ABSTRACT
In this book, a strategic interaction perspective (SIP) has been applied by authors coming from various disciplinary backgrounds and theoretical traditions. In a way, by participating in this book, the authors are making a statement: we all agree that an approach focusing on the strategic interaction among players in arenas has much to offer the study of protest, particularly compared to the previously – and overly – dominant contentious politics model. Other attempts have been made recently in the same direction, mainly in critically referring to the theory of fields elaborated by Pierre Bourdieu (Mathieu, 2012; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). While we largely share their ambition, we are convinced that an interactionist approach is better equipped to deal with the challenges raised here than the concept of field is. In this conclusion, we will defend this innovative approach, outlining the strong advantages of the notions of the “social world” and “arena” (as opposed to the concept of field) and the virtue of what we will call a “dispositionalist interactionism” in order to make sense of micro-mobilization processes and agency in interactions (as opposed to structuralist and rational choice theories). Thus, we honor James Jasper's pioneering work, while at the same time engaging in discussions with him and other authors of this volume regarding various aspects that deserve further elaboration.
