Rulers also keep a private conversation about the aims and methods of their rule that they could never openly admit. Comparing what the weak say in private, what the strong say in private, and what both say in public reveals far more about domination than the public record alone.
Across history, the main way oppressed groups have fought their rulers has not been uprisings but a constant, low-level contest carried on in daily life. Dramatic revolts are the rare exception; the steady, unnoticed tug-of-war is the rule.
Hidden resistance works because people in the same position share an unspoken understanding: they cover for one another and generally do not inform. The form resistance takes is set by how much room the dominant leave, so a tactic that is sensible in one setting can be suicidal in another.
People without power cannot speak their minds in front of those who rule them, so they perform deference in public and voice their real critique among themselves, out of earshot. What looks like consent on the surface is often a staged performance with a different conversation running behind it.
When open revolt is too dangerous, exploited people resist quietly and in scattered ways: small evasions and cheats that win material advantages while chipping at control. Because it is disguised on purpose, observers who only count protests and rebellions miss it entirely and wrongly conclude the weak are passive.