Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness

Evidence

The model proposed here is quite different from the scapegoating theory Allport described. Importantly, it yields several implications that directly contradict earlier versions. First, only collective, not individual-level frustrations are likely to foster scapegoating. Second, groups that are perceived to be powerful (not weak and vulnerable) are likely to be victimized. Third, because frustration is an underlying, but not the proximal, cause of aggression, the lessening of frustrations may actually increase (not decrease) scapegoating (if improved conditions are attributed to the scapegoat movement). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1609

Thus, Allport’s critique that it “is not true that a defenseless minority is always chosen” (p. 351) is turned into a much stronger claim in the model presented here – it is precisely the perceived power of a group (not its perceived weakness) that makes it likely to be scapegoated. Earlier views dismissed perceptions of the scapegoat’s power and malevolence as mere projections (of perpetrators’ own megalomania and murderous intentions), but for the genocides listed above, envious stereotypes can be traced to prior historical circumstances (e.g., a middleman role) that conditioned the structural relations between groups. Envious stereotypes are here viewed more as a cause (increasing the likelihood that a group will be blamed for misfortunes) than a consequence of scapegoating. When a history of envious prejudice collides with a precipitous decline in a society’s life conditions, successful minorities are at grave risk. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1595

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: Inverts three core assumptions of classical scapegoat theory at once — target weakness, individual frustration, and the frustration-relief model — and each inversion is consequential for understanding real persecutions.
• XREF: The ‘powerful groups are victimized’ point connects to the reading on sacrifice as a stabilizer in stratified societies, where the sacrificial victim is often high-status, not marginal. — connects to: Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 258; Frustrated basic needs drive groups to scapegoat others for destructive fulfillment. — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 79
• corroborated: 6 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1609; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1595