Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Counseling Faculty Research Counseling 2017 Scapegoating Lori L. Ellison Marshall University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/co_faculty Part of the Counselor Education Commons Recommended Citation Ellison, Lori. "Scapegoating." The SAGE Encyclopedia of Marriage, Family, and Couples Counseling, edited by Jon Carlson and Shannon B. Dermer, vol. 4, SAGE Reference, 2017, pp. 1449-1452. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Counseling at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Counseling Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Scapegoating 1449 the therapist asks the client to indicate his or her Further Readings current location on the scale. Once the client Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1993). Making numbers talk: notes the current position, the therapist focuses Language in therapy. In S. Friendman (Ed.), The new questions on the established resources and language of change (pp. 5–24). New York: Guilford strengths of the client that allowed him or her to Press. reach the position indicated. The client and Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. therapist then explore circumstances and experi- New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ences when the client was at a higher position. Gillaspy, J. J., & Murphy, J. J. (2012). Incorporating The therapist asks the client to visualize and outcome and session rating scales in solution-focused describe what characterized that level. Last, the brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, client is directed to describe a small step that W. J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution- would allow movement toward the ideal reality. focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based It is through making small changes that larger practice (pp. 73–91). New York: Oxford University and more complex problems are overcome. Press. Other ways therapists use scaling questions Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment are in tandem with the “miracle question” scaling: A general method for evaluating (another solution-focused brief therapy tech- comprehensive community mental health programs. nique), and to explore exceptions to the present- Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6), 443–453. ing problem. Within the solution-focused brief Strong, T. O., Pyle, N. R., & Sutherland, O. (2009). therapy approach to counseling, it is important Scaling questions: Asking and answering them in for clients to recognize when a given problem is counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), not present in their current world. This is referred 171–185. to as exception talk, and it helps the therapist Visser, C. (2012, July). The scaling question. Progress- Focused Approach. Retrieved from http://www. move the client’s thinking away from problems progressfocusedapproach.com/the-scaling-question/ to solutions. Some therapists even ask clients to Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. respond to scaling questions related to each New York: Pergamon. completed session to gauge the effectiveness of treatment and strength of the client–counselor relationship. ScAPEGOATING Challenges to Using Scaling Questions Although the use of scaling questions may seem The term scapegoating comes from the Hebraic simple and straightforward, their effectiveness tradition of the Day of Atonement. The patri- depends on the therapist’s attention to tone, word arch Moses would take a goat and curse it with choice, and other linguistic clues. Effective use of the sins of the people of Israel. This would then scaling questions requires more complex interac- be followed by sending the goat, laden with the tion during client–therapist dialog than simply sins of the people, into the wilderness alone to die asking a set of scripted questions. Accordingly, it for them. The goat’s symbolic sacrifice was a way is important for therapists to continually hone of removing the year’s evil thoughts and behavior their communication skills. from the people and transferring them to the inno- cent goat so that the people could move forward Shauna Lynn Nefos Webb in a new way. See also Miracle Question; Postmodern Therapies; Social In family therapy, the concept of scapegoating Constructionism; Solution-Focused Brief Therapy; has a similar origin, and potentially a similar Therapeutic Assessment effect, both for the family and the scapegoat. COPYRIGHT 2017 SAGE Publications, Inc. 1450 Scapegoating Typically, the family will target, though not inten- of the family to rally around as the effect of the tionally, at least not at first, one member of the true dysfunction of the family remains unchecked. family to become the focus or cause of all of the Often when the family presents for therapy, this problems of the family. The result for the family is person is the identified patient, or the reason the a means of deflecting attention from the real con- family finds for needing therapy. flict. The real conflict that spawns this act of scapegoating can be anything, for example, alco- Scapegoating and Families holism, chronic illness, marital discontent. The family will feel relief, but the scapegoat will feel Family members all take on various roles that angry and alone. The goal of the family is not to enact certain functions in the family. Some will deal with and resolve the issues, but, rather, to promote healthy interactions, while others might cover them up. This effect, though seemingly ben- be more conducive to perpetuating conflicts. eficial, is actually an unfortunate outcome of this Roles can shift between family members, and each targeting. It does not absolve the family of their family member may have different roles in the dif- contributions to the dysfunction. Rather, it exacer- ferent subsystems to which they belong. For bates the dysfunction and can have serious conse- example, a father may be head of the household quences for the scapegoat. The idea of scapegoating and hold authority over the child subsystem, but can be applied to understand families and other also be the neediest among the family due to a groups, is used within several models of family chronic illness and weakest among the executive therapy, and is a typical process with certain pre- subsystem (those in charge of the family, typically senting problems. This entry first discusses scape- the parents). goating and group dynamics. It then discusses In the early years of family therapy, the identi- scapegoating in families, including the involve- fied patient, the scapegoat, was often the focus of ment of homeostasis and triangulation of roles, therapy. They were the problem. More often than and how the concept of the scapegoat comes into not, this scapegoat was a child, sometimes an play in Salvador Minuchin’s structural family emotionally disturbed child on whom the family therapy and the roles of an alcoholic family as typically placed a lot of blame for problems that conceptualized by Sharon Wegscheider. the child actually had little to do with. Parental shortcomings, marital conflicts, extended family Scapegoating and Groups or multigenerational conflicts, and sibling con- flicts were often the real problems behind the In group dynamics, scapegoating occurs when a scenes. The therapist would often focus on the group finds a common enemy on whom to focus “problem child” in the hope that the issue would all of its negative energy. Sports teams, school be addressed. As research in family therapy has groups, political organizations, and even religious progressed, the focus has shifted off of only exam- groups can see this phenomenon in the groups or ining the scapegoated family member to assessing “causes” they often oppose. In addition to scape- and addressing the family as a whole. The larger, goating an outside group, this process sometimes systemic issues become the focus of the therapy happens within groups. The group has a conflict rather than trying to “fix” the behavior of one internally and chooses a “subject” to blame. It family member. could be the boss, or a coworker, or a weaker member of the group. “If it hadn’t been for so and so, we would have won that game.” Similarly, in Homeostasis nuclear and extended families, this happens when One contributing factor to the maintenance of the family finds one person who becomes the a scapegoat in the family relates to the concept of “problem” for the whole group. The presence of a homeostasis. Homeostasis is the tendency to keep scapegoat can become a uniting force for the rest things in the family system just the way that they COPYRIGHT 2017 SAGE Publications, Inc. Scapegoating 1451 are, even if change would make interactions child is both protected and supported. The family improve. Scapegoats make it easier to maintain will need to be reeducated to focus on the problem that homeostasis because there remains someone where it lies, and not on the child. They will need to blame rather than changing dysfunctional inter- to be prepared to avoid returning to previous role action patterns. Change is an uncomfortable pro- behaviors when stressful times come. cess, even when it is change for the good of the family. The family will have to make a choice to Triangulation of Roles address the real issues before the scapegoat is allowed “off the hook.” Unfortunately, before that When family relationships have conflict, there is happens, the process of scapegoating may have frequently an effort by one member of a dyad to seriously harmed the child who has been the tar- pull in a third person to help ease the tension. This get. Emotional disturbance and emotional distanc- is called triangulation. When this happens the rela- ing (disengagement) may result for the scapegoat. tionships shift to a two-on-one partnership against the third.