Implications of Scapegoating Groups - Essay Example

? IMPLICATIONS OF SCAPEGOATING GROUPS Introduction Scapegoating is a dishonorable routine where people move liabilityand fault away from themselves and towards a group or person. It is also a manner by which irate position and feelings of resentment aimed, through improper allegations, towards others. Miller (2010) provides that the aimed party feels incorrect victimized and gets mislaid criticism, blame and condemnation; the targeted party is likely to experience rejection from individuals who the perpetrator aims to persuade. The focus range of Scapegoating is wide and emanates from accepted enemies of exceptionally influential groups of individuals to the practice of scapegoating individuals by others. The main feature of scapegoating is distortion of information. Implications Scapegoating aims toward many individuals today and affects roughly everyone in a way or another. According to Douglas (2000), scapegoats can be under attack due to characteristics common to such individuals. They can plainly face attack from traits they cannot control, for instance, their ethnicity or race. An apparent, but main consequence of scapegoating is unfairness toward minority groups. This act is a problem since it can result in stereotyping, and result in biased and unjust handling of individuals for no genuine motives at all. The most scapegoated groups include alcoholics, atheists and communists. Stereotyping is an implicit manner of scapegoating since by building negative generalizations concerning a group of people, often there is blame on them for actions that are out of their personal control. For example, Hitler blamed minorities for troubles in Germany. In this situation, the Jews stereotyped as ignorant and consequently, able to receive the blame of the majority population. Another consequence of scapegoating is the frivolous court cases that are infesting the court system. Beside malpractice, court cases, these court cases illustrate how the society today considers that they deserve to litigate against anyone, and cannot take responsibility for any of the events that they create. It is also the situation in cases where people get scapegoating so extreme, that they abuse the court system. These people can alternatively use their nationality to elect into office legitimate legislative bodies and laws. They can employ the use of other forms like arbitration and mediation to arrive at agreements and apprehend a balance of the liability. The reality is that both the sides share liability, and one side cannot anticipate leaving all to the other. The aim in these court cases needs to be on either side is putting the blame incorrectly on the other party, which is most of the times on the part of the complainant in these frivolous court cases. Scapegoating entails a frustrated, disorganized society united in faulting a victim for their misgivings and taking out their hate and violent emotions on the victim or group. This incident, frequently seen emerging in crowds, for example, chanting in opposition to a character or event, burning effigies, and observable among the police in instances of arresting is a token menace. In a condition where a multitude is outrageous for unfairness they are experiencing and aggravated that their communication is not getting in to the public, media or politicians, they could create scapegoats of administrative officers or even journalists. The scapegoat is the individual who intimidates the safety of the group resulting in fear of losing their identity. The individuals become a risk to the intelligence of justice of the group resulting in resentment and a danger to the connectedness resulting in a sense of grief. The deed distorted, differences not acknowledged, the group considered as disjointed, and stability threatened. This implies that the human identity desires of the society are in jeopardy. As a result, the society turns towards those they can blame. It is also possible that police officers become the scapegoat for the multitude and possibly for the aim and the bystanders Hagen (2003). Scapegoating of individual groups who are problematic in nature tends to result in the escalation of the problem of the group since the individuals lack assistance in solving the current problems. When there is, scapegoating on a group of individuals they tend to work to attain the stereotyped trait. Where individuals, for example, stereotyped as hooligans, they tend to live up to the stereotyped traits by being hooligans. Where individuals face scapegoating, they are in most cases misunderstood to represent the larger group or a portion of their comrades associated with the traits. Scapegoating of a group of individuals has a negative effect on the individuals as they usually carry the burden of others and such burdens are not in any way associated to them. The victimized individuals suffer both socially as they alienated from the larger group of individuals. Scapegoating also acts at the detriment of the perpetrators of scapegoating as the scapegoated group of individuals develops the same view towards the perpetrators of scapegoating. When there is such a view in the society, tension builds, which may in turn result, in a civil, strive (Douglas2000). When a group of individuals scapegoated due to fear of the group it results in tensions of the society as the group considered as dangerous even though they might be harmless. An example of this scapegoating, is the believe that individuals of Islam religion from the Middle East are likely to be terrorists with terroristic motives. This notion results in the alienation of these individuals. This, in turn, creates an unacceptable notion to then society and is evident in the treatment of these individuals especially concerning immigration processes and police handling. In cases, the basis of scapegoating relies on economic insecurity the individuals used as scapegoats find difficulty in gainful employment as they receive alienation and discrimination due to the prejudice associated with then individuals used as scapegoats as the view of the public adopts that used by the perpetrators of scapegoating. Colman (1995) states that where the scapegoat is according to perception of inferiority or superiority or class contempt, the two classes of individuals cannot associate with each other or interact in any way. This brings about the vice of prejudice discrimination and segregation. Scapegoating produces substantial effects in the psychological, social, political, and economic domains. Whether intentional or not, the results compounded, expansively by the lack of self-worth, a notion of separation from the wider community, political disempowerment, and financial inequalities. Scapegoating and ethnic hostilities constitute a serious threat to peace both inside a nation and among other nations. As a result, the occurrence of a new international social law increasingly provides a leadership approach to counter the effects of scapegoats. While many accept that the different international mechanisms to keep people against scapegoats still not universally followed or even implemented, it is clear that a new global consciousness is indeed emerging and is, in fact, intensifying. The belief in the unity of humanity constitutes the basic ideology through which the revelations deal with the question of scapegoats. According to Dworkin (2001), humanity is one form, one country and family, and that in the first means there is no difference and distinction. Such separation is a cultural artifact, not acceptable and lawful. These statements indicate that unity is humanity’s natural surroundings, and that scapegoat ism is not a portion of the normal order. While personal diversity has historically shown to be the ground of separation, diversity as an essential ingredient of common life, which could be acknowledged within the scope of humanity's basic togetherness. Just as, it is human capacity to make inequality and discrimination, it is also within its ability to stop them. Religion gives humanity its capacity to eliminate discrimination and prejudice. Without religion, according to men may be able to perform some degrees of fraternity. However, these are limited associations and subject to change. The human union grounded upon the Holy Spirit, is unchangeable, eternal and unlimited. The cause of scapegoats lies in the development of dense duplication of the past. The occurrence is through the basis of the past, which the basis of the societal order holds to the four winds, and the consideration continually exposed to direst peril. Scapegoating leads to conflict, which results in the dissolving of society through conflict and war. Pillari (2001) states that the decades of unequal relationships between the dominant and minority communities have, of them, increase the difficulty of eradicating scapegoat ism. The nature of the relationships between blacks and whites in the United States appears to apply to other groups around the world. The dominant groups are unable or unwilling to take scapegoat ism as a chronic social, psychological, and mental illness, while these groups have a deep-rooted suspicion, mistrust, and bitterness. Lack of the recognition of the religious nature of the issue, long-term revolution will not appear, and social development of both primary and subjected groups retarded. What effects enduring change and development is recognition of need for the acknowledgement of the unity of humanity. It portrays a rejection of previous beliefs, and blind implications of a fragmented world 9Dworkin 2001). The tendency to scapegoat occurs when a persons prejudges individual and allocates generalizations about them determined by preconceived ideas of a group. These predeterminations are according to religion, gender, race, and ethnicity or time to name a few. While it may or may not apparently seem to have a significant impact with each occurrence, stereotyping does have an adverse impact upon society. It does not matter whether the scapegoat occurs in the classroom, workplace, or a social environment. When it happens, it treads into risky territory. Scapegoating typically creates unfounded speculations; strangely, though, these assumptions may also be correct or evil. A scapegoat is advantageous when the traits linked to a person are positive ones, and its' termed useless when the society disregards these preconceived characteristics; each typecast posses its own set of misgivings. Generalizing about people usually leads to erroneous conclusions, and this can appoint someone in real risk, for example, assigning "poor guy" positive traits, or causing harm to the person by assigning negative attributes to their character, which is unconfirmed and unreliable. Neither outcome is favorable. Rather than scapegoating and making speculations, people should consider each other as humans rather than regularly categorizing people into groups and attaching fixed perceptions of them. While individuals may contain certain similar qualities, identify individuals who make up groups are unique in character and this rather than placing people in categories. Individuals all have their own peculiar unrecognized characteristics by these predetermined ideas of grouping. This is a different way scapegoat ism has adverse effects. For example, in the business field, a company can avoid the benefits of a potential employee's intellect by not hiring them, or someone they had conceived as the ideal candidate based on traditional notions can get them. Either example is an adverse effect of labeling. References Douglas, T 2000, Scapegoats: Transferring Blame, Routledge. Hagen, C 2003, Scapegoating: In Defense of Oneself, Baylor University. Miller, FP, Vandome AF, John M 2010, Scapegoating, VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K. Dworkin, A 2001, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation, Simon & Schuster. Colman, AD 1995, Up from scapegoating: awakening consciousness in groups, Chiron Publications. Pillari, V 1991, Scapegoating in families: intergenerational patterns of physical and emotional abuse, Brunner/Mazel. Carrabine et al 2005 Criminology – A Sociological Introduction Crowther, C 2007 Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice Chpt 5 Managerialism & Chpt 10 Downes & Rock 2003 Understanding Deviance (4th edition) Chpt 13 Peelo, M & Soothill, K 2005 Questioning Crime and Criminology Read More