Internal reconciliation forces a subgroup to act through superordinate institutions it dominates

Evidence

In the national case, reconciliation is achieved by one part of the nation recognizing that it bears reponsibility for harm and seeking to repair that harmsothatharmoniousrelationsatthenational level can be achieved. The layers of possible complexities are numerous. For example, although non- Indigenous people dominate decision-making processes in Australia, there are no decision-making processes that are distinctive to that subgroup. This means that non-Indigenous Australians are faced with three potential options to pursue reconciliation: (1) they can attempt to introduce such decision-making processes for their own subgroup, (2) they can take action at the individual level, or (3) they can use the decision-making processes of the superordinate group (the National government) as the vehicle for reconciliation. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 801

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Dominant groups build institutions that co-opt subordinates rather than merely repress them — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 667; States rule subject groups by allying with their internal elites; Conflict destructive at one level can integrate the larger group — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 280 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Dominant groups build institutions that co-opt subordinates rather than merely repress them #expands (0.80) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 667
• Conflict destructive at one level can integrate the larger group #corroborates (0.75) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 280
• States rule subject groups by allying with their internal elites #exemplifies (0.74)