Identity, standing, and program claims move independently and can decouple

Evidence

On the whole, the three sorts of claims reinforce each other: a distinctive identity makes it easier to claim public standing, and standing gives credence to public support for a program. Now and then, nevertheless, a loose and temporary front, coalition, or alliance forms around some program (for example, calls on public officials to intervene in a case of police brutality) without much insistence on identity or standing. The three types of claims vary and change in partial independence of each other. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1162

Categorization

• XREF: The decoupling of program from identity claims is directly relevant to the reader’s question: rights-defense politicization by dominant groups may foreground standing (as loyal supporters of the regime) while subordinate claims stress identity — a structural asymmetry Tilly leaves open. — connects to: Identity recognition precedes standing claims which precede program claims — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 223; Identity claims to territory arrive as retrospective legitimation — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 122; All contentious action reduces to identity, standing, or program claims — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 222 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1162

Broader Connections

• Identity recognition precedes standing claims which precede program claims #contradicts (0.95) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 223
• Identity claims to territory arrive as retrospective legitimation #expands (0.72) — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 122