Institutional absorption of one subordinated group spurs mobilization among those excluded
Evidence
In 1983, a shaken apartheid regime attempted to expand its support by establishing a thoroughly unequal tricameral legislature that incorporated representatives of the Asian and Colored populations into separate chambers. That measure, however, spurred mobilization among black Africans and among other nonblack challengers of the regime. … Threatened, the government declared successively more repressive states of emergency in July 1985 and June 1986. The later declaration “gave every police officer broad powers of arrest, detention, and interrogation, without a warrant; they empowered the police commissioner to ban any meeting; and they prohibited all coverage of unrest by television and radio reporters and severely curtailed newspaper coverage. The government had resorted to legalized tyranny” (Thompson 2000, 235). — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 577
Categorization
- XREF: Directly bears on the reader’s core hypothesis: Tilly’s regime change (incorporating Colored/Asian but not black) increased rather than defused contention among the excluded — evidence against a naive absorption-defuses expectation. Connects to treatment of my reading purpose for this book. — connects to: Subordinate class institutions can be absorbed to contain rather than end opposition.
- QUESTION: Does Tilly elsewhere distinguish partial incorporation (which invites further claims) from full absorption? This passage suggests absorption of one group can politicize another.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 577