Blog 2: Ideal Victim

 Fill in the table below (this constitutes your Blog 2 content).

Research Question (RQ)	What factors influence our judgment of whether an individual is deserving of help?
Source’s citation (APA)  Last name/s, First name initial. (DATE). Article title. Journal/newspaper/website. Pages/URL	Source 1: Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E.A. Fattah, From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System (pp. 17-30). The Macmillan Press Ltd.	Source 2:  Teo, Y. Y. (2018). This Is What Inequality Looks Like. Ethos Books.
Summary of Source (200 words each) ·       Provide information about the source – article / op-ed, author, context ·       Sum up the source’s argument – if it is a long paper, summarise only the most useful and relevant claims.  ·       Explain the reasoning / evidence supporting the argument’s claims.  ·       Include ONE essential quotation (should be a short phrase or a short sentence), making sure to integrate the quote into your own sentence, and cite the source.	In a book chapter titled, “The Ideal Victim”, Norwegian criminologist Nile Christie discusses features of an ideal victim and an ideal offender. Christie (1986) first defines that victimhood is subjective. Consequently, it is open to interpretation by both the individual (insofar as becoming a “personality trait”) and society.  Christie (1986) defines ideal victims as those most readily “given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim” when crime occurs, bringing up the trope of “the little old lady” (p. 18). This victim has to be vulnerable, like the sick or old. Secondly, the victim is faultless -- she is noble, cares for others, and was present at a socially appropriate place and time, e.g., in a street during daytime, when attacked (p.19). Thirdly, the victim is more ideal if attacked by an ideal offender, who notably has a huge stature and is an evil stranger. The ideal offender is  more likely to be an individual than a societal structure (p. 24-25). Christie notes that “the more ideal a victim is, the more ideal becomes the offender” (p. 25), and vice versa. Finally, the victim has to be able to report the crime, yet not be vocal enough to “become a threat to other important interests” (p. 20). Additionally, Christie notes that social hierarchy and social values  define whose version of events are credible. He writes that “beaten wives are not such ideal victims” (p. 20). In Norwegian, family violence is referred to as a case of “husbråk”, which means noise in the house, challenging society’s assumption that the wife should be a quiet figure. Interestingly, he comments on the paradox behind the feminist movement of his time. As females are more vocal, their perspectives are heard more. Ironically, this also dampens their claim to victimhood. Christie concludes by noting that ideal victims and offenders do not exist. One ideal offender is the drug-pusher who works solely for money, never consuming the drugs himself. Yet, in reality, the drug-pusher is also a victim of addiction. He also observes that the “ideal” victim is less likely to be a victim in reality, as the “old ladies” are more driven to fend themselves against crime. He claims that “fragmented societies with isolated individuals are ideal for creating ideal victims and ideal offenders” (p. 29), hinting that this black-or-white thinking is rife in a society which is not cohesive. Ultimately, he believes that the concepts of victims and offenders are not “essential”, and that blame and guilt should be the focus instead (p. 29).  412 words	In a book titled, “This Is What Inequality Looks Like”, Singaporean sociologist Teo Yeo Yen discusses the social narrative surrounding class and poverty, and its inordinate effect on whether lower-income families feel they deserve help and whether they can indeed receive help.  Teo (2018) bases her claims on interviews with lower-income families living in rental flats subsidised by the government. She first expounds on the social narrative in Singapore that government subsidies for the poor are “beyond public responsibility” (p. 279), the promotion of meritocracy as an equal chance for all to rise in social class through hard work, and the rampant notion that “no one owes you anything” or “it’s everyone for themselves” (p. 273). Resultantly, the lower-income are viewed as lazy, “deviant”, “their choices [are] bad, their cultures [are] problematic” and they require behavioural correction (p. 53). Teo (2018) also notes that social workers inevitably judge if applicants have the correct “mindset” of being independent due to limited resources to help them, and this can have repercussions on whether workers help to champion their case to various agencies (p. 332-337).  Her interviewees are thus hesitant to apply for financial support because the process is tedious, “creates indignity” as the poor are deemed aberrant from the norm, and that they believe in “leav[ing] it for others in greater need”  (p. 263-264). The application process is complicated as it assumes “free riders exist”, so home visits and several interviews will be conducted to ensure applicants do not take advantage of the system (p. 319). Teo (2018) writes that “the act of differentiating generates particular practices and gives meaning to categories” (p.268), and that “ethics are created from collective practices” (p. 273). As the government determines which categories to pay attention to, e.g., unemployed/employed or parent/childless, such categories gain social meaning, and become an accepted yardstick for determining who deserves help. Staff in social agencies are given KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and judged based on how many applicants they have “moved out” of the system (p. 324), but they note that issues are “rarely resolved in a sustainable way” (p. 327).  Quotes dump:  Chapter titled “Airing Dirty Laundry” “Hitting a Nerve” ← people are resistant to her exposing the workings of society. “You researchers shouldn’t believe those people” (p. 359).  “... folk beliefs that ‘Malays’ are poor and ‘Chinese’ are rich” (p.388). Race VS Racism (broad stereotypes affecting outcomes?)  Ending: “This is what inequality looks like. Now what? Now we refuse. (p. 418). Dignity is conditional.
Evaluation of Source (150 words each) ·       What claims or concepts address the RQ? Explain how these claims / concepts are related to the RQ.  ·       From what angle / perspective does the source approach(your topic)? How? ·       Is the source’s argument leaving something important out? What is it? Note one logical fallacy or appeal in the source if you find it.   Write a sentence that shows you moving beyond the source (extending or revising its claims/concepts) to offer a more convincing response to the RQ. (This is important for the final op-ed, but can be optional in Blog 2).	Claim 1: Victimhood is subjective. Evaluation 1: While Christie notes that victimhood may be conceptualised by both the individual and the society, he fails to emphasise the power that society has, such as gaslighting the victim to renounce victimhood. Claim 2: The ideal victim is vulnerable and faultless.  Evaluation 2: Susan’s judgment of the foreign domestic workers makes sense because she subscribes to the view of an “ideal victim”. They should be punctual and should never imbibe alcohol because society deems them improper. Claim 3: Christie notes that social hierarchy and social values define whose version of events are credible. Evaluation 3: In 2022, actor Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation, referring to an article she wrote about his perpetuation of family violence. The judge ruled in favour of Depp, despite a previous lawsuit finding evidence that there were at least 12 instances of Depp physically abusing Heard (Donegan, 2022). A commentary by TIME noted that Amber was not the perfect victim due to her imperfect memory and past lies, and this was taken advantage of by Depp’s fans (Docktermann, 2022). In legal dramas, we frequently see that the defense lawyer only has to point out a blemish in someone’s moral conduct, to cast reasonable doubt on the credibility of their testimony. Perhaps the way our legal system is shaped unveils how humans tend to view the world: through a black-or-white lens and unforgiving to mistakes. Such thinking includes viewing people as one-dimensional, e.g., they can only exhibit behaviour typical of a migrant worker, such as being subservient, but no other behaviour exhibited by the average human being, such as being late.  This trial shows how the concept of an ‘ideal victim’ affects whether they receive help, and how social hierarchy may affect whose story is deemed credible.  Claim 4: He claims that “fragmented societies with isolated individuals are ideal for creating ideal victims and ideal offenders” (p. 29).  Evaluation 4: Ideal victims and offenders exist in all societies, so Christie’s observations do not hold true. Instead, such concepts may perhaps be ascribed to the human psyche and human behaviour. Some theories have tried to explain the human psyche, like prototype and exemplar theories in Linguistics. For example, when we think of an accessory, perhaps we think of a brooch first, instead of a plush toy. This may also explain why we conceive of “ideal victims” -- that’s our prototype and we compare real victims against the exemplar. Another reason is how humans behave, like we tend to have black-or-white thinking, instead of nuanced contemplations. For example, if you say you don’t believe in God, someone will most likely assume you’re atheist, rather than agnostic.  Evaluation 5: The article is dated, however, it has been very influential in the field of criminology and victimology.	Claim 1: There is a social narrative constructed by the government which brands the lower-income as not deserving of help as their existence serves as an antithesis to the meritocratic system Singapore subscribes to. This narrative trickles down to individuals, such as social workers meting out help provided by the system.  Evaluation 1: It is remarkable how an arbitrary value system introduced by the ruling party can create such widespread implications on who is deemed worthy of help. Claim 2: Teo (2018) briefly noted that social workers subscribe to that social narrative because the system has limited resources to offer help to everyone.  Evaluation 2: Teo (2018) approaches the topic of helping others from a practical perspective. Being ‘worthy’ of help is also tied to the assumption that help has to be ‘rationed’ and given to deserving people as we have limited time, money and energy. To save resources, we streamline processes by creating categories for others to fit in, and this is evident from Teo’s (2018) commentary of how social welfare is dispensed. In the medical field, symptoms for each condition are ranked in terms of how commonly they occur. This may result in misdiagnosis as a rare symptom may elude the knowledge of several specialists, who are primed to look for prototypical symptoms within a specialised field.   Claim 3: Teo (2018) writes extensively on the indignity that the lower-income have to receive when requesting for help from the state as they have to subject their life choices to scrutiny.  Evaluation 3: As we question “how do we judge when someone is deserving of help”, we must also keep in mind that by deliberating and judging whether someone is ‘deserving’, we may be worsening the indignity and self-doubt they feel when reaching out for help. The phrase “do not air dirty linen in public” is just one of many ways that society shames and encourages disenfranchised individuals to hold their silence instead of seeking help.
Do the key concepts of the sources work together, or are they on different ends of the spectrum?	They work together -- Christie (1986) focuses on the concept of an “ideal victim”, while Teo (2018) examines practical considerations and social narratives in influencing our judgment of whether someone needs help. Sometimes, humans try to rationalise their biases, and that is when Christie’s (1986) and Teo’s (2018) ideas can be combined. If a student of legal age and a working adult both committed the same mistake, who would you be more likely to give a second chance or recommend for reformative training? Perhaps then you might supplement it with a utilitarian argument based on practical considerations, e.g., if the student learns from their mistakes, they may end up contributing more good to society in the long run. In 2019, a Straits Times article reported that a university student pleaded guilty to one charge of molestation, but was given a lenient sentence of 21 months of probation as he excelled academically and the District Judge felt that proved “his potential to excel in life” (Sun, 2019). When one thinks of the ‘ideal offender’ trope, they are unlikely to think of ‘university student’. Consequently, leniency is accorded to that student, augmented by a utilitarian argument.    With respect to the question, we also need to consider the considerations of the helper. For example, they may not have the strength to help or can only refer the person to someone else. However, to proceed further in this direction is tangential to the question. Perhaps we need to learn to be aware of our own biases, understand that each person can have many identities (familial role, occupation, race…) and their personal traits, differentiate between biases and practical constraints in terms of resources.