Oppression Olympics
The Exacerbation of Identitarian Political Correctness
This is where the victimhood discussion gets dicey. As I've mentioned before, I find parts of the victimhood discussion to be challenging. I’m finding it helpful to form segments within the overall conversation. Part of the challenge comes with noticing how words can mean slightly different things to various people. Words like abuse, oppression, victimhood and trauma. Surely, the base definition will be similar, but emphasis and context around these words may vary.
At face value these words have a distinct concept that we each understand. Yet in discussion there's fluidity to them. The words may land differently depending on someone’s emotional state. In some instances, someone may follow an extended definition. If one doesn't establish the context in which they're using these words, then they'll likely resonate differently for the person listening.
This is why it's so important to ask each person what these words mean to them, especially if misunderstanding arises. And this is why it’s helpful for the individual to speak to their experience regarding these words and concepts.
Competing to See Who Has It Worse
The words and definitions matter. Hence, the importance to clarify whether individuals are coming from a similar place. On top of these words, there’s added vernacular in the social sphere. Like what does the term "oppression olympics” mean to you?
Although the term can be traced back to the 90's, I've noticed it's getting more traction online in recent years. The premise at the heart of the oppression olympics is: "who has it worse?" Including the framing of perceiving it similarly as if it’s a competition to see whose life is worse off based on chosen identifier. It’s gamifying the delineation of whose deemed worthy of calling themselves oppressed. The measuring of one person’s hardships over another’s hardships. Then determining a "winner" based on who has it harder. It’s a literal inversion of the “best of the best” version of the Olympics.
Perhaps it began as a social movement in an attempt to acknowledge those who were marginalized or treated unfairly. There may have been positive intentions at the start, but the wearing of oppression as badges has grown to contribute to social divide. This societal assertion of victimhood indulgence has a symbiotic relationship identity politics. Therefore, allowing the term oppression olympics to be a response allocation from those wanting to push back on the growing popularization of identity politics.
It could be argued that the term is meant to diminish actual victims or marginalized people. I see how there’s likely other reasoning for it. I don’t see the intention of the term being meant to diminish someone (although it could be used that way). I don't believe the term is meant to attack individuals (although an individual may feel it as an attack). I think it's intended to represent opposition to the ideological imposition that’s placed on society, which is the identitarian version of political correctness. It’s an attack against the beliefs the ideology purports, not the individuals who are buying into it.
The Downside of Normalization
Most people are familiar with the term normalization. Normalization is the process of making something seem more normal or regular. From a societal standpoint, a positive effect of normalization is that it can contribute to the esteem and acceptance felt by an individual. A negative effect could be that the normalization of victimhood then "shifts the goalposts" by no longer seeing those experiences as outlier events for the individual.
When it comes to victimhood, it appears that society made advancement from ignoring one’s victimization to accepting one's victimization. But did the acceptance go too far? From acceptance of victimization to an ethos of promotion of maintaining a victimized state. That is beyond acceptance and healing. A slippery slope toward the emphasis of keeping one in a state of disempowered due to over-identification of victimhood.
If the intention of "normalizing" one's victim experience is for someone to feel acceptance and build esteem, then we can measure these effects. This can be done by asking victims if they are in fact feeling more acceptance and esteem with this current trend of normalization. I'd venture to say that those identifying as victims are NOT feeling more acceptance and esteem with this trend relative to how they feel within society. Primarily because the trend isn't led with empowerment. Therefore, it seems sensible to question if the normalization of victimhood is the way to go, right?!
Caution with Expansion of Naming Abuse
Another word to look at is abuse. Simply stated, abuse is a mistreatment. Someone who is wronged or mistreated. There are different kinds of abuse... physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, spiritual and so on. This is where the standard definition diverges for people. Not everyone has the same extended definitions of abuse.
Today it seems that just about anything can be used as abuse. You can put a word in front of 'abuse' to describe that particular variant of abuse. Another way to describe this is to say that something is being weaponized. If something can be weaponized, then that thing can be a contributing factor in abuse, even when that is not the original intention of said thing. This is where subtleties come into place regarding the differentiation of what qualifies as abuse.
I'm not here to make a strong case for or against what could be considered abuse. I'm wanting to elaborate about how the breadth of the definition of the word may be very specific to one person, yet broader for another person. This is where a breakdown could take place regarding the shared understanding of what abuse is. I feel it’s important to question whether it's helpful to keep expanding the definition of abuse. Which then expands the instances of victimizing. Which in turn creates a larger realm of victimhood for individuals to get stuck in. Do you see where I’m going with this?
Can Weaponization Be Over-Emphasized?
I'd also like to confirm that I do believe that a weaponization process can occur. Weaponization is a real thing in which someone can feel affliction from. What I call into question is: Can this be taken too far? Can there be too much emphasis on the weaponization of things? So much so that we move away from a more grounded, harmonious approach on how to handle discussions around these experiences.
This is all yet another piece in the larger victimhood consciousness puzzle. I felt it to be important to name and discuss. There’s much more to say on the matter, but I’m going to stew with some of these questions a little bit longer. Thanks for exploring them with me!