Victimhood
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Ideally, a sense of what is known as self-perceived collectively victimhood arises as a key subject in the ethos of conflict of the community included in uncontrollable conflict. It is even viewed as a primary section of the collective memory of the conflict. In my opinion, this kind of sense is considered a mindset shared by a particular group that results from a notion that is intentional harm with the terrible outcome, inflicted particularly on collective by a different group. Moreover, such harm is considered not only to be immoral but underserved and even unjust.
It is true that the psychology of people involved and even the dynamics of victimhood tend to be ignored by clinicians and even scholars (Zur, 2005). Even though, most of the victims involved be it bystanders and also perpetrators have been seriously examined. In the olden period, the idea was always to blame the victim; however, in modern society, the tide has shifted. Therefore, it is wrong to explore the duty of victims in violent systems in terms of political views.
Currently, we tend to not only shy away from blame but also provide a typology of those involved (victims); hence, taking action of not only exploring the culture and even familial origin of the victimhood, and also the features of the individuals and their connection with the perpetrators (Zur, 2005). In my perception, as we shift from blame to a more complicated comprehension of the vicious system and also how particularly our way of life perpetuates these systems, we harm ourselves with proper tools that can help us in predicting and preventing further victimization.
In conclusion, not only has violence been a section of human structure but also inequality. Moreover, several cultures have had that tendency to treat disparities in fortune, status, power, and capability in dissimilar ways.
Reference
Zur, O. (2005). The psychology of victimhood. Destructive trends in mental health. Routledge, New York, 45-64.