"Let's Get Small": The Dynamics of (Small) Contention in Repressive States

Abstract

This report builds upon the dynamics of contention approach to political mobilization by tracing the development of a type of contentious episode common to repressive states, here identified as resistant contention. This form of claim making targets the state but is distinct from the fully public and trangressive challenges against the state that are the focus of the dynamics of contention approach. This report traces how episodes of resistant contention track through two key processes-actor constitution and scale shift-as well as many mechanisms that combine in more public contention. Examples from Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Soviet Caucasus, and Spain are reviewed to trace, first, patterns of contentious speech; namely, "small" claim making and grievance articulation under conditions of risk. I argue that contentious political talk is fundamental to the process of actor constitution in repressive states. Then I trace how contentious speech is patterned in the form of intellectual circles, cultural groups, dissident groups, and official groups and organizations, many of which function publicly but also privately and contentiously. These boundary-spanning groups are the loci of innovation and identity formation in resistant episodes. Scale shift dynamically occurs with the process of actor constitution, typically taking the form of hit-and-run protests, graffiti, clandestine placements, and event seizures. The final stage in resistant contention is the emergence of symbolic mobilizations, which are clearly public and transgressive.

Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore

“…My study of Singapore's gay movement represents the latter case, and joins the argument that scholars should pay attention to how mobilization develops in alternative forms (Johnston 2005;McAdam 1996;O'Brien and Li 2006). Overall, studies on collective action in repressive settings illuminate the long shadow of the repressive state cast over social movements.…”

“…In contrast to social contexts where rights amount to a collective master frame (Snow and Benford 1992), rights are often suppressed (see, e.g., Currier 2009;Massoud 2011) or withheld from certain groups of people, and even lack resonance in Singapore and other repressive contexts. Activists mobilizing under such conditions, thus, avoid strategies and tactics common under liberal democratic conditions, such as marches, and open and structured association (Johnston 2005). These are the public, overt, and largescale actions usually emphasized by social movements scholars to the neglect of more subtle forms of mobilization (Davenport 2005).…”

“…Third, they decide to do so, and change their tactics accordingly, and; fourth, they implement those adapted tactics. These four steps are repeated as the movement develops, generating a "strategic dance" (McCammon et al 2008), "tactical dance" (McAdam 1983), "dark dance" (Johnston 2006), or, as my study respondents put it, a "tango" or "complicated ballet. "…”

Graffiti as a Form of Contentious Political Participation

“…Micro-level ''bottom up'' political activism may create the ability to more publically challenge the state and other powerful actors. Johnston (2006) argues that ''contentious political talk'' is important for understanding how new and previously unorganized actors emerge in repressive states. Contentious talk is oppositional speech that takes place in locations that are difficult for authorities to monitor.…”

“…Johnson argues that ''hit and run'' protests are some of the first examples of transgressive contention in repressive states and that boundary spanning groups serve as a place where dissidents are socialized. Although many perceive graffiti as a solitary action executed in private, much fieldwork suggests that political graffiti involves several people including the writer, look-outs, and those who secure resources such as spray paint (Johnston 2006;Peteet 1996). Graffiti along with other activities may eventually combine to bring about more public challenges to repressive states.…”