Sometimes, public discourse gets theatrical, and a curious and unsettling phenomenon demands our attention: the strategic use of “victimization.” This tactic has gained significant traction, shaping conversations and influencing perceptions in ways that cannot be ignored. It is a potent narrative, capable of stirring profound empathy, igniting fervent loyalties, and, perhaps most disturbingly, unlocking immense commercial and political capital. We see it woven into brand experiences, embedded in ideological crusades, and, with increasing frequency, wielded as a bludgeon in political campaigns. My perspective on this, as someone deeply invested in the ethics of influence, is unequivocal: while acknowledging genuine suffering is a moral imperative, the strategic exploitation of it, whether by companies, institutions, or individuals, descends into a moral abyss. It is a cynical manipulation; frankly, I find it as distasteful as a poorly orchestrated symphony.
Victimhood in Brand and Ideology
The power of emotional resonance in branding is undeniable. As I’ve explored, branding is the designed experience for clients, built on intangibles that encourage a close friendship with the client, thanks to the values and personality transmitted in it. Indeed, brands have even become humanized, capable of forging affective relationships, sometimes even explained by biochemistry. The human condition, however, is rife with narratives of struggle, injustice, and overcoming adversity. In this fertile yet fraught ground, the strategic use of victimization takes root.
When a Business or an ideology positions itself, or its target audience, as the perpetual victim of some external force—a systemic oppression, a historical injustice, or a societal ill—it taps into a deep well of human empathy and a desire for rectification. This narrative can be incredibly compelling for mobilizing support, differentiating from “oppressors” (often competitors), and creating a powerful sense of shared identity and purpose.
In some business contexts, the victim archetype becomes a potent strategic asset that can be used to mine social situations for profit.
It simplifies complex realities into a clear “us vs. them” narrative, which, unfortunately, resonates powerfully with fundamental human cognitive biases.
This approach often leverages what I’ve termed the fourth generation of the brand, where the focus shifts intensely to how the brand is perceived. If a brand can position itself as championing the “victimized” or as having “suffered” itself, it cultivates a narrative of authenticity, resilience, and moral high ground. This can translate directly into consumer loyalty and, quite profitably, into the sale of merchandising that allows consumers to publicly display their allegiance to the cause or the “suffering” brand.
Victimhood on the Campaign Trail
Nowhere is the strategic deployment of victimization more apparent and often more egregious than in political campaigns. Politicians and parties, eager to capture the emotional currency of the electorate, frequently craft narratives in which they or their constituents are presented as victims of a corrupt system, an opposing ideology, or a litany of historical grievances.
Victimization is a tactic as old as politics, but its potency has amplified with the advent of pervasive digital media and the fragmentation of information.
The goal is not always to resolve the suffering but to leverage it. By continuously highlighting injustices, real or perceived, a political campaign can galvanize its base, demonize opponents, and create a moral imperative for its ascension to power. The narrative often facilitates presenting societal problems into a clear-cut dichotomy of victim and oppressor, motivating voter turnout and winning elections, even if the underlying issues remain unresolved.
Busted Cases of Fabricated Victimization
This strategy’s inherent danger, and ultimately, ethical rot, lies in its propensity for fabrication or gross exaggeration. When genuine suffering is not present or is insufficient for strategic purposes, the temptation to invent or inflate victim narratives becomes overwhelming. Inevitably, the public, armed with powerful tools for scrutiny, often exposes these cynical charades.
One notable instance that comes to mind, though not directly related to a “business brand” in the commercial sense, is the Jussie Smollett case. In 2019, the actor Jussie Smollett claimed he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack in Chicago. The narrative immediately gained widespread media attention and elicited strong public support from various groups and political figures. However, subsequent police investigations ultimately concluded that Smollett had staged the attack himself, leading to a public outcry and a criminal conviction. This case starkly illustrated how quickly a narrative of victimization, once believed, can unravel when exposed as a fabrication, leading to severe reputational damage.
Another type of busted case, perhaps more subtle, involves individuals or groups exaggerating past experiences for financial gain or increased recognition. While I refrain from naming specific contemporary examples to avoid misjudgment, history is replete with instances where individuals have embellished tales of hardship or oppression to garner sympathy, book deals, or speaking engagements, only to have their narratives challenged and discredited by meticulous investigation.
This is the moral inverse of genuine victimhood: turning personal trauma into a commodity.
My Stance: Ethics Over Expediency
My philosophy is rooted in a deep respect for authenticity and the ethical deployment of influence. Branding is about building trust and creating profound, lasting relationships based on shared values and genuine promises. To leverage social issues, human traumas, or the suffering of minorities for marketing or political campaigns is, in my view, profoundly unethical. It is a cynical exploitation that desecrates genuine pain for fleeting commercial or political gain.
One cannot build an enduring brand on the shifting sands of manufactured outrage or commodified misery.
Furthermore, I hold a similar conviction regarding individuals who, having suffered genuine abuse or trauma, then strategically exploit those events for personal recognition or financial profit. While sharing one’s story can be a powerful act of healing and advocacy, transforming it into a mere theatrical performance for personal enrichment is, to me, morally reprehensible. It blurs the line between empathy and opportunism, ultimately devaluing the very real suffering of others.
Actual influence is established through integrity, genuine value, and a strong commitment to ethical behavior in business and politics. While the strategic use of victimization can sometimes yield short-term results, it is risky. This approach damages trust, undermines public discourse, and ultimately creates a bitter legacy that no superficial success can erase. This tactic is merely a cheap trick in a world that desperately needs real substance.
