Research
Dissertation (Expected Defense: 2025)
The Ethics of Victimhood: How Victimhood Can Be a Positive Political Resource
The growing use of victimhood rhetoric in politics has raised concerns among scholars, who often view victimhood as politically counterproductive and dangerous. However, is victimhood always detrimental to constructive politics? If victimhood can serve as a valuable tool for the oppressed, dismissing it solely as a danger overlooks its potential benefits and unfairly burdens the oppressed with the expectation to avoid, reject, or overcome it.
My dissertation challenges this predominantly negative view by presenting a novel normative theory of victimhood, arguing that it can be a positive political resource for resistance and empowerment. This view provides a basis for exploring the ethical responsibilities of both victims of oppression and non-victims in fostering a constructive politics of victimhood.
The first two chapters critically examine prevailing negative perceptions of victimhood. In the first chapter, I question the notion that victimhood diminishes victims’ agency by perpetuating a dichotomy between weak and good versus powerful and evil, thereby trapping them in a state of weakness. Drawing on feminist theories of vulnerability, I argue that this view narrowly defines agency as control. Instead, I propose an alternative understanding of agency as the ability to navigate experiences of vulnerability. While all individuals are inherently vulnerable, victims are forced to experience vulnerability in disproportionately harmful and disadvantageous ways. Victims' recognition of this disparity, rather than striving for full control, can enhance their political agency by clarifying that certain forms of resistance align with their principles, values, and objectives.
In the second chapter, I address the critique that victimhood promotes hostility and incivility, arguing instead that the emotional impulses tied to victimhood facilitate a vital form of affective communication. These impulses, when channeled into disruptive and confrontational resistance, challenge the emotional privilege of non-victims by compelling them to confront their own vulnerability. This confrontation disrupts what I term "affective power relationship," where non-victims remain calm and detached while victims bear the emotional burden of driving political transformation. By moving non-victims from states of indifference or pity to experiences of emotional discomfort, such as anger, anxiety, and frustration, victimhood-driven resistance unsettles these dynamics. This shift enables shared emotional labor between victims and non-victims, which is essential for meaningful political change.
The third chapter outlines the ethics of victimhood. The prevailing view suggests that victims should distance themselves from a sense of victimhood for constructive politics, and that they are merely recipients of help and support rather than bearing any responsibility. I challenge both claims, arguing that victims of oppression—particularly those with relative power and privilege within oppressed groups—may have a responsibility to accept and channel their sense of victimhood into transformative resistance. To guide such political efforts, I propose a set of normative standards for evaluating political uses of victimhood, grounded in avoiding simplistic binaries of good versus evil and mitigating competitive victimhood. I also outline ethical obligations for non-victims in their engagement with expressions of victimhood, addressing the question of whether it is ethically appropriate for them to evaluate how victims should relate to their own victimhood.
By reexamining the political potential of victimhood, my dissertation creates space for a broader normative discussion on its constructive uses, rather than dismissing it as merely counterproductive or dangerous. This analysis also offers a fresh perspective on political ethics surrounding victimhood, raising a crucial yet often-overlooked questions: What should our attitude be toward the political use of victimhood? What responsibility do victims have regarding their sense of victimhood? My project takes a principled, nuanced approach to these questions.
Publications
OnlineFirst, "Victimhood as a Positive Political Resource," European Journal of Political Theory, https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851241308809
Abstract: Victimhood is commonly deemed negative. The dominant account of victimhood argues that leveraging victimhood involves asserting the moral superiority of the weak, leading to an oversimplification of complex political matters into moral binaries of good versus evil. According to this perspective, victimhood traps victims in a perennial position of weakness, thereby diminishing their agency. This paper challenges this negative perspective and argues that victimhood can enhance agency, serving as a positive political resource. When victimhood involves the acknowledgment of inherent vulnerability shared by all individuals, whether they are victims or non-victims, and concerns the unjust distributions of vulnerability experiences, it can empower individuals to overcome excessive self-doubt and transform their victimization into a political agenda. By examining the subway protests organized by Korean Solidarity Against Disability Discrimination activists, I demonstrate how recognizing the agency-enhancing potential of victimhood helps us better understand the political significance of these actions.
Keywords: victimhood; vulnerability; protest; disability; agency
Work in Progress
"Challenging Emotional Privilege: Resistance as Affective Communication"
Abstract: This article explores the communicative potential of resistance, focusing on subway protests organized by Solidarity Against Disability Discrimination (SADD) in Seoul, South Korea. Targeting rush-hour commuters, these protests provoked public anger, frustration, and anxiety rather than sympathy or support. Drawing on theories of vulnerability, the article argues that resistance can function as affective communication, forcing non-victims to confront their vulnerability and challenging the affective power relationship that sustains their emotional privilege. Political change requires shared emotional labor, which may demand disruptive or confrontational tactics when more moderate approaches fail. The article further examines the tension between the communicative goals of victims—affective communication and persuasion—and identifies a dilemma: while pursuing either goal in isolation risks failure, victims are forced to prioritize one over the other when non-victims refuse to acknowledge their vulnerability. This communicative dilemma presents a significant obstacle to the effectiveness of victims’ resistance and political transformation.
Keywords: resistance; vulnerability; emotional privilege; affective power relationship; affective communication
"Empowering Victims to Speak: A Modified Speaking Back Policy"
Abstract: This paper argues that a refined version of Katherine Gelber’s speaking back policy offers an effective remedy for the harms caused by hate speech. The policy requires governments to provide institutional, material, and educational support to help victims overcome the silencing effects of hate speech and respond through their own speech. While promising, the policy requires theoretical modifications to fully realize its potential. Specifically, the paper consists of two parts. The first part explains why the speaking back policy is a strong candidate for addressing hate speech harms. The second part proposes two key modifications. First, I critique Gelber’s reliance on Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, arguing that it lacks a direct connection to issues of speech. Instead, I incorporate Seana Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory of freedom of speech to strengthen the link between the moral agency of individuals and the policy. Second, I address the risk that victims’ counter-speech could itself constitute hate speech. To prevent this, governmental support should exclude counter-speech that qualifies as hate speech.
Keywords: hate speech; counter-speech; speaking back policy; freedom of speech; thinker-based approach
In Preparation
"The Role of Ordinary Citizens in the Concept of Law: A Modified Hartian Theory"