{"id":181690,"date":"2021-03-29T12:00:55","date_gmt":"2021-03-29T11:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=181690"},"modified":"2024-07-02T08:49:42","modified_gmt":"2024-07-02T07:49:42","slug":"an-illustrated-glossary-of-political-violence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/03\/an-illustrated-glossary-of-political-violence\/","title":{"rendered":"An Illustrated Glossary of Political Violence"},"content":{"rendered":"

On January 6, 2020, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol building<\/a> in Washington, DC, halting the count of electoral votes to confirm Joe Biden\u2019s presidency. This happened as the House and Senate debated a move by a faction of Republicans to overturn the election results. Protesters violently entered the congressional building; property was damaged, people were injured, and five people died in the process. In addition to the temporary occupation of the Capitol building, incendiary devices were placed at the Republican and Democratic Party headquarters.<\/p>\n

In media coverage and public discussions of these events, there has been considerable debate about what the event was. A protest? Dissent? A riot? Insurrection? Terror? A coup? Or was it some sort of hybrid that has yet to be labeled?<\/p>\n

Language and concepts matter. They help us understand why something happened, because we can compare it to other instances of the same thing<\/a>. They tell us what to expect in the next stage, based on similar events. They establish equal treatment, if applied to equal situations. They unite and divide<\/a>. They also reveal when discussions become improper or even ridiculous<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With this in mind, we provide some definitions of various types of political violence, which represent a consensus of how political conflict and violence scholars define these terms. We also provide visualizations<\/a>, which help communicate what words intend, but can never quite capture alone.<\/p>\n

To be clear, what we list and define here are tactics<\/strong>. They are not classes of people, nor are they distinct classes of politics<\/a>. They are what Charles Tilly would call a \u201crepertoire<\/a>\u201d or what Joseph Young and Stephen Shellman call \u201cmenu<\/a>\u201d items: tactics of contention that people choose from when competing with the state for resources, policies, and status.<\/p>\n

A Glossary of Political Violence<\/h2>\n

Dissent or Protest:<\/em><\/strong> a coordinated attempt by nonstate actors to influence political outcomes that is not organized by the state.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dissent and protest are any actions people take together\u2014whether organized or not\u2014that threaten those in power with negative consequences to achieve a political outcome, whether a change in regime, secession from the government, a policy or practice of social justice, or attainment of more resources or benefits for their group. Dissent and protest are part of the process of contention whereby the agents of change square off against the agents of the status quo\u2014in government, corporate boardrooms, or wealthy neighborhoods. (Status quo on the part of the state is alternatively labeled state repression, human rights violation, protest policing, riot control, public order management, counter-terrorism, counter-revolution, or counter-insurgency.)\"\"<\/a>Protest and dissent are umbrella terms that include many different tactics, which may be violent or nonviolent. One of the more complete listings of dissent and protest activities can be found here<\/a> as compiled by the Dynamics of Collective Action<\/a> project. Tactics on the menu include:<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n