The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars

by Bradley Campbell, Jason Manning

The Rise of Victimhood Culture offers a framework for understanding recent moral conflicts at U.S. universities, which have bled into society at large. These are not the familiar clashes between liberals and conservatives or the religious and the secular: instead, they are clashes between a new moral culture—victimhood culture—and a more traditional culture of dignity. Even as students increasingly demand trigger warnings and “safe spaces,” many young people are quick to police the words and deeds of others, who in turn claim that political correctness has run amok. Interestingly, members of both camps often consider themselves victims of the other. In tracking the rise of victimhood culture, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning help to decode an often dizzying cultural milieu, from campus riots over conservative speakers and debates around free speech to the election of Donald Trump.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Cultural, History

278 pages, Paperback

First published February 12, 2018

About the author

Bradley Campbell is an Associate Professor of Sociology at California State University, Los Angeles.

Campbell is broadly interested in moral conflict: clashes of right and wrong and how they are handled. He has written a book on genocide and coauthored a book on the clash of campus ideas.

Reviews

[Caleb Hoyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was unbelievably thought-provoking, and deals with subjects that I simply find endlessly fascinating. Much like The Once and Future Liberal, another book I recently read, I was wary of this book. I even took pains in public not to display the cover, lest people think I was merrily reading a conservative screed against people within marginalized populations who they wish would keep quiet and stop their whining. Luckily, I found the content of the book to be anything but. It is written by two sociology professors, and is a scientific examination of what they see as the evolution of a new moral culture. They contrast what they call victimhood culture (a title they acknowledge has a problematic connotation, but which they nevertheless use) with two previously predominant moral cultures: honor culture and dignity culture. In a nutshell, honor culture is one in which one’s reputation and character is of the utmost concern, and reaction to perceived slights or attacks on one’s honor is hypersensitive. These conflicts are dealt with personally, without involving others, and often resort to violence, which is perceived not as a breakdown of civility but as a just and admirable defense of one’s character (think dueling). Dignity culture is one in which one’s dignity, inherent in all people equally, is of utmost concern. Perceived slights are encouraged to be ignored or brushed off, and larger conflicts, if incapable of being resolved peaceably between parties, are reported to distant and impartial third parties (legal action). Resorting to violence is seen as a breakdown of this process, and beneath the dignity of those involved. Victimhood culture is one in which people have a high sensitivity to slights, and have a tendency to handle conflicts through complaints to authorities, or in some cases publicly campaign for recognition of their victimization. In this culture, victims are often elevated in moral standing, while those who are perceived to be privileged are demoted. Violence is rare, although certain types of speech can occasionally be considered to rise to the level of violence themselves. It is CLEARLY a sensitive subject, one which touches upon many easily upsetting values, but the authors repeatedly state that their work is value-free, neither endorsing nor condemning the developments they’ve observed. Even when their assessments feel critical, they are critical of the culture, not of victims themselves. And in the conclusion to the book, they are exceedingly sensitive to the reactions that they expect to get from readers of the work, and do their best to answer some of those potential criticisms and concerns (and they do so very well, in my opinion). This book is a study of a phenomenon that - love it or hate it or, like me, don’t really know what to make of it - we’ve all noticed developing lately. As they say early in the book, “When we talk about the rise of a new moral culture, we mean that a cluster of traits has become frequent and prominent enough that we think it ought to be distinguished from the others.” Their analysis of those traits as a culture unto itself, and that culture’s clash with other prevailing moral cultures, is the focus of the book, and it kept me engaged and interested and thinking critically from start to finish.

[Jeanette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb and utmost in high end for a scale of "difficult to read" category non-fiction. The definitions and source material alone- those two aspects are beyond mighty. Pages and pages of reference and sources after each chapter. This author duo is brilliant in category and languages for abstract definitions. And do they know Social Anthropology and Human Cultural / Social Psychology/ Sociology.

This Bradley Campbell (and Manning) finally made me understand the differences between Honor Cultures and Dignity Cultures. And also how/why/where microaggressions and their ilk have become so central to the rising Culture of Victimhood language and perception. Oftentimes in almost opposite interpretation of Dignity Culture peoples. And how that exact moral cultural window of victimhood is developing too, the most strongly. And why it is. In some cases flipping the morality of "good" to "bad" and vice versa in group "assumed" morality judgments.

Also how diversity of culture affects all (at times in averse ways that have nothing to do with "tolerant" or "not tolerant"). And also how one result is "safe space" purity desired (there are other results as well.) Which is deadly to free speech in its activation. And also forbids "opposite" culture think as morally "bad" and not worthy to be heard.

How I describe and have since about 2010 that "up is down and down is now up" in morality and in manners- this is the key. The rise and soaring of the Victimhood Culture and what it demands. And most, but not all of it also rests in the Cultural Capital which Victimhood Culture core gives for injury and recording of all past negatives.

This is very specific and uses 100's, maybe over a 1000 exact event facts of (down to date/names of persons/location etc.) what has happened since about 2014 to insure or increase this particular Cultural Capital (Goodness on this moral scale) of being a victim. Or calling to some type of "sainthood" for being or investing within victim hood apology. I knew of the top 10 hoaxes or "calling out hoaxes", but had no idea how many there have actually been in the USA.

This explains how 2 or 3 or 4 moral codes of "good" can believe they are hearing nearly opposite entities/ motivations/ propositions despite hearing the exact same words spoken. And the assumptions of "good" or "evil" that they make by their own cultural "eyes" perceptions to perceive what they "heard".

For me what made it 6 star personally was I never understood the vast differences in human cultures for interpretations of the very same exact acts and some of them in my own life from two opposing types of cultures. (Like reactions to a joke or word like "quiet" or a million other minor daily communications or voicing an answer.) Not only to the Microaggression Chapter criteria is it true, but to the conflict of inter-family when the parents come from opposing type cultural background core "moral good" reaction.

Now I understand how their composition and economic position of students makes college campuses particularly prone to this kind of pathetic (to me) Culture Wars fodder.

There are at least 50 quotes upon specific current USA politico re cultural morality slants and reactions here that are priceless. I can't list them all in the reaction. Give some a perusal if you don't read the entire book.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a timely book given the rise of microaggression programs and victimhood culture in the US in recent years, especially on college and university campuses.

The authors admit that they are charting new terrain and they stake a claim in establishing victimhood culture as the new moral culture of our times (previous moral cultures were: honor culture and dignity culture).

Campell and Manning focus exclusively on college and university campuses for their research, since that is where the microaggression program is most prevalent (they are quick to note that poor African-Americans in Baltimore and New Orleans or poor coal miners in Eastern Kentucky do not participate in accusations of microaggressions).

I like how they put the argument in context by discussing issues of freedom of speech, academic freedom and fighting words and how they all come into play in the microaggression culture wars. But at times the book seemed to rely too much on sensationalism, banking on the fact that some of the ludicrous reactions of members of the microaggression movement will shock the reader (unbelievably, one student was suspended from his university for using the expression "On the other hand" after it elicited accusations of ableism).

They do observe that the microaggression movement has engendered intercollective conflict that has pushed liberals and moderates away from the extreme left while allowing conservatives to paint all liberals with the same broad stroke in its criticism of this phenomenon.

As I read this book I thought of Kierkagaard's famous statement "If you classify me, you negate me." It appears that the microaggression movement prefers to atomize society and target white males as the ultimate oppressors and imperialists. Naturally, opponents struggle with frustration as they have to be careful of everything they say and write.

Moral imperatives, legal overdependency, purity spirals....the book provided some new jargon for me to digest. I am not familiar with the intricacies of microaggression, but I have seen examples of it. This book helped me to put everything in context and understand what is going on US campuses.

It is nice to see how the person who conceived the concept of microaggressions--Derald Wing Sue, a psychology professor--developed this idea. His "experience" itself was very ambiguous and this has come to form part, but not all, microaggression accusations.

I wondered throughout the book if the authors are conservative, but this does not distract from the message they are delivering. We need to return to an important part of any democracy: the ability to engage in debates and conversations with those who have other viewpoints. We have lost that.

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Trigger warning.

Don't read this book... Because it is dreadful.

This ill-theorized 'research' - supposedly located in sociology - is brittle, narrow, decontextualized and located in a very small echo chamber. The nonsense in the book bounces around, citing synergetic nonsense to create a waterfall of bonkers, weird, limited and JUST SAD arguments.

The book summons all the Trumpian triggers: victimhood, microaggressions and safe spaces. It does not explore - historically - why they exist. Instead - John Stuart Mill (yawn) is summoned, and bizarre phases like "most people" or "some people."

And yes - all the false accusation stuff is there about women 'crying' rape, and the invention of child abuse claims. Wow. Just wow.

It is so ridiculous, basic, naive, ahistorical and silly - it should have its own trigger warning. Not for the bizarre stuff about women, sex, sexuality, speech, universities, young people and abuse survivers. But simply because it is well-dodgy research.

Sociology is better than this, by the way.

[Letitia Todd Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worrisome AF. The authors, two sociologists, explain the origin, nature, and possible future of the “victimhood culture” that has proliferated in the West and made a farce out of academia, public discourse (such as it is), and to an increasing degree workplace relations and public policy. Everyone sane recognizes this horrid culture by its fetid fruits: micro-aggressions, safe spaces, intolerance of dissenting opinions, oppression Olympics, shameless virtue signaling, and most frightening of all, an incoherent disdain for the free speech and due process rights of whomever the movement’s vanguard deems “privileged.” While the right has begun to engage in self-victimization as a defensive measure, it is overwhelmingly the province of the left. The authors postulate that this disease, er, culture, arises in discrete environments where all of the following conditions are present: social equality of the population, ethnic diversity of the population, few strong social ties but many weak ones, and an expansive authority willing to entertain and legitimize complaints and behavior of the most infantile nature. As elite universities contain all of the above, that is where this culture originated and continues to reign. But then it spreads, for the students graduate and enter the world at large, taking their victim virus with them and infecting others, and groups lower in the social strata begin to emulate the practices of the so-called elite. It’s anybody’s guess (including the authors’) as to how it will end: whether the movement will die by eating itself (a real possibility in view of the growing and vicious conflicts between competing victim groups, e.g., trans activists vs. radical feminists), supplant the dignity culture of the 19th and 20th centuries (the most terrifying of all), or fade away like a teenage fad (one can only hope).

Can anything be done to hasten or ensure its demise? In the conclusion the authors offer a few solutions, most of which strike me as trying to empty the Sahara with a teaspoon: don’t helicopter your children (doable); change the conflict resolution procedures of the universities (Odyssean); reduce the size of university administrations (Herculean); or have universities hire more faculty and administrators to the right of Marx (positively Sisyphean). Thus, while I give the book top ratings for its insight, scholarship, and dispassionate analysis, I will not sleep well.

[Jenny Olechowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finally

...a scholarly look into society rather than a collection of judgments. A worthwhile read for those interested in thinking through complex issues rather than the (unfortunately) easier “just tell me what to think .”

[Jakub Ferencik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been noticing a pattern of extreme emotionalism at universities. There are many good reasons to be provoked, understandably. Some are unfortunately not good enough.

One can think of Milo Yiannopoulos and his racial slurs at the actress Leslie Jones, or Ann Coulter and her anti-Islamist sentiment post- September 11. Not to mention the numerous news anchors that display ignorance & political bias to the extreme point of resembling a marketing technique rather than authenticity. Candace Owens doesn't believe in Climate Change. The list could be endless.

Many are lumped into this group unjustly, however. That is due to victimhood culture.

Maajid Nawaz, a political commentator & moderate Muslim author of the fantastic book "Radical", was labelled both an islamist extremist & bigotted against Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, x-muslim Harvard University fellow, was deemed not worthy to have genitalia due to being outspoken against jihadism & abusive forms of islamism (note: not Islam). Sam Harris was labbeled "racist" on Real Time. Charles Murray, a libertarian political scientist, was labeled a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center for expressing that there MIGHT be IQ differences in ethnicities due to environments & genetics (thought they concluded that there was not enough evidence to hold that view).

Dismissing bad ideas is important. But let us be careful not to dismiss completely rational ideas made by moderates & intellectual Giants in some cases.

Psychologists & sociologists are coming out from their ivory towers and saying that this is entirely unhealthy. We'll need a change. We should start the change by undermining helicopter parenting that socializes people into moral dependency at a young age. More free speech, critical thinking, & rationality.

[Andrés Astudillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally, totally recommended.
There was never a time in which youth was so sensible to anything: they censor the mere presence of someone, they expect from you respect even with the words you use, they demand respect for their zillion pronouns (most of them actually do not make sense).

Reading "Cynical theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay gives you the explanations concerning the schools of thought and their wrongdoing and the Social Justice Scholarship; reading "The coddling of the american mind" by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff gives you an insight based of clinical and moral psychology, concerning the individual mind in a context of hypersensibility culture; this book is the sociological explanation for this phenomenon.

The main premise is that there are two types of cultures: honor and dignity culture. The former is sensible to insults, so defending honor is a virtue, and a must; violence is part of this culture because it involves a kind of vendetta. The insult has an objective, and the offender or perpetrator has a clear intention. The latter is a form of culture in which the offended tranfers the judgement or responsibilty to third parties, such as law, partisanship, or any kind of authority. The thesis claims that victimhood culture is a mixture of both. SJW or "snowflakes" that actually get offended by people who died centuries ago, are extremely sensible to "words" or "honor", sometimes "third-party honor", but at the same time, they transfer the punishment of the offender to third parties, deans, directors, and even law. Media and social networks are a brand new thing in human evolution, so an offense can travel the world at the speed of light, condemning people even for things that they did not know they did, meaning that sometimes the so called "offenders" did not have intention to any harm (this is the definition of a microaggression). In this new kind of culture, the more points you have as a "victim", reflects your rank on victimhood: the more, the better.

If you happen to be white, catholic, and heterosexual, well, you are fucked. You are an oppressor and you must take offense as a payback for what you are in life. You were born as an oppressor. However, if you happen to be a transgender black (or indigenous) and obese woman, well, you have earned some points being a victim. That's how this works, thanks to ideology based on deconstruction (Derrida), intersectionality (Butler) and biopower (Foucault), and many more concepts, that end up in ideological fixation.

The most important thing: the book also mentions censorship made by right wing activists. It is not biased. However, most of what if happening takes place in left-wing oriented universities. Less than 20% of the teachers are perceived as republicans.

I could really go long with this. But I lack time. The book must be read by everyone because this phenomenon is getting even worse. Deeply detailed, cites events that you do not have any idea that have happened, concerning victimhood culture. Please read it, what I have mentioned here is not even 5% of its contents.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is easily the most important book I've read in years. For any American who grew up in the era when "trauma" meant something so negative that it was outside the range of normal human experience, not just an unpleasant experience; when a "trigger" was something that caused a PTSD flashback, not just an annoying stimulus; before "microaggressions" and "safe spaces" existed; before "social justice" became a mechanism for dividing societies into oppressors (who can do only wrong) and oppressed (who can do no wrong) - this book will show you how and why we got here.

I had so many moments where I wanted to stand up and shout "Amen!" I nearly started applauding when I finished the book, but I didn't want to alarm the patrons of the coffee shop where I was reading. I graduated from UC Davis (which I think only gets called out once in the book) in 2007, and I was feeling the cultural shift to where we are now very strongly. In classes like Chicano Studies (which I took to satisfy the school's mandatory diversity requirement for graduating), I was consistently called upon to play a sort of "white devil's advocate," often being backed into defending positions I didn't even agree with because my chromosomal makeup defined me as a conservative oppressor. Given that I often wore a standard undergrad-issue Che shirt and identified as somewhere left of socialist, this was a red flag. My experiences in Native American Studies, Cultural Anthropology, 20th Century World History, and most humanities courses were similar. I entered a graduate program in 2019, and the level of indoctrination and lack of critical thinking on campus has me deeply concerned for the future of our democratic republic.

I was consistently impressed with how well the book was written for today's readers of "popular science" (e.g. Jared Diamond, Malcolm McDowell, Brene Brown). It's accessible, it's chock full of immaculate citations that mostly manage not to get in the way, and it's very clear about where it is going. For the most part, whenever I had a question or objection, I only had to wait a couple of sentences or until the next footnote for it to be addressed. The authors did an decent job of anticipating and responding to counterarguments, and they adequately addressed the limitations of the book. I was previously unfamiliar with the sociological concepts of honor culture and dignity culture, and my understanding of myself, entertainment media, and various social situations has been tremendously enriched by overlaying this sociological culture filter. The quick and dirty: in honor culture (most Western cultures historically, and some lower socioeconomic groups today), people are quick to perceive and respond to slights directly, and they don't appeal to authorities for help. In dignity culture (much of modern middle-class and educated America), people tolerate small slights, and they appeal to third parties for help with intolerable slights (e.g. major thefts or violence). In victimhood culture, people are quick to perceive small slights, and they appeal to third parties to resolve them.

If I have any criticisms, they are as follows. I understand, and the authors acknowledge, that they are primarily immersed in academia. I still think the book would have benefited from more examples from cultural conversations in mass media vs. on college campuses. The authors also acknowledge that they tend towards conservative thought and that comes through in what they choose to write about and how they choose to write about it. That awareness means they could have done a better job of pointing out the problems in their camp. They address the fact that Matthew Shepard's murder was probably not a hate crime, and that the Duke lacrosse gang rape never happened, but that these incidents are still misremembered by many Americans and misrepresented by many activists. The authors don't really point out incidences of similar behavior by the right. By and large, when people are confronted with a fact that challenges their worldview, they reject the fact rather than modify the worldview. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I will share a brief story.

I was attending a hunter safety course in Colorado at the state wildlife agency headquarters in Denver. There, out of nowhere, the state employee started railing about the following to his captive audience (quote taken from original source, DuffelBlog): "[t]he Fortify & Unite Communities to Keep Veterans’ External Threats Secure Act (H.R. 1874) which was introduced on Tuesday, would require military veterans to register with the Department of Homeland Security and periodically “check-in” with a case officer, in addition to going door-to-door in their neighborhood to notify people nearby that they are a powder keg of post traumatic stress, alcoholism, murder, and hate just waiting to blow." This gained some traction in social media at the time, because nobody has a sense of humor anymore and the acronym for the "law" didn't tip most people off. I politely pointed out that the story was satire, and this state government employee became very flustered. He said he was relieved to hear it, but that it's scary how believable the story is because of the way our country is now. The (largely conservative) class nodded and murmured their assent, and I realized they were rejecting the factual truth of the situation in favor of using it to reinforce the "emotional truth" that such a law is just a step away from passing.

Back to criticisms of the book. I also think the authors don't do enough to acknowledge the cultural shift on the right. Read the comments on Reason, a libertarian outlet, or someplace like The Truth About Guns, a conservative site about... you guessed it, guns. You'll quickly see that classical liberalism, which values free speech and due process, is just as dead on the modern right. As many left-wingers want to silence or otherwise sanction straight/white/colonialist/hetero/cis "oppressors", many right-wingers want to sanction or do harm to Marxist/Muslim/minority "criminal"/other "un-Americans". I'm not trying to get sucked into the false equivalency fallacy, but let's just say "you also had some very bad people on both sides."

Another criticism. While the authors generally do a good job of anticipating counter-arguments, they don't always make them very robust. In the section on free speech, for example, the authors describe reasons that campus free speech opponents put forward for banning inflammatory conservative speakers (e.g. Ann Coulter, Milo Pedophilopolous, and Ben Shapiro). The authors don't really bring up any good reasons. I personally believe in a very broad definition of the First Amendment, but I can easily imagine credible reasons to restrict this type of speech. How about the fact that when a speaker makes statements arguing for restricting the civil rights of minority groups (lookin' at you, Coulter), they are using the freedoms of our political system to advocate for a political system that lacks those freedoms? Do they deserve the full protections we would give to somebody who uses the freedoms of our system in good faith? That might be a conversation worth having. How about the fact that some far-right speakers stop just short of direct incitement to imminent violence in order to evade responsibility when their audience members later commit violent acts? Do people who tailor their speech to fit the letter of the law and fly in the face of the spirit of the law deserve the same level of protection? Again, this might be a conversation worth having. The authors pretty much deride free speech critics as just being overly sensitive, and this was a bit of a disappointment in a mostly very strong book.

Following on that last criticism, Campbell and Manning introduced me to "Hume's Guillotine", which dictates that moral statements cannot follow logically from factual statements. This was another concept that will become a permanent part of my mental toolbox in evaluating arguments. However, while the authors do a good job of maintaining that separation, they bring up and give more weight to moral arguments they agree with, while mostly claiming moral objectivity. They admit their biases will come through in their writing in the conclusion, but they don't do enough to combat this tendency.

No book is perfect, but the incredible job Campbell and Manning do of providing a theory that persuasively accounts for our current cultural climate far outweighs the flaws of the work. Read it. Gift a copy to everyone you know who will read it without getting upset. I plan to.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

9.5/10

[Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very timely scholarly look at the rise of victimhood culture, especially at US universities (but I can think of examples in Europe as well). Discusses microaggressions, safe spaces, triggers and problems of free speech through practical examples and some theoretical discussions. Perhaps a bit lacking in international comparison and answering the ‘why here and now’.

[Serhiy · Rating 4 out of 5]

У книжці зроблена спроба описати нову моральну культуру, що на наших очах постає у кампусах американських університетів. Справа ця не вдячна: думаю, ви відразу здогадаєтесь, що Бредлі Кемпбел з Університету штату Каліфорнія та Джейсон Меннінг з Університету Західної Вірджинії встигли отримати на горіхи від вдячної публіки просто за слово «віктимність» у назві своєї книги. Умовно книжку можна поділити на дві частини: розділи з першого по п’ятий присвячені безпосередньо опису структури, походження та інших особливостей культури віктимності, розділи шостий і сьомий - відповідно, впливу цієї культури на соціологію та свободу слова. Автори виділяють три типи моральної культури, та розглядають їх через теорію конфліктів Дональда Блека. Перша - культура честі, люди якої вразливі до образ і прагнуть вирішувати конфлікти безпосередньо між собою. Оскільки автори американці, вони переважно наводять приклади з культури американського півдня з її традицією дуелей, але, звісно, це все характерно і для аристократії інших країн в доіндустріальну добу й навіть пізніше. В наші часи культура честі існує хіба у вуличних банд. Друга - культура гідності, умовно кажучи, культура протестантської етики й духу капіталізму, де конфлікти вирішують апелюючи до загального закону, образи сприймають більш стримано й взагалі толерантніше ставляться до іншої думки. Ця культура і досі панує на Заході. Третя - винесена у назву книги культура віктимності, яка поєднує окремі елементи двох попередніх: з одного боку, люди так само вразливі до образ, як і в культурі честі, але вирішення конфліктів бачать у зверненні до суспільної думки, що більше нагадує культуру гідності. Автори вважають, що культура віктимності виникає там, де люди різних культур взаємодіють в умовах відносної, але недосконалої рівності, сторони конфлікту можуть апелювати до вищого авторитету, соціально рівновіддаленого від них обох, при цьому люди соціально атомізовані, а розлючені особи мають доступ до відносно віддалених третіх сторін. Поширення цієї культури вони пов’язують саме з поширенням цих умов. Два останні розділи, на відміну від нейтральних попередніх, містять критику окремих елементів культури віктимності, які негативно впливають на соціологію як науку та академічну свободу. Автори, посилаючись на гільйотину Юма, вважають, що соціологія не може бути джерелом для виведення моральних норм, натомість під впливом культури віктимності соціологія все менше переймається поясненням роботи соціальних відносин, та перетворюється на оповідь моральної історії пригноблювачів і жертв. Окремо дістається марксистській соціології та одинадцятій тезі про Феєрбаха. Далі стурбованість авторів переходить на всю академічну галузь: метою університетів стає не наукова істина, а соціальна справедливість (критиці цього поняття відведена значна частина), самі університети з місця обміну ідеями перетворюються на безпечний простір, де студенти протистоять пригнобленню. Як і будь-якій з перших спроб описати явище, що тільки перебуває у процесі становлення, книжці бракує повноти та перспективи, але в такий ситуації важко цього вимагати. Тішить виважений тон та відсутність тенденційності при тому що автори явно не поділяють цінності досліджуваної культури, а також великий фактичний матеріал, яким автори підкріплюють свою думку.

[Hina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m not an academic or student; I’m what the book calls an “outsider” to this world of victimhood culture on college campuses. I’ve been reading about the plague of microaggressions, safe spaces, and campus protests across universities in North America for the past few years and have been baffled by what’s going on. If you’re like me and want to understand what’s happened across academia that’s brought about such a rapid transformation in our society and culture, this is the first book you should read to deepen your understanding of what the authors have rightfully termed ‘victimhood culture’.

This book feels like an in-depth research paper or journal article. The authors trace the history of how cultures develop (namely honour culture in the olden days and how it grew into dignity culture in the modern era), and the ripe conditions in our present world that have led to the growth of today’s victimhood culture. They also do an excellent job of defining what exactly victimhood culture is, how it can be distinguished from honour and dignity cultures, and what its symptoms are.

This is a study in pure sociology, and has opened my eyes to the power that social science research (when done objectively and without a social justice undertone) can be. I’ll admit that prior to reading this book, I had a very dismissive view of “the humanities”, mainly because of what they’ve devolved into in recent decades. But the authors have done a phenomenal job of keeping their biases in check to provide a study of social life, and done it as scientifically as possible.

This is not a left- nor right-wing view of the situation. The book covers examples of the growing power of using victimhood narratives in both liberal and conservative circles, and how this new moral ideology is growing beyond academia and into public and private life.

Definitely one of the best books I’ve read so far on the changing nature of our socio-political landscape.

[Vincent Brady · Rating 5 out of 5]

A timely book dealing with the rise of identity politics and victimhood culture in the English speaking world. Established on university campuses it has spread to the media and is starting to manifest in big corporations. It views society in terms of oppression and victimisation on the basis of sex, race, sexuality and gender identification.Safetyism has become paramount in universities where students are felt to need protection not just physically but from perceived harmful ideas which might traumatise them. Micro aggression complaints,trigger warnings and safe spaces are in operation to prevent this. Academics and campus speakers who flaunt these rules are ostracised and attacked as heretical bigots. The result is authoritarianism and censoriousness with the death of free speech. I think victimhood culture is corrosive for the western world as it designates people as oppressors or victims on the basis of immutable characteristics such as skin colour. It will I feel foment division and generate animosity between people when what is needed is mutual understanding and togetherness.

[Black_Venus]

Elgondolkodtató olvasmány.. azzal kezdem, hogy míg az eredeti borítón arctalan tömeg tüntet, csak a fekete sziluetteket látni; a magyar borítón egy pelenkás gyerek emeli az öklét dühösen – ez inkább groteszk és kicsit szánalmasnak mutatja a gyerekszerepben lévő áldozatot, megelőlegezve a kötet tartalmát – vagy eleve orientálja az olvasót.
A szerzők három szakaszra osztják a társadalom fejlődését, az állam fejlettségi fokához illeszkedően: a becsületkultúra az első, itt még az erősebb győz, méghozzá agresszióval, a nagy hal megeszi a kishalat, mert az állam nem rendelkezik igazságszolgáltatási funkcióval. A méltóságkultúra a második szakasz, itt a polgárjogi mozgalmak eredményei már megjelennek, de az emberek még nem az államtól várják a konfliktusaik megoldását, hanem a saját szintjükön kezelik azokat. A mostanában, főként az amerikai egyetemi kampuszokon teret nyerő, és onnan a diplomásokkal pl a munkahelyekre is átszivárgó áldozatkultúráról, és annak a túlkapásairól szólnak a kötetben olvasható tanulmányok.
Az áldozatkultúra alatt a teljes társadalomra kiterjedő felfogást kell érteni, nem pedig az egyes áldozatok traumatikus élményeit és ezek egyéni következményeit. Az áldozatkultúra egyfajta gondolkodási folyamat eredménye, (filozófiai iskolának nem nevezném), amelyben az egyes, a méltóságkultúrában mégoly ártalmatlannak tűnő interakciókból is „kiértik” azokat a nem tudatos mögöttes gondolatokat, amelyek sértőek lehetnek egyes személyek számára, pl az áldozat szociokulturális háttere miatt (ezek egy része speciálisan az USA társadalmi és történelmi keretei között értelmezhetők, pl. rasszista utalások a nyílttól (pl. blackface) a nem tudatos sértésekig (pl. megkérdezik, hogy az USÁ-ban született vagy bevándorló); vagy a nők elleni szexista viselkedés (a sima bénázástól a nyílt erőszakig itt is széles a skála).
Az áldozatkultúra sajátossága, hogy biztonságos teret (safe space) követelnek maguknak az áldozatok (akik néha nem egyetlen személyes trauma, hanem pl a feketék elleni inherens diszkrimináció miatt tartják magukat áldozatnak), ahol nem érheti őket olyan trigger-inger, ami miatt újra kell élniük a traumájukat, vagy bármilyen általuk kellemetlennek érzett helyzetbe kerülnének. Az áldozatok a mindenkori hatalomtól várják, hogy ezeket a mikroagressziónak érzékelt eseteket megtorolja, (ahelyett, hogy ők maguk lépnének fel, állnának ki magukért vagy tűrnék az élet többi megpróbáltatásával együtt). A mikroagressziót többnyire az amúgy privilegizált helyzetűnek tartott középosztálybeli fehér férfiak követik el; a fehér férfi amúgy is a jellegzetes elnyomók közé tartozik. Ezeknek a helyzeteknek az elkerülésére reformálják folyamatosan a nyelvhasználatot is, a PC, politikailag korrekt szóhasználatokat kialakítva.
Hosszan lehetne elemezni a tanulmányokat, amelyek egyébként a szociológia számára is új feladatokat jelölnek ki, és megkérdőjelezik, hogy ténylegesen lehet-e még tudományként értelmezni a szociológiát (mert egyre szubjektívebb, és kevésbé követi a klasszikus tudományosság szabályait).
A nyelvhasználat szerintem a tünete egy valóban küszöbön álló változásnak, amely sokaknak nem tetszik, de mégis megtörténik… a társadalomban felbukkanó agresszió csökkenésével a mostani mainstream át kell, hogy alakuljon úgy, hogy a korábbi századokban kialakított társadalmi berendezkedés, az uralkodó osztály jellegzetességei megváltozzanak, a korábbi kisebbségek, és a társadalom számkivetettjei számára is jusson legalább egy elfogadható létminimum, ami anyagi és erkölcsi megbecsülést jelent. (Megfigyelhető, hogy egyre inkább azzal definiálják magukat emberek, hogy melyik kisebbséghez tartoznak, és nem azzal, hogy a fősodorban vannak – ez jelentős társadalmi átalakulást indukál vagy annak a tünete, és ez ellen harcol a konzervatív politika.) Mindez nyilván túlkapásokkal jár, amelyek még a támogatókat is elijesztik. Az áldozatkultúra nem feltétlenül szimpatikus – pont azért, mert míg korábban az erősek uralkodtak, most majd a legtöbben közepesen gyengék lesznek, hiszen az állam erősödésével nincs szükség az egyén agresszivitására a hétköznapokban. De talán ezek a folyamatok hozzájárulnak ahhoz, hogy a gyengék és az erősek középen találkozzanak, egy kevésbé agresszív világban. Vagy naív vagyok. Azért a nosztalgia megmarad az erő iránt, és még sokára lesz ez az egész világra kiterjedő folyamat, úgyhogy, aki ragaszkodna a nagyhal létéhez, biztosan talál még majd magának elnyomható embereket.
A kötet egyik legerősebb üzenete, hogy nem lehet „minden szónak zacskót varrni”, hogy túlelemzik mások megszólalásait, és ezzel egyfajta nyomást, néha már-már terrort gyakorolnak a környezetükre. Bár nem tartom kiküszöbölhetőnek, szerintem érdemes azért elgondolkodni azon, hogy a hétköznapokban mennyi ilyen mikroagresszió éri az embert, vagy hányszor viselkedünk nem tudatosan sértőn másokkal. Már ezzel is lehet jót tenni a környezetünkkel – de úgysem tudunk minden pillanatban figyelni minden rezzenésünkre.
Annyit vontam le konklúziónak, hogy jó lenne, ha olyan könyvek is megjelennének a konzervatív kiadóknál is, amelyek alátámasztják, hogy az amerikai vagy akár a magyar igazságszolgáltatás felismeri, hogy ki az áldozat és ki az agresszor, és ennek megfelelően jár el, akár mentális vagy szociális támogatással, hogy az áldozatok megbíznak annyira a hatalomban, hogy hozzá forduljanak ha bántalmazzák őket, és tényleg segítenek is nekik, a méltóságuk megőrzésében is.
Levezetésként megnéztem a Netflixen a The Chair című filmet, a téma iránt érdeklődők figyelmébe ajánlom.
(A fordítás kicsit döcögött helyenként.)

[Timothy Nelms · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent scholar level intro to victimhood culture.....the co-author Jason Manning of WVU spoke at our local Humanist group , and I continue to have interest , read in this area.......part of what I see as a problem area ‘ on our/liberalism side’ which turns possible voters away , is not liberal ,seems ideological , and is in error......

[Jorge Rodighiero · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's truly a thorough review of certain phenomena arising in our modern western society, explained in an unbiased and historical way.
I was pretty surprised about how they were able to not straw-man the other side of their argument, fulfilling the sociological mission they set up to do.

[Bischof von Limburg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent analysis of all the non-sense that currently is taking place at our society. Im afraid that there will not be movies such as "dirty harry" again in the near future.

[Chrystal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent points but the writing is highly repetitive. Beating its major points to death does a thesis no favours.

[Donald Arteaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

Similar to "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning take a closer look at the phenomenon happening on certain college campuses: the introduction of concepts like microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc.

It's important to add (just like "Coddling") that these college incidents seem to be mostly isolated to elite universities and do not seem to be a reflection of the majority of colleges. Nevertheless, the number of incidents are increasing and have become a source of ridicule in the mainstream, including an episode on South Park where Cartman sings a song about his "safe space".

But what are these ideas exactly, and why do they keep coming up? The authors seek to help us better understand what they've termed "Victimhood Culture" by using past cultures of Honor and Dignity.

𝐈𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 💪:
📌 Reputation and Bravery are key factors of one’s moral status.
🛡️ Small conflicts are responded to aggressively.
🚨 Little to no appeals to authority, third-parties, and public opinion for justice.
🙌 Examples of Honor Culture: the Old West, the mafia.
🗣️ Phrases you’d hear:
"𝘐 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘶𝘦𝘭!"
"𝘕𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺'𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵."
“𝘕𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘱.”
.
𝐈𝐧 𝐚 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 👤:
📌 Self-restraint and Civility are key factors of one’s moral status.
🛡️ Small conflicts are responded to with non-violence and compromise.
🚨 May sometimes appeal to authority, third-parties, or public opinion for justice.
🙌 Examples of Dignity Culture: Formal debate, Court of Law, Due Process
🗣️ Phrases you’d hear:
"𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘦."
“𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭.”
“𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘶𝘴.”
.
𝐈𝐧 𝐚 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 😨:
📌 Suffering and Victimization are key factors of one’s moral status.
🛡️ Small conflicts are responded to aggressively (like Honor culture).
🚨 Mostly appeals to authority, third-parties, and public opinion for justice.
🙌 Examples of Victimhood Culture: Callout/Cancel Culture, Microaggressions, Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces
🗣️ Phrases you’d hear:
"𝘚𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.”
"𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰."
"𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺!"

Throughout the book, the authors continue to remain impartial and reasonable in explaining the situation and its consequences. If you're looking for a book that seeks to ridicule Victimhood Culture, this is NOT the book. It's an academic read: their arguments are balanced, rational, and heavily sourced.

Perhaps it's because I personally embrace Dignity Culture, I admit there were times the authors cited instances of grievances from individuals and I nearly laughed in disbelief: "These people have to be joking, right?!"

It's important we all understand this idea of Victimhood Culture not just for the explanation it entails but also in seeing that this isn't limited to college campuses. These ideas have seeped out into our modern society. We have many modern cultural movements with foundations based upon collective victimhood (e.g. Callout/Cancel Culture, #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Trumpism).

To emphasize, I'm NOT saying Victimhood Culture is inherently a "bad thing", and neither are the authors of this book. Each culture brings with it a new set of solutions and problems. In Victimhood Culture, we provided platforms and spotlights to victims of injustices that would never have been addressed prior (e.g. crimes of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby). That's fantastic, and I am all for that!

But on the flip side, Victimhood Culture has overextended its reach, inadvertently supporting instances of victimhood where there is none to be found. False allegations have been made toward individuals whose reputations are now ruined because of them. The irony of Victimhood Culture is you receive more popularity and sympathy by virtue of being a victim, real or imagined. And without any consequences for false accusations, the accuser's social status raised regardless of the truth, why wouldn't someone feel more inclined to lie so long as it benefited them?

Because of Victimhood Culture's need to always believe the victim over the accused, we've let it get in the way of seeing situations in more balanced, critical ways. This unintentional elevation of false victims has done a massive disservice to people who are actual victims of injustice.

This is an important book illuminating not just what's happening on some college campuses but also in how Victimhood Culture has also spread into the mainstream. If we're going to solve society's problems, we need to also be willing to acknowledge this is a problem..

But on a lighter note, it seems as of late Victimhood Culture is having the tide turned. More people are starting to become skeptical of allegations rather than simply jumping to conclusions. Celebrities like Jussie Smollett whose racial accusations turned out to be false is now facing criminal charges for his lies. And let's not forget the recent verdict in the Depp/Heard trial.

Perhaps this book will become pretty outdated within the next few years. But for now, I give this book my recommendation!

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Rise of Victimhood Culture might at first sound like a work of polemics, but it's not. Rather, it's a scholarly study written by two sociologists, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, about the rise of what they call a new "moral culture," one that is distinct in both its causes and effects from the the historical moral cultures of America. As a sign of how quickly this moral culture is spreading, this book confines most of its discussion to manifestations of victimhood culture on college campuses, but a mere two years after its publication the effects of victimhood culture have escaped academia and have invaded early education, business, media, and government. All of this makes the book useful in understanding where victimhood culture comes from, and what drives it forward.

At the start of the book, Campbell and Manning explain what they mean by victimhood culture, and contrast it to two other types of moral cultures (by which they mean the way that different cultures define and deal with conflict): honor culture and dignity culture. Honor culture, typified in America by the old South, is a culture in which there is a high sensitivity to insults, which are often met with violent resistance as a display of bravery by the aggrieved person. Dignity culture, in contrast, encourages people to forebear and even ignore insults, though when disputes are unavoidable, they are to be handled via negotiation or, less preferably, through the legal system. However they are resolved, in dignity culture the resolution is intended to address the root cause of the issue without undue publicity or retribution.

Campbell and Manning believe that dignity culture has been America's dominant moral culture in recent times, though they acknowledge that there are still pockets, especially where authority structures are weak such as inner-city gangs, where honor culture, with its sensitivity to insults and proclivity to deal with conflicts violently, persists.

Honor and dignity cultures, then, form the contrast to victimhood culture, which is closer to honor culture, though people in the latter would detest the victimhood mentality that permeates the former. Victimhood culture retains a high level of sensitivity to personal slights without honor culture's code of personal bravery, while also retaining dignity culture's desire for resolution without its expectation that complainants not be overly sensitive.

It is through this lens that Campbell and Manning view developments like microaggressions, which can be explained as the manifestation of a new culture that, having adopted certain beliefs regarding the source and nature of oppression, defines and values victimhood in a new way, endows victims and their allies with special social privileges, and condemns groups with "privilege" as inherently oppressive.

Interestingly, the authors observe that much of victimhood culture's sensitivity to slights, by which any negative interaction or clumsy phrase is interpreted as resulting from bias, goes against common psychological advice, which cautions against fortune telling (the tendency to predict the worst possible outcomes), magnification (emphasizing and exaggerating the influence of bad experiences), and negative filtering (concentrating on bad experiences to the exclusion of good ones). Similarly, the rise of concepts like safe spaces and trigger warning ignore the psychological practice of exposure therapy, which are intended to acclimate individuals to "triggering" experiences until they no longer cause extreme reactions.

This is no small issue, for if the goal of victimhood culture is to enhance happiness and safety, it is worth considering whether or not training people to concentrate on negative experiences, no matter how small or unintentional, does more harm than good. The authors write that "moral culture shapes how people react to slights, including how their bodies react. People raised in cultures with stronger notions of honor, such as the US South...actually experience greater psychological stress when insulted than do those from more dignified cultures. [Scholars] have similarly proposed that the stress and mental health issues associated with microaggressions and trauma triggers may be due less to the actual content of these offenses than to the way people are taught to view them."

Though there is clearly an ideological component in this new culture, Campbell and Manning, as sociologists, are also interested in the sociological factors at work in spread of victimhood culture, and it is no accident that it originated on college campuses for it is there that not only the ideological training but also the sociological conditions most favorable to victimhood culture exist. Namely, victimhood culture thrives where relatively low status individuals (students) who have learned to be highly sensitive to insults seek the intervention of relatively high status but socially distant third parties (university administrators). These tendencies are magnified by other common elements of campus life: a high degree of equality which has the effect of highlighting whatever inequalities remain (sometimes called the Tocqueville Effect); the increase in the size and number of administrative and now government bureaucracies, the availability of which only increases the incentive to seek their intervention; high levels of social atomization and weak social ties which would have otherwise led to easier advocacy and direct resolution of conflicts; and the rise of social media, which has allowed the broadcasting of complaints to a "sea" of strangers who may also be convinced to take sides and demand action.

If all of this sounds theoretical, the consequences of victimhood culture touch the real world. The culture's censorious tendencies, for instance, have serious implications for not only academic freedom (as even liberal professors like Bret Weinstein and Nicholas and Erika Christakis have discovered), but also for free speech at large. So, too, it's valorization of victimhood status has resulted in a wave of hate crime hoaxes (so much so that political scientist Wilfred Reilly has written a book about it). And what should be most disturbing to everyone, victimhood culture's focus on racial groups as inherently oppressive or inherently oppressed is creating a scenario which risks fostering the very kind of racialist sentiment that liberals say they fear. Campbell and Manning warn, "Victimhood culture deviates from [ideas of] moral equality by producing a moral hierarchy with white males at the bottom; the reaction it provokes may be the resurgence of a moral hierarchy that places them at the top."

To their credit, Campbell and Manning attempt to be non-partisan in their exploration of victimhood culture, and point out how some conservatives have attempted to argue against victimhood culture by adopting it. For instance, conservative individuals and groups have argued against leftist victimhood culture by either pointing out how the alleged oppressors have themselves been oppressed, or how the people claiming victimhood enjoy manifold privileges. Some of these points are well-taken, though this conservative victimhood is clearly not on the same scale as left-wing victimhood culture, and could in fact be seen as merely an effective counter-argument, not a genuine attempt to claim victimhood status.

Campbell and Manning make it clear throughout the book that - again, as sociologists - they're not making moral claims about victimhood culture. Rather, using their academic discipline, they're observing tendencies and understanding potential consequences. Still, they acknowledge that, in the end, the people most interested in this book will be those most skeptical of the foundations and consequences of victimhood culture. To these readers, they suggest certain actions: that we should "Alter the way we socialize children, reverse the expansion of administration in higher education, find ways to limit the numbers and the authority of administrators, and increase viewpoint diversity in the academy..." Do these things, they write, "and the extreme form of victimhood culture will wither away." It might be added that reducing social atomization and strengthening local community and family ties would contribute to the same effect, to say nothing of clearing the ideological rot at the root of this movement.

The Rise of Victimhood Culture is a unique perspective on the most significant cultural conflict of our time, though one that (as the authors admit) is far from comprehensive. Even so, it's useful as a way of understanding the conflict differently and prescribing different ways of addressing it.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the first academic treatment of the phenomena behind what has been labeled woke, social justice warrior, cancel culture.

The authors describe 3 moral cultures: honor, dignity, and victim cultures using sociologist Donald Black’s theory that conflict is mediated by the social structure. In traditional honor culture public reputation and self-help are valued like in duels, in dignity culture individual self-restraint and legal civic means like debate are prized with coercion limited to physical harm, and in victim culture historically marginalized groups are given a special moral status and third parties like college and social media administrators are sought to resolve conflicts. Victim culture shares with honor culture retributive justice against slights however small or perceived but shares with dignity culture reliance on third parties to resolve conflict but beyond physical or personal injury to a wider group.

The authors approach victim culture as outsiders who clearly do not subscribe to it but seek to understand beyond polemical attacks or defense. They conclude that so long as diversity and equality are valued, weakness of social ties and strength of third party authorities continues victim culture may be here to stay to some degree. They offer besides understanding the phenomena a few solutions for those who subscribe to the still prevalent dignity culture to arrest its worst aspects such as socializing children to be more resilient, limiting the number and discretionary authority of administrators, and encouraging greater viewpoint diversity in academia. The authors reference Jonathan Haidt who makes for further reading on the psychological side.

The authors also discuss the mostly right-wing response to victim culture as resisting and adapting to some of its aspects as populists and free speech warriors responding in kind to slights and perceiving themselves as targeted by a hostile establishment thus unable to rely on third parties. This to the authors is often at odds with dignity culture even if legitimate but can validate and escalate victim culture even if not the same. This has made me see elements of honor culture on the populist/libertarian right as well. The choice seems to be arresting or competing with victim culture or maybe both. Dignity culture seems to have been an outcome of a literate society which was a product of the reformation and enlightenment and I am not sure it can endure in a post-literate culture but that’s another subject.

[Анфиса Васильева · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Will the “sticks and stones” aphorism come to be seen as a relic of a cruel past? … Will the rhetoric of white make victimhood gain more converts for extremist groups on the right? … “Will we see a devolution of society into competing tribes, their violent hostility suppressed by an increasingly authoritative police state” – and other pearl-clutching gasps disguised as a work of sociology.

I initially was intrigued but the original article-predecessor of this book that introduced the notion of “victimhood culture” and as an outsider of the American political correctness vs. free speech discussion thought that in this work I might find a more in-depth exploration of the reasons and context of the term. Sadly, although this book adopts a somewhat academic style (i.e. publication quotations and lists of references) all 263 pages of it felt like a series of cherry-picked horrors of well-known cases where speech policing on campuses went overboard, references to other well known conflict theory works and Ben Shapiro tweets to support the argument.
How it is academic is beyond me.
The whole book reads like a series horror-stories with wonky conclusions at the end.

All in all, it’s a collection of echo-chamber “arguments” good for another heated Twitter argument, but not as a sociology piece.

The good points are references to a couple of new sociology authors that I’m adding to my reading list, the concept of “honour vs. dignity culture” (present in the original article) and the reminder that a science isn’t supposed to dole out value judgements, just describe to its best ability what it sees. Sadly, the authors forgot about that themselves.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re interested in understanding what exactly is happening

This is a helpful book if you’re bewildered by the sensationalist outrage trend sweeping the country. Campuses have become an incubator for a new culture of political belligerents who subscribe to the notion that your degree of intersectional victimhood (or lack thereof) and not your character, determines your moral agency. One scary aspect of this trend is that would be opponents of such a mentality are starting to adopt its tactics and modes of thinking in response. Lost in the whiny cacophony of victimhood is deference to critical thinking and respect for individuals apart from their group identities.

[Jaclynn (JackieReadsAlot) · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors, two sociologists, explain the origin, nature, and possible future of the “victimhood culture” that has proliferated in the West and made a farce out of academia, public discourse (such as it is), and to an increasing degree workplace relations and public policy. Very accessible!

[Lance McNeill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful framework

The framework for honor and dignity culture to understand victimhood culture is extremely helpful, but I’m not sure an entire book was necessary to impart the information.

[Dave Paola · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly makes some good points, but it feels like it could've been an article instead of a 278 page book. Gave up 15% through.

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough and eye-opening review of what's driving much of the radical culture shifts away from "dignity" cultures towards "victimhood" cultures.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an evaluation of victimhood by two sociologists and closes with their philosophy of sociology. They see it as a tool for improved understanding of the world around us. In other words, when they see a trend in human behavior, their objective is not to make moral choices, but to critically consider what this trend represents and its observable consequences and implications. In other words, one might adopt certain beliefs and behaviors with certain ends or results in mind. This is a moral choice. In their opinion, one of the tasks of the sociologist is to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of those beliefs and behaviors in actually achieving that end. The bring this issue up for two reasons:

1. They have noticed a trend in sociology in which sociologists are giving up their objectivity and shifting into advocacy, pushing behaviors because they consider them righteous and not critically evaluating them. They are concerned that this trend will ultimately undermine their field. Let’s face it, a person or an entire discipline loses professional credibility, it is very difficult to regain it. They see in sociology the potential for doing a lot of good and don’t want to see it turn into just another moral project.
2. Advocates of victimhood culture view the world through a dualistic lens. You are either part of the solution by fighting against “oppression” or part of the problem by being an oppressor yourself. There is no middle ground. By standing back and maintaining their objectivity, the authors risk being viewed as “oppressors.” They need to make very clear what they are trying to do. The foaming at the mouth rabid advocates of victimhood culture are beyond reach, but perhaps the moderates will listen to their objective critique.

An engineer, I completely agree with the authors’ motivation. There is no point in doing something if it doesn’t work, and sometimes that which sounds really good in theory actually does a lot of harm.

In their analysis of victimhood culture, the authors discuss dignity and honor cultures for purposes of comparison:

• In an honor culture, there is a high sensitivity to slight, with action for redress taken by the offended individual.
• In a dignity culture, there is a low sensitivity to slight; if any offense is worthy of an actionable response, it is usually done by an authority figure.
• In a victimhood culture, there is a high sensitivity to slight, with redress action taken by authority figures.

Both honor culture and dignity culture have been around for a while, with victimhood culture as a new arrival. Current examples of honor culture might include the Middle East and gangs in the West. In general, dignity culture is enshrined in the law codes of western civilization. In honor cultures, getting redress is essentially a do-it-yourself project that involves some form of revenge. However, in dignity cultures, a victim has to appeal to authority figures either to initiate action based on the rules as written or to change the rules such that a given behavior is proscribed in the future. Because redress requires action by an authority figure, the offense must be sufficiently serious to warrant his attention and the trouble of getting it. In other words, there is some element of pragmatism inherent in the choices of actionable offenses in dignity culture. As with dignity culture, victimhood culture requires intervention by authority figures but differs in that it essentially lowers the bar for considering an offense actionable from physical harm to potentially hurt feelings. Furthermore, by basing the offense on the perception of the offended person rather than on the intentions of the offender, it fails to consider mens rea, at all.

The offenses of victimhood culture are referred to as microaggressions, consistent with the lowered bar for action. Just as defining something as a civil or criminal offence in a dignity culture is a form of moralistic behavior, so is the labeling of something as a microaggression in victimhood culture. Just as victims of crimes and other offenses gain sympathy, those perceived to be victims of microagressions seek sympathy and support. However, victimhood culture’s dualistic view of the world, which divides people into victims and oppressors, treats victimhood as a virtue and privilege as a vice. As a result, those considered to lack privilege gain support. As the author’s note, the ability to attract support is itself a kind of privilege, albeit one unacknowledged by the proponents of victimhood culture. Furthermore, because victimhood bestows a kind of status, there has been a rash of false claims that fuel moral panics in which there is an effort to reinforce the values of victimhood and to root out oppression, whether real or perceived. Those of us who are on the political right are well acquainted with hoax claims of racism or other forms of oppression and have concluded that the demand for racism, etc., exceeds the supply; hence, it must be manufactured to justify demands for change. This is not to downplay real racism, etc., which is wrong and must be opposed, but hoaxes are a form of crying wolf that will ultimately render genuine acts of harm less credible and deny genuine victims their access to redress.

The author have noted an interesting consequence of the growth of victimhood culture that to me appears to be a human behavior version of Newton’s third law of motion, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Because white people are defined as oppressors by victimhood culture, they often feel victimized by it, which is, of course, their lived experience. Some of their reactions have been to engage in behaviors that are extreme and inappropriate in dignity culture. An example that happened a few years ago comes to mind. After student activists started protesting and shutting down events featuring conservative thinkers, conservative and libertarian student groups started lining up shock jock Milo Yanopoulos as a speaker, their version of giving their totalitarian crybully peers the middle finger salute. Was it appropriate for them to stand their ground and continue to engage speakers supporting freedom and conservative values? Absolutely. They should stand their ground even if it means fighting to the gates of hell and back, but the use of provocateurs was beneath the dignity of conservatism. Were the overreactions of adult-looking babies who might actually benefit from a therapist such as R. Lee Ermey (R Lee Ermey GEICO Commercial Therapist Sarge - YouTube) entertaining. Yes! And annoying, too. That said, letting provocateurs be your public face is foolishly counterproductive.

Another example is the growth of white identity politics. As the authors note, whites and males are increasingly facing a moral world in which they are vilified as oppressors. I remember an incident in which a sign on a college campus provoked an excessively harsh response. What was the sign? “It’s ok to be white.” I can understand a harsh response to something like, “White power!” But cracking down on saying that it is ok to be white implies that it is NOT ok to be white. So, when whites and males have to choose between a culture that relegates them to scum of the earth status and identity groups that glorify them, why is it a shock that the identity groups win out? If you want a different outcome, give them a more appealing alternative. Moralistic lectures don’t cut it.

It should be obvious that I am very much a creature of the political right. The authors apply a neutral and objective tone to their evaluation of victimhood culture, microaggressions, etc. Because I find these things repulsive, as indicated by my own tone and choices of wording in my review, this tone was sometimes a turn-off. That said, I completely understand why they take this tone. They see their mission as objectively observing and describing trends in society and their observable and predictable consequences. If done right, it can help society to determine whether its choices yield desirable results or otherwise. I wish the authors well in this endeavor.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was introduced to the concept of Victim-hood Culture by Jonathan Haidt, who drew on the work of Campbell in his ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’. It all made sense to me and I wanted to read further and understand these concepts. Campbell identifies three cultures: 1/ An honour culture in which one is expected to defend one honour or the honour of family or friends if slighted. 2/ A Dignity Culture in which one is expected to ignore slights as beneath their dignity. AKA ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me’. 3/ A victim culture where one expects a higher power to protect them when slighted and attacks the higher power for not protecting them.

Campbell documents the rise of the victim culture. He show repeated examples of an emerging phenomena of people making false claims of abuse by others (and often going to elaborate measures to fabricate evidence of said abuse) so they can claim the status of a victim. He investigates a number of these case and the wide spread media coverage when the claims were made, and little to no coverage when they were disproved (especially around the Trump Election). He is critical of the social sciences and their legitimate claims to science. “Many sociologists have done just that, abandoning science in pursuit of social justice (p 227)”. An example of this is “when sociologist Lenore Weitzman found that men’s standard of living increased drastically after divorce, while women's standard of living declined even more drastically, she won praise, won awards, and influenced legislation. Though no one could replicate these findings, Smith says they ‘provided a grand-slam hit for sociology’s spiritual project that was too wonderful to be doubted or criticised (p 255)”. Campbell describes an atmosphere where promoting the narrative is more important than dis-interested science. One gets the impression that the academy has been corrupted.

I worry about the generation who I see as the most intolerant to grow up around. “And among the younger generation (those under 40), those who are most concerned about social justice are the most intolerant (p 289)”. Our view of diversity is not diverse with only the five sacred identity characteristics (Female, LGBT+, Non Christina Religion, Poor, Non White Ethnically). We care nothing about IQ, Neuro Diverse people, View Point, Height inequality, Beauty inequality…. The list could be endless, but our view of diversity is limited to the five sacred identities of victim-hood.

We have developed ‘cancel culture, “campus activists have come to believe they may ‘limit the rights of their political opponents, so long as they frame intolerance in terms of protecting others from hate (p 289)”. The others they are talking about must have one of the five sacred identities, otherwise you are on your own and people can do whatever they like to you. The more identities you can collect, the more sacred you are. “As we saw in Chap. 6 many of the social sciences and humanities also act as carriers of victimhood culture. Much scholarship is nothing more then political activism, and much teaching nothing more than indoctrination (p 334)”.

I worry for my son’s especially. I would not recommend they enter any of the ‘caring’ professions that have been corrupted by social science (much ‘safer’ in Engineering or a Trade). There is so little encouragement for young men today. No wonder we are seeing the rise of the Red Pill movement, Incels, and MGTOW. It is no good for women to marginalise and lose potential partners. I see so much divisiveness created by these movements (including social justice movements with Red Pill movement, Incels, and MGTOW, they are the opposite sides of the same thing). One thing I am certain of is that it will not lead towards satisfaction and happiness. I detest of all forms of Identity Politics.

This is a chilling book that observes this unstoppable phenomena that is infecting our institutions. I am seeing increased grass roots push back against Victim-hood culture. Unfortunately, the people who support it most seem to have the positions with the institutions. The care about being part of and creating their own echo chambers. It will not stop until reasonable people from the middle start contesting these positions.