(no subject)
There is a fairly popular way of thinking that says that when major conflict occurs, it is between a bad, powerful oppressor and an innocent, less powerful victim. This sometimes is a very good model for what’s happening (e.g., some military conquests are like this, as are many abusive relationships and many situations of society-wide prejudice).
But this way of seeing things is also, at times, way off the mark because:
• sometimes, the apparent victim is actually the oppressor (e.g., because oppressors sometimes benefit by pretending to be the victim)
• sometimes, the oppressor is also a victim (e.g., the oppression might be a retaliation)
• sometimes the victim is also an oppressor (e.g., victims are not always innocent)
• sometimes, both parties have oppressed and been victimized by each other (e.g., a cycle of retaliation)
• sometimes the victim is the stronger party (e.g., less strong parties sometimes act with uncalled-for aggression)
Reality is sometimes far too complex to jam into a simple “bad, more powerful, aggressor” vs. “good, less powerful, victim” paradigm.
And if you try to force complex things into overly simple narratives, you’ll sometimes end up supporting wrongdoing by accident.
- It's complex but this sorta veers into moral equivalence imo. I do think the onus is ultimately on the powerful/advantaged to find creative solutions if possible.
- I definitely agree with you (in situations where the model applies - e.g., when one side is bad, powerful, and oppressive, or when one side is good, less powerful, and oppressed). My claim in the original post is that this model doesn't always apply, and that is pretty often overused (because people try to use it a lot even in situations of conflict that don't have that structure).
But this way of seeing things is also, at times, way off the mark because:
• sometimes, the apparent victim is actually the oppressor (e.g., because oppressors sometimes benefit by pretending to be the victim)
• sometimes, the oppressor is also a victim (e.g., the oppression might be a retaliation)
• sometimes the victim is also an oppressor (e.g., victims are not always innocent)
• sometimes, both parties have oppressed and been victimized by each other (e.g., a cycle of retaliation)
• sometimes the victim is the stronger party (e.g., less strong parties sometimes act with uncalled-for aggression)
Reality is sometimes far too complex to jam into a simple “bad, more powerful, aggressor” vs. “good, less powerful, victim” paradigm.
And if you try to force complex things into overly simple narratives, you’ll sometimes end up supporting wrongdoing by accident.
- It's complex but this sorta veers into moral equivalence imo. I do think the onus is ultimately on the powerful/advantaged to find creative solutions if possible.
- I definitely agree with you (in situations where the model applies - e.g., when one side is bad, powerful, and oppressive, or when one side is good, less powerful, and oppressed). My claim in the original post is that this model doesn't always apply, and that is pretty often overused (because people try to use it a lot even in situations of conflict that don't have that structure).