Scapegoating


Someone wrote in to an AS forum about the experience of being scapegoated, being blamed for things that are more true of the person attacking you than of yourself. It has often been noted that humans will try to "project" their fears about themselves onto someone else so that they can "destroy" their own badness by destroying the person (the scapegoat) onto whom they have projected the aspects they hate about themselves.

Thinking about this in terms of AS and NT's (neuro-typcial people), I wrote:
I have a theory that NTs perceive us (although they do not realize it) as partially blank. Just as we do not receive all the non-verbal signals NTs use to communicate with one another, we also do not emit those signals. Because NTs are "programmed" to "read" each other by those signals, they are apt to "see" them whether they occur or not. If we are not emitting signals, NTs will perceive their own signals as they bounce off our blankness. They are not aware they are emitting their own signals, so it's easy for them to confuse their own echoed emissions with those they expect to receive from us.

The same woman commented that people perceive her as intelligent and draw unwarrented assumptions about her, as if her intelligence could not co-exist with weaknesses and areas in which she is less "intelligent." I responded:

I suspect that there are aspects of our communication style that make us appear more "intelligent" to NTs -- and of course they do not know about "scatter skills," so they assume an intelligent-appearing person is uniformly and consistently intelligent throughout/in all areas. The aspects of communication style I refer to are that we tend to be blunt, not hiding our opinions behind "polite" small-talk, and we probably lack some of the "feminine" body language that further softens the communication of most (NT) women. In other words, we communicate "more like men" and therefore appear "more intelligent" (than women historically have been allowed to perceive themselves) and "stronger" (because men's styles have been the standard for what is "strong").

That means that when we are scapegoated, our attackers have the (unconscious) satisfaction of overcoming someone who is a doubly satisfactory victim: 1) a male stand-in (and it's always more satisfying to conquer a "stronger" victim), and 2) a deviant who is female but "presents" with (unconsciously acted out and unconsciously perceived) "male" aspects.



Home