The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four diaspora groups

Abstract

Most social psychological research on collective victimhood has examined its consequences for intergroup relations. Less attention has been paid to individual and intragroup processes associated with collective victimization, which the present study aimed to examine. We conducted eight focus group interviews among four diaspora communities (Armenian Americans, Burundian refugees, Jewish Americans, Nepali‐speaking Bhutanese refugees) with historical or more recent experiences of collective victimization. Thematic analysis revealed three major foci shared across communities (but with different emphases within each focus), which included juxtaposed themes that highlight the two‐sided nature of experiencing and coping with collective victimization and its aftermath: Vulnerability and struggle versus resilience and strength, loss versus continuity and renewal, and silence about versus transmission of knowledge about ingroup victimization. These findings illustrate how groups integrate seemingly opposite poles of collective victimization that characterize this complex and multifaceted experience, which has important theoretical implications.

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

“…For example, in surveys assessing social representations of colonization, students in six formerly colonized African countries endorsed both the “development” and “exploitation” narratives of colonization (Licata et al, ). While the endorsement of the narrative of colonization as “development” may seem surprising and provocative at first, it is in line with other research suggesting the desire to focus on the group’s strength and survival, and not just vulnerability and weakness (Ferguson et al, ; Vollhardt & Nair, ). Similarly, qualitative research in the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide showed that the goal of developing the country was one way in which some participants justified the policy in Rwanda that ban the use of the ethnic labels (Hutu and Tutsi) that were implicated in the Rwandan Genocide.…”

“…Thus, we do not view the labels of “victim” and “perpetrator” groups as essentialized categories that determine a certain, inevitable response (see also Bilewicz & Vollhardt, ). Rather, we recognize that people make sense of their group’s victimization or harm doing in different ways (Hirschberger, ; Klar, Schori‐Eyal, & Klar, ; Vollhardt, ; Vollhardt & Nair, ), leading to different interpretations and outcomes, some of which we address in this article. Moreover, the roles of victim and perpetrator are not mutually exclusive, and groups often experienced both in their histories, or even within the same conflict (Bilewicz & Vollhardt, ; Gausel, Leach, Mazziotta, & Feuchte, ; SimanTov‐Nachlieli & Shnabel, ).…”

“…Therefore, claiming the victim status (i.e., moral patient) may serve to exclude oneself from the perpetrator (i.e., moral agent) role and exonerate the group from violence they are accused of having committed (Bandura, ; Noor et al, ). On the other hand, the victim status may threaten the group’s sense of power and agency and be stigmatizing in that it implies weakness and vulnerability (Ferguson, Burgess, & Hollywood, ; Shnabel & Nadler, ; Vollhardt & Nair, ). Therefore, the adoption of the victim status is also flexible and rhetorical, and it can be used or rejected in different contexts and for different reasons (Ferguson et al, ; McNeill, Pehrson, & Stevenson, ).…”

“…On the individual level, victimhood may be seen as a sign of weakness and lack of agency, whereas on the group level it may contribute to perceived legitimacy and support from others. But even on a group level, the ingroup’s victimization is not an important part of all group members’ personal and collective identities (Vollhardt & Nair, ). Instead, some group members may believe it is more important to move on and forget about the past, or to find ways of remembering the past but without letting it define and shape the future (Vollhardt, Szabo, et al, ).…”

“…However, this perceived temporal proximity of the ingroup’s victimization varies and depends on the context. In cases of severe, large‐scale collective victimization, the generation that directly experienced the violence is often too traumatized and focused on survival and rebuilding of individual lives and communities to talk about the events (e.g., Stein, ; Vollhardt & Nair, ). This silence among the first generation is then often challenged by the second and third generation, who seek to learn about their group’s and family’s past and preserve the memories (ibid.).…”