Here we disagree on a matter of fact and expectation. Historically in cases where specific groups were the target of lynchings the resulting lowering of group status has been rapid. Even members of said groups lower their perceptions of their own status such that they avoid sending high status signals (acting as equal to the persecutors) and so making themselves the next target.
Can you provide any examples? I can’t think of any cases where groups were targeted for lynchings where it’s clear that their status fell as a result rather than their low status causing the lynchings.
You do have two tendencies working at odds here; the just world fallacy could cause their status to decrease, but being victimized for one’s affiliation can also be a positive status symbol, hence why Christians will often frame themselves as being persecuted for beliefs in cases where it’s clearly not accurate. If you have someone clearly going around victimizing the group to an extreme extent with the purpose of humiliating them, I expect the martyrdom effect would win out.
Can you provide any examples? I can’t think of any cases where groups were targeted for lynchings where it’s clear that their status fell as a result rather than their low status causing the lynchings.
Given that the obvious examples are well known I suspect you would simply contradict them via a different chronological representation. I will note this, however: the motivation to lynch people exists for a reason. People do it because it works.
If you have someone clearly going around victimizing the group to an extreme extent with the purpose of humiliating them, I expect the martyrdom effect would win out.
I believe with considerable confidence that the reverse is true. Humiliating and victimizing a group will lower the status of that group.
Given that the obvious examples are well known I suspect you would simply contradict them via a different chronological representation. I will note this, however: the motivation to lynch people exists for a reason. People do it because it works.
I can think of plenty of cases of members of low status groups being lynched, but I can’t think of any examples that would appear to indicate that lynching resulted in a decrease of status, so I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about.
As for whether it works, it certainly works at killing or harming the victims, and if it didn’t do that, people wouldn’t bother doing it, but that doesn’t mean that it works at reducing status.
Can you provide any examples? I can’t think of any cases where groups were targeted for lynchings where it’s clear that their status fell as a result rather than their low status causing the lynchings.
You do have two tendencies working at odds here; the just world fallacy could cause their status to decrease, but being victimized for one’s affiliation can also be a positive status symbol, hence why Christians will often frame themselves as being persecuted for beliefs in cases where it’s clearly not accurate. If you have someone clearly going around victimizing the group to an extreme extent with the purpose of humiliating them, I expect the martyrdom effect would win out.
Given that the obvious examples are well known I suspect you would simply contradict them via a different chronological representation. I will note this, however: the motivation to lynch people exists for a reason. People do it because it works.
I believe with considerable confidence that the reverse is true. Humiliating and victimizing a group will lower the status of that group.
Being a victim is not cool.
I can think of plenty of cases of members of low status groups being lynched, but I can’t think of any examples that would appear to indicate that lynching resulted in a decrease of status, so I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about.
As for whether it works, it certainly works at killing or harming the victims, and if it didn’t do that, people wouldn’t bother doing it, but that doesn’t mean that it works at reducing status.