Chapter 4: The World is Just and You Get What You Deserve
How Beliefs in Justice Perpetuate Victim-Blaming and Systemic Injustices in the UK
The concept of justice has always held a pivotal role in the structuring and functioning of human societies. The belief in a just world, a premise that fundamentally posits that individuals ultimately receive what they deserve and deserve what they receive, is deeply ingrained in the collective British psyche. This belief has transcended through ages, shaping societal norms and beliefs about how government and the legal system should function.
Margaret Thatcher once articulated a sentiment that succinctly captures the essence of belief in a just world. She said, "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but it should get you pretty near." Conversely, this belief system often leads to the unjust assumption that those who fail or suffer must be at fault for their own misfortunes, thus reinforcing harmful biases and ignoring systemic inequalities.
The development of a belief in a just world often has its roots in early childhood, where the family unit serves as the first socialisation agent. Most parents, as part of nurturing and instilling discipline, uphold a system of rewards and penalties based on a child’s behaviour. When a child exhibits ‘good’ behaviour, such as sharing toys or obeying instructions, they are often rewarded with praise, affection, or tangible rewards. Conversely, ‘bad’ behaviour like throwing tantrums or disobeying rules often elicits reprimands or penalties.
For most people, these experiences help to form of mental model of our moral universes known as a schema. This basic system of cause and effect, where good actions yield positive outcomes and bad actions result in negative consequences, lays the foundation for our models of a just world. As children grow and interact with wider societal structures like schools and communities, this belief gets reinforced. They observe and experience similar reward and punishment dynamics in these broader social settings, which further entrenches the notion that the world operates on a fair and just principle.
The psychological benefits of believing in a just world are manifold. This belief imbues individuals with a sense of control and predictability over their environment, which is essential for psychological well-being. When people feel that their actions have predictable outcomes, they are more likely to experience a sense of security and less likely to feel anxiety or existential dread. Furthermore, a belief in a just world can foster a sense of self-efficacy and motivation. Individuals are more likely to strive for goals and engage in proactive behaviour when they believe that their efforts will be duly rewarded. Moreover, this belief can contribute to social harmony and cooperation, as it encourages adherence to social norms and laws, underpinned by the expectation of fair treatment and justice.
However, this belief in a just world also leads to distorted reactions when confronted with unjust events. Mental schema are inherently resistant to change. They persist because they are comforting and abandoning them often requires losing a sense of security. People tend to assimilate new information in ways that require the least amount of alteration to their existing schema. When faced with evidence of injustice, individuals often engage in cognitive assimilation, molding the new information to fit their preexisting belief in a just world. Epiphanies are rare. Instead, people rationalise the suffering of others by attributing it to the victims' actions or characteristics. Such rationalisations serve to maintain the comforting illusion of a predictable and fair world, even at the expense of acknowledging systemic inequalities and injustices. This cognitive bias thus perpetuates harmful societal attitudes and obstructs the recognition and rectification of structural issues.
Belief in a just world holds particular significance in the context of this book's overarching themes. It has been a potent force shaping British governance and societal attitudes. The conviction that the world is fundamentally just can lead journalists, politicians and policymakers to overlook systemic injustices, thereby perpetuating cycles of inequality and social division. As we proceed through this chapter, we will explore various examples that demonstrate the pervasive influence of belief in a just world on British society and governance.
The Just World Hypothesis
The concept of the just world hypothesis was introduced by the social psychologist Melvin J. Lerner during the latter half of the 20th century. His pioneering research laid the cornerstone for understanding the impact of just world beliefs on human behaviour and social interactions. Lerner’s work was spurred by his observations of clinicians interacting with patients who had mental health difficulties within a hospital setting.
Tasked with aiding patients in securing employment within the local community, clinicians often faced resistance from patients fearful of leaving the familiar hospital environment. Lerner observed the clinicians responding to these fears with a barrage of aggressive interrogations and disparaging remarks, labelling the patients as manipulative and lazy. It was this harsh, counterproductive behaviour that served as a catalyst for Lerner's exploration into understanding why individuals, when faced with the suffering of innocents, tend to blame the victims rather than challenge the fairness of the system.
In one of his early experiments conducted in 1965, Lerner sought to explore this phenomenon. Participants were tasked with evaluating the effort of two workers, who unbeknownst to them were confederates of the experimenter. They were informed that due to scarce resources, only one worker would be remunerated, a decision to be determined by chance. Yet, despite the random allocation, participants favoured the paid worker in their evaluations, reinforcing the idea that individuals are inclined to believe that rewards are merited. What was particularly remarkable was that even when participants were told that ‘winners’ would be selected by chance, they still tried to rationalise the outcome through a just world lens.
Following this, Lerner's subsequent research delved into human reactions towards unjust outcomes. Collaborating with his colleagues, Lerner employed electric shock experiments to scrutinise observer responses to victimisation. Participants witnessed another individual (a confederate of the experimenter) receiving electric shocks under the guise of a learning experiment, with some participants given the chance to alleviate the victim's suffering by redistributing reward amounts—a form of compensatory justice.
Lerner discovered that in scenarios where participants could not intervene to cease or compensate suffering, they appeared to resort to devaluing the victim to uphold their belief in a just world. Essentially, they blamed the victim for their plight or deemed them deserving of the punishment, a psychological recourse to mitigate their own discomfort over witnessing suffering. However, participants who had the ability to provide compensatory justice did not tend to devalue the victims to the same extent. The findings highlighted that in the absence of the power to deliver compensatory justice, individuals resort to blaming the victim to protect their belief in a just world.
Further Research
Lerner proposed that this tendency to perceive the world as just was a universal phenomenon. While subsequent research has endorsed this notion, it also highlighted that not all individuals harbour an equally strong belief in a just world. Other researchers have developed psychometric measures to measure the extent to which one believes the world is just.
Research tends to demonstrate that the stronger a belief in a just world, the more one tends to evaluate victims negatively and blame them for their failings. For example, during the Vietnam war era, a study examined reactions to the winners and losers of the military draft lottery, revealing a significant correlation between Just World Scale scores and reactions to the lottery outcomes. Individuals with higher scores on the Just World Scale exhibited a proclivity towards favouring the lottery ‘winners’ (those less likely to be drafted) over the ‘losers’ (those more likely to be drafted).
Researchers have also dissected Lerner’s original concept to distinguish between beneficiaries. While belief in a just world for one’s self is closely linked to psychological well-being, enhancing life satisfaction and reducing depression and stress, believing that the world is just for other people is associated with to attribute unjust outcomes to personal failings or flaws. This can lead to increased prejudice and less empathy towards disadvantaged groups, such as the poor and the elderly
System Justification and the Status Quo
Melvin Lerner's insight into the human tendency to view the world as just laid the foundation for further investigations into how this inclination manifests in various real-life settings. Building on this, John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji examined how just world thinking and protection of belief impact on our views of how societal systems are structured. Their work resulted in introduced the System Justification Theory (SJT), which proposes a subconscious motivation in individuals to support existing social hierarchies and institutions. They suggested that this drive originates from a desire for certainty, order, and positive self-regard, providing a psychological basis for why even those disadvantaged by a system might uphold the prevailing social order.
Experimental research into system justification has revealed a wide range of motivations highlighted by SJT. For example, longitudinal studies have shown a link between individuals' exposure to escalating levels of inequality over time and their growing acceptance of higher income inequality as fair and desirable. Belief in a fair world is intertwined with this justification process—individuals with a stronger belief in a just world tend to view income inequality more favorably after they learn about a significant income gap. When wealth or income inequality increase, many people adjust their beliefs about what constitutes a fair distribution rather than admit that the world has become less fair than it once was.
While it may seem logical to assume that lower-income individuals would be more supportive of system reforms, societal inequality ironically often receives strong backing from the very groups it affects most adversely. Ordinary workers, who face a higher risk of adverse outcomes, might justify societal inequality because they have a greater need to believe that their own actions can prevent those negative events. This belief provides them with a sense of control and security, reinforcing the notion that hard work and adherence to social norms will yield fair and predictable results.
On a related subject, the status quo bias, a psychological propensity explored by William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser, casts just world thinking in a political light. Research based on their work highlights how when confronted with a spectrum of policy alternatives, participants demonstrated a marked preference for the option labelled as the status quo. This bias, which held its ground across diverse contexts and alternative framings, unveils a prevailing psychological impediment to policy alteration. It highlights a ubiquitous tendency among both policymakers and the electorate to cling to entrenched policies and societal frameworks, often sidestepping the exploration of potentially more advantageous alternatives.
A key takeaway from research on status quo reasoning is that it was the portrayal of a policy as the status quo that garnered heightened support, regardless of whether it was the actual status quo or not. This revelation carries substantive implications for the real world, as politicians aspiring to fuel political change can leverage this phenomenon by describing various policies as either a continuation of or deviation from the status quo. For instance, amidst the Brexit discourse, Leave campaigners rallied behind the motto “Take Back Control." This slogan subtly cast the UK’s 47-year EU membership as a deviation from the natural status quo of UK ‘independence,’ even though, in reality, the membership was the status quo. Thus, a policy doesn't necessarily have to represent the status quo to be depicted as such and capitalise on the voters’ inclination towards supporting the status quo.
Victim Blaming
It should be clear by now that belief in a just world and our tendency to justify existing societal arrangements stem from an inherent need to perceive the universe and society as fair. It helps to meet a basic psychological need for security. When situations challenge this belief, discomfort arises. To alleviate this dissonance, individuals may resort to blaming the victim or justifying the system, because accepting the unjust nature of misfortune is profoundly unsettling.
When individuals encounter systemic injustice, they often blame the victims to preserve the perceived integrity and fairness of the existing system. For example, attributing poverty to personal failings or labeling the unemployed as lazy helps rationalize economic disparities, absolving the system of blame. Similarly, one might rationalise evident inequalities within a system as necessary on the basis that there is no viable alternative and that some level of suffering is a necessary evil that facilitates a greater good.
The interconnectedness of belief in a just world, a tendency to justify the status quo and system justification reveals entrenched cognitive biases and societal norms that sustain victim blaming, obstructing the path to social justice. Understanding these correlations is crucial for fostering empathy, accountability, and systemic reform.
In the UK, victim blaming is a pervasive issue that extends across various contexts, including poverty, unemployment, and public health crises. This phenomenon involves attributing the hardships individuals face to their own actions or character flaws, rather than recognizing systemic factors at play. Such attitudes are deeply ingrained in societal norms and often reinforced by media narratives and political rhetoric. Victim blaming not only exacerbates the suffering of those affected but also shifts the focus away from addressing underlying structural problems, thereby hindering meaningful social progress and justice. This pervasive mindset can be seen in how society responds to a wide range of issues, from economic disparity to health crises, perpetuating a cycle of stigma and inequality.
Victim Blaming and Sexual Assault
Victim blaming is especially pronounced in cases of sexual assault and rape. It arises from a blend of societal norms, individual prejudices, and ignorance. The just world hypothesis, which insists on a fair world where people get their due, significantly contributes to victim blaming. When confronted with an unjust event like sexual assault, individuals may blame the victim to restore their sense of fairness.
Numerous studies have examined the dynamics of victim blaming in sexual assault scenarios, scrutinizing factors such as gender, attire, alcohol consumption, and the victim-perpetrator relationship. Research indicates that both men and women can harbor victim-blaming attitudes, although these attitudes vary in degree and manifestation. Male participants are often more inclined to blame female victims, especially if the victims are dressed provocatively, under the false notion that they ‘invited’ the assault.
Alcohol consumption by the victim prior to the assault often escalates the blame directed towards them. Research shows that alcohol consumption is erroneously seen as a contributing factor to the assault, perpetuating victim blaming. Additionally, victims who know their perpetrators often face heightened blame.
In the UK, attitudes towards rape victims have improved over recent decades, and acceptance of rape myths has decreased. However, victim blaming remains pervasive in the British legal system. For example, Justice Stephen Males, in 2015, remarked during the sentencing of two men convicted of raping an intoxicated 18-year-old woman: "Your victim was very unwise to allow herself to drink so much that she became so thoroughly inebriated." While he sentenced the perpetrators to nine years in prison, his comments highlighted the enduring notion of victim culpability.
Males’ narrative is not isolated. In 2016, Justice Andrew Gilbart, while presiding over a case of sexual assault and kidnapping, remarked: "She got very, very drunk. It doesn't excuse what happened, but people have to make sure they protect themselves and guard against this—she made herself very vulnerable." Gilbart’s remarks reveal a common struggle: the attempt to reconcile the idea that perpetrators bear full responsibility for their crimes with the contradictory belief that victims somehow brought their fate upon themselves. Despite recognising, from a legal standpoint, that the victim was blameless and the perpetrator was guilty, Gilbart’s logical reasoning clashed with his ‘commonsense’ belief in a just world.
The highly publicized case of Ched Evans, a Welsh international footballer, offers another example of victim blaming amid sexual assault allegations. In 2011, Evans and his friend, Clayton McDonald, were accused of raping a 19-year-old woman. The woman, heavily intoxicated, was argued to be incapable of giving consent. Evans was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, while McDonald was acquitted.
The case led to a torrent of abuse against the victim, particularly on social media. Supporters of Evans unlawfully exposed the victim's identity and engaged in a campaign of victim-blaming and shaming, including death and rape threats.
After his conviction, Evans sought to overturn the verdict, presenting testimony from two new witnesses—former sexual partners of the victim—who claimed she exhibited similar behavior in past consensual encounters. Despite concerns of witness coaching, a retrial was granted, focusing heavily on the victim’s sexual history. The jury at Cardiff Crown Court acquitted Evans after deliberating for two hours.
The retrial and the scrutiny of the victim's sexual history drew criticism from legal experts and activists, marking a potential setback for future rape prosecutions and a resurgence of victim-blaming tendencies. The victim continued to face abuse and had to change her identity to start anew.
This case recalls an era when a victim's sexual history was routinely scrutinized in rape trials. Public and media discussions often focused on the actions and backgrounds of sexual assault victims, revealing a societal tendency to sympathize only with those who fit the 'model victim prototype.' This prototype dictates that victims, particularly of sexual assault or other crimes, should exhibit specific behaviors and characteristics—such as being sober, chaste, modestly dressed, and unfamiliar with the perpetrator—to be considered credible and deserving of sympathy. Our inclination to believe in a just world leads us to scrutinise deviations from this prototype, which can affect various stages of the legal process, from the victim's decision to report the crime to police handling, jury verdicts and public reactions. Any deviation from the 'model victim prototype' can result in the derogation of victims, highlighting the deep-rooted biases they face in their pursuit of justice.
Victim Blaming and Disasters
In times of disaster, public perception is often moulded not by direct experience, but through the lens of media and social media narratives. The framing of such narratives significantly influences public reactions, sometimes nurturing a culture of victim blaming. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina serves as a notable example, where media coverage seemed to nudge the audience towards blaming the victims for their misfortune. The portrayal of New Orleans' residents post-Katrina was heavily influenced by pre-existing discourses, casting the city in broad strokes of “free-wheeling” jazz, casual street performances, an enticing culinary scene, sexual liberality, and a general "laissez-faire" attitude. These cultural hallmarks seeped into the media narrative, setting a stage where victims and survivors were depicted as irresponsible and, by extension, deserving of their plight.
The narrative seemed less focused on conveying fresh information, and more on reinforcing existing stereotypes surrounding New Orleans and its residents. For instance, a USA Today editorial underscored how many residents, presumably out of ignorance or false bravado, ignored mandatory evacuation notices, now finding themselves stranded on rooftops amidst rising floodwaters. Similarly, narratives in The New York Times highlighted the perceived recklessness or inability of residents to heed evacuation warnings, with particular emphasis on their socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. These narratives subtly interwove racial and class characteristics into the identity of the typical victim, drawing from and reinforcing pre-existing discourses around race and criminality in New Orleans.
The media's emphasis on local knowledge about the precarious levees further underscored the presumed irresponsibility of the locals. The notion that residents should have been better prepared or evacuated before Katrina made landfall, given their familiarity with the inherent risks, was highlighted. A narrative contrast emerged between those who evacuated successfully and those who did not, insinuating a moral or intellectual failing on the part of the latter
Furthermore, post-Katrina coverage employed a narrative strategy of contrasting and dividing those who couldn't evacuate from those who wouldn't, casting a shadow of doubt over the true circumstances of each individual. The narrative suggested a collective irresponsibility among those who stayed behind, regardless of their actual circumstances or motivations. This portrayal was encapsulated in an editorial during the “Week of Crisis” which underscored the repeated warnings to evacuate, painting those who remained behind as negligent. The framing thus steered the public discourse towards a subtle, yet profound victim blaming narrative, veiled under the guise of factual reporting and moral admonition. Through such framing, the media narrative post-Katrina not only reflected but significantly contributed to the culture of victim blaming, perpetuating a cycle of prejudice and misunderstanding in the face of human tragedy.
In a British context, the Hillsborough Disaster on 15 April 1989 remains one of the darkest days in British sporting history, not just for the tragedy itself but for the insidious aftermath shaped by victim-blaming narratives. On that fateful day, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives due to a catastrophic crush at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. Instead of an immediate and comprehensive examination of the failures in crowd control and stadium safety, the public response was swiftly tainted by an attempt to deflect blame onto the very victims of the disaster.
In the chaotic hours and days following the disaster, media outlets, most notoriously The Sun, published damning reports that painted the Liverpool fans as the architects of their own demise. The infamous headline "The Truth" emblazoned across The Sun's front page accused fans of being drunk, of violently forcing entry into the stadium, and even of urinating on police officers and pickpocketing the dead. These claims were not only false but devastating in their impact, seeding a narrative that shifted scrutiny away from the authorities responsible for crowd management.
Police statements further entrenched this narrative. Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, in charge on the day, initially claimed that the fans had broken down a gate to gain entry, a claim that was quickly parroted by various media and political figures. This misrepresentation conveniently obscured the reality that it was the police decision to open the gate, allowing thousands to flood into already overcrowded pens, that directly led to the tragedy.
This victim-blaming was not conjured in a vacuum; it drew heavily on pre-existing societal sentiments. Historically, Liverpool has been viewed through a lens of economic decline and social unrest, particularly from the 1970s onward. The city, once a bustling port and industrial hub, faced severe economic challenges, including high unemployment and poverty, as industries declined. These conditions fostered a stereotype of Liverpool and its residents as troublesome and defiant. This negative perception was exacerbated by political tensions during the Thatcher era, where Liverpool was seen as a hotbed of resistance against Conservative policies, especially given the strong trade union presence and the city council's confrontations with the government.
The 1980s saw Liverpool become the symbol of urban decay and militant labor politics. The Toxteth riots in 1981 and the militant stance of the Liverpool City Council in the mid-1980s further entrenched negative stereotypes. The national media often portrayed the city in a negative light, which laid the groundwork for the widespread acceptance of the false narratives following the Hillsborough Disaster.
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, these entrenched negative stereotypes about Liverpudlians played a crucial role in shaping public opinion. The idea that Liverpool fans were responsible for the tragedy was more readily accepted because it aligned with the broader negative perceptions of the city and its people. The claims of drunkenness and hooliganism fitted into an existing narrative that painted Liverpudlians as unruly and problematic.
In addition, during the 1980s, football fans, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, were often stigmatized as hooligans. Media portrayals frequently cast them as unruly and violent, creating a fertile ground for the misleading narratives that followed Hillsborough. Liverpool fans, already carrying the burden of this stereotype, found themselves unfairly vilified, their grief compounded by a national smear campaign.
The consequences of these narratives were profound and long-lasting. Public perception was tainted by the initial false reports, leading many to believe that the fans were indeed culpable. This misdirected blame not only deflected immediate accountability from the police and other authorities but also hindered the quest for justice. It took decades of relentless campaigning by victims' families and survivors to overturn these falsehoods. It wasn't until the 2016 inquests, which categorically exonerated the fans and held the police accountable, that some measure of justice was achieved.
However, the damage done by the victim-blaming narratives lingered. The survivors and the bereaved had to endure not just their immense personal loss but also public suspicion and scorn. Their fight for truth and justice was an uphill battle against deeply entrenched and officially sanctioned lies.
The Hillsborough Disaster and the subsequent deflection of blame onto the victims highlight a broader societal issue: the ease with which vulnerable groups can be scapegoated to protect powerful interests. The initial response to the disaster was a stark reminder of how quickly and effectively narratives can be constructed to serve those in power, leaving the truth buried under layers of deceit.
In more modern times, the case of Grenfell Tower fire, a tragic event that claimed 72 lives, serves as a recent example of victim blaming manifesting in the wake of disaster. The incident triggered a spectrum of reactions across social and political arenas. Among these, the remarks by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory politician, ignited a blaze of controversy. Rees-Mogg pontificated, "If you just ignore what you're told and leave, you are so much safer and I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do," a statement met with a torrent of criticism. His words, albeit widely rebuked, unveiled a tendency among certain British political echelons to saddle the victims with blame for the horrors they endured.
One glaring pattern was the portrayal of victims as individuals lacking basic intelligence or common sense, a narrative eerily resonant with Rees-Mogg's insinuations. The victims were cast as buffoons who, despite clear and present danger, chose to adhere to instructions rather than seeking safety—a simplistic and callous view that blatantly overlooks the panic and confusion that often reign supreme in the throes of a disaster.
The narrative of illegality and terrorism was another dark alley in the discourse. Tweets crafted conspiracy theories alleging that the fire was a result of terrorist activities by the residents, with some even accusing the liberal establishment of shielding these supposed nefarious actions. This narrative grotesquely morphed the victims into villains, veiling the structural and systemic failures that contributed to the tragedy.
Moreover, the label of illegal immigrants was brandished to delegitimise the victims and their pleas for justice and support. This narrative, further fuelled by erroneous claims of subletting and overcrowding, sought to paint a picture of deceit and fraud, undermining the legitimacy of the victims' claims and their rights to fair treatment and justice.
The case of Paul Bussetti, a property tycoon convicted for sharing a 'grossly offensive' video of a Grenfell Tower effigy being torched, indeed provides a stark example of how the victim-blaming narrative, intertwined with racial and socio-economic prejudices, had found a foothold in some sections of society. The incident was not merely a distasteful jest but a reprehensible expression of the biases and prejudices marinated in the victim-blaming narratives disseminated post-tragedy.
Bussetti's act, which earned him a sentence of 10 weeks in jail, suspended for two years in April 2022, was an egregious display of insensitivity. The prosecution underscored the racist undertones in the footage, where black and brown cardboard figures, representing the victims of the Grenfell Tower blaze, were set ablaze amidst a cacophony of laughter and derisive remarks. The comments captured in the footage, such as “Who's jumping?”; “Don't worry, stay in your flats”; and “Jump out of the window”, were a grotesque mockery of the dire circumstances the victims found themselves in during the inferno. The remark by Bussetti, “That's what happens when you don't pay the rent,” was a sinister echo of the victim-blaming narrative that sought to highlight the socio-economic status of the victims, thereby attempting to shift the blame from systemic failures to the victims' purported irresponsibility.
This incident, abhorrent in its essence, is illustrative of the potency and reach of the victim-blaming narrative that had permeated certain strata of British society. It transcended the bounds of political and social media discourse, manifesting in real-world actions that were not only deeply offensive but criminally punishable. The racial and socio-economic dimensions of Bussetti's act were reflective of a deeper malaise, a discriminatory perspective that sought to attribute the tragedy to the victims' racial and socio-economic identities rather than acknowledging the glaring systemic and structural failures.
The callous mockery by Bussetti and the attempts by Rees-Mogg to reframe the narrative are a testament to the corrosive nature of the victim-blaming narrative and the imperative to counter such harmful narratives with facts, empathy, and a resolute focus on addressing the systemic issues that underlie such devastating tragedies as the Grenfell Tower Fire.
Victim Blaming and Poverty
The escalating crisis marked by a surge in food bank usage in the UK is starkly illustrated by recent statistics. Over the past decade, the Trussell Trust has witnessed a 128% increase in the distribution of emergency food parcels, reaching a staggering 3.4 million distributed during the year 2022-2023. However, the crisis goes beyond food provisions, and includes other basic necessities such as heating and clothing. A benefits claimant articulated the dire situation saying, “The children are fed but my husband and I rarely are. I’ve not paid my water bill but by the end of the month, I’m going to have to stop paying another bill as food prices are rising fast. My gas and electricity are key meters. Unfortunately, if they run out then that’s it until Monday, even with no lights on and tech kept to a minimum. I’m handwashing everything outside in buckets to save money.”
Amid such harsh realities, the just world thinking reflects disturbingly through the attitudes of certain political figures towards those caught in the clutches of poverty. Notably, George Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, coined the phrase "skivers and strivers" to differentiate between those he perceived as lazy and those who work hard, perpetuating a victim-blaming narrative. Over time, such narratives have warped public perception, rendering benefits recipients and, to some extent, minimum-wage workers as undeserving of basic human rights (See Chapter 2).
Similarly, MP Lee Anderson has echoed victim-blaming ideologies by implying that those relying on food banks are financially irresponsible. He contended that "generation after generation" of people "cannot budget" or cook adequately. However, this narrative oversimplifies the complex and multi-faceted nature of the crisis, overshadowing systemic issues with a blame-oriented narrative.
Comparable attitudes echo from other figures within the Tory party when discussing families facing multiple deprivations (i.e., unemployment, low income, mental health difficulties, deprivation, lack of training, etc.). Anderson's remarks mirror those of former PM David Cameron, who opined, “Officialdom might call them ‘families with multiple disadvantages’. Some in the press might call them ‘neighbours from hell’. Whatever you call them, we’ve known for years that a relatively small number of families are the source of a large proportion of the problems in society. Drug addiction. Alcohol abuse. Crime. A culture of disruption and irresponsibility that cascades through generations.”
Other Tory politicians, while less overtly derogatory, have expressed equally damaging viewpoints. For instance, Baron Eric Pickles, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, during a speech in the Commons in 2015, described families in his constituency as exerting a “disproportionate burden” on local services “through successive generations”. He lamented young men emulating their fathers into “trouble” and young women following their mothers into abusive relationships. Although Pickles expressed a desire to assist these disadvantaged families, his framing essentially characterizes poor families as burdensome and dysfunctional. His proposed solution, rooted in a “no-nonsense” approach and “tough love”, appears paternalistic, suggesting that such families need discipline — purportedly for their own good.
Such victim-blaming rhetoric casts a discriminatory lens on those embroiled in the poverty crisis, nurturing a narrative that attributes their misfortunes to personal failings rather than systemic inadequacies. Instead of addressing systemic issues like stagnant wages and insufficient benefits that fail to keep pace with the rising cost of living, Conservative politics often shifts the blame onto victims, portraying them as the ones responsible for their plight. Such misleading narratives are not only harmful, but they also shift the focus from addressing systemic issues to blaming the victims, thereby exacerbating the stigma associated with poverty and impeding efforts to alleviate the crisis.
Victim Blaming and the Refugee Crisis
The UK, despite being a destination for asylum seekers, doesn't rank among the top countries concerning the number of asylum applications received. In 2020, it registered 29,456 asylum requests, standing 17th globally, while Germany and France significantly outpaced with 121,955 and 93,475 applications respectively. However, British politicians and pundits often portray the UK as a prime target or “soft touch” for migrants, including asylum seekers, with Home Secretary Suella Braverman ridiculously stating that "billions" aspire to come to the UK.
The Channel Crossing crisis has become a focal point in political debates regarding asylum seekers heading to the UK. These crossings, often orchestrated by criminal smuggling networks due to the lack of safer, legal routes for asylum, highlight the desperation of asylum seekers resorting to perilous routes as a last resort. While international law permits asylum seekers to enter a country this way, the actions of smugglers remain unlawful.
Data from the Migration Observatory is revealing: 46,000 detected crossings in 2022 alone highlight the gravity of the crisis. While 2022 saw an influx from Albania, the trend over the last five years is dominated by asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
Over 400 people are estimated to have perished while seeking asylum in the UK since 1999. One chilling incident unfolded on 24 November 2021, when an inflatable dinghy ferrying migrants from France to the UK capsized in the English Channel, claiming the lives of 27 out of 30 people onboard. This calamity is believed to be the deadliest of its kind in the English Channel since records commenced.
Regrettably, many British politicians respond to such tragedies by blaming the victims. Conservative MP Marco Longhi epitomises this sentiment, stating, "These people willingly put themselves in harm's way, and criminal gangs would vanish if the demand for their services ceased." This simplistic narrative overlooks the desperate conditions driving individuals to embark on such perilous journeys, shifting blame onto the victims. Likewise, Conservative MP, Sir Edward Leigh, called the British asylum system a complete joke, suggesting that every young man in a failed state knows reaching the UK shores essentially grants immunity from deportation. This rhetoric fuels the 'bogus asylum seeker’ narrative, casting young men as opportunistic individuals seeking economic advantages, devoid of 'genuine' protection needs.
Age deception also emerges as a recurring theme, with UK authorities enmeshed in narratives around adults posing as children—a scenario deemed by Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis and the Home Secretary as a serious safeguarding risk for the UK's youth. This age determination debate often intertwines with the perceived threats posed by masculinised bodies, further complicating the discourse.
These young men of ‘military age’ are often portrayed as disingenuous, not genuinely vulnerable, and accused of shirking their duty to fight oppression in their home countries. This framing further suggests they could pose a potential violent threat to the UK, rather than being seen as individuals in need of protection.
A particularly concerning aspect of the British discourse around asylum is that public antipathy towards asylum seekers is primarily stoked by UK authorities. This can be seen most clearly when examining the public remarks of British Home Secretaries. For instance, Suella Braverman, experienced backlash for describing the migrants crossing the English Channel as an "invasion." While Priti Patel incorrectly branded the majority of asylum seekers as economic migrants, disregarding the fact that a vast majority have their claims accepted. Patel's narrative essentially casts a majority of asylum seekers as decietful opportunists.
The Anglican Bishop of Southward summarised the approach taken by British Home Secretaries by saying “Increasingly, those seeking safety and security in Britain are being characterised as dishonest, undesirable and with values inferior to those born in Britain.” He argued that “Such language does not arise out of a vacuum. It relates to less than considerate language used by members of the governing party, including former holders of the office of Principal Secretary of State.”
Under the direction of politicians like Patel and Braverman, the UK's Home Office has floated a myriad of bizarre and inhumane proposals. Ideas such as deploying wave machines to repel refugee dinghies, constructing physical barriers in the Channel, and contemplating offshore migrant centres like the Ascension Islands have all been mooted. Even the thought of utilizing decommissioned oil platforms in the North Sea as holding facilities was discussed, though dismissed due to safety and logistical concerns. The current draconian policy of choice is to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, portraying it as a rational and compassionate measure. Britain signed a £120 million deal with Rwanda to deter asylum seekers by relocating them over 4,000 miles away to the East African country. However, this scheme facessignificant legal challenges. The European Court of Human Rights intervened before the first flight could even depart, causing the plan to unravel.
Contrarily, pragmatic and humane solutions proposed by civil society groups and the United Nations, such as creating 'safe and legal routes' to deter perilous channel crossings, are largely dismissed. Suggestions include amplifying refugee resettlement programs, bolstering visa routes for family reunions, and issuing more humanitarian visas. Despite their potential to mitigate the crisis, these propositions are scarcely explored amidst the uproar for stricter measures.
The crisis is further exacerbated by the escalating wave of right-wing violence against refugees and asylum seekers. Instances like the Dover port blockade by far-right protesters, a sinister plot by the neo-Nazi youth group British Hand, and the devastating firebombing at a Dover immigration center in 2022, unveil a menacing facet of xenophobic ideologies and extremist actions intertwined with the victim-blaming narrative promoted by Conservative MPs and Ministers. The Channel Crossing crisis in the UK lays bare a humanitarian catastrophe, where just world thinking and victim-blaming narratives entangle with policy proposals, demonisation, and escalating right-wing violence. This somber reality calls for a pivot towards a more humanitarian, empathetic, and solution-oriented discourse to comprehend and tackle the underlying systemic issues, fostering a collective endeavor to alleviate the crisis and uphold human rights and dignity.
Framing the Victims: Crafting Narratives to Deflect Blame
The allure of a just world often blinds policymakers to systemic injustices, subtly perpetuating cycles of inequality and social discord. The preceding sections have highlighted instances where politicians seemed to align their rhetoric with just world thinking. However, not all instances reflect a genuine belief in a just world. Some examples are meticulously focus-grouped narratives designed to tap into the public's inclination towards just world narratives, thereby fostering victim-blaming and victim derogation while allowing politicians to escape blame for perpetuating unjust policies and systems.
In politics, the art of narrative crafting is crucial. If you can frame the debate, then people’s cognitive biases will drive them towards the conclusions you would like them to make. Politicians, with the aid of their adept communication teams and press advisors, often spin narratives that exploit cognitive biases, including the just world hypothesis, among the masses. By painting scenarios with false dichotomies like "skivers" versus "strivers," they subtly shift the blame for systemic issues like poverty onto the victims. This tactical narrative crafting serves a triad of purposes: it alleviates public fear of systemic vulnerability, safeguards the politicians' track records, and morphs victims into convenient scapegoats. Once the transition from victim to problem is complete, politicians can promise to punish these threats to society. This narrative alchemy transforms potential electoral liabilities into rallying causes.
The interplay of just world thinking, system justification, status quo bias, and victim-blaming extends beyond mere psychological theory into a practical arsenal for political operatives. These cognitive biases are strategically harnessed to shape public perception, evade accountability, and project an illusion of equitable governance despite systemic injustices. As these narrative techniques become entrenched in contemporary politics, deciphering their mechanisms is vital for critically evaluating political discourse and fostering a more knowledgeable and compassionate public dialogue. Understanding these dynamics helps in unveiling the underlying manipulations in political rhetoric and encourages a deeper societal reflection on justice and equity.
Summary
This chapter embarked on a journey to explore the dual nature of the belief in a just world, shedding light on its comforting aspects while unraveling its darker underbelly of victim derogation. The belief in a just world can foster a sense of control and predictability, essential for mental well-being. It encourages individuals to strive for goals and adhere to social norms, expecting fair treatment and justice in return. However, when faced with instances that challenge this belief, the narrative often shifts towards victim blaming, attempting to reconcile the injustices observed with the ingrained belief in a just world.
In examining system justification and status quo bias, we delved into how these psychological mechanisms bolster acceptance of growing economic inequality. System justification theory explains how people are motivated to defend and rationalise existing social, economic, and political arrangements, even at the cost of personal and collective interests. Status quo bias, on the other hand, predisposes individuals to prefer current states of affairs, resisting change and facilitating the growth of inequality. Together, these biases lead to a passive acceptance of increasing wealth disparities, as people rationalise them as inevitable or justified by meritocratic ideals. This acceptance hinders critical examination of structural inequities and stalls progress toward more equitable economic policies.
As we navigated through varied landscapes of disasters, socio-economic crises, and refugee dilemmas in the UK, the pervasive nature of victim blaming, rooted in just world thinking, came to the fore. These narratives often masked systemic inadequacies, spotlighting the victims as architects of their own misfortunes. This section encapsulates the core insights derived from these narratives, reflecting on the broader sociopolitical landscape marinated in victim blaming.
The just world hypothesis, while providing a psychological cushion, obscures the systemic culprits behind many adversities. Through examining disasters like Hurricane Katrina, the Hillsborough Disaster and the Grenfell Tower fire, the impact of media narratives in shaping public perception and nurturing a culture of victim blaming was evident. The portrayal of victims in these narratives reveals how easily blame can be shifted away from systemic issues.
The section on the escalating poverty crisis in the UK further illustrated how victim blaming can morph into a political narrative. Terms like "skivers versus strivers" not only perpetuated victim blaming but also concealed systemic failures, shifting the focus from societal solutions to individual shortcomings.
The Channel Crossing crisis in the UK spotlighted the intertwining of victim blaming with xenophobic rhetoric, painting asylum seekers as opportunistic invaders rather than desperate individuals fleeing adversity. The derogatory framing of this crisis underscores the human cost of victim blaming, echoed in the lack of empathic understanding and reluctance to explore practical solutions.
Transitioning to the political sphere, we unveiled that victim blaming is often a crafted narrative, utilized to mould public opinion and deflect accountability. The role of spin doctors in exploiting societal biases like just world thinking, system justification, and the status quo bias, to craft narratives that exonerate authorities while demonising victims, was brought to light. This narrative crafting, aimed at transmuting systemic failures into electoral rallying causes, reveals a grim reality of obscured truth, perpetuated injustices, and stalled societal progress.
As we conclude this chapter, the imperative to challenge victim blaming narratives, dissect political rhetoric, and uncover systemic issues is underscored. A collective endeavour to pierce through the veil of victim blaming and address systemic inadequacies is essential for fostering a more informed, empathetic, and solution-oriented discourse. This shift can pave the way towards a more just and empathetic society, where systemic issues are acknowledged and addressed.
While understanding these cognitive biases and their manipulation is crucial, this knowledge alone is insufficient to fully mitigate their impact. On a broader societal level, it is imperative to actively challenge and disrupt political and media narratives that perpetuate hate and victim blaming. Journalism plays a pivotal role in this effort, but it requires a collective commitment to critical thinking and skepticism. Each individual must remain vigilant and question their immediate reactions to reduce the harm these biases inflict. Through concerted efforts in education, media literacy, and community engagement, we can foster a more resilient society capable of resisting the detrimental effects of these cognitive flaws.