Scapegoat Theory Definition
Scapegoat Theory is the inclination to blame others for one's own troubles, a process that frequently leads in bias toward the individual or group being blamed. Scapegoating is a strategy for explaining failures or wrongdoings while retaining a favorable self-image. If a person who is impoverished or does not receive a job that he or she applies for might blame an unjust system or the individuals who did obtain the job that he or she sought, the person may be scapegoating others and end up hating them as a result. However, blaming such reasons would not constitute scapegoating if the system is truly unjust and prevents the individual from achieving financially, or if the other people received the position due of nepotism or unlawful preferential treatment. Essentially, scapegoating is the use of a stand-in for one's own failings in order to avoid having to face one's own flaws.
Origins of Scapegoat Theory
The word originated from a goat on whom Aaron dumped all of Israel's sins and then expelled to the desert, according to the Bible. As a result, the goat, despite being pure, was basically punished for the crimes of the Israelites. Psychologists have broadened the idea to include not just someone else who must pay the price for one's own immorality, but also someone to blame and explain when the results are not as expected.
Scapegoat Theory's Historical and Research Applications
Political leaders have used scapegoats to unite their people at the cost of a hated group on numerous occasions throughout history. In possibly the most egregious and tragic example, Adolf Hitler famously blamed Jews for the misery of fellow Germans following World War I. He pushed his compatriots to excessive levels of nationalism at the cost of Jews and other groups by portraying Jews as more financially successful than the typical German citizen—and unfairly so, by preferring other Jews.
As a result, Hitler instilled anger and hostility toward the group, while also uniting other Germans around a common goal: the imagined development of Germany.
Sigmund Freud's theories of displacement or projection as defensive mechanisms are also partially consistent with the concept of scapegoating. People, according to Sigmund Freud, transfer their hatred toward unfavorable targets (e.g., parents, bosses) to less powerful targets. Similarly, projection is the inclination to blame others for one's own unpleasant sentiments or fears, therefore denying them to oneself. Both processes shield people from their illegal urges or anxieties by assisting them in rejecting the idea that they are the ones who are experiencing them. As a result, the object of their relocation or projection might become a scapegoat.
Social psychologists have lately defined the scapegoating propensity in similar terms, but with some limitations and explanations. The concept of misplaced hostility, for example, has gotten a lot of attention in the discipline. After a disagreement with her lover, a lady may return home and kick her dog for minor disobedience. As a result, the dog becomes her scapegoat, and she is forced to pay the price for her argument with the lover.
The fight's animosity isn't focused at the fight's genuine source, but rather at the dog, who is a more acceptable target because it can't counterattack or argue back as the boyfriend is sure to do. Furthermore, the notion of relative deprivation is useful in explaining people's proclivity to scapegoat.
According to this hypothesis, people experience bad feelings when they believe they are being treated unfairly for illegitimate reasons. For example, a person may be content with his or her income until he or she discovers that a coworker whose work isn't up to par but is buddies with the boss has received a raise. Now when the person is in a position of relative deprivation, he or she may resent the colleague for the lesser wage. Others have identified various circumstances in which scapegoating against a specific group is most likely to occur. The scapegoated group, for example, is usually a low-power group. Otherwise, the organization would be able to suffocate the populace's dissent. The scapegoated group is also likely to be different from the ingroup (the group to which one belongs), allowing members of the scapegoated group to be easily identifiable and linked to the undesirable circumstance.
Finally, the scapegoat, whether consciously or inadvertently, tends to constitute a serious threat to the ingroup.
Lynchings against Blacks, for example, increased drastically as Whites' economic prospects deteriorated. African Americans were seen as a larger danger to the increasingly limited employment and prospects, and as a result, they were punished in heinous ways. When a group is kept entirely hidden or in a country of plenty, it offers no threat and so does not present the potential to act as a scapegoat.