Norms concerning the recognition of victimhood in postconflict societies: An analysis of “whatabouteries” in online sectarian arguments

Abstract

Acknowledging the victims on both sides of a conflict is crucial to peacebuilding and reconciliation. However, recognizing the victims of one community can challenge an opposing group's conflict narrative, particularly when their own group is seen as the primary victim. Suggestions of inclusive victimhood and blame can also threaten the sense of distinctiveness of each group's experience, leading to resistance. This article examines the conflict that arose when historical victimhood was discussed in the online comments sections of U.K. newspapers in response to the 2021 Coroner's Inquest into the Ballymurphy massacre. We focus on one common turn in sectarian argument in Northern Ireland: “Whatabouteries,” and the conflict that arises when whatabouteries appear in discussions. We describe the variety of forms whatabouteries—and responses to them—can take and analyze two extended conflict sequences in which they occur. Responses to such posts often invoke an implicit norm in these discussions: That when the victims of one group are publicly recognized in truth‐finding mechanisms, raising the issue of the opposing group's victims is illegitimate and can be treated as an act of provocation. This illustrates the need for sensitivity and an understanding of local, context‐specific norms when discussing victimhood and violence.