| This dissertation focuses on public discourse in Egypt from 2000 to 2010 under Mubarak's authoritarian regime, which placed severe restrictions on public conversation. I ask the following question: Why, in a highly repressive, authoritarian state, were relatively weak, underprivileged groups able to raise forbidden public issues? To find the answer, I examined the various ways three marginalized groups used language about citizenship. I found that women, Coptic Christians and Bahais all used the word "citizenship"---with the regime's tacit approval---as a code in discussing the status of their communities, which were characterized by different levels of weakness and oppression. The word "citizenship" consequently became a vehicle for marginalized groups to incorporate themselves into the body politic and to subvert the regime's authoritarianism. Citizenship also became a proxy term used for controversial topics that could not be discussed easily in public. Finally, activist groups used the term in a literal sense; they demanded inclusion in Egyptian society based on their status as citizens.;Although all three groups used the same language, they did not all use it in the same way. More daring activists employed it to challenge the regime in public, thereby stretching the discourse. Women's groups were the first to use this language, demanding gender equality in citizenship laws. As an unintended consequence of their campaign, a space in public discourse was widened to allow broader discussions about citizenship. This began a process of communication across unlikely groups that eventually made it easier for Coptic Christians and Bahais to adopt the citizenship discourse for their own purposes. I argue that the precise way in which these groups used the language of citizenship in public depended on their relative level of weakness and oppression in Egyptian society. This study relies on data from 97 personal interviews and content analysis of both Arabic and English language primary sources, including materials produced by activist groups and over 1,000 newspaper articles. The theoretical framing of the study draws on scholarly work about the public sphere, resistance, and authoritarian regimes both inside and outside the Middle East. |
