The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars Paperback – 27 Feb 2018
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Selected by Choice magazine as an Outstanding Academic Title for 2018
“Campbell and Manning are prophets of the academic world. They correctly diagnosed the first outbreaks of a new moral culture of victimhood in 2014, before most of us had even heard of ‘microaggressions.’ The rapid changes in campus culture since then have validated their analysis. In this important book, Campbell and Manning give everyone the sociological tools they need, in easy and accessible language, to understand and perhaps reverse the pull of victimhood culture, which is now spreading beyond universities into corporate America and the broader American public square.” (Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, NYU-Stern School of Business, USA, and author of The Righteous Mind)
“A book of revelations! Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning provide both a comprehensive overview and surgically precise analysis of what many will find a new and possibly shocking style of modern morality―a ‘culture of victimhood’―that ever more aggressively dominates discourse and silences the free exchange of ideas in American academic life. The book will reward any reader with a rare experience: a consistently creative and stunningly insightful theory supported by a rich array of captivating empirical illustrations. Anyone with even a casual interest in the conflict and tension that increasingly pervade and politicize the atmosphere of today’s colleges and universities will surely feast on every chapter of this book.” (Donald Black, University Professor Emeritus of Social Sciences, University of Virginia, USA, and author of Moral Time and The Behavior of Law)See all Product description
Customers who bought this item also bought
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Therefore, the authors, two US sociologists, aim in this book is to accurately characterise and describe the core reason we are seeing phenomena such as beliefs in micro-aggression, calls for "safe spaces", increases in hoaxes and false accusations of crimes, and also calls for censorship on free speech. They present a solid explanation of behaviour that seems absolutely astounding and incomprehensible to most of us today, such as students in the US demanding from their universities the creation of racially segregated spaces where white people would be banned from entering, such as at Northwestern University where black students demanded that white student not be allowed to join them in the cafeteria, so they could "enjoy their lunches in peace" (p.80). The reader will surely be aware that Martin Luther King certainly did not dream of separate cafeterias for black students, so how has it come to this?
They start by explaining how different sets of values determine cultures and determine each individual's social and moral status. There are many forms of status, such as wealth and fame; moral status is often used in determining who is right and who is wrong, who has just cause and who does not. There are different cultures, or sets of values, that determine a person's moral status. For instance, in a culture of honour, an individual's status is determined by their reputation amongst their peers, and is enhanced by showing acts of bravery, strength, or prowess. Individuals defend their honour at all costs, and will retaliate against challenges to their reputation, e.g. by duelling after an insult or argument. Failing to retaliate is a sign of weakness and invites further attacks, therefore people must fight back against even the smallest offences. Criminal drug gangs are an example of groups living according to honour culture in the west today.
However, honour culture was replaced in mainstream western societies during the last few centuries by a set of values centred on dignity. In a dignity culture, a person possesses an inherent dignity that cannot be dented by slights and insults. A person can however damage their social status by engaging in undignified behaviour, such as childishness, boorishness, violence and so on. Therefore, in a dignity culture, individuals learn to dismiss insults and minor offences as unworthy of response, as they stand to lose more than they can gain by escalating the conflict. To respond back with a petty insult is childish, to be aggressive is boorish, and to be violent is criminal.
In a culture of dignity, more serious conflicts or arguments are resolved by reason, rather than strength or reputation, sometimes with the help of third parties as arbitrators. This describes how, in our society, conflicts are taken off the street and into courts of law, which seek to resolve disputes based on evidence and facts, using legal principles that apply equally to each individual. It is clear to the reader that cultures of dignity are part of the bedrock for free, democratic states centred on individual citizens who hold equal rights, regardless of who they are.
Now, as the title of the book suggest, there is a third culture which has emerged and which does not consider the dignity of the individual, nor a person's individual reputation, as the key value of social status. Instead, it is a person's ability to claim a need for sympathy and pity that determines their position and hence validate their goals. Therefore, unlike honour culture where weakness is associated to inferiors status, individuals seek to publicize their victimization as much as possible, in order to attract favourable intervention from third parties. Thus victimhood culture is different from honour culture, as in an honour culture, reliance on third parties is another form of weakness.
Although dignity and victimhood cultures both sometimes rely on third parties for arbitration, they do so differently. Instead of dignity culture's emphasis on arbitration based on evidence of actual offence, victimhood culture primarily seeks to appeal to emotions of sympathy and pity. This explains why such emphasis is placed on the feelings of the victim, rather than the actual objective presence or absence of an offence. Similar to honour cultures but unlike dignity cultures, victimhood culture makes it advantageous to react to every small offences and insult a person receives, since it enhances the sympathy and pity from their peers who also share victimhood values, especially if it is argued that these offences are not isolated incidents, but part of a wider "systemic" trend. Furthermore, since most minor offences are simply too minor for serious consideration from dignity culture, it is also highly advantageous in a victimhood culture to claim shared victimhood with members of a group, e.g. to take personal offence and make others party to a conflict that would otherwise not involve them. This is a good strategy if you want to bring people onto your side, and explains why victimhood culture is obsessed with historic injustices, despite no party having been involved in those events.
The authors argue very convincingly that these main traits of victimhood cultures explain many of the things we see today. They go through many key examples, such as how micro-aggression theory downplay objective truth and proportionality and instead claim trivial incidents as part of "systemic bias" or even "rape culture". They explain how victimhood culture promotes false accusations and even hoaxes of crimes, since they generate the sympathy the supposed victim craves, without the need to provide a genuine example backed up by evidence.
They further explain how victimhood culture is inherently tribal, as it emphasizes the role of group conflict. It promotes the view that society is simply composed of groups of oppressors and oppressed, despite the evidence of more equality and fairness than ever before in human history. Recall that a person's status and influence is determined by their ability to claim membership to a supposedly victimized group. This explains why, in a victimhood culture, people from non-victimized groups are considered inferior in moral status, as shown by how often we see claims that out-group members cannot hold valid opinions and should not be allowed to speak publicly, regardless of their own individual reasoning and arguments. Unlike dignity culture, victimhood culture is inherently a partisan culture, where adhering "moral commitment to always support alleged victims" is paramount, and the act of seeking the truth is seen itself as an offence. This is illustrated in the attacks on the journalist who first pointed out the inconsistencies in a rape accusation at the University of Virginia in 2014 (p.125), which upon further investigation revealed that the accusation was fabricated, which ranged from the ad-hominem to claims that the due process and safe-guards of free society are institutional abuses of power ("institutions will bring their power to bear to obfuscate violence.", p 125). The reader can't help but think of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird given the disturbing parallels with the moral panics and mob justice that are present in these examples.
The concept of victimhood culture even explains how would-be victim groups compete for victimhood. For instance, in 2017, three Jewish participants were asked to leave an annual LGBT event called "Dyke March" in Chicago, because they were carrying a rainbow flag with the star of David, on the basis that it "made people feel unsafe" and that the march was "pro-Palestinian" and "anti-Zionist". It's initially hard to understand how they cannot see the contradiction in having a march for minority rights being so blatantly anti-semitic, but inside victimhood culture, it is inevitable that multiple groups will emerge to compete for maximum victimhood status, and will seek to portray other groups as oppressors to raise their status.
In the later parts of the book, the authors examine how victimhood culture has come to be and how it spreads. They argue that it arises primarily in environments with high but somewhat imperfect levels of equality, high levels of access to potential sympathy to third parties (e.g. twitter) high levels of overarching authority for acting as enforcers, overly protective parenting, and lack of developmental opportunities for dealing individually with even minor challenges, such as attending a interview, as an independent dignified individual. This explains why victimhood culture has not arisen in challenging poor neighbourhoods, but instead in the affluent elite universities. The authors then go on to consider what are the possible future outcomes of victimhood behaviour, such as increased tribal conflicts in society, maybe even the return of racial segregation. More broadly, victimhood culture challenges the core beliefs of dignity culture, namely that we are each reasonable and responsible citizens of our society, that we are not guilty of our ancestors crimes, that our individual behaviour determines our dignity and that reasoned thinking determines right and wrong.
Ultimately, I think the book is simply excellent. The authors write clearly, lucidly and present a very solid line of reasoning for their description of this new phenomenon. From the lens of mainstream dignity culture, much of what happens in victimhood culture is alien to our moral compass, and thus the authors do a great service to provide a consistent description and explanation of victimhood culture behaviour. The fact that many immature young people are misbehaving is one thing, but the miscarriages of justice by adults in positions of responsibility is deeply concerning for wider society. Many surely know that it is our responsibility as adults in society to take note of these alarming developments, to be conscious of the manipulations of victimhood cultures, and, especially for those in positions of authority, to safeguard the practices of due process based on evidence and investigation when arbitrating conflict. An important principle of justice that has seemingly been forgotten is that the action of the authorities in redressing a harm should not be disproportionate to the actual objective harm of an initial offence. It is time for us to have a grown up conversation about why so many of us live in fear of being the next victim of the twitter lynch mob, of losing our jobs, our livelihoods and our families to possible misinterpretations, exaggerations or even fabrications about our persons.
TLDR: The authors hit the nail on the head. You need to read this book.
The authors, both are sociologists, relate how the term microaggression has become popular only recently, even in academic circles. These microaggressions began to cause scandals in several American universities in 2013. There were claims by students of racism, antisemetic messages, homophobic, sexist and other incidents about inequalities. Bigotry and oppression it deemed had invaded academia. Professors and others have been subjected to vile abuse..In the past three years similar things have happened here.
Microaggression complaints violate many longstanding social norms, such as, ignore slights, and interpret charitably the intentions of others. Those who support the microaggressions programme argue they cause great harm. They interpret the smallest example as racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on. Some of the examples given here defy belief. For example the following were deemed to be very offensive: telling an African-American you are a credit to your race; telling an Asian student you speak English so well; complimenting a women's shoes; saying to a student that her recovery from mental health problems meant she was now normal.
Such, perhaps most, microaggressions are often unintentional, even invisible to their perpetrators. A new lexicon of terms has entered our vocabulary, for example, safe space, and trigger warning as well as microaggressions. Social media-one of the most dangerous developments of modern times-is used to destroy the reputations of outstanding academics up to and including professorial level. Some have lost their jobs. it resembles in some ways the wave of hysteria that swept across the US during Senator McCarthy's claims that universities and Hollywood, in particular, had become hot-beds of communism.
A recent study showed that some 30% of American students believed that violence is an acceptable way to stop a person from speaking. Conservative speech is regarded as hate speech. Students are told to inform on each other. In seminars and classrooms there is a growing fear of being branded racist or sexist, and so on, if they voice an opinion.
The authors are therefore being very brave raising their heads above the parapet. They argue that what is taking place is akin to the days when any perceived disrespect led to a demand for a duel.The rise of campus victimhood, say the authors, represents a return to a world of thin skins in which words become akin to violence.
Note this new New Left mob behaviour is the tip of a very large iceberg. The range of measures used by microaggressors is vast and growing. To repeat it has invaded several of our universities including the very best ones.
Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon.com
This is an incredibiy rigorous and fair critic of this alarming trend and I definitely recommend it to everyone.
I have nothing but systematic contempt for this new strategy on the Left. As a young member of the Left I fought against the Vietnam war, against racial and sexual discrimination, and for tolerance of diversity. We won LOTS of battles. The new authoritarian Left thinks it can move forward by shaming privileged groups into relinquishing their achieved positions. What a sick joke! The authoritarian Left is too pathetic for words.
I am a scientist and an intellectual. I am proud of the contributions my generation of progressives made towards an emancipatory ethic and vision. The current authoritarian Left is completely intellectually bankrupt. There is not a single book or article that has any intellectual cogency. Just a bunch of dirty, racist bigots huddling together for warmth.
What has brought this situation about? Frankly, I am still searching for answers.