Our politics today seems to be victimhood contests. The group that can convinces the masses most successfully of their victimhood becomes the most powerful group. Thus, almost everyone is identifying as some sort of victim. It has all been very lucrative for the perceived victims, and oppressive for the perceived victimizers.
This is an extremely important topic in both historiography and moral philosophy, Tom, so I applaud your essay on it from the perspective of psychology.
What I've called "comparative suffering," which means COMPETITIVE suffering, makes no sense unless the two or more things being compared are very similar. Even metaphorically comparing the physical suffering of cancer to that of a cold or a stress-induced headache, for example, can result only in exaggerating one and trivializing the other. But due to the highly SUBJECTIVE nature of suffering--for countless cultural, physiological and psychological reasons, no two people experience suffering in precisely the same ways--even comparing one form of cancer with another form of cancer could be both deceptive and futile.
As you say, moreover, being a VICTIM, whether individually or collectively, confers no moral status at all. This is why we distinguish carefully between victims (who don't choose their fate, are not moral agents and therefore not morally accountable) and MARTYRS (who do choose their fate, are indeed moral agents and therefore are indeed morally exemplary).
Being a VICTIMIZER, however, really does mean CHOOSING EVIL. That, in turn, means being a moral agent and therefore are indeed immoral.
But these distinctions require a belief in FREE WILL. If we have no free will, after all, then we cannot be moral agents and therefore cannot be either innocent or guilty--whether as individuals or as groups. Philosophically (and morally or theologically), free choice is a defining feature of our humanity. Only METAPHYSICALLY SUPERHUMAN beings (such as angels) would be incapable of freely choosing evil, and only METAPHYSICALLY SUBHUMAN beings (such as demons) would be incapable of freely choosing good.
In short, the whole idea of comparative suffering (a.k.a. victimology) is incoherent.
There are real victims in the world but once they stop being victimized they should stop identifying as victims as soon as possible and instead identify as survivors. Survivors move on as best they can, they do not cling to their wounds but let them heal. Hannah Arendt wrote somewhere that resentment is not a virtue, the opposite of suffering is enduring, surviving.
From a South African perspective, this post rings entirely true. The victims of Apartheid did not change to survivors after they took power. Instead, they continued to drive anti-education policies and burning schools. Instead of turning the system that used to oppress them to support and grow them, they kept perceiving it as oppressive - even though they were in power over it. As a result, they did not build it to grow themselves, but corrupted and ransacked it to perpetuate their victimhood and keep the wounds open.
And we are constantly being told that Islamists become jihadists because of wrongs that have been done to them in the past, injuries to family members and so forth. But one must contrast that with the behavior of vicitimised Jews. How many Holocaust survivors became terrorists?
This post accurately portrays the basis for identity politics in the US today and why it is failing especially the black, Jewish and LGBT communities. Women's day at the altar on this front is coming soon...and will likely be far WORSE as women never were oppressed in the way that these other groups were.
Another great post. Michael Yon has said that "professional victims are always predators."
Our politics today seems to be victimhood contests. The group that can convinces the masses most successfully of their victimhood becomes the most powerful group. Thus, almost everyone is identifying as some sort of victim. It has all been very lucrative for the perceived victims, and oppressive for the perceived victimizers.
This is an extremely important topic in both historiography and moral philosophy, Tom, so I applaud your essay on it from the perspective of psychology.
What I've called "comparative suffering," which means COMPETITIVE suffering, makes no sense unless the two or more things being compared are very similar. Even metaphorically comparing the physical suffering of cancer to that of a cold or a stress-induced headache, for example, can result only in exaggerating one and trivializing the other. But due to the highly SUBJECTIVE nature of suffering--for countless cultural, physiological and psychological reasons, no two people experience suffering in precisely the same ways--even comparing one form of cancer with another form of cancer could be both deceptive and futile.
As you say, moreover, being a VICTIM, whether individually or collectively, confers no moral status at all. This is why we distinguish carefully between victims (who don't choose their fate, are not moral agents and therefore not morally accountable) and MARTYRS (who do choose their fate, are indeed moral agents and therefore are indeed morally exemplary).
Being a VICTIMIZER, however, really does mean CHOOSING EVIL. That, in turn, means being a moral agent and therefore are indeed immoral.
But these distinctions require a belief in FREE WILL. If we have no free will, after all, then we cannot be moral agents and therefore cannot be either innocent or guilty--whether as individuals or as groups. Philosophically (and morally or theologically), free choice is a defining feature of our humanity. Only METAPHYSICALLY SUPERHUMAN beings (such as angels) would be incapable of freely choosing evil, and only METAPHYSICALLY SUBHUMAN beings (such as demons) would be incapable of freely choosing good.
In short, the whole idea of comparative suffering (a.k.a. victimology) is incoherent.
There are real victims in the world but once they stop being victimized they should stop identifying as victims as soon as possible and instead identify as survivors. Survivors move on as best they can, they do not cling to their wounds but let them heal. Hannah Arendt wrote somewhere that resentment is not a virtue, the opposite of suffering is enduring, surviving.
From a South African perspective, this post rings entirely true. The victims of Apartheid did not change to survivors after they took power. Instead, they continued to drive anti-education policies and burning schools. Instead of turning the system that used to oppress them to support and grow them, they kept perceiving it as oppressive - even though they were in power over it. As a result, they did not build it to grow themselves, but corrupted and ransacked it to perpetuate their victimhood and keep the wounds open.
And we are constantly being told that Islamists become jihadists because of wrongs that have been done to them in the past, injuries to family members and so forth. But one must contrast that with the behavior of vicitimised Jews. How many Holocaust survivors became terrorists?
This post accurately portrays the basis for identity politics in the US today and why it is failing especially the black, Jewish and LGBT communities. Women's day at the altar on this front is coming soon...and will likely be far WORSE as women never were oppressed in the way that these other groups were.