Without  having read Rightful Resistance in Rural China I feel like I missing some key arguments that this article presents. From my understanding the difference between regular resistance and rightful resistance is rightful resistors challenge problems head on like: illegal extractions, rigged elections or corrupt dealers, villagers deploying the policies, and laws and commitments. In order for something to be considered a rightful resistance protest it must have four attributes: it must be operated near the boundary of authorized channels, employ the rhetoric and commitment of the powerful to the curb to exercise power, be hinged on locating and exploiting divisions within the state, and rely on mobilizing support from the community.  However, rightful resistors in China have been criticized for lacking peasantness, shortchanging history and culture, focusing on elite allies and one pattern of protests, and being overly rationalist, state centric, and caught  in the developmental thinking.

It seems like most of the criticisms  of the rightful resistors can be evaluated from two different angles that  makes it hard to determine a correct answer, depending on who you ask, or what the study is will depend on the result. Personally it seems like  the  rightful resistors does lack peasantness, the reason I say this is because many of the issues being protested against, or not being protests against, but should be affect the peasants the most. If the peasants are not the main ones protesting and apart of this group I am not sure that I understand who composes the majority of this group. On the issue of state centeredness and the Chinese State I agree that in China it appears officials and those in power are able to make the change that are needed and others will be willing to follow, but at the same  time i see the point that protestors do push the boundaries in order to create opportunities. I feel like this is challenging unless it  is a mass movement though, just because the Chinese government has such a low tolerance for anything anti-Communist party and anti-central Chinese government. It does not seem like the questions being asked: sincere or strategic?, reactive or proactive?, developmental thinking?, and rights consciousness or rules consciousness? are good questions to ask or make for arguments on either side because there is evidence to make the case for both and it seems like rightful resistors are made up of a little of all of things. The universal framework aspect of the article was interesting, whether of not all the elements are true I am not positive, but  it all sounds good.