The riots that plagued England and Northern Ireland had barely begun before the war of words over their nature, causes, and what should be done about them kicked into overdrive.

For some, including many in the mainstream, right-leaning media and even many in the Conservative Party, the riots were simply explained: “mass immigration” was too high, and thus the Government should shut down immigration. These narratives were as often about justifying the riots as they were about explaining them, and they aligned suspiciously closely with the political preferences of those spreading them.

The fact is that the violent rioting we saw had varied participants and many causes. Those appearing the docks facing years-long sentences for their roles in the violence have ranged from hardened neo-Nazis who attacked police to alcohol-addled pensioners with no criminal records. Far from being unusual, this is the norm for such violence.

Nonetheless such violence is fundamentally in the name of a political goal. Whether most of those involved were political activists or not, this was an episode of political contention and must be understood as such.

The concept of contentious politics was developed in the 1990s and 2000s by political sociologists like Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, who sought to dissect the dynamics that create and drive social movements. It refers to the use of disruption by movements and organised political groups to achieve their goals, encompassing a range of tactics from peaceful protests to violent clashes.

Contentious politics is often characterised by a struggle between marginalised groups and the political authorities, but those engaging in political contention are not always marginalised and it explains just as much the contention of the privileged.

Several factors........

© Herald Scotland