On 16th November 2018, an opinion piece<\/a> by Marin\u00e9 Bothma was published on Netwerk24. In this piece, Bothma attributes the emphasis on transformation and inclusivity on campus to students’ unwillingness to adapt to difficult situations. While she fails to name or characterise the group perpetuating the victimhood culture, it takes no stretch of imagination to know she is referring to people of colour, along with other marginalised groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By Luke Waltham, Paul Joubert, and Priyanka Govender.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The iLizwi team felt compelled to respond to Bothma\u2019s article because of the growing popularity of her line of argument on South African campuses. We used the opportunity to elucidate why marginalised groups rightfully express outrage at being consistently characterised as lacking in logic and accountability for their lives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hence, in the spirit of free, open and rigorous discourse, we attempt to engage some of Ms. Bothma\u2019s key arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In deconstructing Bothma\u2019s perspective, it is natural to begin with her definition of \u201cvictimhood culture\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Firstly, she alleges that \u201cvictimhood culture\u201d arises from Postmodernism, which is a oft-repeated but demonstrably false claim. \u201cPostmodernism\u201d is often used by conservative political pundits as a dog-whistle for any ideas in academia they deem \u201cdangerous\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bothma briefly mentions \u201cBradley and Manning\u201d. She is probably referring to either their 2014 paper<\/a> in Comparative Sociology<\/em> or 2018 book. In these publications the authors postulate the existence of a new \u201ctype\u201d of society predicated on a shared mentality of \u201cvictimhood\u201d and identity as part of a \u201cvictim group\u201d. (The term \u201cvictimhood culture\u201d seems to originate from these authors, but it is difficult to ascertain.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contrasting \u201cvictimhood\u201d with values of \u201cdignity\u201d and \u201chonour\u201d, this proposed cultural typology thus refers to a culture that ascribes high moral value to victimhood, with those that are more victimised having higher value in the \u201cmoral hierarchy\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Criticism of this typology include that the dichotomy between cultures that represent the status quo<\/em> and those that represent a reaction against it (i.e. \u201cvictimhood culture\u201d) belittles the experiences of oppressed groups and implies that their marginalisation should not be treated seriously. The authors\u2019 characterisation of actions are also arrogant in reserving the right to assign oppression-status for the non-oppressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bothma relies heavily on the thought of psychologist cum conservative YouTube pundit and darling of the alt-right<\/a>, Jordan Peterson, who has achieved worldwide infamy for, among other things, justifying psychological<\/a> and economic<\/a> sexism, slandering<\/a> his ideological opponents, and<\/a> misunderstanding<\/a> Postmodernism<\/a>. A few paragraphs are even lifted verbatim from Peterson\u2019s 12 Rules for Life<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bothma and Peterson both argue that Intersectionality is seen as a competition to determine who is more oppressed, and therefore, who has the moral high ground in a space. They also insist that identity should not be used as an excuse to be a victim anymore. This perception of Intersectionality – and oppression – being a competition is far from the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intersectionality, as coined by Kimberl\u00e9 Crenshaw<\/a>, is a framework of analysis that describes oppressions as resulting from intersecting power hierarchies. The basic axiom of this framework is that the victims of intersecting oppressions experience oppression that is very different from the effects of each power structure considered separately. It is important to note that Intersectionality is not, as is often claimed by detractors, a system that allows one to \u201cstack identities like Yu-Gi-Oh cards<\/a>\u201d and stake a claim to higher privilege in discourse because of one\u2019s \u201cinherent characteristics\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is \u201cvictimhood culture\u201d?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOppression is a competition\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n