Intersectional Consciousness in Collective Victim Beliefs: Perceived Intragroup Differences Among Disadvantaged Groups

Abstract

Although our experiences are shaped by multiple social identities such as race, class, and gender, most research has focused on single‐identity groups (e.g., race). This includes research on collective victimization, which assumes that violence impacts group members uniformly. Conversely, work on intersectional consciousness examines awareness of how multiple social identities intersect and create within‐group differences. Integrating and expanding the research on intersectional consciousness and on collective victimhood, this article investigates perceived intragroup differences in experiences of victimization stemming from intersecting identities of gender and class among two disadvantaged groups in the understudied context of India. We conducted individual interviews (N = 33) and focus groups (K = 12; N = 66) among Muslims and Dalits (lower‐caste Hindus). Thematic analysis revealed that—even though ingroup cohesion (i.e., intragroup similarity) is often enhanced by external threat— people expressed awareness of intragroup differences in experiences of victimization in three distinct ways: highlighting relative privilege, engaging in competitive victimhood, or describing qualitative differences. We discuss the implications for conflict and solidarity within minority groups in the context of political developments in India, where there have been attempts to polarize intragroup divisions.

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

“…Intergroup comparisons of victimization result in comparative victim beliefs (Vollhardt, Twali, et al, ), which is an overarching term for the different conclusions members of victim groups may draw when they compare their own and other groups’ experiences of collective victimization. Generally, people can either recognize that other groups have also been victimized (inclusive victim consciousness [Vollhardt, 2012, ]; also referred to as common victimhood or stigma‐based solidarity: Craig & Richeson, ; Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, ); they can deny that other groups have suffered at all, or as much as their group (referred to as exclusive victim consciousness: Vollhardt, ; or competitive victimhood: Noor et al, ); or they may acknowledge that some groups experienced more severe violence or oppression than their own group, resulting in downward comparisons of suffering (Nair & Vollhardt, ; Vollhardt, Twali, et al, ).…”

“…Although violence and oppression is usually mobilized along the lines of one particular group membership—for example, nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion—the experience of this violence also differs based on other intersecting social categories such as gender or social class. In some cases, people are acutely aware of these differences and express intersectional victim beliefs (Nair et al, in press; Nair & Vollhardt, ). For example, in a study among Northern Irish students and community members, participants often discussed the different experiences of victimization during the Troubles based on social class.…”

The role of identity transformations in comparative victim beliefs? Evidence from South Sudanese diaspora

“…Beyond these well-established comparative victim beliefs, in some cases, victim groups may make a downward comparison whereby they perceive that the outgroup has suffered more than their ingroup or that the ingroup has more privileges than the outgroup (Nair & Vollhardt, 2019). For example, when some Muslim men in India were asked about their ingroup's experience of collective victimization, they argued that Muslim women had more disadvantages compared to them (Nair & Vollhardt, 2019).…”

“…Beyond these well-established comparative victim beliefs, in some cases, victim groups may make a downward comparison whereby they perceive that the outgroup has suffered more than their ingroup or that the ingroup has more privileges than the outgroup (Nair & Vollhardt, 2019). For example, when some Muslim men in India were asked about their ingroup's experience of collective victimization, they argued that Muslim women had more disadvantages compared to them (Nair & Vollhardt, 2019). These downward comparisons, although rare, can have important intergroup outcomes as acknowledging in-group advantages or outgroup suffering can promote positive attitudes and behaviors towards the outgroup members, including those involved in a contentious relationship (Vollhardt, Mazur, & Lemahieu, 2014;see also, Twali, Hameiri, Vollhardt, & Nadler, in press).…”

“…However, there are several reasons why this is not always the case. First, it is equally likely that comparisons can be made about various subgroups within the ingroup (e.g., among Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Israeli Jews; Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008), and that competition due to different intersecting identities of disadvantage occurs within the ethnic, religious, or racial ingroup as well (e.g., Dalit women compared to Dalit men in India, Nair & Vollhardt, 2019). Furthermore, the comparison groups in this research have usually been chosen by the researcher according to rigidly predefined groups, based on their roles during the conflict (for an exception, see McNeill et al, 2017).…”