Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.
Of all the aspects of Distrephism to cover, this one may be the easiest to describe and the one with the clearest examples. In our evaluation of the Distrephist religion, which I describe elsewhere, we now cover the secondary aspect of victimhood culture. I have already covered antithetical revisionism (AR), denoting Distrephism as a religion of contrast and rebellion, and hedonism, which reveals the self-deification and elevation of personal desires found within this particular religion. Unlike some of the other aspects (such as AR and intersectional identitarianism) which are concepts and terms specific to the framework I am developing here, victimhood culture already has a formalized and well-developed explanation. More precisely, I’m referring to The Rise of Victimhood Culture by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, a book I highly recommend and plan to review in the future. Here I use Campbell and Manning’s framework, but apply it in a way specific to Distrephism. So I don’t perceive it the same way they would. Because victimhood culture, in a general sense, will look different under Distrephism than it would in other religions that incorporate victimhood culture.
The simplest way to understand victimhood culture as it applies to Distrephism is that it defines the nature of the “victim hierarchy” that Distrephists arrange themselves under. Distrephism views perceived victimhood status as something that gives moral standing to a person. Therefore, those who have the most victim-based identities are at the top of the hierarchy, with the most moral standing, versus those who have the least victim identities and the most association with “oppressor” identities. In the simplest terms, Distrephists give moral weight and authority to those who are “marginalized,” “oppressed,” or a “minority.”
This is why Distrephists always try to elevate the views and beliefs of people who can claim to be marginalized or oppressed by some other group or oppressor identity. Victimhood culture determines the social standing one has within the Distrephist religion and worldview. Somebody who is “Black” (capital “B”), queer/gay/lesbian/bi, transgender, “Indigenous”, or female has a lot more moral standing than somebody who is white (lowercase “w”), Christian, male, or heterosexual. There is even more moral standing if somebody can layer multiple victimhood identities. Where a person stands on the hierarchy is based on the number of victimhood identities and the shifting perception of which victimhood identity is more important at the moment.
The nature of these specific identities is based upon intersectional identitarianism (to be covered later) and the inevitable shifts in favored identity perceptions. There is also a need for Distrephists to jockey for position and to increase the moral weight behind their claims; so there is a tendency to exaggerate and multiply the victimhood identities a person can claim. The examples of this can become rather comical and transparently performative. Greta Thunberg updating her social media bios to include “bipolar” on top of “autistic” in a rather obvious act of virtue signaling.
However, we need to be clear that it is not just empty virtue signaling. Merely mocking it as such will lead people to miss the point. Ms. Thunberg is simply abiding by the rules of victimhood culture. To increase her moral standing among her peers, she must accumulate “minority” identities. Because her social cachet depends on her position within the victimhood hierarchy.
I want to point to three articles on the Everyday Feminism website that exemplify just what victimhood culture looks like. In the first article, titled “10 Things Every Intersectional Feminist Should Ask On a First Date” the author Lara Witt opens up (in the very first sentence) by saying that she is a “queer femme of color.” The entire article is framed around this identity. She even says, “If you’re not going to support marginalized folks, then we can’t be friends, let alone date.”
Notably, she is telling her audience that on the very first date you should be asking the other person things like “Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?”, “How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?”, or even “Does your allyship include disabled folks?”
Of course, it is very sound advice to ask a date the kinds of things that determine where they stand on the issues that are most important to you. There is no point in pursuing a relationship with somebody who has a fundamentally different worldview from your own. Especially when it is a worldview that is actively hostile or opposed to the one you hold. What are the issues most important to these people? Questions of victimhood culture. Every single one of these questions revolves around a victim identity and what a person does about opposing the “oppressor” identities that exist in antithesis to them.
The most important factor here is how the author sees herself. She isn’t just a victim; her entire identity revolves around a set of multiple, overlapping victim identities. The evil of “privilege” is represented quite a bit here. Notably, privilege is something seen at the “wrong” end of the victimhood culture moral standing spectrum. Those with privilege are seen as those who cannot be victims, by definition, and therefore are morally obligated to give such privilege up. Or to use that privilege to serve the non-privileged. Distrephism holds to a victimhood culture so deeply ingrained that any form of advantage is actually treated as a moral evil.
This is extremely apparent in the article “130+ Examples of Cis Privilege in All Areas of Life For You to Reflect On and Address” which contains a litany of purported privileges that makes the “Cis” identity such a problem in Distrephism. Privilege, defined as a characteristic of an identity that stands in contrast to being “marginalized,” “minority,” or “oppressed,” represents the opposing end of the victimhood spectrum. The side viewed as originating from sinister or troublesome sources. A person’s worth and moral standing decrease in proportion to their privileged identities and advantages. The belief is that they only had privilege through some unearned (and therefore undeserved) exploitation that either occurred in the past, yet still lingers, or is derived from a malevolent systemic force. Such as “systemic racism”, “whiteness”, or “Cisnormativity.”
This framing device that puts everyone on a victimhood spectrum is what leads to moral judgments that ignore other, obviously important factors. The best example of this is found in “7 Things Undocumented Immigrants Worry About that US Citizens Don’t”. The article depicts illegal immigrants as victims because of all the things that they deal with because of the illegal nature of their presence. Yet, that is irrelevant in victimhood culture because law-abiding behavior is not the standard, or even a meaningful factor, of moral behavior. The fact that “Going to the Doctor Is a Luxury Undocumented People Often Don’t Have” is enough to show that they are victims and legal immigrants or citizens are privileged people who don’t deserve the benefits they have for law-abiding status.
The point of the list provided is that, “every day that goes by, there is an undocumented immigrant out there being denied human rights”. According to him, the fact that illegal immigrants have to fear family separation (because of deportation), risk deportation when driving (getting pulled over and not having a license), or risk non-payment for work they do (because shady employers can refuse to pay illegal immigrants who lack the ability to pursue legal recourse) is proof that “undocumented immigrants” are having their “human rights” denied. Human rights, viewed exclusively through victimhood culture, do not even require obedience to the law.
This isn’t just virtue signaling. It is an entire system of morality and social standing that is built upon victimhood. Even the responses to the name “victimhood culture” by those who knew about it involved trying to justify the reality of their victimhood status. The Atlantic posted an article, “Is ‘Victimhood Culture’ a Fair Description?”, where the very first response talks about “marginalization” and “oppression” multiple times in only a few brief paragraphs.
“Honor” and “dignity” tell us to deal with “the status quo”, not to challenge it, to live with it even if it means you are oppressed and marginalized. Now, with the evolution of social media, it has become easier and easier to convincingly publicize the oppression of the police state against Black people. The act of publicizing being abused by a police officer is indeed reaching out to a third party to notice oppression and social marginalization and clearly fits into Campbell and Manning’s “victimhood” culture––are we okay with demonizing that by precluding them from “honor” and “dignity” as Campbell and Manning have?
In complaining about “victimhood culture,” this respondent is trying to convince us that these people really are victims. As if proving they are in fact victims changes the nature of victimhood culture. It is rather odd to try to complain about victimhood culture by framing your entire response around the fact that victims really exist and that we really should fight against oppressors. In the following response, the final argument is just an attempt to claim that Bradley and Manning are part of a privileged class and to imply that they therefore have no moral standing behind their theory. Ironically, proving the very fact that victimhood culture exists as described.
The victim label suggests that people whose personal or family or ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds are marked by continual and frequently violent subjugation should just “get over it.” That this particular person attends Oberlin doesn’t mean that she has no claim against privilege.
That such exchanges may be more readily conducted at a college doesn’t mean that they have no validity. We need to grow a dialogue culture. Rather than responding to comments or behaviors with vituperation, we could respond with questions or narrative or other forms of discourse that serve to engage rather than repel. Of course, this is easy to suggest when one is a member of the white professional class.
Such discourse highlights the clear nature of victimhood culture in Distrephism. It is the basis for their social dynamics, intergroup moral hierarchies, and conflict resolution. It is one of the main motivating factors behind all the other secondary aspects in Distrephism and is most closely related to intersectional identitarianism, which is where the specific victim identities in Distrephism come from. Victimhood culture fosters a dynamic that creates “victimhood Olympics,” where individuals attempting to claim victim status engage in a competition to demonstrate the most severe victimization. This is just jockeying for position and authority in Distrephist culture. We should try to interpret it correctly and not simply dismiss it as performative virtue signaling. Because that may exist, in abundance even, but it is not the complete story. It is not simply a behavior to mock; it is a pillar of the Distrephist religion.
The sensible person’s wisdom is to consider his way, but the stupidity of fools deceives them. (Proverbs 14:8)
I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link above. Consider doing so to support my work!