Distractionary self-victimization is a 21st century form of racism, created in a context in which direct attacks of BIPOCs are inadmissible in liberal circles, thus some people make themselves looks like the targets of attack from BIPOCs.
It is important that we note that distractionary self-victimization is a product of the white racial frame, a 21C version of the old racist trope of projecting violence onto the black other in order to validate racist attacks.
The discursive move is to universalize particularity, distorting the statements of critics of specific Jewish people through conflationary rhetoric that reframes specific conversations using Hitler and the Holocaust.
Recently, I did a search for Timothy Jackson and came across two of his pieces from 2022. The first was published in the US-based Jewish Journal, in which Jackson described the fallout from his Journal of Schenkerian Studies (JSS) issue as “harassment of Jewish scholars for objecting to antisemitic conspiracy theories.” The second piece, similar in tone, was published in The Times of Israel. Neither publications are known to be extremist, though the Jewish Journal is described as “right-center” by MBFC.
It is disturbing that the two publications above have accepted Jackson’s statements at face value, which signals a need for a deeper understanding of public discourse surrounding the JSS incident. This requires putting aside the JSS issue for a moment, and looking at larger patterns first. Fundamentally, the pitting of minorities against one another is a product of a white supremacist system in which both racist and even anti-racist discourse have been weaponized for attacking minorities. In reaction to the accusation of anti-black racism, Jackson responded by labeling his critics as antisemitic, tying his fate with that of Schenker. There is obviously much to be said about the entire controversy. Here, I would like to focus specifically on counter-accusations of being attacked by another social group, in order to distract from one’s own misconduct. I refer to this as self-victimization. The two key phrases here are 1) “one’s misconduct,” i.e. the people portraying themselves as a victim do so because they were accused of wrong-doing in the first place, and 2) “to distract,” i.e. the counter-accusation is intended to distract from that misconduct.
Readers can refer to Ewell’s article, in which he criticized Schenker, for evidence of the latter’s racism, acquired through assimilation to German nationalism. In an attempt to defend Schenker, Jackson resorted to anti-racist discourse protesting purported antisemitism against Schenker and himself, which has worked in so far as some publications have picked up Jackson’ writings. There is of course no defense for antisemitism, but what we are seeing with Jackson is a cynical appropriation of the discourse of antisemitism. By fallaciously constructing himself as a victim, Jackson distracts the public from his original misconduct.
The key to successful distraction through self-victimization is to lump oneself into a broad category of people who are persecuted and marginalized, hoping to evade careful microanalysis of each individual case. Microanalysis, then, is precisely what we need to engage in. There is, fundamentally, a difference between Jewish people suffering and protesting antisemitism, and people of any ethnicity who use antisemitism as a distractionary counter-accusation. Self-victimization relies on outpours of public sympathy to overwhelm the analytical parts of our brains. In the case of antisemitism, there is a sprawling discursive apparatus designed to conflate 1) critics of specific Jewish people and asymmetrical Israeli state violence, such as Jasbir Puar, and 2) Hitler. Jackson is trying to relocate Ewell from category 1 comprising people who have criticized Jewish people such as Schenker for misconduct, to category 2 comprising anti-Semites. I note that Jasbir Puar has in the past failed the vetting for invitation to speak at music conferences because of this kind of cynical conflation. In this conflation, all critics of specific Jewish people are antisemitic, and all Jewish people are victims, regardless of whether they have issued racist statements like Schenker, or used antisemitism as a distractionary counter-accusation like Jackson. The discursive move is to universalize particularity, distorting the statements of critics of specific Jewish people through conflationary rhetoric that reframes specific conversations using Hitler and the Holocaust.
Speaking more broadly beyond the specifics of Jackson’s distractionary self-victimization and conflationary rhetoric, I wish to emphasize the importance of microanalysis of individual cases. Microanalysis is important in the larger discursive picture as well, because self-victimization has multiple valences. In the above, I discuss victimization of oneself. But there is also the white supremacist discourse of portraying minorities as self-victimizers, who supposedly insist on systemic racism that white supremacists consign to history ("how can Barack Obama be president if the US was racist?”). Even black intellectuals have criticized victimhood as an obstacle to black empowerment. General psychology sees victimhood as an obstacle to success. None of these forms of self-victimization fulfil the criteria of distractionary self-victimization—the use of counter-accusations to distract from one’s own misconduct. As we saw with Jackson, distractionary self-victimization is used for the purposes of marginalizing BIPOC people, accusing the latter as racist—the irony here lies in the fact that Jackson is himself a member of the Jewish minority. Regardless, if the public falls prey to such distractionary self-victimization, they participate in racism. It is important that we note that distractionary self-victimization is a product of the white racial frame, a 21C version of the old racist trope of projecting violence onto the black other in order to validate racist attacks. Distractionary self-victimization, when directed against BIPOCs, is racist, regardless of whether the perpetrator is white or BIPOC.
As a side note, I was brought to the concept of distractionary self-victimization by episodes 2 and 3 of the Netflix show, Million Dollar Beach House, based on a group of real estate agents working in the Hamptons. The show has been called racist because of the distractionary self-victimization by cast member Peggy, who subjected black cast member Noel to gaslighting. Episode 2 ends with the showing of a luxury home by Noel, representing the seller, to Peggy’s client Justin, who purportedly vets real estate investments for wealthy individuals. At the beginning of the showing, Noel tries to get a sense of which individuals Justin represents. At a later point, when Justin reiterated Peggy’s point that the house was overpriced (Peggy is shown arguing that in confessional interviews), the discussion gets heated. Upon Justin’s insistence on calculating the precise price point of the house, Noel becomes frustrated and the conversation seems to descend into a needless argument that I at least can’t imagine myself being interested in if I were really employed in Justin’s position—why bother to see a house that is as overpriced as Justin believes it to be?
At the beginning of Episode 3, set in the office, Peggy accuses Noel of being “disrespectful” and “pompous” for asking who Justin’s clients were, and for retorting that one doesn’t ask for discounts when one walks into a “Rolls Royce” dealership. Noel himself admits that it wasn’t his best showing. What is of interest here is how Peggy is shown (no doubt through production manipulation) to be intentionally trying to embarrass Noel—if she really believed that the house was overpriced as stated in her confessional interviews, what possible motive could there be for bringing Justin to see the house, other than to show Noel up? In the heated office discussion, Peggy goes on the attack while painting herself as victim: Noel disrespected her by vetting her clients to see if they were qualified buyers; it was inappropriate for Noel to wear sunglasses to meet them (Justin was also wearing sunglasses); Noel was “pompous” though he was baited into it. One could wonder what is the appropriate adjective for a white colleague (Peggy) who organized a “lesson” (the showing) for their black co-worker (Noel) instead of actually trying to explain to the latter why the house should be differently priced.
Forcing Noel to push back by cornering him, Peggy then made a sumptuous meal out of her victimhood, distracting from her original intention which was to destroy the credibility of a co-worker. This kind of distractionary self-victimization is a 21st century form of racism, created in a context in which direct attacks of BIPOCs are inadmissible, thus some people make themselves looks like the targets of attack from BIPOCs. Unfortunately, within white supremacy, BIPOCs have been entangled in racist acts as both perpetrators and victims. Microanalysis is needed to differentiate between legitimate “victims” of history who are nevertheless fighting back, and distractionary self-victimization by the Peggys and Jacksons of the world.
