PART 2
“To survive, the myths we embrace will surely not rest on the old ways of scapegoating and isolation.” Arthur D. Colman / Up from Scapegoating
“In a very real sense, then, individual and collective development are inextricably intertwined.” Arthur D. Colman
“I do not believe any thoughtful person today can continue to believe that human and world survival is located within a frame that sees individual improvement alone as the unit of change and hope.” Arthur D. Colman
As I mentioned in the previous part of this thread on group dynamics and scapegoating type processes, there are many different aspects to these phenomena and they have been studied in different fields. Also, the mechanism of scpegoating has been studied in different contexts like families, which was my focus in the first part of the previous post, classrooms, workplaces, sports teams, political parties, educational and health contexts, all the way up to state organizations and institutes. Therefore, one could view the theories and observations as complementary and contributing to the broader understanding of this particular mechanism and other group dynamics at a micro and macro level. In today’s post I’ll be mostly referring to Girard’s theory of mimetic desire, scapegoat theory and realistic group conflict theory, among other related topics and material. I am aware that I cannot do justice to all these ideas and topics in two posts, even in two lengthy posts, and I’m not an expert on the topic. I simply hope that perhaps I can provide a little food for critical thought, the same way that the new and old material I’ve been (re) reading has provided for me.
Most things I’ve been reading on scpaegoating make some sort of reference to Rene Girard’s work, so today I’ll begin this post with a brief reference to his theory and ideas. Rene Girard (1923-2015) was a French academic, literary critic, historian, philosopher of social science, and writer of nearly 30 books. He is best known for his theory of mimetic desire and his examination of scapegoating, and has combined literary criticism, philosophy, theology, history, psychology, anthropology and mythology to study contemporary social phenomena and human behaviour.
His theory of mimetic desire basically suggests that humans imitate each others’ desires, and this often leads to rivalry. He claims that desire is not autonomous, but mimetic, meaning humans desire what others desire, and since many individuals desire the same object or status, this then leads to competition and conflict. His theory facilitates our understanding of envy, bullying, (inter) group hostilities and rivalries all the way up to warfare. When mimetic rivalry escalates it can threaten social cohesion or group unity. Girard explores the mechanisms societies have used to maintain order or to remain united, and has explored the mechanism of scapegoating. Societies, since antiquity, have responded through what he terms as ‘sacred violence,’ which is destructive, but can temporarily dissipate conflict and restore order, a kind of social regulator.
In his book The Scapegoat he explores how communities and groups choose a victim / s to blame for collective problems and conflicts, and uses his theory of mimetic desire to reveal the complex dynamics behind social violence, suggesting that at its core human societies are built on the unstable or fragile foundation of mimetic rivalry that inevitably leads to conflict or violence, and in order to avoid destructive levels of violence and rivalry, communities channel their collective frustration, fear and aggression towards an individual or group, to restore order, to create a distraction from real causes and problems, and also, to mask the true origins of the conflict or discontent. This violence towards the victims is legitimized through myths that obscure the scapegoat’s innocemce or irrelevance.
Girard’s concept of the scapegoat mechanism involves the projection of the collective blame onto an individual or group. The social ostracism or sacrifice of the scapegoated object temporarily diffuses violence and unrest and unites the community through a common enemy kind of process. Stories and myths function as ideological tools that hide the true dynamics and causes, and justify the violence and injustice, so as to protect the perpetrators’ or the collective’s self image and social status. Girard views the Jeudo-Christian religious texts as important in exposing the violence and immorality of the scapegoating mechanism and in revealing the innocence of the victim. In this sense these religious texts and stories like the crucifixion of Jesus invert traditional myths by protraying the victim as unjustly persecuted, and challenge the sacred violence paradigm.
Critical reflections on Girard’s theory and observations suggest that his interdisciplinary approach demonstrates its applicability across eras and cultures; can faciltitate our understanding of root causes of conflicts and violence; can help us recognize scapegooating dynamics within our personal relationships, small groups and larger systems, and thus, advocate or support social justice causes concerning marginalized groups, for instance; evokes sympathy for the scapegoated, challenges our assumptions on violence and justice; can facilitate our understanding of mythology, Greek tragedies, religious stories, literary works, films and art; can help us become conscious of our mimetic desires or scapegoating. On the other hand, it has been suggested that his focus on mimetic desire oversimplifies the complexity of social phenomena and power dynamics.
Scapegoat theory explains how individuals and groups misdirect their frustration and aggression towards selected objects, often not responsible for their difficulties or crises, providing a sense of relief or justification for negative situations. In an introductory article on scapegoat theory at Zimbardo website: https://www.zimbardo.com/scapegoat-theory-psychology-definition-history-examples/, it is claimed that in contemporary society, scapegoating is recognized as a common group dynamic, observed across multiple contexts, from familial disputes and targeting a co-worker for failures in a project, to societal and political conflicts, and that understanding both the mechanisms and implications of scapegoating is essential for addressing the biases and injustices it perpetuates. The choice of the scapegoat is not random, but influenced by power dynamics and biases in society, leading to unfair vilification of those who are often less powerful. This theory demonstrates how individual psychology and societal structures interact.
As I wrote in the previous piece originally the practice of scapegoating involved transferring the sins or negative aspects of a community onto a chosen animal or person, thus absolving the rest of the group from collective guilt, providing a means of (false) catharsis. But the concept and term has evolved since and has also become a psychological construct used to understand group dynamics, and this understanding took place as scholars began “to critically examine how individuals or groups project their own shortcomings or misfortunes onto others as a way to preserve their own self-esteem or maintain social hierarchies.”
In this article there is reference to the work of French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who in the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the foundation for understanding collective behavior, and the role of rituals in society, as means to reinforce social cohesion. They also refer to Sigmund Freud’s influence on the development of scapegoat theory via his concept of projection, wherein individuals attribute their own undesirable qualities or emotions onto others. Of course, there is reference to social psychologists, Henri Tajfel and John Turner, who have furthered our understanding group processes and scapegoating through their research on social identity and intergroup relations. Their social identity theory highlights how individuals derive a sense of self-worth from their (in)group membership, and how this can lead to prejudice and discrimination against outgroups, making them scapegoats for the ingroup’s dysfunctions or problems.
Scapegoating can occur in any group setting or system, like organizations, institutes, churches, sports teams, workplaces, schools, etc. In a broader context, political scapegoating is a prevalent phenomenon. Scapegoating involves some level of abuse of power and it is pervasive. It occurs left, right and centre, and can be initiated for many reasons: ideological reasons, for power and resources or out of greed and need to control, to maintain a status quo or consolidate hierarchies, to boost economies and increase profit [consider the war / weapon industry], for false belonging or to gain small or bigger priveleges, and simply ‘for a place in the sun,’ as we say in Greece. Inequality, oppressive systems, ignorance, corruption and lack of transparency, can all foster or lead to these kinds of mechanisms. Politicians and others may blame certain groups, for societal issues like poverty, unemployment or crime rates. Through this manipulation of public opinion and scapegoating of certain communities, they can rally their supporters behind a common enemy, distracting from deeper causes, perpetuating discrimination and social division.
Also, scapegoating keps everyone in place, as the scapegoated individual /s is / are turned into an example of what happens to those that do not comply or remain silent, or those that seek more or different, think critically, and so on. In school settings, students might be targeted for bullying or exclusion. The scapegoating provides a false sense of unity among “the bullies,” allowing them to bond over their shared prejudice while diverting attention away from their own insecurities or shortcomings. I might need to add that scapegoating in the workplace or educational settings may not involve straightforward hostility and aggression, but could consist of more complex, subtle and less visible undermining procedures with far reaching damaging effects.
Stereotyping is another term associated with scapegoating dynamics and it involves holding an oversimplified and genralised view of a group of people, and making assumptions or judgments based on limited information of another person or group. It often provides an easily available concept or description of the ‘Other,’and can lead to or excuse scapegoating and discrimination. In realistic (group) conflict theory (read below) it is proposed that as conflict increases, groups often resort to negative stereotypes and perceptions of the out-group, which often serve to dehumanize the other group and justify aggression and discriminatory behaviors.
Realistic (group) conflict theory is a conceptual framework predicated on the assumption that intergroup tensions will occur whenever social groups compete for resources that are scarce or perceived as scarce (food, natural resources, land, jobs, priveleges and opportunities, wealth, social status, political power, military protection, etc.), and that this competition fuels prejudice and antagonistic attitudes that lead to conflict, rivalries and warfare. Feelings of resentment can arise in situations when only one group wins and the other loses. The belief or perception that the ingroups’ interests are in direct opposition to those of another group fuels negative attitudes and behaviors towards the out-group.
Turkish-American social psychologist, Muzafer Sherif’s (1906-1988) classic study, the Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated the theory in action.This study illustrated how conflict emerges when groups perceive themselves in competition for resources. In this experiment, boys at a summer camp were divided into two groups, and competition was introduced through various activities. Initially, there was minimal conflict; however, as competition intensified over awards and privileges, hostility between the groups increased dramatically. Some key concepts and processes in realistic conflict theory are: Individuals’ tendency to favor their in-group (the group they belong to) over out-groups (groups they do not belong to). This intergroup bias intensifies during periods of competition over securing resources. One proposed solution to reduce intergroup conflict is the contact hypothesis, which suggests that increased contact between groups under certain conditions (equal status, common goals, and cooperation) can foster positive intergroup relations.
Realistic conflict theory has offered important insights for understanding and managing contemporary intergroup conflicts, and strategies promoting cooperation between groups through shared goals and reduction of economic disparities. However, while this theory has been very influential, it has, like most theories, also received criticisms for certain limitations. For instance, it has been argued that the complexities of conflict have been over simplified, and that there are other factors at play like ideological and cultural differences or historical criticisms contributing to conflict. And there has been criticism concerning its universal applicability, across all cultural contexts.
Education and awareness about the psychological processes underlying intergroup conflict can help reduce negative attitudes, promote empathy, and reduce conflict. Identifying underlying causes like oppression and resource inequalities, and revealing underlying group dynamics and mechanisms, increases clarity, and by understanding the dynamics of scapegoating, we can abstain from such practices and from seeking belonging through common enemy practices, and work towards creating more inclusive and empathetic environments, where there is more transparency around causes, blame is appropriately assigned and collective responsibility is embraced.
Finally, I will end this post with a couple of short extracts from Arthur Colman’s book (see previous post).
On the process of individuation
“Moreover, what may feel like a hero’s “individuation” journey may also be agroup “setup” of an innocent who carries the sins of others. Sometimes the individual walking on the beach is on a journey that will benefit self and others too, and sometimes he or she will be unwittingly caught in the archetype of the scapegoat for the collective; those heroic solitary walks may at times be more in the service of keeping falsehood alive in others than truth alive in oneself. At the heart of such dilemmas is the tendency to separate the individual from the collective and individual development from collective development. Individuation in the adult may begin in separation from the collective, much as individuation in the young child may begin in separation from the parent(s). But separation from the collective is not the aim of individuation; rather, it is one of the paths some people use to learn more about themselves away from the influences of others. In group relations theory, there is a concept known as “group in the mind” which expresses the ever-present group consciousness of individuals even and especially when they are most isolated and functioning most separately from others. We are always collective entities as much as individual entities.”
On interdependence and situatedness
“Individuals require creative collectives for their fulfillment just as collectives require creative individuals for theirs. It is time that we incorporate this mirroring connection between individuals and the group in all our explorations of human nature.”
On the need for a more balanced approach
“The fall of the Inca Empire is a most poignant illustration of the extreme vulnerability of a collective based on the scapegoat/messiah myth. Despite the complexity of this social and religious system and its focus on social justice, it was dependent on a godlike leader whose murder was ruinous to the whole culture. As [Peruvian novelist, journalist, essayist and politician, Mario Vargas] Llosa, and the colonial history of South America, suggests, that kind of collectivity is no match for one based on individual sovereignty. Neither, however, is the verdict in on the ultimate worth of a system that, along with its predatory nature, elevates the individual and individual consciousness to a kind of religion, which justifies cultural genocide.”
On scapegoating in groups
“Groups will create victims rather than face dealing with diversity and difference….
All organizations work hard, consciously and unconsciously, to protect both the scapegoating process and their chosen scapegoats. Consultants and whistle blowers know too well the great danger of meddling with an entrenched scapegoating system. In the Bible story of the scapegoat, the man who takes the scapegoat into the wilderness is in great danger. In practice, the man who speaks the truth about the scapegoat often shares its fate……. Only very courageous or foolhardy individuals or subgroups can stand up to a powerful victim-creating process. To help an organization, the consultant must refocus attention on how the need for a scapegoat and the choice of victim is a diversion from the deeper collective issues.”
