Narrated victimhood, not raw emotion, drives revenge among the advantaged group.
Evidence
Even objectively powerful groups can categorize themselves as the victim group, and this may elevate the perceived costs of reconciling with the other group. Furthermore, current enemies can be categorized with past enemies (e.g., in an “Axis of Evil-doers” who are all out to destroy us). Doing so may elevate the ingroup’s claim to victim status. Such inclusive categorization that ties disparate outgroups together might increase the ingroup’s ability to justify harm toward any of those groups, and reduce the likelihood that collective guilt will be experienced. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2146 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Citing Fromm, Allport further distinguished rational hatred (for those who pose severe, realistic threats to one’s life or values) from “character conditioned” hatred arising from a lifetime of disappointments and frustration (see Duckitt, ch. 24 this volume). In the latter case, hatred is not meaningfully connected to the source of the frustration; rather, the individual “thinks up some convenient victim and some good reason. The Jews are conspiring against him, or the politicians are set on making things worse” (1954/1979, p. 364). In other words, hatred of this type is a function of personality abnormalities rather than being rationally targeted at groups that pose realistic threats. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2246 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Negative emotions bind narratives of victimhood and consolidate ingroup identity. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 127; Collective victimhood predicts revenge reactions independent of its associated emotions. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 54; Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2146 (+2 more)
Related
- Collective victimhood predicts revenge reactions independent of its associated emotions. (similarity 0.86)
- Negative emotions bind narratives of victimhood and consolidate ingroup identity. (similarity 0.83)
- Collective victimhood drives Hindu revenge more than raw negative emotions do (similarity 0.82)
- Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies (similarity 0.82)
- Objectively privileged groups can feel victimized, justifying resistance to redress. (similarity 0.81)
- Collective victimhood drives revenge more than reconciliation in both groups (similarity 0.80)
- A majority, advantaged group reports feeling more victimised than the minority it once victimised. (similarity 0.80)
- Macro-historical narratives can produce collective victimhood absent any present-day relative deprivation. (similarity 0.79)
- Character-conditioned hatred invents victims rather than responding to real threats (similarity 0.78)
- Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.78)
- High ingroup identifiers recall disproportionately more victimization than perpetration by their group. (similarity 0.78)
- Collective narcissism drives hierarchy-reinforcing action in perpetrator groups but hierarchy-challenging action in victim groups. (similarity 0.78)
- Perceiving an outgroup as powerful and malevolent rationalizes even murder as self-defense. (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies
#corroborates(0.95) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2146 - Stereotypes serve the in-group by casting it as innocent victims
#corroborates(0.85) - Character-conditioned hatred invents victims rather than responding to real threats
#expands(0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2246