PoliticalMANIPULATIVE

Scapegoating

What it is

Assigning blame for a complex or diffuse harm to a single group or person who did not cause it, so that punishing the target feels like solving the problem.

How it works

Allport's 1954 account treats scapegoating as displaced aggression: frustration whose real source is abstract, powerful, or invisible (a depression, a lost war, a pandemic) is redirected toward a target that is visible, weak enough to attack, and already marked as different. Girard adds the social function: a community in crisis converges on a victim and, in unanimously expelling them, restores its own cohesion — and the mechanism hides itself, because the persecutors sincerely believe the victim is guilty. Rothschild and colleagues (2012) found two distinct motives experimentally: scapegoating reduces guilt when people feel implicated in a harm, and it restores a sense of control when the cause seems random. For a propagandist the technique is attractive because it converts a policy problem into a morality play with an enemy who can be fought, and because blaming the target is cheaper than fixing the cause. The tells are a single cause offered for a multi-cause problem, a target that was already disliked before the problem arose, and an explanation that grows more emotionally satisfying as it grows less specific.

Real-world examples

  • •Weimar Germany's "stab-in-the-back" legend blamed the 1918 defeat on Jews and socialists at home rather than on the military situation; Field Marshal Hindenburg endorsed it in his November 1919 testimony to the Reichstag inquiry, and it became a core Nazi narrative.
  • •The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 followed a decade of campaigns blaming Chinese laborers for wages and unemployment in the western United States; Hungary's 2015–2018 government billboards ("If you come to Hungary, you cannot take Hungarians' jobs") and UKIP's 2016 "Breaking Point" poster attached migration to a range of domestic grievances in the same way.
  • •Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign anecdote about a Chicago "welfare queen" with eighty names and a six-figure tax-free income was drawn from the real fraud case of Linda Taylor but generalized into an explanation of welfare costs (Levin, 2019).
  • •Occupy Wall Street's 2011 "We are the 99%" framing located responsibility for the financial crisis in "the 1%", a group real enough as a statistical category but too heterogeneous to have acted as one; the frame's power came from having a target, not a mechanism.
  • •Attacks on people of East Asian appearance in the United States, Britain, and Australia rose in 2020 alongside "Chinese virus" framing by politicians and media; the Stop AAPI Hate coalition logged several thousand reported incidents in its first year.

Historical case studies

Executive Order 9066 and "Personal Justice Denied"

1942–1983United States

Ten weeks after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the military to remove about 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, two thirds of them US citizens, from the West Coast to inland camps. Officials justified the order as a military necessity against espionage and sabotage. The bipartisan Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians concluded in 1983 that no such necessity existed, that not one documented act of espionage or sabotage had been committed by a Japanese American on the West Coast, and that the causes were "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." Congress apologized and authorized $20,000 payments to survivors in 1988.

Source →

The Dreyfus affair

1894–1906France

When French military intelligence discovered in 1894 that someone on the general staff was selling secrets to Germany, suspicion settled on Captain Alfred Dreyfus, the staff's only Jewish officer. He was convicted of treason on a disputed handwriting comparison and a secret file the defence never saw, and sent to Devil's Island. When evidence emerged that the real spy was Major Ferdinand Esterhazy, the army protected Esterhazy and forged further documents against Dreyfus, while the antisemitic press presented the case as proof of Jewish disloyalty. The affair split France for a decade. Dreyfus was fully exonerated in 1906.

Source →

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Responsibility can be assigned only after causes are established; naming a culprit before a mechanism reverses the order of inquiry.
  • ●Group blame for the acts of individuals is collective punishment; the more marginalized the target already is, the more the accusation should be suspected of convenience.
  • ●Communicators in a crisis owe the audience the boring multi-causal account, and the discipline not to offer a face when the cause is a system.

How to defend against it

  • ►Ask for the mechanism: by what specific path did this group cause this outcome, and what share of the outcome does that path explain?
  • ►Check who else was blamed for the same problem in other decades and countries — a problem that has had six different culprits is telling you the culprit is not the cause.
  • ►Notice the emotional payoff: if an explanation feels like relief or license rather than understanding, apply Rothschild's test and ask whether it is restoring your sense of control or discharging guilt.
  • ►Bring the base rate: how common is the alleged behavior in the blamed group versus everyone else, from a source that does not depend on the accuser?
  • ►Watch the escalation ladder — Stanton's stages run from classification and symbolization through discrimination to dehumanization; scapegoating is the point where the ladder becomes policy, and the earliest point at which to object.

From the Defense Playbook

Ask for the Denominatorseconds

Whenever you are shown a count ("4,000 complaints", "12 deaths", "9 out of 10 dentists"), ask "out of how many?", because a numerator on its own cannot tell you whether something is common, rare, rising, or falling.

Prebunking (Self-Inoculation)takes practice

Expose yourself in advance to a weakened, clearly labelled dose of a manipulation technique together with its refutation, so that when the full-strength version arrives you recognize the move instead of being carried by it.

Deep Canvassingtakes practice

A structured ten-to-twenty-minute conversation in which you ask someone's view without judgment, invite a story from their own life, share one of yours, and let them do the reasoning aloud; it is one of the few approaches shown in field experiments to shift attitudes durably.

Superordinate Goals and Structured Contacttakes practice

Reduce hostility between groups by having them work together, as equals, toward a goal that both want and neither can reach alone; mere exposure or exhortation does little, but cooperative contact under the right conditions reliably lowers prejudice.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley
    Scapegoating as displaced aggression toward a visible, vulnerable, already-marked target.
  2. Girard, R. (trans. Y. Freccero) (1986). The Scapegoat. Johns Hopkins University Press (original French edition 1982)
    The scapegoat mechanism as a crisis ritual that restores community cohesion while concealing itself from the persecutors.
  3. Rothschild, Z. K., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Keefer, L. A. (2012). A Dual-Motive Model of Scapegoating: Displacing Blame to Reduce Guilt or Increase Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1148–1163
    Experimental evidence for the two motives — guilt reduction and control restoration — behind scapegoating.
  4. Levin, J. (2019). The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth. Little, Brown
    The Linda Taylor case and how it was generalized into the "welfare queen" figure of the 1976 campaign.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Scapegoating in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Scapegoating or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account