At the heart of Kearney’s book is a conventional study with unconventional findings. . . It is unconventional in that its findings will shake some of the presuppositions of traditional social movement theory. The most compelling argument in this respect is the lack of a role for formal organization, and the importance of elements of order that are emergent from the social action itself. A lot of this must be put down to the insider perspective of the book: Kearney was an active player in the events as well as a social researcher of them. This enables him to move beyond the impression that this was a union-organized protest and allows him to unpack the role of formal organizations to the point at which they disappear. It also provides a rich sequential narrative of the protest events that retains elements that too often get expunged by scholarly movement analysis: the anger, the excitement, the confusion, the hope, and the ebbing away of all of these (despite the large numbers, the uprising failed to impact policy). In short, it retains a complexity to the action that surely comes from having been a part of its very unfolding.