Definition of Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory

Definition of Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory

Scapegoating refers to a process by which a person or group is unfairly blamed for something that they didn't do and, as a result, the real source of the problem is either never seen or purposefully ignored. Sociologists have documented that scapegoating often occurs between groups when a society is plagued by long-term economic problems or when resources are scarce. In fact, this is so common throughout history and still today that scapegoat theory was developed as a way to see and analyze conflict between groups.
Origins of the Term
The term scapegoat has Biblical origins, coming from the Book of Leviticus. In the book, a goat was sent into the desert carrying the sins of the community. The Hebrew term "azazel" was used to refer to this goat, which translated to "sender away of sins." So, a scapegoat was originally understood as a person or animal that symbolically absorbed the sins of others and carried them away from those who committed them.
Scapegoats and Scapegoating in Sociology
Sociologists recognize four different ways in which scapegoating takes place and scapegoats are created. Scapegoating can be a one-on-one phenomenon, in which one person blames another for something they or someone else did. This form of scapegoating is common among children, who, seeking to avoid the shame of disappointing their parents and the punishment that might follow a misdeed, blame a sibling or a friend for something they did.
Scapegoating also occurs in a one-on-group manner, when one person blames a group for a problem they did not cause. This form of scapegoating often reflects racial, ethnic, religious, or anti-immigrant biases. For example, when a white person who is passed over for a promotion at work while a Black colleague instead gets that promotion believes that Black people get special privileges and treatment because of their race and that this is the reason that he or she is not advancing in their career.
Sometimes scapegoating takes a group-on-one form, when a group of people singles out and blames one person for a problem. For example, when the members of a sports team blame a player who made a mistake for the loss of a match, though other aspects of play also affected the outcome. Or, when a girl or woman who alleges sexual assault is scapegoated by members of her community for "causing trouble" or "ruining" the life of her male attacker.
Finally, and of most interest to sociologists, is the form of scapegoating that is group-on-group. This occurs when one group blames another for problems that the group collectively experiences, which might be economic or political in nature. This form of scapegoating often manifests across lines of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.
The Scapegoat Theory of Intergroup Conflict
Scapegoating of one group by another has been used throughout history, and still today, as a way to incorrectly explain why certain social, economic, or political problems exist and harm the group doing the scapegoating. Sociologists observe that groups that scapegoat others typically occupy a low socio-economic status in society and have little access to wealth and power. They also are often experiencing prolonged economic insecurity or poverty, and come to adopt a shared outlook and beliefs which have been documented to lead to prejudice and violence toward minority groups.
Sociologists would argue that they are in this position due to unequal distribution of resources within the society, like in a society where capitalism is the economic modeland the exploitation of workers by a wealthy minority is the norm. However, failing to see or understand these socio-economic dynamics, low-status groups often turn to scapegoating other groups and blaming them for these problems.
Groups chosen for scapegoating are also often in low-status positions due to the socio-economic structure of society, and also lack power and the ability to fight back against the scapegoating. It is common for scapegoating to grow out of common, widespread prejudices against and practices of stereotyping minority groups. Scapegoating of minority groups often leads to violence against the targeted groups, and in the most extreme cases, to genocide. All of which is to say, group-on-group scapegoating is a dangerous practice.
Examples of Scapegoating of Groups within the United States
Within the economically stratified society of the United States, working class and poor whites have often scapegoated racial, ethnic, and immigrant minority groups. Historically, poor white southerners regularly scapegoated Black people in the period after slavery, blaming them for low prices for cotton and the economic distress that poor whites experienced, and targeting them with what they perceived to be retributive violence. In this case, a minority group was scapegoated by a majority group for structural economic problems that actually harmed both, and that neither caused.
After the period in which Affirmative Action laws took effect, Black people and other members of racial minorities were regularly scapegoated by the white majority for "stealing" jobs and positions at colleges and universities from whites who they believed were more qualified. In this case, minority groups were scapegoated by a majority group who was angry that the government was attempting to curb the extent of their white privilege and begin to correct centuries of racist oppression.
Most recently, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump scapegoated immigrants and their native-born descendants for issues of crime, terrorism, job scarcity, and low wages. His rhetoric resonated with the white working class and poor whites and encouraged them to also scapegoat immigrants for these reasons. That scapegoating turned to physical violence and hate speech in the immediate aftermath of the election.
Link: Reference Link +

 

NEUROSCIENCE & NEUROLOGY

How Does the Brain Respond to Gossip?
by Viatcheslav Wlassoff, PhD | April 25, 2015

⦁ Tweet
⦁ 121
⦁ Share
⦁ Share
⦁ Share
⦁ Share
⦁ Mail
Newspapers use up reams of paper to report it. The air around your office cubicle, or in the cafeteria, hangs heavy with it. When best friends meet, they discuss it in hushed whispers. Gossip is an integral part of our communication. And if evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar is to be believed, gossip makes up the lion’s share—a whopping two-thirds—of our conversations. We talk about other topics like music, sports, politics, and the weather in the remaining time. That is a lot of time we spend discussing other people’s affairs, some of which are not in good light.
So why do perfectly sensible, reasonably intelligent, and genuinely compassionate people engage in gossiping? What do they gain from it? Do only women do it? And do people who love gossiping get a malicious pleasure out of listening to stories of failed romances and scandals? Neuroscientists have probed into the brains of people when they gossip to unearth the science behind it.
How Does Gossip Affect Us?
Gossip affects us; it either tickles us or makes us shudder. But did you know that different kinds of gossip affect us in different ways?
According to a study published this year and carried out on a random sampling of men and women, the subjects were generally more pleased to hear positive gossip than negative news. However, they were more distressed by negative gossip about themselves than about other people like their friends, acquaintances, and celebrities. Not many surprises there.
These findings were arrived at after the subjects were made to fill out a questionnaire. The scientists also carried out fMRI scans of the subjects’ brains as they listened to positive and negative gossip about themselves, their best friends, and celebrities.
According to the findings from these scan reports, listening to gossip about themselves heightened activity in the superior medial prefrontal cortex of the subjects’ brains. This region also responded to negative gossip about others. The subjects recorded increased activity in the orbital prefrontal cortex region of their brains in response to positive gossip about themselves.
The prefrontal cortex is one of the brain regions involved in social cognition and executive control. Social cognition is the ability to regulate our thoughts, behavior, and actions based on the real, imaginary, or assumed presence of other people. In other words, social cognition is a trait that makes us want to conform to the accepted norms and rules of society. Executive control is the ability to channelize our thought patterns, behavior, and actions based on internal goals. The neurotransmitter dopamine regulates the functionality of this region and activates the reward system.
The activation of prefrontal cortex region of the brain in response to positive gossip about oneself indicates that most human beings want to be seen as conforming to social standards of morality and success. They see more rewards in being “seen” in a positive light by the world at large than staying true to their internal moral compass.
On the other hand, we think that we are repulsed by negative gossip about others. But the fMRI images obtained during the above study bust this myth. The activation of the superior medial prefrontal cortex region in response to negative gossip about others indicates that although we are not elated by the falling-from-grace stories of other people, we are amused. This finding would seem morally unacceptable to many. After all, we don’t like to think of ourselves as fiends who gloat at others’ miseries and misfortunes.
But don’t be so hard on yourself. Gossiping is good for you!
Is Gossip Good or Bad?
Although moral purists might frown upon the practice, scientists say that gossip serves self-preservation purposes. According to them, there are also definite social benefits of gossiping.
Social scientists believe that gossip is an integral tool for observational learning. We exchange information about others when we gossip. Negative gossip makes you realize how society perceives acts of moral transgression, and you indirectly learn a lesson on how to live within a community and adhere to its rules. In this instance, negative gossip serves as a tool for indirect learning; you learn how to act correctly without having to bear the costs and consequences of a negative action.
Gossip acts as a self-improvement tool in another way. Positive gossip about ourselves gives us the motivation to carry on with our good behavior or sustain positive habits. It also provides us with hints about acceptable behavioral traits within the context of a particular society.
Some scientists point out to the benefit of prosocial gossip. They say exchanging negative information about the reputation of another person puts vulnerable people on alert and protects them from future anti-social or exploitative acts of the person who is the subject of the gossip. According to scientists, prosocial gossip promotes cooperation and bonding amongst people and creates a safety net.
At another level, the sharing of negative reputational information also acts as a check on the anti-social behavioral traits of people. According to scientists, when negative reputational information is shared with many people, the group as a whole usually chooses to ostracize the wrongdoer. Ostracism compels the person excluded from his group to resort to better behavior to win approval. Ostracism may also act as a deterrent to anti-social behavior by others.
Researchers also claim that sharing negative gossip promotes social bonds. They say that indulging in negative gossiping with another person usually triggers conversations that involve downward social comparisons. These conversations are powerful ego-boosters. What is more, by sharing negative information about another person, we unknowingly create distinct social identities—the gossiper brings the person he is gossiping with into his ambit and creates an in-group while the person being gossiped about is made out to be an outsider (the creation of an out-group).
It seems that gossiping is not entirely a wasteful pursuit of time and energy. Our brains get a kick from exchanging juicy tidbits of information about someone we know intimatel (our best friends) or can only observe from a distance (celebrities). Gossip about ourselves is like a mirror to our actions and behavior and lets us rectify ourselves, so we can become more responsible members of the society.
References
Baumeister, R., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 111-121 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.111
BOSSON, J., JOHNSON, A., NIEDERHOFFER, K., & SWANN, W. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others Personal Relationships, 13 (2), 135-150 DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00109.x
Dunbar, R. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8 (2), 100-110 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Schultz, M. (2014). Gossip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in Groups Psychological Science, 25 (3), 656-664 DOI: 10.1177/0956797613510184
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (5), 1015-1030 DOI: 10.1037/a0026650
Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. (2014). Tell Me the Gossip: The Self-Evaluative Function of Receiving Gossip About Others Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (12), 1668-1680 DOI: 10.1177/0146167214554916
Peng X, Li Y, Wang P, Mo L, & Chen Q (2015). The ugly truth: negative gossip about celebrities and positive gossip about self entertain people in different ways. Social neuroscience, 10 (3), 320-36 PMID: 25580932
Image via g-stockstudio / Shutterstock.
Link: Reference Link