A Theory of Victimhood: Politics, Conflict and the Construction of Victim-based Identity
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829814550258 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Author | Tami Amanda Jacoby |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2015, Vol. 43(2) 511 –530
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829814550258
mil.sagepub.com
MILLENNIUM
Journal of International Studies
A Theory of Victimhood:
Politics, Conflict and the
Construction of Victim-based
Identity
Tami Amanda Jacoby
University of Manitoba, Canada
Abstract
What (and who) is a victim? In contemporary violent conflicts, the construction of grievance-
based identity is a fundamentally contested process as the lines between victim and perpetrator
are blurred by ongoing cycles of belligerence and retribution. As victims are incorporated into
broader political campaigns, it becomes nearly impossible to separate the victim from the politics.
The ubiquity of victims in international politics is a serious challenge to International Relations
theory as categories of victim and perpetrator are generally treated as ‘prior or external to
analysis’ instead of as propositions for further inquiry. This article formulates a political theory of
victimhood driven by a distinction between victimisation as an act of harm perpetrated against a
person or group, and victimhood as a form of collective identity based on that harm. It proposes
a sequence of five stages that victims experience from the act of victimisation to the recognition
of victim-based identity: (1) structural conduciveness, (2) political consciousness, (3) ideological
concurrence, (4) political mobilisation and (5) political recognition. The article explores the
stages with concrete examples and offers three main challenges for future research. First, as an
identity, victimhood is more prominent in societies that recognise justice. Second, victimhood
accompanies struggles for recognition. Third, victim rivalries obfuscate straightforward analysis
of victimhood in conflict zones.
Keywords
victim, identity, harm, rights, transitional justice, security
Corresponding author:
Dr Tami Amanda Jacoby, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V5, Canada.
Email: tami.jacoby@umanitoba.ca
550258MIL0010.1177/0305829814550258Millennium: Journal of International StudiesJacoby
research-article2014
Article
512 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43(2)
1. Matei Candea, ‘Resisting Victimhood in Corsica’, History and Anthropology, 17, no. 4
(2006): 369–84, 371.
2. Maria Mies, ‘Towards a Methodology for Feminist Research’, in Theories of Women’s
Studies, eds Gloria Bowles and Renata Duelli Klein (London: Routledge, 1983), 177–39.
3. Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. I. Harm to Others (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
4. Robert Elias, The Politics of Victimization: Victims, Victimology and Human Rights (New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
5. Christiane Wilke, ‘Recognizing Victimhood: Politics and Narratives of Rehabilitation in
Germany’, Journal of Human Rights 6, no. 4 (2007): 479–96.
6. Robert Meister, ‘Human Rights and the Politics of Victimhood’, Ethics and International
Affairs 16, no. 2 (2002): 91–108.
7. Asaf Siniver, ‘Israeli Identities and the Politics of Threat: A Constructivist Interpretation’,
Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics 11, no. 1 (2012): 24–42.
8. Daniel Bar-Tal, Lily Chernyak-Hai, Noa Schori and Ayelet Gundar, ‘A Sense of Self-
perceived Collective Victimhood in Intractable Conflicts’, International Review of the Red
Cross 91 (June 2009): 229–58.
9. Pamela Ballinger, ‘Exhumed Histories: Trieste and the Politics of (Exclusive) Victimhood’,
Journal of South Europe and the Balkans 6, no. 2 (August 2004): 145–59.
10. Ali Aslan Yildiz and Maykel,Verkuyten ‘Inclusive Victimhood: Social Identity and the
Politicization of Collective Trauma among Turkey’s Alevis in Western Europe’, Peace &
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 17, no. 3 (July 2011): 243–69.
11. Diane Enns, The Violence of Victimhood (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2012).
What (and who) is a victim? In the violent conflicts of Israel and Palestine, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sierra Leone or Rwanda, the construction of griev-
ance-based identity is a fundamentally contested process as the lines between victim
and perpetrator are blurred by ongoing cycles of belligerence and retribution. As vic-
tims are incorporated into broader political campaigns, it becomes nearly impossible
to separate the victim from the politics. The ubiquity of victims in international politics
is a serious challenge to International Relations theory because, as Candea Matei sug-
gests, the categories of victim and perpetrator are generally treated as ‘prior or external
to analysis’ instead of as propositions for further inquiry.1 The contemporary literature
on victims of war, oppression and crimes against humanity identifies victim groups
often without asking: why do these victims, rather than others, come to be recognised,
by whom and for what purpose(s)?2 Without a set of plausible theoretical assumptions
behind the study of victimhood, how does one make sense of the competing claims of
victims in disputed political contexts? If victimhood is inherently political, and thus
depends for its expression on power and resources, is there any reliable basis upon
which to define a victim?
Scholars from a variety of academic disciplines have contributed to a growing body
of literature on victimhood. Some of the existing focuses have included: harm;3 criminal
victimisation;4 legal recognition;5 victimhood and human rights;6 social construction of
victimhood;7 psychology of collective victimhood and its functions;8 exclusive victim-
hood9 and inclusive victimhood;10 victimhood as violence;11 and victimhood as partisan
To continue reading
Request your trial