The Scapegoat Previous | TOC | Print | Next
The ritualized transference and expulsion
of evil is a familiar theme across centuries and cultures.4 In
western culture the term "scapegoat" can be traced to an early
Judaic ritual described in the book of Leviticus in the Bible. As Gordon
W. Allport explains:
"On the Day of Atonement a live goat
was chosen by lot. The high priest, robed in linen garments, laid both
his hands on the goat's head, and confessed over it the iniquities
of the children of Israel. The sins of the people thus symbolically
transferred to the beast, it was taken out into the wilderness and
let go. The people felt purged, and for the time being, guiltless."5
The term scapegoat, however, has evolved
to mean "anyone who must bear the responsibility symbolically or
concretely for the sins of others," Richard Landes explains. "Psychologically,
the tendency to find scapegoats is a result of the common defense mechanism
of denial through projection."6 This
mechanism is a powerful and effective psychic defense despite its destructive
effects on a society.7
Scapegoating has two main versions:
personal misconduct ==> guilt ==> displacement
toward scapegoat
frustration ==> aggression ==> displacement
toward scapegoat8
The actual process is complex.9 Frustration
does not always lead to aggression, and the aggression can be directed
in a rational way towards constructively overcoming the obstacle creating
the frustration.10
One cannot, however, take the psychological
model and directly apply it to a sociological model.11 As
psychiatrist Susan Fisher explains, the mechanism of scapegoating within
a family-a well-studied phenomena-does not necessarily work the same
way as the scapegoating of groups on a societal level where "the
scapegoated group serves more as a metaphor,"12 Scapegoating
by large groups and social movements is not an indication of mass mental
dysfunction, even though there may be psychological issues involved,
and even though some of the individuals involved may suffer from a variety
of psychological problems.13 Recent
research on the subject suggests the phenomena is more complicated than
commonly pictured, involving several personality types and multiple psychological
processes.14
Herman Sinaiko observes that "The most
decent and modest communities have people in their midst who are prone
to scapegoating and who see the world as run by conspiracies. A healthy
community is organized in a way that controls them and suppresses their
tendencies. When a community is in crisis, the standards and control
mechanisms are weakened, and these people step forward and find their
voice and an audience."15
Eli Sagan argues that what he calls the "paranoidia" of
greed and domination exemplified by "fascist and totalitarian regimes
of this century" is present in less extreme forms in many societies. "The
normal, expectable expressions--imperialism, racism, sexism, aggressive
warfare--are compatible with the democratic societies that have existed
so far."16
There are many definitions for the term scapegoating
when used to describe the process on a societal level, and it can be
difficult to unravel the overlapping processes of scapegoating, stereotyping,
and demonizing.17 In
this book we use the term scapegoating to describe the social process
whereby hostility and aggression of an angry and frustrated group are
directed away from a rational explanation of a conflict and projected
onto targets demonized by irrational claims of wrongdoing, so that the
scapegoat bears the blame for causing the conflict, while the scapegoaters
feel a sense of innocence and increased unity. We will call it scapegoating
whether or not the conflict is real or imaginary, the grievances are
legitimate or illegitimate, or the target is wholly innocent or partially
culpable.18
When every person in a scapegoated group
is accused of sharing the same negative trait, the processes of prejudice
and stereotyping are involved. For our overall thesis to make sense,
we need to defend this definition in some detail. We expect that as new
research emerges, more nuanced and useful descriptions and definitions
will evolve.
Scapegoating relies on the creation of a
dichotomy between "us" and "them," pitting the familiar "in
group" against the alien "out group."19 By
scapegoating our fabricated enemy "other" we not only create
ourselves as heroes, but also define and enhance group cohesion, the
identity of the "us."20 In
times when the core identity of a society is imperiled--when we have
trouble figuring out who "we" are--the demand for enemy scapegoats
is increased. The scapegoat thus serves a dual purpose by both representing
the evil "them" and simultaneously illuminating, solidifying,
and sanctifying the good "us."21 As
Landes explains, "In some cases the first steps toward social cohesion
may be built upon such rituals" of scapegoating.22 "And
this is exactly the wondrous, if unconscious, outcome of the objectification
of evil," explains Aho. "The casting out of evil onto you not
only renders you my enemy; it also accomplishes my own innocence. To
paraphrase [Nietzsche]...In manufacturing an evil one against whom to
battle heroically, I fabricate a good one, myself."23
Girard argues that "the effect of the
scapegoat is to reverse the relationship between persecutors and their
victims."24 When
persons in scapegoated groups are attacked, they are often described
as having brought on the attack themselves because of the wretched behavior
ascribed to them as part of the enemy group.25 They
deserved what they got. Scapegoating evokes hatred rather than anger. "[T]he
hater is sure the fault lies in the object of hate," notes Allport.26
When unresolved anger over conflict turns
toward frustration and bitterness, scapegoating is a common result. As
Ruth Benedict observed, "Desperate [people] easily seize upon some
scapegoat to sacrifice to their unhappiness; it is a kind of magic by
which they feel for the moment that they have laid [down] the misery
that has been tormenting them."27 As
Benedict points out, "We all know what the galling frictions are
in the world today: nationalistic rivalries, desperate defense of the
status quo by the haves, desperate attacks by the have-nots, poverty,
unemployment, and war." Benedict observes that "Whenever one
group...is discriminated against before the law or in equal claims to
life, liberty, and jobs, there will always be powerful interests to capitalize
on this fact and to divert violence from those responsible for these
conditions into channels where it is relatively safe to allow."28
Persons that scapegoat are often reluctant
to attack the actual causes of their grievances for a number of reasons.
It is less dangerous to blame scapegoats that are weaker and thus less
able to defend themselves. Moreover, it is not popular to attack groups
that are powerful, respected, or have high status. Marginalized groups
that have little public support make better scapegoats because more people
are willing to join the blame game against such groups.
While scapegoats are often less powerful
and more marginalized than the actual sources of conflict, this is not
always the case.29 Throughout
history are examples of scapegoats with high status, including gods.30 In
this dynamic, scapegoating serves the status quo and protects those in
power from criticism.31
We can even be secretly jealous of the scapegoats
we publicly loathe. Scapegoats can be seen to possess qualities that
are admired, either openly or secretly, such as cunning, power, or sexual
prowess. These coveted yet denied qualities are also projected onto the
scapegoat.32 Previous | TOC | Print | Next |
