The current online interpretation (based on the Cambridge Dictionary) defines scapegoating as the act of unfairly blaming an individual, group, or object for a problem, failure, or crisis that they did not cause, in order to deflect personal, institutional, or collective responsibility.
The archaeological and written record traces scapegoating as a ritual and practice that began roughly 4,400 years ago (in the modern-day Middle East). Since then, scapegoating has been depicted throughout the years across multiple religions, where (mostly) animals were sacrificed (or cast into the wilderness) in order to “purify” all the wrongdoings of the perpetrators.
Thinking clearly, this inversion of taking something or someone that has nothing to do with the harmful actions and attitudes of a given perpetrator as a way to clear them out, offering them new beginnings, makes absolutely no sense on any rational level.
Nevertheless, this nonsensical inversion survived until today as a very strong collective shared belief (that outlives any kind of evidence or data) because it serves a potent social function – blaming others as the ones responsible for their miserable condition is the fastest, cheapest way for any group to manufacture instant cohesion. In other words, scapegoating is appealing for humans, not necessarily for the suffering that it causes others but for the bonding that happens when a group of humans unites against a common enemy, creating a strong sense of belonging.
Today, scapegoating is a worldwide phenomenon, with all human cultures presenting it in different degrees. It operates across all scales of human interactions, from macro-level conflicts between political directions and nations against each other, down to family and work-related squabbles to micro-level arguments between strangers in a supermarket line. Humans are everywhere, constantly scanning their environment for a target to blame, while also avoiding being the one on the receiving end.
Even though finding, naming, and exposing the guilty one often does not solve any practical urban issue (putting corrupt authorities in jail is a necessary legal action, but it does not physically build any infrastructure; declaring a nation an enemy does not establish any educational system), the soothing that it collectively provides is often enough for populations worldwide to cool off during times of generalized stress.
This social cohesive dynamic of scapegoating makes it (unfortunately) one of the most powerful (and unacknowledged) regulators of urban development.
Cities, as the only tangible physical spaces where humans live, are affected by scapegoating at different levels of spatial organization, which can transform any layout into a battleground for blame.
Scapegoating can turn municipal planning, housing developments, and public transit logistics into instruments of ideological conflict. These biases morally justify any neighborhood group or political party to target specific demographics, employing zoning laws, physical barriers, or intentional disinvestment to exclude what they perceive as “the root of all problems” from “their” territories.
Democracy, like any other political system, is powerless against it because scapegoating is deeply rooted in human morality, feelings, and identity. Consequently, prohibiting scapegoating in the political public sphere is equivalent to denying individuals the right to engage in politics and public life.
Throughout history, urban development in cities everywhere has often reflected biases in scapegoating practices, with public spaces serving as a physical representation of collective projections, fears, and territorial prejudices.
Although urban planners often assert that human biology and aspirations are closely connected, in practical terms, they are not. Human bodies, regardless of gender, age, or other factors, share more similarities than differences. In contrast, individual aspirations can vary significantly and frequently conflict with what is biologically beneficial for humans.
Human collective biological needs (shelter, air, light, spatial movement, physiological regulation, and so forth) are inputs that, in today’s world, can be measured, quantified, and qualified and consequently used as a strong, reliable, and safe reference for any urban infrastructure.
To make human biology the main driver of urban infrastructure, it is necessary to stop scapegoating from shaping urban environments. To make that happen, the path forward is not to fight scapegoating, but to deny it a stage or attention altogether. It is to acknowledge when it is present, but continue toward a defined goal without considering its loud demands. Scapegoating has to be completely bypassed, ensuring it has no place in urban development.
In order to finally begin to better shape the cities we all inhabit, we just have to answer one question: Is humankind ready to put these ancient projections aside and build cities based on actual human needs, or will we continue to let scapegoating dictate the design of our urban future?
For those interested in tracing the evidence-based evolutionary origins of scapegoating and understanding why it remains so deeply embedded across human societies today, as well as gaining insights on how to better deal with it, access the full publication Beliefs of a Female Architect.