States and capitalism: the two major sources and targets of contentious politics. In the past, and especially in Europe, with its heritage of deep class divisions, the cleavages of industrial society were seen as the master source of contentious politics. Americans, with their longer history of civil politics and weaker class traditions, took a more pluralistic view. But whether dichotomous or plural, from the late nineteenth century onward, the notion that social cleavages are the source of contentious politics was the underlying assumption in most studies of social movements.

In the half-century after World War II – and especially since the 1960s – social scientists began to see the state as an autonomous actor in social conflict and no longer only – in Marx's memorable phrase – “the executive committee of the bourgeoisie.” This shift has had several sources. First, the failure of the working class to rise to the challenge of the student and antiwar movements in the 1960s shocked many who had thought class was the underlying basis of political conflict. Second, the development of a theory of the state led to the idea that states have an autonomous influence on class politics. Third, social scientists began to explore the question of “post-industrial” politics, which, for many, came to mean “post-class” politics (Inglehart 1990).

As the result of these real-world and academic changes, a more interactive and iterative conception of state/society relations has developed, in which the state is seen not only as the reflection of society's dominant groups but as a fulcrum for the mediation of societal conflicts and a regulator of society's needs.