The scourge of competitive victimhood
Harry and Meghan present a good case study of the ways that adherence to identity dogma weakens the human spirit and disconnects people from reality. BY Amanda Stoker
The narrative of victimhood that seems entrenched in the psyche of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is hopelessly out of touch.
Both are enormously wealthy, healthy and educated and with good life prospects ahead of them, but the constant complaints of Harry and Meghan betray a lack of connection to reality.
The Sussexes claim to need privacy, but can’t seem to resist the urge to share their stories of woe repeatedly and to the highest bidders.
Almost any other people on the planet would be able to make a good life in their situation. That is not to deny that life has dealt them some ups and downs, or that there have been obstacles to overcome. That is part of the human experience. But the way they carry on, you’d think they were destitute and persecuted with no way out.
The Sussexes claim to need privacy, but can’t seem to resist the urge to share their stories of woe repeatedly and to the highest bidders.
They don’t want the responsibilities and scrutiny that come with royal life, but still expected to be paid as though they were doing those duties diligently.
Harry says Meghan needs “special protection” because of her race. Despite repeated generalised complaints that she has been treated unfairly by the royal family on the basis of her race, we are yet to hear any detail of any incident that would justify that suggestion.
Those serious accusations sit uncomfortably with the public perception that the monarchy of recent times, and at least throughout the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, led the Commonwealth with a genuine respect for the value of people from all of its corners, and with all of their differences. In many ways, it fostered international friendship and co-operation in a more genuine and effective way than more attention-seeking bodies like the United Nations.
The way the royal family welcomed Meghan Markle into its fold, and sought to keep her and Harry within it, is far more compelling evidence of their attitudes on the subject of race than the vague slurs the Sussexes now proffer.
Perhaps these ideas get a good run on social media, where the competitive victimhood of identity politics is fed and watered. Harry and Meghan present a good case study of the ways that adherence to identity dogma weakens the human spirit and disconnects people from reality.
This should act as a warning for Australians against embracing this ideology. It is creeping into our culture without many of us even realising, preying on our good intentions.
Our sincere desire to see fairer workplaces for women shouldn’t lead, in #metoo enthusiasm, to the abandonment of the presumption of innocence or safeguards for a fair trial. Our desire to improve the lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people shouldn’t lead us to entrench two classes of Australian citizens, with different rights and responsibilities, in our Constitution, on the abhorrent basis of race. Our desire to show understanding for people who struggle with their biological sex shouldn’t lead us to abandon environments for women to play sport safely and in fair competition. I could go on.
Wherever identity politics goes, it leaves a trail of division and conflict. It demands, in every situation, that there be an oppressed and an oppressor, a victim and a victor. It sees all human interaction through the lens of power and exploitation. While there are times when this accurately reflects the human dynamic, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is wrong, and it is harmful.
We spend more time than ever giving our school children lessons on how to be resilient. Yet, in the way we interact with each other – at work, in the community and in politics – the rise of the politics of grievance rewards those who are most willing to claim victimhood. What do you think they will learn? What we say, or what we do?
In many ways, the special vulnerability Meghan Markle faces isn’t about her race or her sex. It is about the psychological weakness she has internalised through American culture’s obsession with apportioning privilege and punishment based on genetic attributes over which no human has control, and the paying of penance by present generations for wrongs committed by others in the past.
This kind of group responsibility is particularly harmful because it absolves individuals from responsibility in the present for making the best of their circumstances.
It’s what Jonathan Haidt and his co-author Greg Lukianoff called “the coddling of the American mind” in their book of the same name. They observe the corrosive effect of identity politics on the quality of educational institutions, on the capacity of people with different opinions to engage respectfully, and the incentivisation of a culture of outrage, hyper-sensitivity and victimhood.
It explains a lot about what is wrong with American politics and culture.
But just as the monarchy has been wise to reject the hysteria peddled by the Sussexes, so too should Australians fiercely resist the encroachment of grievance politics here.
Amanda Stoker is a former LNP senator for Queensland and a distinguished fellow of the Menzies Research Centre.