Weak, nearby groups become scapegoats because aggressing against the powerful is unsafe
Evidence
Why would an instigation to aggress not result in action against the source of the frustration? Fear of punishment is theorized to be the primary reason for aggression inhibition. Instead, aggression may be displaced onto a target that can be safely aggressed against without aversive consequences—a scape goat. Much as the child scolded by a parent may displace his or her frustration by kicking the family pet or pounding a younger sibling (because aggression against the powerful parent is deemed unwise), any weak or vulnerable group that happens to be close at hand will serve as a scapegoat. To justify this ag gression, undesirable traits are attributed to the target in a process Allport (1954) dubbed complementary projection. In this view, unfavorable stereotypes of a targeted group are rationalizations that are caused by, rather than cause, aggressive impulses toward the group. — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide, 742
Categorization
- XREF: Yields the contrast case for Glick’s thesis: here the target is chosen for vulnerability, whereas envied outgroups are targeted precisely for their competence, not their weakness. — connects to: Charismatic leaders exploit threat to create scapegoats and bring evil into being. — Jeff Greenberg and Spee Kosloff, Terror Management Theory: Implications…, 59; Only groups seen as powerful and intent on harm get scapegoated — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1584; Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1609 (+5 more)
- DEFINE: Defines ‘complementary projection’ (Allport 1954) — adverse stereotypes as post-hoc rationalizations of pre-existing aggressive impulses.
Broader Connections
- Only groups seen as powerful and intent on harm get scapegoated
#contradicts(0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1584 - Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness
#contradicts(0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1609 - Scapegoats are powerful groups, not weak and vulnerable ones.
#contradicts(0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1609 - Only groups perceived as powerful and hostile get scapegoated for frustrations
#contradicts(0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1584 - Scapegoating targets resented minorities perceived as powerful, not vulnerable ones.
#contradicts(0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1599 - Frustrated aggression toward authority gets redirected onto marginalized groups
#corroborates(0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 562 - Groups are scapegoated for perceived power and malevolence, not vulnerability.
#contradicts(0.95)