My conservative friends glibly dismiss victimhood as weak and unworthy, but the stronger your in-group identity, the stronger your sense of victimhood, with only insignificant individual exceptions by people like me making a status play.
In the real world, group cohesion is forged in the fires of shared grievance or perceived external threats.
A robust in-group identity requires a “thematic enemy.” For a group to feel a sense of “us,” there usually has to be a “them” that is standing in the way of the group’s prosperity, values, or safety.
When my friends dismiss victimhood, they are thinking of it in the modern, progressive sense—victimhood as a source of social capital or policy leverage. However, they are blind to the ways their own identities are bolstered by a sense of being an “embattled minority” or a “silent majority” that is being suppressed by a dominant culture. Whether it is the “forgotten man,” the taxpayer being “robbed,” or the believer being “persecuted,” the internal logic is fundamentally one of victimhood.
Status closure plays a role here. When a group tries to monopolize resources or social standing, they often justify this exclusion by framing themselves as the party that has been wronged or is under threat.
Victimhood serves as a powerful tool for boundary maintenance. It creates a moral hierarchy where the in-group is inherently “good” or “just” because it is being targeted.
While my friends might point to specific individuals who “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” as evidence that they don’t subscribe to victimhood, those individuals are often used as symbols to further the group’s narrative of being unfairly maligned by the broader system.
Opposing groups often use identical psychological frameworks. Both sides of the political spectrum often rely on a narrative of “institutional capture” by the other side.
Progressive groups might focus on historical and systemic victimhood.
Conservative groups might focus on cultural and bureaucratic victimhood (e.g., “The Deep State” or “The Ivy League Elite”).
In both cases, the strength of the identity is inextricably linked to the perceived injustice the group faces. Without that friction, the “in-group” often begins to lose its definition and dissolves into the general population.
“Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: On the Nature and Origins of ‘Conservaphobia’” by Rony Guldmann provides a profound academic framework for in-group identity and victimhood. Guldmann argues that modern conservatism has increasingly “absorbed the moral and intellectual reflexes of the Left” to recast itself as an oppressed “quasi-ethnic group”.
The book suggests that as liberalism became the dominant cultural force (the “Clerisy”), conservatives began to see themselves not as the defenders of an established order, but as a “dissident culture” or “counter-culture”. Guldmann notes that for many, being conservative is no longer just about policy, but about a “politics of recognition”. The stronger the identity as a “traditional American” or “believer,” the stronger the sense that one is being “slandered, bullied, and denigrated” by a hegemonic liberal elite.
The book posits that a robust in-group identity often requires an “Other” to define itself against. In this case, conservatives view “liberalism” as a “totalistic worldview” that seeks to “indoctrinate the populace” and “marginalize miscreants”. This creates a high-stakes environment where every cultural shift is felt as a direct assault on the group’s existence.
Guldmann identifies a “symmetry in antipathy” where conservatives dismiss progressive victimhood as “histrionics” while simultaneously claiming a “highly rarefied, Kafkaesque variety” of victimhood for themselves.
While they may glibly dismiss systemic economic or racial victimhood, they often subscribe to the idea of a “censorship of fashion”—a subtle, institutionalized form of oppression that uses “ridicule and condescension to stifle” their voices.
The book even suggests that some conservatives suffer from a form of “Stockholm Syndrome,” where they have internalized the very liberal values they claim to hate, leading to a “self-hating conservatism” that fuels further resentment and a deeper sense of being “unmanned” or “neutered” by the culture.
The book aligns with the classic distinction between Kultur (authentic, rooted spirituality) and Civilization (artificial, uprooted cosmopolitanism).
Conservatives see their in-group as the repository of authentic Kultur, which is being “subjugated” by the “unnatural” and “haughty” Civilization of the liberal elite.
This identity-based friction makes individual exceptions “insignificant,” because the conflict is viewed as a “zero-sum game” between two incompatible ways of being human.
This book essentially argues that the “victimhood” my friends dismiss is, in their own minds, the “silent heroism” of a beleaguered people resisting a foreign colonial power.
Here is a list of prominent identities—ranging from specific professional groups to cultural archetypes—and the “enemies” or forces that Guldmann argues unite them in a shared sense of victimhood and resistance.
According to Guldmann, these diverse groups are unified by their opposition to a “progressive Clerisy” or “Liberal Elite”. This enemy is viewed not just as a political opponent, but as an all-encompassing “totalistic worldview” that seeks to colonize institutions and pathologize traditional ways of being.
1. Gun Owners: The “kulturkampf” against firearms, which they view as a focused form of snobbery.
2. Home Schoolers: The “lust for control” by progressives who view independent child-rearing as an existential threat.
3. Conservative Christians: A “secular counter-religion” that masks its own sectarianism behind a facade of neutrality.
4. Small Business Owners: The “anti-business bully” who uses claims of social interconnectedness to deprive them of credit for their work.
5. Trump Supporters: A visceral contempt from elites who see them as “bitter clingers” and “atavistic throwbacks.”
6. Housewives: The systemic inversion of values that views traditional domestic life as pathological or regressive.
7. The Police: A liberal worldview that prioritizes the “rights of criminals” over traditional ordered liberty.
8. Rural People: The “cognitive elitism” of metropolitan specialists who view them as “half-savage relics of past times”.
9. Conservative Students: An “avalanche of scorn” from professors that treats them like “Cro-Magnons with bones in their noses”.
10. Fox News Viewers: A media establishment that Bathes liberals in “beatific light” while giving conservatives a “menacing glow”.
11. Pro-Life Activists: A liberal “censorship of fashion” that brands their moral concerns as ignorant reaction.
12. Military Members: The “fundamental culture clash” with an administration that allegedly views them as “too dumb” for Harvard.
13. NASCAR Fans: A liberal expert class that despises the “American renegade” spirit found in fatty foods and country music.
14. Ranchers: An “imperious liberalism” that uses environmental regulation as a pretext for cultural enervation.
15. “Ornery Americans”: The forces of order and “Swedish levels” of government science trying to tame the Jacksonian spirit.
16. Traditional Catholics: A “selective multiculturalism” that celebrates all diversities except their own culture.
17. Punk Conservatives: A “stifling collectivist bureaucracy” (like the EPA) that seeks to extirpate risk and adventure.
18. Social Conservatives: A “vision of the anointed” that dismisses their arguments as “symptoms to be diagnosed” rather than positions to be understood.
19. Libertarians: The “comprehensive moralists of the Left” who use state power to enforce subjective “social justice” preferences.
20. The “Country Class”: A “Ruling Class” that views their words as “mere grunts” and treats them as occupants of a lower cognitive order.
n sociology and history, the “common enemy” phenomenon—often called the Out-group Threat—is one of the most powerful catalysts for internal cohesion. When a group identifies a shared adversary, internal bickering typically vanishes in favor of a unified front.
Here are 20 prominent groups and the common enemies that unite them:
Political and Geopolitical Groups
The Allied Powers (WWII): United the Capitalist U.S. and the Communist Soviet Union against the shared existential threat of Nazi Germany.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): A disparate group of Western nations united primarily by the common enemy of Soviet (and later Russian) expansionism.
The Iroquois Confederacy: Six distinct Native American nations (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, etc.) that ended centuries of tribal warfare to unite against European colonial encroachment.
The Greek City-States (480 BC): Bitter rivals Athens and Sparta formed a rare military alliance specifically to repel the Persian Empire.
The French Resistance: Comprised of Catholics, Communists, and Monarchists who hated each other’s politics but were united by the German Occupation.
The African National Congress (ANC): Brought together various ethnic and tribal groups across South Africa, united by the common fight against the Apartheid regime.
Social and Cultural Movements
Environmental Activists: A broad coalition of scientists, indigenous groups, and urban youth united against fossil fuel corporations and carbon emissions.
The Suffragettes: Women from wildly different class backgrounds (aristocrats and factory workers) united against the patriarchy and specifically the male-only legislature.
Privacy Advocates: Groups ranging from libertarian “preppers” to progressive tech-ethics groups, all united by a common enemy: Big Tech surveillance.
The Anti-Globalization Movement: Labor unions and environmentalists—who often clash over jobs vs. nature—unite in opposition to multinational corporations and the WTO.
Secularists: A “big tent” of atheists, agnostics, and moderate believers united against religious fundamentalism in public policy.
Economic and Professional Groups
Labor Unions: Workers who might compete for shifts or promotions unite against corporate management to secure collective bargaining.
Open Source Developers: A global community of coders united by a common opposition to proprietary software monopolies (historically Microsoft).
The “Reddit Rebels” (WallStreetBets): Small-scale individual investors who united in 2021 to trigger a short squeeze against institutional hedge funds.
Small Business Coalitions: Local shop owners who unite to lobby against the “common enemy” of big-box retailers like Amazon or Walmart.
Science and Survival
The International Space Station (ISS) Partnership: Nations with deep diplomatic tensions (U.S., Russia, Japan) unite against the hostility of the vacuum of space.
Global Health Organizations: Scientists and governments worldwide unite against viral pathogens (e.g., the eradication of Smallpox or the response to COVID-19).
The Great Wall Builders: Various warring Chinese factions eventually unified their disparate walls to protect against the common enemy of Northern nomadic invaders.
Sports and Industry
Sports Fanbases: Fans of a specific team are often more united by their “hate” for a crosstown rival than by their actual love for their own players.
Traditional Media Outlets: Rival newspapers and TV networks often unite to lobby for regulations against social media algorithms that cannibalize their ad revenue.
Here are groups within the realms of race and religion that have historically been united by a common enemy:
Religious Groups United by Opposition
Early Seventh-Day Adventists: United by a shared prophetic interpretation that identified the Papacy (the Catholic Church) as a central antagonist in end-times events. This “common enemy” provided a sense of urgent mission and distinct identity.
The Protestant Reformation: A disparate collection of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists who disagreed on many doctrines but were unified by their opposition to Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority.
The Ummah (Early Islamic Period): Various warring Arabian tribes were unified under a single religious identity, fueled in part by their shared opposition to the Polytheistic Meccan elite.
Mormon Pioneers (LDS): Early members were a diverse group of converts unified by their flight from the United States Government and “mobs,” which they viewed as their primary persecutors.
The Ecumenical Movement: Historically competing Christian denominations (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) often unite today against the common enemy of Secularism and Materialism.
Sikhism (under Guru Gobind Singh): Transformed into a unified warrior community (the Khalsa) to defend against the Mughal Empire’s religious persecution.
Zionism: Jewish people from across the political and secular-religious spectrum were unified by the shared existential threat of European Antisemitism.
Racial and Ethnic Groups United by Opposition
Pan-Africanism: Leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and W.E.B. Du Bois sought to unite people of African descent globally against the common enemy of European Colonialism.
The American Civil Rights Movement: Black Americans from different socioeconomic backgrounds and geographic regions (North vs. South) united against Jim Crow laws and State-Sanctioned Segregation.
The Arab League: Established to coordinate political aims among Arab nations, frequently finding its strongest moments of unity in opposition to Western Imperialism.
The Chicano Movement: Mexican-Americans in the 1960s united across California and the Southwest to fight against discriminatory labor practices (specifically in agriculture).
The American Indian Movement (AIM): United members of hundreds of different tribes—many of whom had historical conflicts with one another—to oppose the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
Pan-Asianism (Early 20th Century): An intellectual movement that sought to unite Asian nations (India, China, Japan) against the “common enemy” of White Supremacy/Western Dominance.
The Balkan League: Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia—nations that often fought each other—united in 1912 to expel the Ottoman Empire from Europe.
Intersectional or Ideological Groups
Black Power Movement: United by an opposition to Systemic Institutional Racism, moving beyond just legal segregation to address broader power structures.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement: A global racial and religious coalition (including many White activists and various church groups) united against the South African National Party.
Indigenous Rights Groups (Global): Groups from the Amazon to the Arctic unite against Extractionist Corporations that threaten their ancestral lands.
The Dalit Panthers: Inspired by the Black Panthers, this group in India united lower-caste individuals to fight against the Caste System and Brahminical Hegemony.
The Irish Republicans: Catholics in Northern Ireland were united less by theology and more by their shared opposition to British Rule and Unionist dominance.
White Nationalist Groups: Often a collection of disparate, disorganized individuals who find unity specifically through the shared “enemy” of Multiculturalism and Immigration.
Ethnic Succession is the process where one distinct ethnic or racial group moves into a neighborhood, and the previous group moves out. In many U.S. cities, this has created a specific type of “common enemy” dynamic—not necessarily an enemy in the sense of hatred, but an enemy in the sense of perceived displacement.
Here is an analysis of how this plays out through the lens of group cohesion and the “common enemy” framework.
1. The Conflict Over “Turf” and Resources
In cities like Los Angeles (especially South LA), Chicago, and Miami, historically Black neighborhoods have seen a massive influx of Latino residents over the last 40 years.
The Shared Threat (for Black Residents): The common enemy is often seen as Cultural Erasure or Political Displacement. When a neighborhood that was 80% Black becomes 80% Latino, the remaining Black residents often feel that the institutions (churches, barbershops, political offices) that were the “backbone” of their community are being systematically replaced.
The Shared Threat (for Latino Residents): For newly arriving Latino immigrants, the common enemy is often Institutional Exclusion. They are often entering these neighborhoods because they are the only affordable areas left. They frequently face hostility from the established residents and may unite as a defensive group to protect their right to occupy that space.
2. The Role of Economic Competition
Sociologists often point out that these two groups are frequently in competition for the same “limited pie.”
Labor Competition: In some urban centers, there is a perception among working-class Black communities that a “common enemy” exists in the form of Exploitative Employers who prefer undocumented or low-wage Latino labor, which effectively “pushes out” Black workers from traditional local jobs.
Housing Markets: As Latino families (who often have larger, multi-generational households) pool resources to buy homes in Black neighborhoods, the “common enemy” for the Black renter is the Rising Cost of Entry and the loss of the neighborhood’s previous character.
3. “Brown-on-Black” vs. “Black-on-Brown” Cohesion
Defensive Unity: In neighborhoods where gang culture is present, the “common enemy” is literal. Groups like the Mexican Mafia or various Surenos sets have historically used “cleansing” rhetoric to push Black residents out of certain areas. This acts as a horrifyingly effective “uniting factor” for those Latino subgroups, even as it creates a counter-unification among Black residents who must band together for safety.
The “Buffer” Dynamics: Ironically, in many “gentrifying” cities, the Latino population is seen by urban planners as a “buffer” between white neighborhoods and Black neighborhoods. This can lead to a dynamic where the Black community identifies Gentrification as the ultimate enemy, but views the Latino influx as the tool that is being used to facilitate it.
Groups maintain their power by excluding “others” from the resources they control. In a neighborhood, these resources are political seats, school board positions, and local business licenses.
As Latinos gain a foothold, they often use their growing numbers to achieve status closure for their own group—electing Latino representatives and opening Latino-oriented businesses—which can make the previous residents feel like “strangers in their own home.”
The transition of Compton is perhaps the most famous case study of this shift. It moved from being an all-white suburb in the 1940s, to a “Black Mecca” and a symbol of Black political power in the 70s and 80s, to a city that is now roughly 68% Latino.
Here is how the political and social power shifted, driven by the “common enemy” dynamics of displacement and representation.
The Compton Transition (1980–2020)
Schools and Language In the 1980s, as the Latino population grew, the first “common enemy” for the new residents was the Language Barrier in public institutions. Latino parents felt the school board and city council—which were entirely Black-controlled—ignored their children’s needs. This shared grievance united a diverse group of immigrants (from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala) into a singular political voting bloc.
For the Black political establishment in Compton, the “common enemy” was Demographic Dilution. Leaders who had fought for decades to win power from the original white establishment saw the rising Latino numbers as a threat to the “Black Power” legacy of the city. This led to a period of “Status Closure” where the Black-led city council was accused of gerrymandering districts to prevent Latino candidates from winning seats.
A pivotal moment occurred when Latino residents used the California Voting Rights Act to sue the city. The “common enemy” here was the At-Large Election System, which allowed the Black majority (who voted at higher rates) to sweep all seats. The lawsuit forced Compton to move to “district-based” elections.
This change was the “crack in the dam.”
It allowed Isaac Galvan to become the first Latino councilmember in Compton’s history in 2013.
In neighborhoods like Florence-Firestone (an unincorporated area next to South Central), the “common enemy” dynamic took a much darker, violent turn. In the 1990s and 2000s, certain Latino gangs (under orders from the Mexican Mafia) issued “greenlights” on Black individuals. The “enemy” wasn’t just a rival gang member; it was anyone of a different race. This forced a terrifying level of cohesion within both communities. Black residents who might have had nothing to do with gangs were forced to seek protection or move, while Latino youths were pressured into a “defensive” racial stance to maintain control of the “turf.”
Today, the dynamic has shifted again. In South LA, the “common enemy” is increasingly Gentrification and Rising Rents. Black and Latino community organizers are now attempting to bridge the gap by identifying Corporate Landlords and Real Estate Developers as the mutual enemy.
In California law firms, even as the paralegal and intake levels become more Latino, the Attorney level in California remains disproportionately White. Latinos make up about 40% of California but only about 6% of licensed attorneys. Black attorneys make up roughly 3-4% of the bar.
This “bottleneck” at the top creates a situation where both Black and Latino legal professionals are often competing for the same few “diversity” seats in large firms, or fighting over the same territory in solo practice.
