Scapegoating thrives where complex causes resist clear attribution

Evidence

Allport suggested that “the commonest reaction to frustration is … a simple and direct attempt to surmount the obstacle in our path” (1954/ 1979, p. 348), but this first requires identifying the obstacle. In cases of widespread misfortune, the nature of the “obstacle” and how to overcome it is often obscure. In their collective search for plausible explanations and courses of action, people may come to inaccurate, even (to those with better or different information) objectively ridiculous, conclusions that scapegoat an innocent group. Incorrect attributions may occur because information and people’s cognitive abilities to process it are limited, especially when coping with large-scale problems in complex, modern societies. For example, even professional economists may be unable adequately to explain an economic crisis. Complex explanations involving largely uncontrollable, impersonal forces are difficult to fathom and may fail to suggest a clear solution, rendering them unattractive (because they do not fulfill heightened psychological needs for control and optimism). Scapegoat movements attract followers by offering simpler, culturally plausible explanations and solutions for shared negative events. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1592

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes and extends the frustration-aggression mechanism already in the vault’s scapegoat literature; explains why attributional opacity is the precondition. — connects to: Blame-shifting alternates between individual scapegoats and diffuse structure to shield capital — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No…, 145; Scapegoating fuses immigrant groups, voter fraud, and partisan opposition into one conspiratorial target — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 143