter, after remaining there some time, was
burnt, and the top of the boot chopt off. During his standing also, a purple purse, ornamented
with ribbonds of an orange colour, was produced by a gentleman, who began a collection in
favor of the culprit, by putting a guinea into it himself, after which, the purse being carried
around, many contributed, to the amount . . . of about 200 guineas. Mr. Williams, at going into
the pillory, and getting out, bowed to the spectators. He held a sprig of laurel in his hand all
the time (GM [Gentleman's Magazine] February 1765: 96).

Spectators at the performance surely caught much of its rich symbolism, for example the
reviled boot, a punning reference to the king's chief minister Lord Bute, and the Scotch
bonnet, a reminder of Bute's Scottish ancestry.
A second example. Coach No. 45 brought Williams from King's Bench Prison. As it
happens, the prison lay in Southwark, a part of Surrey that escaped the tighter policing of
public order prevailing in London and Westminster. Southwark harbored many free spaces,
including the area around King's Bench prison. John Wilkes served sentences in the prison
more or less continuously from April 1768 to April 1770. During that time, crowds of
supporters formed repeatedly outside the prison, voicing their indignation at his incarceration
and their enthusiasm for his libertarian example, over and over again. Their actions fell
chiefly under the mild restrictions of the eighteenth-century riot act, which forbade authorities
to bring public force against an assembled body until a magistrate declared a collective
criminal act to be in the making, and warned that act's likely perpetrators to disperse. On 10
May 1768,

The mob which has constantly surrounded the King's Bench prison in St. George's-fields, ever
since the imprisonment of Mr. Wilkes, grew outrageous; the riot act was read, and the soldiers
ordered to fire. Several persons who were passing along the road at a distance were
unfortunately killed; and one youth about 17, son to a stable-keeper in the Borough, was
singled out, followed, and shot dead, in an outhouse where he had fled for shelter (GM May
1768: 242).
146 Mobilization

When Justice Samuel Gillam had read the riot act, members of the crowd had stoned him.
Gillam then sent guards against his attackers. It later turned out that the first person they
killed, young William Allen, had nothing to do with Wilkes or with the attack on Gillam. By
the end, royal troops had killed five or six more people. The confrontation came to be known
as the Massacre of St. George's fields. Wilkes' lawyers managed to have the magistrates in
charge indicted for murder. The "safe space" of Southwark obviously did not provide
absolute freedom for expressions of opposition and support, but it did create an unusual set of
opportunities for creative making of claims. Safe spaces and their operation challenge
students of contentious politics to concretize and refine their analyses of threat and
opportunity, taking spatial strategies, representations, and constraints seriously.

SPATIAL CLAIM MAKING

In spatial claim making the changing locations, activities, and spatial configurations of people
themselves constitute a significant part of contention. Obvious examples include
demonstrations, sit-down strikes, sit-ins, processions, and mass meetings. Once again a vast
literature documents the phenomenon, but little systematic theory or comparison exists (e.g.
Aminzade 1993, Bezucha 1974, Calhoun 1994, Charlesworth 1983, Charlesworth et al. 1996,
Deane, Beck and Tolnay 1998, Dekker 1982, 1987, Deneckere 1997, Elias and Scotson 1994,
Esherick and Wasserstrom 1990, Farge and Revel 1988, Fillieule 1993, Freitag 1996,
Godechot 1965, Harden 1995, Head 1995, Heers 1971, Hoerder 1977, Kertzer 1988,
Lindenberger 1995, McPhail 1991, Ozouf 1975, della Porta 1995, Rhomberg 1995, Rud
1959, Smith 1984, 1985, Steinberg 1994, 1999, Stoecker 1995, Tacke 1993, Tilly and Lees
1974, Van Honacker 1994). Spatial claim making provided some of contentions most
dramatic moments in London and Paris after 1750.
Spatial form and content, for example, both shaped the opening struggles of the French
Revolution. Consider this notation for Friday 29 August 1788 in the journal of Parisian
bookseller Simon-Prosper Hardy:

Toward seven o'clock at night, the Foot Watch and the Horse Watch having been ordered not
to appear in the Palace Quarter, and the rowdy youngsters, backed by the populace, who had
planned to come declare a sort of open war on the watch, were emboldened by their absence;
the youngsters began to gather on Pont Neuf and at Place Dauphine, in the interior of which
people had to close all the shops and illuminate all the facades of all the houses along with
those of the rue du Harlay. Toward nine o'clock the populace of the faubourg St. Antoine and
the faubourg St. Marcel came to swell the number of the local smart alecks. The disorder grew
and grew; instead of sticking to lighting firecrackers, they then lit a big fire in the middle of
the Place Dauphine. They fed the fire with anything they could find in the vicinity, such as the
sentinel's watch-house from the Pont Neuf near the statue of the bronze horse, and the stands
of orange and lemon merchants in the same place, which were made of simple planks, the
grills of poultry merchants from the Quai de la Valle, all at the risk of burning the nearby
houses. On that fire they burned the effigy of Monseigneur de Lamoignon, the current French
Minister of Justice, after having him do public penance for his wrongdoing (BN Fr
[Bibliothque Nationale, Paris, Fonds Franais] 6687).

Given the unfolding of these events in the heart of Paris, it would be easy to tell bare
space and textured space stories about the localities involvedfor example, how "the
populace of the faubourg St. Antoine and the faubourg St. Marcel" signals the involvement of
craft workers in resistance to the regime, and how proximity of street merchants literally
Spaces of Contention 147

added fuel to the fire.

More important, a bonfire in the Place Dauphine linked the protest visibly to the adjacent
Palace of Justice, and the burning of the Justice Minister's effigy in that place enacted a claim
to popular vengeance in a form mimicking the regime's own rituals of punishment. For
another year beyond August 1788, the Place Dauphine often provided the setting for
ceremonies and bonfires in which law clerks and other people involved in the Old Regime
system of justice acted out support or opposition for personnel and policies of successive
regimes, including the revolutionary regimes of 1789. Elsewhere in Paris, the Place de Grve
(now the Place de l'Htel de Ville), the Place Louis XV (in our own time the Place de la
Concorde), and the Place de la Bastille (still the Place de la Bastille, despite the citadel's
disappearance in 1789) all soon came to represent different relations of participants in
marches and assemblies to the old and new regimes. How the relevant symbolism and
routines develop, and what part they play in the pressing of claims, deserve sustained research
attention.
The great Parisian public places formed starting points, way stations, and destinations for
distinctly different marches, processions, and contentious gatherings. After Louis XVI
dismissed and exiled popular Swiss-born finance minister Jacques Necker on 11 July 1789,
for example, on Sunday the 12th people who had gathered at the Palais Royal removed busts
of Necker and of the duke of Orlans (the king's ostensibly liberal nephew) from Curtius'
nearby waxworks and formed a parade of five thousand people through Paris streets beneath
black flags of mourning. Marchers battled royal troops in the Place Vendme and the
Tuileries, where members of the (equally royal) French Guards joined the crowd's attack on a
German regiment that was trying to clear the palace grounds. A law clerk reported his
impressions:

Everyone from the Palais de Justice went to the Place Louis XV with the busts of the duke of
Orlans and M. Necker and approached the troops, insulted them, threatened them, and threw
stones at them. The soldiers, seeing themselves attacked in this way, lost all control, fell on
the people with gunfire and swords. But the people didn't give up. The stones that were there
for construction of the new bridges served them as ammunition (BN Fr 13713).

By the following day, marchers were aiming their itineraries at the Place de Grve. Long
before 1789, the Place de Grve had teemed with activity adjacent to the city hall, where
delegates of organized merchants ran the city's secular affairs. Civic ceremonies such as
executions, processions, and the celebration of St. John's Eve had shared the space with food
markets, construction shapeups, and gatherings of unemployed workers. Thus to assemble at
the Place de Grve assumed and confirmed the city's collective significance as a presence in
French national politics, just as a march to the Tuileries oriented claims to the monarchy. By
the 13th of July 1789, a provisional committee was directing a newly-formed civic militia
from the city hall, and militia units were regularly assembling at the Place de Grve.

"Toward five o'clock," reported Hardy from his Left Bank vantage point:

I saw passing under my windows on the rue Saint-Jacques an already-formed detachment of

the militia from the district of Mathurins which was going to the Htel de Ville in ranks of
three, calmly and in good order; that militia looked smart and had an upright air . . . One also
saw arriving at the wineshop on the corner of the rues des Noyers et Saint-Jacques a large
detachment of individuals bearing swords and wearing green cockades who stopped to drink
for a while; from their first-floor window they hung a sort of white flag made of a stick and a
148 Mobilization

napkin, as if to call passersby to their support . . . A little after seven o'clock yet another
detachment of militia went up the rue Saint-Jacques. This one was composed of about 120
individuals, who were going the Htel de Ville three by three, and who made sure not to
frighten anyone along the way, by announcing that it was the Third Estate that was going to
the Htel de Ville (BN Fr 6687).

At the city hall militiamen were to meet Third Estate deputies who were proceeding from
Versailles to Paris. Around 8:00 P.M. Hardy saw

seven or eight horsemen of the Third Estate, followed by about three hundred soldiers of the
French Guard, the grenadiers, and other units, armed and marching to a drumbeat, led by
sergeants and without officers, followed by a considerable multitude of insurgents armed in
many different ways and dressed in a great variety of uniforms; they, too, had drums. They
were going, people said, to the Place de Grve, to greet the eighty deputies from Versailles
when they arrived at the Htel de Ville (BN Fr 6687).

That itinerary across the Seine, past the Palais de Justice, and over to the Place de Grve
certainly got volunteers to the Htel de Ville, but it also symbolized their commitment to a
city now in half-open revolt against the king. One day later, on the 14th of July, new streams
of activists coursed the streets between the Htel de Ville and the Bastille, with enormous
consequences for the revolution. Thus standard itineraries come to represent memberships,
commitments, and collective claims. We still lack systematic knowledge of how such
itineraries acquire their meaning and their impact.
An even more complex connection among location, time-distance, representation, and
claim making appears where participants in contentious politics act out claims in a given
place by reference to spaces and spatial relations elsewhere. Displays of maps, pageants
engaging people or symbols obviously identified with different locales, staged arrivals of
delegates (or, for that matter, aggrieved constituents) from elsewhere, deployment of
distinctive regional accents or dialects, and simulations of notorious events such as massacres
or military victories that occurred elsewhere all illustrate the processes involved.
When Britain's long-serving Prince Regent became king George IV at George III's death
in 1820, for example, his attempt to divorce and depose his estranged wife Caroline made
Caroline a popular heroine, or at least a convenient stick with which to beat the regime. As a
parliamentary inquiry into the new queen's comportment proceeded, processions of residents
and workers from different parts of London began converging on the queen's residence,
Brandenburgh House. They typically delivered signed addressed signifying support from
their constituencies. A procession of artisans on 15 August:

met a little before 12 o'clock, near St. Clement's church, and the crowd, which was very
considerable, was there marshalled by a few persons who bore white wands, by way of
distinction; they formed the crowd into companies of a convenient breadth to move through
the streets without creating any inconvenient interruption. The Address itself, signed by
39,786 persons, was borne between two of the addressers, genteelly dressed in mourning, with
rosettes of silk riband in the breasts of their coats; they were followed by about 100 others,
walking two and two, attired in the same manner; about one hundred more followed in
coloured clothes, some with their aprons on, others with silk coloured neckerchiefs, but the
whole exceedingly clean (LT 16 August 1820).

Connoisseurs of nineteenth-century British politics will note the enactment of what people
then called "respectability" as well as the careful representation of status and locality. Backers
Spaces of Contention 149

of queen Caroline were putting pressure on Parliament and George IV by staging shows of
popular support from specific populations located throughout the metropolis. More generally,
participants in contentious claim making often make collective representations of such spatial
entities as "Westminster, " "London," "Great Britain," or "the road to power." Why and how
they do so, and with what effects, constitutes a challenge to further research.

CONTROL OF PLACES AS STAKES OF CONTENTIOUS POLITICS

Because governments organize territorially, claims to control particular territories have

animated contentious politics for millennia (see, e.g. Bayat 1997, Broadbent 1998, Chaturvedi
and Chaturvedi 1996, Cope 1996, Danforth 1995, Daniel 1996, Duneier and Molotch 1999,
Greer 1990, Hay et al. 1975, Jarman 1997, Jones and Moss 1995, Kakar 1996, Karakasidou
1997, Keith and Pile 1993, Koes 1995, Lsebrink and Reichardt 1997, Marden 1997,
Margadant 1992, Marston 1989, McClain, Merriman and Ugawa 1994, Merriman 1985, Pile
and Keith 1997, Randall and Charlesworth 2000, Regis 1999, Rieder 1985, Rokkan and
Urwin 1982, Ruddick 1996, Ryan 1997, Sahlins 1989, Sanjet 1998, Cathy Schneider 1995,
Robert Schneider 1995, Sewell 1996, Shelton 1973, Stowell 1999, Tambiah 1996, Terpstra
2000, Trexler 1981, 1983, van der Veer 1996). Since the eighteenth century, two
contradictory but mutually reinforcing processes have exacerbated struggles over territory.
Their most visible versions confront state-led nationalism with state-seeking nationalism.
From the top, people who already control a state seek to exclude other claimants to
autonomous power from authority within their territories, impose uniform control over
persons, activities, and resources within those same territories, and give priority to particular
cultural forms including language, received history, and public representations of
membership; those efforts constitute state-led nationalism.
From the bottom, people speaking for ostensibly distinct and territorially concentrated
people currently lying under governments dominated by other sorts of people call for
independence, or at least for substantial political autonomy; those people engage in state-
seeking nationalism. Both varieties of nationalism adopt the premise that states should
correspond to nations, and vice versa. Since all existing states of any size actually contain
heterogeneous populations and since successful programs of state-led nationalism threaten
whatever minorities remain ever more visibly, however, state-seeking nationalism repeatedly
attracts a following. Outside powers allied with minorities inside existing states, furthermore,
commonly promote state-seeking nationalism by those minorities.
In Britain and France during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, few major struggles
pivoted on the confrontation between state-led and state-seeking nationalism. Demands for
Irish autonomy and occasional Parisian support for France's provincial counter-
revolutionaries between 1793 and 1799 mark the closest approaches of the two metropolises
in that regard. But more regional and local versions of contention over control of territory
repeatedly animated popular politics in both places. In London, we have already seen how
defenders of local privileges such as the City Police held their ground against royally backed
power. In Paris, eighteenth-century patrons of such "safe spaces" as the Palais Royal, the
Temple, and the faubourg St. Antoine (in the event, dukes of Orleans, Knights Templar, and
abbesses of St. Antoine) repeatedly sided with their clients against incursions by royal agents.
Let one example stand for many. The Paris Commune of 1871 dramatically illustrates the
making of claimsand counter-claimsto control specific territories. As it happens, recent
scholarly debates concerning the Commune pivot, precisely, on the extent to which the
insurrection built on local, as opposed to class, organizational, gender, or cultural solidarity
(Gaillard 1971, Gould 1995, Greenberg 1971, Gullickson 1996, Johnson 1996, Lafargue
150 Mobilization

1997, Rougerie 1964). But no one doubts the salience of locally-based National Guard units
or of city-wide organization.
Although it was also the center of administration, finance, trade, and services, Paris was
France's principal industrial center, hence its largest concentration of workers. By 1871
industry was increasing in scale, large shops were growing up around the Parisian periphery,
the population was moving outward, and the clustered trades of the city's central districts
were declining in importance. In response to the insurrection that followed his December
1851 coup, Louis Napoleon abolished Parisian institutions of self-government, replacing
them with an appointed mayor for the city as a whole and for each of the twenty
administrative districts, the arrondissements. Thus the city lay under immediate control of the
central government.
After the Second Empire's legalization of strikes (1864) and considerable relaxation of
restrictions on assembly and association (1868), French workers and radicals greatly
expanded their publicly visible contention. As had already happened during the Second
Republic (1848-1851) and in the failed resistance to Louis Napoleon's coup, widespread webs
of association with much sending of delegates and addresses from place to place provided
bases of coordination for collective action at larger than local scales. They also underlay a
popular program of federalism that occupied a middle ground between the radical
decentralizing programs of anarchists and the hierarchical structures of many revolutionary
organizations.
The war with Prussia that began in July 1870 raised the political stakes and sharpened
divisions within the republican opposition. Especially when Prussia gained a massive military
advantage and began to fight on French soil, activists divided between those who supported
the war effort and those who gave priority to internationalist, autonomist, or anarchist
programs. As French national military forces lurched from disaster to disaster, however,
temporary alliances formed between those who criticized the government for incompetence
and those who complained about its oppression. In parallel with many other revolutionary
movements in France and elsewhere, radical programs gained support as a function of the
central government's war-driven vulnerability.
Parisian declaration of a Commune on 28 March 1871 followed months of campaigning
by Parisian radicals for such a move and numerous attemptssome successfulto establish
radical autonomous governments in smaller French cities. Arrondissement-based National
Guard units doubled by local committees formed the structure of Parisian government. At the
top stood a municipal government consisting of delegates from arrondissements and a
National Guard central committee likewise formed by election. These twinned organizations
overhauled municipal administration, created public services, and coordinated the city's
defense against encircling German and French troops. A third kind of structurethe popular
clubplayed no formal part in government but beginning in the fall of 1870 became a central
forum for discussion of public affairs and mobilization of collective claim making.
On 28 March, after Adolphe Thiers, leader of the national government that was besieging
Paris, declared that the Commune's misrables could never win, a participant in the
insurrection recollected that:

two hundred thousand misrables came to the Htel de Ville to install their elected
representatives. The battalionsdrums beating, flags topped with liberty caps, red tassels on
the guns, augmented by infantrymen, artillerymen, and sailors who were faithful to Paris
flowed from every street into the Place de Grve, like tributaries of a mighty river. In the
middle of the Htel de Ville, opposite the main entryway, stood a large reviewing stand. The
bust of the Republic, a red sash around her neck, gleaming with red trim, stood guard above.
Huge banners on the faade and the tower mapped out their message of salvation to France. A
Spaces of Contention 151

hundred battalions presented glinting bayonets before the Htel de Ville. Those who could not
get into the square spread out along the quais, the rue de Rivoli, and the boulevard Sebastopol.
Flags grouped before the reviewing standmostly red, some tricolor, all decked with red
symbolized the presence of the people. While the battalions took their places, songs broke out,
bands played the Marseillaise and the Chant du Dpart, bugles sounded the charge, and
cannon of the 1792 Commune thundered on the quai (Lissagaray 1969: 151).

Thus the Commune provides compelling instances not only of territorial claims, but also
of the representation of those claims by means of spatially-oriented performances. In a day of
bitter struggle over control of territories at local, regional, national, and even international
scales, students of similar spatial processes can contribute mightily to explanations of
contentious politics.

CONCLUSION

This review has neglected many interactions between space and contention. In Paris alone,
baron Haussmann's nineteenth century transformation of urban geography both altered and
responded to popular contention. Nor, despite mentioning the Commune, has the inventory of
problems drawn attention to the changing patterns of street fighting and political control in
multiple Parisian insurrections of the nineteenth century.
In London, the period from 1750 to 1900 saw greatly increased segregation between the
(wealthy) West End and the (impoverished) East End, with one consequence being that
incursions of massed East Enders into the posh West End on their way to Whitehall or St.
James came to symbolize class conflict ever more dramatically; such shifts in urban
symbolism and activity require close analysis. We might also profitably examine the part
played by representations of urban change in contentious politics. As Lynn Lees remarks of
England during the later nineteenth century:

Many found the potential social impact of urbanization truly frightening. Charles Trevelyan
linked urban growth to a "rising tide of pauperism and crime," and he depicted London as a
"gigantic engine for depraving and degrading our population." Matthew Arnold warned of the
"vast, miserable, unmanageable masses" entombed in London's East End. In marked contrast
to the rhetoric of northern writers during the cotton famine, London journalists, such as James
Greenwood and Thomas Archer, made their reputations with lurid portrayals of metropolitan
lowlife, weaving together anecdotes of paupers, thieves, and beggars against slum backdrops.
During the 1860s and 1870s, a host of social commentators warned of the "demoralization" of
the poor triggered by the segregation of classes in the capital. In the 1880s, many writers
focussed on chronic poverty and on the supposedly degenerative effects on the minds and
bodies of big city environments, which they blamed for creating explosive social conditions
(Lees 1998: 238-239).

"Explosive" social conditions, in such views, detonated explosive politics. Looking at

such formulations skeptically, geographical analysis can greatly illuminate the political
processes involved in violent or non-violent contention, as well as the place of spatial
representations in their interpretation by observers, authorities, and participants.
Looking beyond Paris and London, spatial aspects of political contention offer a number
of opportunities this paper has not mentioned. It has, for example, entirely neglected the
creation of maps, cadasters, and geographically organized administrative files as means of
political control and objects of contention (see e.g. Biggs 1999, Black 1997, Blaut 1993,
Brenner 1997, Buisseret 1992, Edney 1997, Kain and Baigent 1992, Konvitz 1990, Lewis and
152 Mobilization

Wigen 1997, Pro Ruiz 1992). It has omitted logistical and strategic questions of space in that
most destructive form of contentious politics, war (see e.g. Ausenda 1992, Cock and Nathan
1989, Dudley 1991, Fogarty 2000, Lynn 1993, Pryor 1988, Reyna and Downs 1999,
Thomson 1994). It has also slighted the rich field of proximity-mediated diffusion and
mobilization processes (see e.g. Deane, Beck and Tolnay 1998, Dodgshon 1998, Earle 1993,
Hedstrm 1994, Margadant 1979, Opp and Roehl 1990, Sandell 1998, Traugott 1985, 1995,
Zhao 1998). Those sorts of interplay deserve more sophisticated investigation.
Still, the topics actually addressed here set an interesting agenda. To what extent can we
extend this papers arguments and conclusions beyond the histories of London and Paris
between 1750 and 1900? Let us address the question at two levels: specific problems and
general processes. Taken as a cluster, the geography of policing, safe spaces, spatial claim
making, and political struggle over control of spaces emerge as specific problems of western
cities over the last few centuries. Their coincidence depends on presence of dense settlements
containing well defined public spaces, with governments exercising more or less continuous
jurisdiction and surveillance inside their territories.
Elsewhere, earlier, and later, those problems have their equivalents, but require recasting.
In thinly settled rural areas, nomadic pastoral economies, lineage-dominated settlements, or
zones of civil war, for example, we can reasonably expect to find somewhat different spatial
dynamics. Mechanical or indirect mediation of political interchange such as we witness in
television, electronic communication, and letter-writing campaigns surely alters the
significance of face to face assemblies, and may diminish the political importance of such
assemblies. Specifying and confirming which differences matter, and how, should stand high
on the agenda of specialists in contentious politics.
From the viewpoint of general processes, however, a mechanism-based approach to
explanation (as compared to system, covering law, and propensity approaches) offers a
promise of rich discoveries from comparisons of unlike settings and interactions. If the
concrete sorts of spaces that provide safety vary significantly by time and place, the causal
mechanisms involved in safe spaces probably operate quite generally. It seems likely, for
example, that the crucial element in safe space phenomena is not uneven policing or space
controlled by partly autonomous authorities but the discovery and exploitation of openings in
whatever web of control authorities lay down. In this perspective, James Scotts weapons of
the weak, Alena Ledenevas informal exchange, and the overflow of dissidence at public
hangings begin to display family resemblances. All depend on niche formation modeled
negatively on top-down systems of control (Scott 1985, 1998, Ledeneva 1998, Tilly 1999).
The challenge is not to discover exact replicas of the same routines in diverse settings, but to
identify fruitful causal analogies by means of selective comparison among diverse settings.
At the bare space end of our continuum, detailed observation of location and time-
distance in contentious politics provides precious evidence concerning the influence of
phenomena that are spatially distributed but not intrinsically spatial, such as gender
differences and class relations. In the continuum's middle zones we discover many instances
in which location and time-distance constrain or facilitate contentious interaction. But the
bonanza for spatially oriented analysts of contention awaits us in the zone of place. There we
find the means of documenting and untangling processes of representation that remain
perplexing yet crucial to the complexities of contentious politics.
Spaces of Contention 153

REFERENCES

Aminzade, Ronald. 1993. Ballots and Barricades. Class Formation and Republic Politics in France, 1830-
1871. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Andreucci, Franco and Alessandra Pescarolo. 1989. eds., Gli spazi del potere. Aree, regioni, Stati: Le
coordinate territoriali della storia contemporanea. Florence: Istituto Ernesto Ragionieri.
Ausenda, Giorgio. 1992. ed., Effects of War on Society. San Marino: AIEP Editore for Center for
Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress, San Marino.
Baer, Marc. 1992. Theatre and Disorder in Late Georgian London. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, Jonathan. 1993. "Identit urbaine et classes moyennes dans l'Angleterre moderne," Annales;
Economies, Socits, Civilisations 48: 853-884.
Bayat, Asef. 1997. Street Politics. Poor People's Movements in Iran. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bayley, David H. 1985. Patterns of Policing. A Comparative International Analysis. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Beattie, John. 1986. Crime and the Courts in England, 1660-1800. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bezucha, Robert J. 1974. The Lyon Uprising of 1834: Social and Political Conflict in the Early July
Monarchy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Biggs, Michael. 1999. Putting the State on the Map: Cartography, Territory, and European State
Formation, Comparative Studies in Society and History 41: 374-405.
Black, Jeremy. 1997. Maps and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blaut, J.M. 1993. The Colonizer's Model of the World. Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History.
New York: Guilford.
Brenner, Neil. 1997. "State Territorial Restructuring and the Production of Spatial Scale: Urban and
Regional Planning in the FRG, 1960-1990," Political Geography 16: 273-306.
Brewer, John D. et al. 1988. The Police, Public Order and the State. Policing in Great Britain, Northern
Ireland, the Irish Republic, the USA, Israel, South Africa and China. New York: St. Martins.
Broadbent, Jeffrey. 1998. Environmental Politics in Japan. Networks of Power and Protest. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Broeker, Galen. 1970. Rural Disorder and Police Reform in Ireland, 1812-36. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Brogden, Mike. 1987. "The Emergence of the Police: The Colonial Dimension," British Journal of
Criminology 27: 4-14.
Buisseret, David. 1992. ed., Monarchs, Ministers, and Maps. The Emergence of Cartography as a Tool of
Government in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butsch, Richard. 1995. "American Theater Riots and Class Relations, 1754-1849," Theatre Annual 48: 41-
59.
Calhoun, Craig. 1994. Neither Gods Nor Emperors: Students and the Struggle for Democracy in China.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chapman, Brian. 1970. Police State. London: Pall Mall.
Charlesworth, Andrew. 1983. ed., An Atlas of Rural Protest in Britain 1548-1900. London: Croom Helm.
Charlesworth, Andrew et al. 1996. eds., An Atlas of Industrial Protest in Britain 1750-1990. London:
Macmillan.
Chaturvedi, Jayati and Gyaneshwar Chaturvedi. 1996. "Dharma Yudh: Communal Violence, Riots, and
Public Space in Ayodhya and Agra City: 1990 and 1992," in Paul R. Brass., ed. Riots and Pogroms.
New York: New York University Press.
Cobb, Richard. 1970. The Police and the People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cock, Jacklyn and Laurie Nathan. 1989. eds., War and Society. The Militarisation of South Africa. Cape
Town: David Philip.
154 Mobilization

Cope, Meghan. 1996. "Weaving the Everyday: Identity, Space, and Power in Lawrence, Massachusetts,
1920-1939," Urban Geography 17: 179-204.
Danforth, Loring M. 1995. The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Daniel, E. Valentine. 1996. Charred Lullabies. Chapters in an Anthropography of Violence. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Deane, Glenn, E.M. Beck and Stewart E. Tolnay. 1998. Incorporating Space into Social Histories: How
Spatial Processes Operate and How We Observe Them, International Review of Social History 43,
Supplement 6: New Methods for Social History, 57-80.
Deflem, Mathieu. 1996. International Policing in Nineteenth-Century Europe: the Police Union of German
States, 1851-1866, International Criminal Justice Review 6: 36-57.
Dekker, Rudolf. 1982. Holland in beroering. Oproeren in de 17de en 18de eeuw. Baarn: Amboeken.
__________. 1987. "Women in Revolt: Popular Protest and its Social Basis in Holland in the Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Centuries," Theory and Society 16: 337-362.
Deneckere, Gita. 1997. Sire, het volk mort. Sociaal protest in Belgi. 1831-1918). Antwerp: Baarn, Ghent:
Amsab.
Dodgshon, Robert A. 1998. Society in Time and Space. A Geographical Perspective on Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duchacek, Ivo D. 1986. The Territorial Dimension of Politics. Within, Among, and Across Nations.
Boulder: Westview.
Dudley, Leonard M. 1991. The Word and the Sword. How Techniques of Information and Violence Have
Shaped the World. Oxford: Blackwell.
Duneier, Mitchell, and Harvey Molotch. 1999. Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social
Inequality, and the Urban Interaction Problem, American Journal of Sociology 104: 1263-1295.
Earle, Carville. 1993. "Divisions of Labor: The Splintered Geography of Labor Markets and Movements in
Industrializing America. 1790-1930," International Review of Social History 38, supplement 1: 5-38.
Edney, Matthew H. 1997. Mapping an Empire. The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765-
1843. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elias, Norbert and John L. Scotson. 1994. The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into
Community Problems. London: Sage. 2d edn.
Emsley, Clive. 1983. Policing and its Context, 1750-1870. London: Macmillan.
Emsley, Clive and Barbara Weinberger. 1991. eds., Policing in Western Europe. Politics, Professionalism,
and Public Order, 1850-1940. New York: Greenwood.
Esherick, Joseph W. and Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom. 1990. "Acting Out Democracy: Political Theater in
Modern China," Journal of Asian Studies 49: 835-865.
Farge, Arlette and Jacques Revel. 1988. Logiques de la foule. L'affaire des enlvements d'enfants, Paris
1750. Paris: Hachette.
Faue, Elizabeth. 2000. ed., The Working Classes and Urban Public Space, special issue of Social Science
History 24, no. l: entire issue.
Favre, Pierre. 1990. ed., La Manifestation. Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
Favre, Pierre, Olivier Fillieule and Nonna Mayer. 1997. La fin dune trange lacune de la sociologie des
mobilisations. Ltude par sondage des manifestants. Fondements thoriques et solutions techniques,
Revue Franaise de Science Politique 47: 3-28.
Fillieule, Olivier. 1993. ed., Sociologie de la protestation. Les formes de l'action collective dans la France
contemporaine. Paris: L'Harmattan.
__________. 1997a. Stratgies de la rue. Les manifestations en France. Paris: Presses de la Fondation
Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
__________. 1997b. ed., Maintien de lordre, special issue of Cahiers de la Scurit Intrieure.
Fogarty, Brian E. 2000. War, Peace, and the Social Order. Boulder: Westview.
Spaces of Contention 155

Freitag, Sandria B. 1996. "Contesting in Public: Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Communalism," in
David Ludden, ed., Contesting the Nation. Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in
India. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gaillard, Jeanne. 1971. Communes de Province, Commune de Paris 1870-1871. Paris: Flammarion.
Gillis, A.R. 1989. "Crime and State Surveillance in Nineteenth-Century France," American Journal of
Sociology, 95: 307-341.
Godechot, Jacques. 1965. La prise de la Bastille. Paris: Gallimard.
Goldstein, Robert J. 1983. Political Repression in 19th Century Europe. London: Croom Helm.
Goodwin, Jeff, James Jasper, Charles Tilly, Francesca Polletta, Sidney Tarrow, David Meyer and Ruud
Koopmans. 1999. Mini-Symposium on Social Movements, Mobilization 14: 27-136.
Gould, Roger V. 1995. Insurgent Identities. Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the
Commune. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Greenberg, Louis. 1971. Sisters of Liberty: Paris, Marseille, Lyon and the Reaction to the Centralized
State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Greer, Allan. 1990. "From Folklore to Revolution: Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837,"
Social History 15: 25-43.
Gullickson, Gay L. 1996. Unruly Women of Paris. Images of the Commune. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1986. "Persisting Patterns of Repression and Rebellion: Foundations for a General
Theory of Political Coercion," in Margaret P. Karns, ed., Persistent Patterns and Emergent Structures
in a Waning Century. New York: Praeger Special Studies for the International Studies Association.
Gurr, Ted Robert, P.N. Grabosky and R.C. Hula. 1977. The Politics of Crime and Conflict. A Comparative
History of Four Cities. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Harden, J. David. 1995. "Liberty Caps and Liberty Trees," Past and Present 146: 66-102.
Hart, Peter. 1997. The Geography of Revolution in Ireland 1917-1923, Past and Present 155: 142-176.
Hay, Douglas et all. 1975. Albion's Fatal Tree. Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England. New
York: Pantheon.
Head, Randolph C. 1995. Early Modern Democracy in the Grisons. Social Order and Political Language in
a Swiss Mountain Canton, 1470-1620. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedstrm Peter. 1994. "Contagious Collectivities: On the Spatial Diffusion of Swedish Trade Unions,
1890-1940," American Journal of Sociology 99: 1157-1179.
Heers, Jacques. 1971. Ftes, jeux et jotes dans les socits d'Occident la fin du Moyen Age. Paris: Vriss.
Hoerder, Dirk. 1977. Crowd Action in a Revolutionary Society: Massachusetts, 1765-1780. New York:
Academic Press.
Hughes, Steven C. 1994. Crime, Disorder and the Risorgimento. The Politics of Policing in Bologna.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Husung, Hans-Gerhard. 1983. Protest und Repression im Vormrz: Norddeutschland zwischen
Restauration und Revolution. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Jarman, Neil. 1997. Material Conflicts. Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Berg.
Jessen, Ralph. 1994. "Polizei, Wohlfahrt und die Anfnge des modernen Sozialstaats in Preussen whrend
des Kaiserreichs," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 20: 157-180.
Johnson, Martin Phillip. 1996. The Paradise of Association. Political Culture and Popular Organizations in
the Paris Commune of 1871. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jones, John Paul III and Pamela Moss. 1995. "Democracy, Identity, Space," Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 13: 253-257.
Kain, Roger J.P. and Elizabeth Baigent. 1992. The Cadastral Map in the Service of the State. A History of
Property Mapping. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kakar, Sudhir. 1996. The Colors of Violence. Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
156 Mobilization

Karakasidou, Anastasia N. 1997. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Passages to Nationhood in Greek
Macedonia, 1870-1990. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keith, Michael and Steve Pile. 1993. eds., Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge.
Kertzer, David I. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Khawaja, Marwan. 1993. "Repression and Popular Collective Action: Evidence from the West Bank,"
Sociological Forum 8: 47-71.
Kirby, Andrew. 1993. Power/Resistance. Local Politics and the Chaotic State. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Kliot, Nurit and Stanley Waterman. 1983. ed., Pluralism and Political Geography. People, Territory and
State. London: Croom Helm.
Koes, Stephen A. 1995. "Territorial Disputes and Interstate War, 1945-1987," Journal of Politics 57: 159-
175.
Konvitz, Joseph W. 1990. "The Nation-state, Paris and Cartography in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-century
France," Journal of Historical Geography 16: 3-16.
Kraska, Peter B. and Victor E. Kappeler. 1997. Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization
of Paramilitary Units, Social Problems 44: 1-18.
Lafargue, Jrme. 1997. "La Commune de 1871 ou l'ordre improbable," in Dsordre(s). Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Ledeneva, Alena V. 1998. Russia's Economy of Favours. Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lees, Lynn Hollen. 1998. The Solidarities of Strangers. The English Poor Laws and the People, 1700-1948.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, Martin W. and Kren W. Wigen. 1997. The Myth of Continents. A Critique of Metageography.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liang, Hsi-Huey. 1992. The Rise of Modern Police and the European State System from Metternich to the
Second World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lichbach, Mark I. 1998. "Contending Theories of Contentious Politics and the Structure-Action Problem of
Social Order," Annual Review of Political Science 1: 401-424.
Lichbach, Mark Irving and Alan S. Zuckerman. 1997. eds., Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture, and
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindenberger, Thomas. 1993. "Politique de rue et action de classe Berlin avant la Premire Guerre
mondiale," Genses 12: 47-68.
__________. 1995. Strassenpolitik. Zur Sozialgeschichte der ffentlichen Ordnung in Berlin 1900 bis 1914.
Bonn: Dietz.
Lissagaray, Prosper-Olivier. 1969. Histoire de la Commune de 1871. Paris: Maspro.
Lodhi, A.Q., and Charles Tilly (1973): "Urbanization, Criminality and Collective Violence in Nineteenth-
Century France," American Journal of Sociology 79: 296-318.
Lucassen, Leo. 1996. Zigeuner. Die Geschichte eines polizeilichen Ordnungsbegriffes in Deutschland
1700-1945. Cologne: Bhlau.
Ldtke, Alf. 1989. Police and State in Prussia, 1815-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
__________.1992. "Sicherheit" und "Wohlfahrt". Polizei, Gesellschaft und Herrschaft im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Lsebrink, Hans-Jrgen and Rolf Reichardt. 1997. The Bastille. A History of a Symbol of Despotism and
Freedom. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lynn, John. 1993. ed., Feeding Mars. Logistics in Western Warfare from the Middle Ages to the Present.
Boulder: Westview.
Marden, Peter. 1997. "Geographies of Dissent: Globalization, Identity and the Nation," Political Geography
16: 37-64.
Margadant, Ted. 1979. French Peasants in Revolt. The Insurrection of 1851. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Spaces of Contention 157

__________. 1992. Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Marston, Sallie A. 1989. "Public Rituals and Community Power: St. Patrick's Day Parades in Lowell, Mas-
sachusetts, 1841-1874," Political Geography Quarterly 8: 255-269.
McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 1988) Freedom Summer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McClain, James L., John M. Merriman and Ugawa Kaoru. 1994. eds., Edo and Paris. Urban Life and the
State in the Early Modern Era. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McPhail, Clark. 1991. The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Mellor, Roy E.H. 1989. Nation, State, and Territory. A Political Geography. London: Routledge.
Merriman, John M. 1985. The Red City. Limoges and the Nineteenth Century. New York; Oxford
University Press.
Miller, Byron and Deborah Martin. 1998. "Missing Geography: Social Movements on the Head of a Pin?"
presented to the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Boston.
Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for
Change. New York: Free Press.
Munger, Frank. 1979. "Measuring Repression of Popular Protest by English Justices of the Peace in the In-
dustrial Revolution," Historical Methods 12: 76-83.
__________. 1981. "Suppression of Popular Gatherings in England, 1800-1830," American Journal of
Legal History 25: 111-140.
Oliver, Pamela E. and Daniel J. Myers. 1999. How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and
Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events, American Journal of Sociology 105: 38-
87.
Olivier, Johan. 1991. "State Repression and Collective Action in South Africa, 1970-84," South African
Journal of Sociology 22: 109-117.
Opp, Karl-Dieter and Wolfgang Roehl. 1990. "Repression, Micromobilization, and Political Protest," Social
Forces 69: 521-547.
sterberg, Eva and Dag Lindstrm. 1988. Crime and Social Control in Medieval and Early Modern
Swedish Towns. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Studia Historica Upsaliensia, 152.
Ozouf, Mona. 1975. "Space and Time in the Festivals of the French Revolution," Comparative Studies in
Society and History 17: 372-384.
Paddison, Ronan. 1983. The Fragmented State. The Political Geography of Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
Palmer, Stanley H. 1988. Police and Protest in England and Ireland 1780-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Parker, Geoffrey. 1988. The Geopolitics of Domination. London: Routledge.
Pile, Steve and Michael Keith. 1997. Geographies of Resistance. London: Routledge.
Polletta, Francesca. 1999. "'Free Spaces' in Collective Action," Theory and Society 28: 1-38.
della Porta, Donatella. 1995. Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State. A Comparative Analysis
of Italy and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
della Porta, Donatella and Herbert Reiter. 1998. eds., Policing Protest. The Control of Mass
Demonstrations in Western Democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pro Ruiz, Juan. 1992. Estado, geometra y propriedad. Les orgenes del catastro en Espaa, 1715-1941.
Madrid: Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda.
Pryor, John H. 1988. Geography, Technology, and War. Studies in the Maritime History of the
Mediterranean 649-1571. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Puhle, Hans-Jrgen. 1995. Staaten, Nationen und Regionen in Europa. Vienna: Picus Verlag.
Randall, Adrian Randall and Andrew Charlesworth. 2000. eds., Moral Economy and Popular Protest.
Crowds, Conflict and Authority. London: Macmillan.
Regis, Helen A. 1999. Second Lines, Minstrelsy, and the Contested Landscapes of New Orleans Afro-
Creole Festivals, Cultural Anthropology 14: 472-504.
158 Mobilization

Reyna, S.P. and R.E. Downs. 1999. eds., Deadly Developments. Capitalism, States and War. Amsterdam:
Gordon and Breach.
Rhomberg, Chris. 1995. "Collective Actors and Urban Regimes: Class Formation and the 1946 Oakland
General Strike," Theory and Society 24: 567-594.
Rieder, Jonathan. 1985. Canarsie. The Jews and Italians of Brooklyn Against Liberalism. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Robert, Vincent. 1996. Les chemins de la manifestation, 1848-1914. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Rokkan, Stein and Derek W. Urwin. 1982. ed., The Politics of Territorial Identity. Studies in European
Regionalism. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Rougerie, Jacques. 1964. Procs des Communards. Paris: Julliard. 1971. Paris libre 1871. Paris: Seuil.
Ruddick, Susan. 1996. "Constructing Difference in Public Spaces: Race, Class, and Gender as Interlocking
Systems," Urban Geography 17: 132-151.
Rud, George. 1959) The Crowd in the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, Mary P. 1997. Civic Wars. Democracy and Public Life in the American City during the Nineteenth
Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sahlins, Peter. 1989. Boundaries. The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff and Felton Earls. 1999. Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics
of Collective Efficacy for Children, American Sociological Review 64: 633-660.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:
A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods, American Journal of Sociology 105: 603-651.
Sandell, Rickard. 1998. Social Movements and Social Networks. Stockholm: Department of Sociology,
Stockholm University. Stockholm Series on Social Mechanisms, No. 1.
Sanjek, Roger (1998): The Future of Us All. Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Schneider, Cathy Lisa. 1995. Shantytown Protest in Pinochet's Chile. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Schneider, Robert A. 1995. The Ceremonial City. Toulouse Observed 1738-1780. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Schwartz, Robert M. 1988. Policing the Poor in Eighteenth-Century France. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.
Schweitzer, R.A. and Charles Tilly. 1982. "How London and its Conflicts Changed Shape, 1758-1834,"
Historical Methods 5: 67-77.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
__________.1998. Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have
Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sewell, William H. Jr. 1996. "Historical Events as Transformations of Structures: Inventing Revolution at
the Bastille," Theory and Society 25: 841-881.
Shelton, Walter J. 1973. English Hunger and Industrial Disorders: A Study of Social Conflict during the
First Decade of George III's Reign. London: Macmillan.
Singerman, Diane. 1995. Avenues of Participation. Family, Politics, and Networks in Urban Quarters of
Cairo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, Rebecca L. 1984. "Creating Neighborhood Identity Through Citizen Activism," Urban Geography
5: 49-70.
__________.1985. "Activism and Social Status as Determinants of Neighborhood Identity," Professional
Geographer 37: 421-432.
Sommier, Isabelle. 1993. "La CGT: du service d'ordre au service d'accueil," Genses 12: 69-88.
Steinberg, Marc W. 1994. "The Dialogue of Struggle: The Contest over Ideological Boundaries in the Case
of London Silk Weavers in the Early Nineteenth Century," Social Science History 18: 505-542.
Spaces of Contention 159

__________. 1999. Fighting Words. Working-Class Formation, Collective Action, and Discourse in Early
Nineteenth-Century England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1963. "Institutions of Privacy in the Determination of Public Administrative
Practice," American Journal of Sociology 69: 150-161.
Stoecker, Randy. 1995. "Community, Movement, Organization: The Problem of Identity Convergence in
Collective Action," Sociological Quarterly 36: 111-130.
Stowell, David O. (1999): Streets, Railroads, and the Great Strike of 1877. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tacke, Charlotte. 1993. "Les lieux de mmoire et la mmoire des lieux: Mythes et monuments entre nation
et rgion en France et en Allemagne au XIXe sicle" in Dominique Julia, ed., Culture et Socit dans
l'Europe moderne et contemporaine. Florence: European University Institute.
Tambiah, Stanley J. 1996. Leveling Crowds. Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence in South
Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
__________. 1997. "Friends, Neighbors, Enemies, Strangers: Aggressor and Victim in Civilian Ethnic
Riots," Social Science and Medicine 45: 1177-1188.
Tartakowsky, Danielle. 1997. Les manifestations de rue en France 1918-1968. Paris: Publications de la
Sorbonne.
Terpstra, Nicholas. 2000. ed., The Politics of Ritual Kinship. Confraternities and Social Order in Early
Modern Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomson, Janice E. 1994. Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns. State-Building and Extraterritorial
Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1986. The Contentious French. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
__________. 1991. "Police, Etat, contestation," Cahiers de la scurit intrieure 7: 13-18.
__________. 1995. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. 1996.
__________. 1999. PowerTop Down and Bottom Up, Journal of Political Philosophy 7: 306-328.
__________. 2000. Historical Analysis of Political Processes, in Jonathan H. Turner, ed., Handbook of
Sociological Theory. New York: Plenum, forthcoming.
Tilly, Charles and Lynn Lees. 1974. "Le peuple de Juin 1848," Annales; Economies Socits, Civilisations
29: 1061-1091.
Traugott, Mark. 1985. Armies of the Poor. Determinants of Working-Class Participation in the Parisian In-
surrection of June 1848. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
__________. 1995. "Capital Cities and Revolution," Social Science History 19: 147-168.
Trexler, Richard C. 1981. Public Life in Renaissance Florence. New York: Academic Press.
__________. "Neighbors and Comrades: The Revolutionaries of Florence, 1378," Social Analysis 14: 53-
106.
Van Honacker, Karin. 1994. Lokaal Verzet en Oproer in de 17de en 18de Eeuw. Collectieve Acties tegen
het centraal gezag in Brussel, Antwerpen en Leuven. Heule: UGA.
van der Veer, Peter. 1996. "Riots and Rituals: The Construction of Violence and Public Space in Hindu
Nationalism," in Paul R. Brass., ed. Riots and Pogroms. New York: New York University Press.
Walton, John (1998): "Urban Conflict and Social Movements in Poor Countries: Theory and Evidence of
Collective Action," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22: 460-481.
Wang, Di (2000): The Idle and the Busy. Teahouses and Public Life in Early Twentieth-Century Chengdu,
Journal of Urban History 26: 411-437.
Worrall, David. 1992. Radical Culture. Discourse, Resistance and Surveillance, 1790-1820. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press.
Zhao, Dingxin. 1998. Ecologies of Social Movements: Student Mobilization during the 1989 Prodemocracy
Movement in Beijing, American Journal of Sociology 103: 1493-1529.
__________. 2000. The Power of Tiananmen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming.