A Theory of Victimhood: Politics, Conflict and the Construction of Victim-based Identity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What (and who) is a victim? In contemporary violent conflicts, the construction of grievance-based identity is a fundamentally contested process as the lines between victim and perpetrator are blurred by ongoing cycles of belligerence and retribution. As victims are incorporated into broader political campaigns, it becomes nearly impossible to separate the victim from the politics. The ubiquity of victims in international politics is a serious challenge to International Relations theory as categories of victim and perpetrator are generally treated as ‘prior or external to analysis’ instead of as propositions for further inquiry. This article formulates a political theory of victimhood driven by a distinction between victimisation as an act of harm perpetrated against a person or group, and victimhood as a form of collective identity based on that harm. It proposes a sequence of five stages that victims experience from the act of victimisation to the recognition of victim-based identity: (1) structural conduciveness, (2) political consciousness, (3) ideological concurrence, (4) political mobilisation and (5) political recognition. The article explores the stages with concrete examples and offers three main challenges for future research. First, as an identity, victimhood is more prominent in societies that recognise justice. Second, victimhood accompanies struggles for recognition. Third, victim rivalries obfuscate straightforward analysis of victimhood in conflict zones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it