Scapegoating in Larger Families

Scapegoating in Larger Families: Mechanisms of Control, Normalization, Intergenerational Transmission, and Impacts on Family Integration

Abstract

Scapegoating within family dynamics, especially in larger families, serves as a mechanism to displace collective dysfunction onto one or more members, maintaining illusory stability. This paper investigates its prevalence as a control strategy, its normalization in childhood, and its intergenerational perpetuation—often by those who benefit from or evade accountability for the behavior, such as golden children, enablers, or primary scapegoaters, rather than solely the targets. Integrating insights from Rebecca C. Mandeville’s work on Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA) and Vimala Pillari’s intergenerational analyses, it explores narcissistic deflections, coercive interactions, and dominant narratives. The discussion extends to effects on family cohesion, illustrated by adolescents’ partnership selections, where patterns may be replicated by non-scapegoated members. Drawing on psychological and sociological sources, this synthesis emphasizes therapeutic disruption of cycles perpetuated by those who “get away with it.”

Introduction

In family scapegoating, a designated member absorbs blame for systemic issues, preserving group equilibrium at their expense. [3] Larger families heighten this due to intricate alliances and strained resources, facilitating control through blame diffusion. [0] Rebecca C. Mandeville, in Rejected, Shamed, and Blamed, defines FSA as projective abuse where the scapegoat embodies familial disavowed traits. [11] Sociologically, it parallels René Girard’s mimetic theory, where exclusion unifies the group. [12] This analysis, quoting diverse sources, highlights that intergenerational repetition is frequently driven by non-scapegoated individuals who normalize and replicate unchallenged patterns in relational contexts.

Prevalence of Scapegoating in Larger Families

Scapegoating transcends family types but escalates in larger ones via subsystem complexity, enabling widespread blame assignment. [3] As detailed in Understanding the Psychology of Scapegoating in Families by Anchor Therapy, LLC, dysfunctional families blame children for parental conflicts, with rates increasing in multi-child settings. [3] Vimala Pillari’s Scapegoating in Families: Intergenerational Patterns of Physical and Emotional Abuse reveals how larger families perpetuate targeting of empathetic children across generations. [9] Mandeville’s FSA research reports up to 50% incidence among surveyed adults, amplified in unstable larger households. [11] In Physical Violence and Scapegoating Within the Family: An Exploration of Biblical Texts and Contemporary Psychology, scapegoating is framed as a cross-cultural tool for group cohesion in familial groups. [12]

Scapegoating as a Method of Control

As a control tactic, scapegoating redirects familial tensions onto a target, prevalent in narcissistic systems. [5] Julie L. Hall, in The Narcissistic Family’s Scapegoat: Survival and Recovery, describes how narcissists scapegoat to avoid self-examination. [1] Mandeville elucidates “reaction to the reaction,” ignoring initial provocations while condemning responses, such as labeling a child “overly emotional.” [7] Coercive elements like triangulation involve siblings, as outlined in Roles in the Narcissistic Family: The Scapegoat Child. [5] Larger families reinforce dominant narratives positioning the scapegoat as the “issue,” upholding power structures. [13]

Normalization and Internalization in Childhood Environments

Children in such systems normalize scapegoating as standard family functioning, internalizing profound shame. [0] In 5 Critical Things to Know About Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA), Mandeville explains how chronic blame diminishes self-esteem, leading to complex PTSD. [11] Dr. Betsy Usher, in What Does It Feel Like to Be the Scapegoat in a Family?, portrays dysfunctional environments where abuse seems routine. [10] Attachment disruptions foster insecure styles, conflating manipulation with affection. [6] Socially, observational learning embeds antisocial tactics like evasion as normative. [14]

Intergenerational Repetition: Unquestioned Perpetuation in Adulthood

Intergenerational scapegoating is often perpetuated not solely by scapegoats but predominantly by those who “get away with it”—primary scapegoaters, enablers, and golden children—who view the dynamic as beneficial or unchallenged. [8] Pillari documents how scapegoated parents may project, but emphasizes systemic transmission where non-targets replicate patterns.  Mandeville, in The Multigenerational Aspects of Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA), attributes cycles to unresolved family anxiety, with golden children unconsciously upholding narratives to maintain privilege.  Clare Lane, in Why does the Narcissist’s Golden Child Get Upset with the Scapegoat?, notes golden children defend the system, later repeating it in their families without awareness.  Amanda Robins, in Is it Better to be the Scapegoat or the Golden Child?, argues golden children, insulated from scrutiny, internalize entitlement and perpetuate abuse as adults.  Siblings and parents “try it on” with relational kin, employing narcissistic deflections and coercive games, evading accountability as learned behavior.  Mandeville’s Why Family Scapegoat Abuse Leads To Sibling Estrangement highlights how non-scapegoated siblings sustain damaging narratives, transmitting antisocial patterns intergenerationally. 

Impacts on Family Integration: Adolescent Partnership Choices as Exemplar

Scapegoating disrupts integration by fostering alienation and eroded trust.  In Family Scapegoat: Signs, Effects, & How to Cope, scapegoats experience isolation, turning outward for validation.  Adolescents from such systems, particularly scapegoats, may select partners echoing abusive dynamics, but non-scapegoated teens (e.g., golden children) replicate control patterns in relationships, perpetuating dysfunction.  As per Golden Child and Scapegoat: Signs, Effects, & How to Heal, golden children seek compliant partners, mirroring familial hierarchies and hindering integrated bonds.  This imports mistrust into extended families, with therapy essential for reframing and healthier choices. 

Conclusion

In larger families, scapegoating as control normalizes abuse, with repetition chiefly by those evading consequences—golden children and enablers—fracturing integration and influencing adolescent partnerships toward replication. Sources like Mandeville and Pillari advocate therapy to challenge narratives, promote accountability, and empower all members to halt cycles.

Index of Related Sources by Title and Author

•  Rejected, Shamed, and Blamed: Help and Hope for Adults in the Family Scapegoat Role by Rebecca C. Mandeville

•  Scapegoating in Families: Intergenerational Patterns of Physical and Emotional Abuse by Vimala Pillari

•  The Narcissistic Family’s Scapegoat: Survival and Recovery by Julie L. Hall

•  What Does It Feel Like to Be the Scapegoat in a Family? by Dr. Betsy Usher

•  Understanding the Psychology of Scapegoating in Families by Anchor Therapy, LLC

•  Physical Violence and Scapegoating Within the Family: An Exploration of Biblical Texts and Contemporary Psychology by Anonymous (PMC Article)

•  Roles in the Narcissistic Family: The Scapegoat Child by Anonymous (Psych Central)

•  5 Critical Things to Know About Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA) by Rebecca C. Mandeville

•  The Multigenerational Aspects of Family Scapegoating Abuse (FSA) by Rebecca C. Mandeville

•  Family Scapegoat: Signs, Effects, & How to Cope by Anonymous (Choosing Therapy)

•  The Real Role of the Scapegoat by Katia Beeden

•  Narcissistic Abuse & Scapegoating - The Challenge of ‘Reparenting’ Yourself by Glynis Sherwood

•  How Narcissistic Parents Scapegoat Their Children by Peg Streep (Psychology Today)

•  The Blameless Burden: Scapegoating In Dysfunctional Families by Anonymous (GoodTherapy.org)

•  Toxic Families and the Scapegoat Role by Anonymous (MentalHealth.com)

•  Scapegoating Insidious Family Pattern by Lynne Namka

•  What Does It Mean to Be the Family Scapegoat? by Anonymous (Verywell Mind)

•  Golden Child and Scapegoat: Signs, Effects, & How to Heal by Anonymous (Hopeful Panda)

•  Why does the Narcissist’s Golden Child Get Upset with the Scapegoat? by Clare Lane

•  Golden child and scapegoat - daughters of narcissistic mothers by Anonymous (Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers)

•  Is it Better to be the Scapegoat or the Golden Child? by Amanda Robins

•  10 Rules of Families That Scapegoat by Rebecca C. Mandeville

•  Why Family Scapegoat Abuse Leads To Sibling Estrangement by Rebecca C. Mandeville

•  The “Difficult” Child Phenomenon: Why Toxic Families Need a Scapegoat by Msjag

Chameleon Effect

Suddenly exhibiting personality traits, thought patterns, or habits that remind you of an ex from years ago, is a surprisingly common psychological phenomenon rooted in how relationships shape us. It’s not some mystical sign of mutual longing or a full transformation into who they were, but rather a mix of memory, emotional imprinting, and social adaptation. I’ll break this down based on psychological insights, research, and anecdotal reports from various sources, explaining what’s likely going on step by step.

Why You Might Start Thinking or Acting Like Your Ex

Close relationships, especially romantic ones, involve a lot of time spent together, which naturally leads to behavioral and cognitive mirroring. This is a basic human process called the “chameleon effect” in social psychology, where people unconsciously adopt mannerisms, speech patterns, attitudes, or even decision-making styles from those around them to build rapport and connection. In a partnership, this goes deeper because of emotional bonding and shared experiences—your brain essentially rewires a bit to align with theirs for harmony.

After a breakup, these adopted elements don’t just vanish; they can linger as “relational residue.” You might find yourself using a phrase they often said, approaching problems with their logical (or quirky) mindset, or even picking up hobbies they introduced. This isn’t about missing them consciously but about how they’ve become integrated into your self-concept. A study on relationship progression showed that people are willing to incorporate a partner’s traits—even negative ones—into their own identity when committed, as it helps maintain the bond.  Over time, these traits stick around because habits form neural pathways that take effort to unlearn, especially if the relationship lasted long enough to influence your daily life.

Anecdotally, this is echoed in personal stories: people often report picking up “little habits and phrases from the people you love,” and those traits persist even after the person is gone because “we become a reflection of the people that we care about.”  This can feel weird or nostalgic when it resurfaces years later, triggered by stress, similar situations, or random memory recall. For instance, if you’re facing a decision that echoes something from that era, your brain might default to the “borrowed” thinking style as a shortcut.

If the traits feel toxic or unwanted (like becoming more argumentative or passive if that’s how your ex was), it could stem from unintentional adoption during the relationship.  Research on personality influence in couples suggests this happens more with passive factors, like shared environments or social circles, rather than deliberate copying.  It’s not unique to exes— we do this with friends, family, or colleagues too—but romantic ties amplify it due to intimacy.

Does This Mean She’s Thinking of You at the Same Time?

Probably not, at least not in any scientifically supported way. The idea that simultaneous thoughts indicate a psychic connection is more folklore or spiritual belief than psychology. Sources claiming “signs someone is thinking about you” (like sudden emotions or dreams) often lean on mysticism, with no empirical evidence.   Psychologically, when you think of someone obsessively or notice these “echoes,” it’s usually due to your own internal processes: unresolved feelings, nostalgia, or confirmation bias (where you notice coincidences that fit a narrative of connection while ignoring others).

For example, if you’re ruminating on the past, your brain’s reticular activating system (which filters what you pay attention to) might highlight anything remotely related to your ex, making it feel synchronous. But thinking about someone doesn’t cause them to think of you—it’s one-sided unless there’s actual contact or shared triggers (like an anniversary).  Studies on attachment show that post-breakup, people hold onto positive views of exes longer if emotions linger, but this doesn’t imply reciprocity.  If she’s adopted some of your traits, the same logic applies, but it’s independent.

Does This Mean You’re Becoming the Person She Was Back Then?

Not really—you’re not “falling into” being her wholesale. Instead, you’re carrying forward fragments of influence that have blended into your own personality. Human identity is fluid and composite; we all assemble traits from various influences over time. What feels like “becoming her” is more like selective recall: the traits stand out because they’re tied to emotional memories, but they’re just one layer among many in who you are.

To reclaim your sense of self, focus on rediscovering pre-relationship interests or hobbies, as that helps differentiate “you” from the merged version.  If it’s bothersome, therapy (like cognitive behavioral techniques) can help unpack and reframe these echoes. Over time, as you form new relationships or experiences, these old patterns fade or get overwritten.

In summary, this weirdness is your brain’s way of processing past intimacy—normal, not ominous. It doesn’t signal mutual thoughts or a personality takeover, but it does highlight how relationships leave lasting marks. If it persists and causes distress, talking to a professional could provide personalized insight.

Social Media & Political Behaviour

Engagement, Projection, and Critical Detachment: A Psychological-Sociological Analysis of Political Behavior

Preface

In an age where social media serves as the town square, pub, and pulpit simultaneously, the distinction between ordinary social engagement and politically motivated communication becomes crucial. This essay examines how psychological profiling and sociological theory illuminate the contrast between “normal people” and political actors, with particular attention to modes of engagement, projection, and the fraught relationship between truth and emotion.

⸻

1. Modes of Posting: Reciprocity vs. Broadcasting

• Ordinary participants post for connection and reciprocity. A “like,” a comment, or a shared joke reinforces social bonds, building Durkheim’s collective conscience. Communication here is two-way, social glue.

• Political party members post for broadcasting and influence, mirroring commercial advertising. Their primary aim is persuasion, identity-marking, and dominance of discourse rather than dialogue. Goffman’s notion of performance applies: the “political self” presents itself as a moral actor, less concerned with exchange, more concerned with symbolic authority.

⸻

2. Virtue Signaling vs. Critical Engagement

• Virtue signaling is an act of identity declaration: “I am good because I align with X.” It is inherently performative, often antagonistic to dissenters.

• Critical engagement is an act of sense-making: “What is X, and how does it fit into the world?” It seeks analysis, not applause.

This division reflects Nietzsche’s critique of morality: much of what passes as “virtue” is in fact the will to power disguised as self-righteousness.

⸻

3. Analytical Frameworks Beyond Left/Right

• Left vs. Right spectrum: Misleading when extremes converge into authoritarian sameness.

• Order vs. Chaos axis (science, Dungeons & Dragons): Introduces a second dimension, clarifying differences in temperament.

• Good vs. Evil (D&D morality): Useful heuristically, but collapses under Nietzsche’s recognition that morality is perspectival and often power-laden.

Together, these axes yield a more nuanced analysis:

• Reactive/Emotional (chaotic opposition, identity defense).

• Logical/Analytical (order-seeking, systemic critique).

⸻

4. Observed Political Characterizations

• Left-wing claims (liberal): Often manifest as reactive, oppositional, emotively charged, defending identities rather than engaging critique.

• Right-wing claims (traditional): Often manifest as respect for order, hierarchy, and logical critique (though vulnerable to rigidity and dogma).

Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) supports this: liberals tend to prioritize care/harm and fairness (emotional foundations), while conservatives draw on loyalty, authority, and sanctity (order-based).

⸻

5. Gendered Communication Patterns in Political Affiliation

Personal observation aligns with sociological research:

• Women often value emotional resonance and relational stability over strict factual accuracy, which predisposes many toward left-leaning political stances.

• Men are more likely to privilege coherence, order, and critical reasoning, inclining them toward right-leaning perspectives.

• In relationships, projection frequently occurs: left-leaning partners may attribute “their” virtues to the analyst, even when the analyst’s identity diverges. This dynamic often collapses under confrontation, as emotional-truth and analytical-truth clash.

This confirms the sociological tension between truth as relational alignment versus truth as analytical correspondence.

⸻

6. The Analyst’s Detachment

The ability to detach ego and analyze independently of personal feeling is not dehumanizing but deeply humanizing. It reflects what Weber called wertfreiheit (value-freedom) in social science: analysis without surrendering to ideology.

Suspicion of this detachment—“you must be sinister to think without emotion”—reveals how fragile many social actors are when confronted with a mind that refuses tribal assimilation.

⸻

7. A Matrix Model of Political-Psychological Engagement

Axis	Reactive/Emotional	Logical/Analytical
Left-Oriented	Identity politics, opposition-as-virtue, emotive defense.	Structural reformism, rationalist liberalism (rarer).
Right-Oriented	Populist reaction, rigid dogma, authoritarian sentiment.	Traditionalist logic, systemic conservatism, critical order.
Non-Aligned	Communitarian belonging, relational emotionalism.	Detached analysis, cross-spectrum critique, “outsider intellectual.”

This matrix shows that emotionality vs logic often explains more than left vs right.

⸻

Conclusion

To think critically and detach from ego is not a political stance but a psychological disposition. The sociological error of our time is mistaking emotional alignment for truth, and mistaking analytical detachment for sinister coldness. In fact, both modes are human—but their collision drives the fractures of modern politics, relationships, and community life.

⸻

📚 Index of Sources by Author and Title

• Jonathan Haidt – The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

• Friedrich Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil; On the Genealogy of Morals

• Émile Durkheim – The Division of Labour in Society

• Erving Goffman – The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

• Max Weber – Methodology of the Social Sciences