Ever wonder why we get stuck in endless debates about whether political protesters are being “civil” or not, and whether this should even matter in the first place? 1/

This is a question I ask in my latest article in Theory & Society, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of civil from uncivil protest in the United States: control, legitimacy, and political inequality” (https://t.co/EFMY6Q5hLd) 2/

In the article, I develop the concept of *civility contests*—everyday efforts to distinguish between civil and uncivil individuals, groups, or behaviors. 3/

Focusing on political protest in the US, I find that civility contests involve a wide range of political actors (power holders, opposing movements, the media) who seek to *control* or *delegitimize* protesters (or defend protesters’ *legitimacy*). 4/

When powerholders or political rivals question protesters’ civility, this is a way of changing the subject. Civility contests suck the air and energy out of protests, leaving less room for substantive debate. They also justify sometimes severe punitive action. 5/