当受害者声称自己是受害者时:多数派的怨恨与赔偿要求的倒置

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Nandini Sundar
{"title":"当受害者声称自己是受害者时:多数派的怨恨与赔偿要求的倒置","authors":"Nandini Sundar","doi":"10.1111/dech.12822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>From the mid-20th century onwards, diverse groups — whether formerly enslaved populations or victims of mass atrocities — have demanded reparations as part of a wider struggle for justice. However, in the current global climate of right-wing resurgence, both the recognition of victimhood and demands for justice are in danger of being subverted and hijacked. These developments create additional obstacles to addressing genuine reparations demands. This manifests in at least three ways. First, there is a selective application of victimhood status and recognition, often along old fault lines of race or religion. In this way, the oppression of some groups is no longer recognized as a legitimate object of reparations; indeed, their claims to justice are seen as unfair demands against dominant groups. Second, we see the blatant continuation of the very practices that the reparations movement has sought to establish as wrongs. Third, not content with negating existing demands for reparations from below, powerful groups are going a step further and, as part of supremacist projects, asserting their own right to reparations. In doing this, they use the language and moral claims of reparations and decolonization that have emerged through the global reparations movement. This article seeks to illustrate these developments through the examples of India and Israel, including the demand for ‘restoration’ of sacred sites to Hindus and Jews.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48194,"journal":{"name":"Development and Change","volume":"55 4","pages":"855-877"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12822","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Victors Claim Victimhood: Majoritarian Resentment and the Inversion of Reparations Claims\",\"authors\":\"Nandini Sundar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dech.12822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>From the mid-20th century onwards, diverse groups — whether formerly enslaved populations or victims of mass atrocities — have demanded reparations as part of a wider struggle for justice. However, in the current global climate of right-wing resurgence, both the recognition of victimhood and demands for justice are in danger of being subverted and hijacked. These developments create additional obstacles to addressing genuine reparations demands. This manifests in at least three ways. First, there is a selective application of victimhood status and recognition, often along old fault lines of race or religion. In this way, the oppression of some groups is no longer recognized as a legitimate object of reparations; indeed, their claims to justice are seen as unfair demands against dominant groups. Second, we see the blatant continuation of the very practices that the reparations movement has sought to establish as wrongs. Third, not content with negating existing demands for reparations from below, powerful groups are going a step further and, as part of supremacist projects, asserting their own right to reparations. In doing this, they use the language and moral claims of reparations and decolonization that have emerged through the global reparations movement. This article seeks to illustrate these developments through the examples of India and Israel, including the demand for ‘restoration’ of sacred sites to Hindus and Jews.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development and Change\",\"volume\":\"55 4\",\"pages\":\"855-877\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12822\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development and Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12822\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12822","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从 20 世纪中叶开始,不同的群体--无论是曾经被奴役的人口还是大规模暴行的受 害者--都要求获得赔偿,作为更广泛的正义斗争的一部分。然而,在当前全球右翼势力抬头的环境下,对受害者身份的承认和对正义的要求都面临着被颠覆和劫持的危险。这些事态发展为解决真正的赔偿要求制造了更多障碍。这至少表现在三个方面。首先,有选择性地适用受害者地位和承认,这往往是沿着种族或宗教的旧断层线进行的。这样一来,一些群体受到的压迫就不再被视为合法的赔偿对象;事实上,他们的正义诉求被视为对占统治地位群体的不公平要求。其次,我们看到的是,赔偿运动试图确立为错误的做法公然继续存在。第三,强势群体并不满足于否定现有的自下而上的赔偿要求,他们更进一步,作为至上主义项目的一部分,主张自己的赔偿权利。在此过程中,他们使用了全球赔偿运动中出现的赔偿和非殖民化的语言和道德主张。本文试图通过印度和以色列的例子来说明这些发展,包括要求 "恢复 "印度教徒和犹太人的圣地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Victors Claim Victimhood: Majoritarian Resentment and the Inversion of Reparations Claims

From the mid-20th century onwards, diverse groups — whether formerly enslaved populations or victims of mass atrocities — have demanded reparations as part of a wider struggle for justice. However, in the current global climate of right-wing resurgence, both the recognition of victimhood and demands for justice are in danger of being subverted and hijacked. These developments create additional obstacles to addressing genuine reparations demands. This manifests in at least three ways. First, there is a selective application of victimhood status and recognition, often along old fault lines of race or religion. In this way, the oppression of some groups is no longer recognized as a legitimate object of reparations; indeed, their claims to justice are seen as unfair demands against dominant groups. Second, we see the blatant continuation of the very practices that the reparations movement has sought to establish as wrongs. Third, not content with negating existing demands for reparations from below, powerful groups are going a step further and, as part of supremacist projects, asserting their own right to reparations. In doing this, they use the language and moral claims of reparations and decolonization that have emerged through the global reparations movement. This article seeks to illustrate these developments through the examples of India and Israel, including the demand for ‘restoration’ of sacred sites to Hindus and Jews.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development and Change
Development and Change DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
3.30%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Development and Change is essential reading for anyone interested in development studies and social change. It publishes articles from a wide range of authors, both well-established specialists and young scholars, and is an important resource for: - social science faculties and research institutions - international development agencies and NGOs - graduate teachers and researchers - all those with a serious interest in the dynamics of development, from reflective activists to analytical practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信