In October 1347, merchant ships from the East docked at the Sicilian port of Messina. The sailors on board were dying from a fatal disease characterized by black boils. We now call it the Black Death. Within days, the infection spread to the city. Within months, it swept across Europe. It eventually killed an estimated third of the population.
No one understood the biological mechanism. Scientists would not discover the germ theory of disease for another five centuries. Citizens knew only that their neighbors were dying, doctors could not help, and the social order was collapsing. People were terrified, and they needed an explanation and a target to blame.
They blamed the Jewish population. Rumors spread that Jewish citizens had deliberately poisoned the municipal wells. In town after town, mobs attacked Jewish communities. In Strasbourg, mobs burned hundreds of Jews alive in a cemetery. In Mainz, they massacred thousands. Across Europe, terrified citizens destroyed hundreds of Jewish communities to stop the infection.
The Jewish population did not cause the plague. They died from the disease at the same rate as the general public. In some cities, they died at higher rates because officials forced them into crowded, segregated quarters. But they were visibly different. They practiced a different religion, spoke a different language, and maintained distinct cultural traditions. The terrified public saw these differences and somehow concluded they caused the disease.
We call this rhetorical device scapegoating. We commit this error when we unjustifiably hold a person or group accountable for a crisis. We often do this out of ignorance, but leaders also use it with deliberate malice. When a speaker uses scapegoating maliciously, they blame a vulnerable group for problems that group did not cause. They do this to deflect attention from their own failures and channel collective anxiety toward a convenient target.
We get the term from an ancient Hebrew ritual described in the book of Leviticus. Once a year, the high priest symbolically transferred the sins of the community onto a goat. The priest then drove the goat into the wilderness. The scapegoat carried away the transgressions, leaving the community ritually purified.
The ancient ritual was symbolic. No one believed the animal had committed crimes. The psychological function, however, was real. By placing blame on an external object, the community experienced a sense of cleansing. Modern politicians retain this psychological structure but apply it darkly. Instead of a symbolic animal, a speaker blames a real demographic group for systemic failures. The politician's scapegoat does not carry sins into the wilderness, but suffers systemic persecution by the public.
Speakers use scapegoating along with other tactics, but first we must understand its distinct way of working. When a speaker portrays a group as evil and a threat, they are demonizing the target. When they blame the group for a specific failure, like unemployment or disease, they are scapegoating the target. Speakers often combine the two. They demonize a scapegoat to make the blame believable, and then they scapegoat a demonized group for problems the group did not cause. Yet the tactics remain separate. A speaker can demonize a group without blaming them for a specific crisis, just as they can blame a group for a crisis without claiming the group is evil.
Scapegoating also differs from fear mongering. A speaker using fear mongering creates general panic, while a speaker using scapegoating directs that panic toward a specific target. The techniques operate in sequence. A demagogue stokes fear about national decline, then blames immigrants for that decline.
Psychologists examined why we use this tactic so often. Gordon Allport identified scapegoating as a primary mechanism we use to manage frustration. When we experience hardship, we feel anger. We require an outlet for that anger. If the true source of the problem is a complex economic shift or a powerful government, we redirect our anger onto an accessible target. We usually target a group that is already marginalized, visibly different, or socially vulnerable.
We help ourselves psychologically through this redirection. We give ourselves an explanation for our suffering. By blaming someone, we make the chaotic world seem sensible again. We also find an outlet for our aggression by selecting a target we can punish. Finally, we create rapid tribal solidarity. We unite against a manufactured common enemy.
Researchers studying intergroup conflict confirm these patterns. Economic downturns consistently increase prejudice against minority groups. When unemployment rises, hate crimes escalate. The scapegoating impulse strengthens when people feel threatened. Sociologist Lincoln Quillian demonstrated that anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe peaked in regions with the highest economic insecurity, even when data showed immigrants did not compete for local jobs. Citizens required an outlet for their economic anxiety, and the minority population provided a convenient target.
Leaders often use scapegoating for political survival. When a population faces economic collapse or military defeat, leaders who cannot solve the actual causes blame a specific group. This group becomes the target of public fury. The leaders appear to take decisive action by punishing the group, while they leave the core problems unaddressed.
In the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, leaders blamed individuals they labeled as "enemies of the people" for agricultural and industrial failures. Centralized government planning actually caused those failures. The state executed millions or exiled them to labor camps. The purges did not improve the economy, but they provided an explanation for the systemic failure and eliminated Stalin's political rivals.
In Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, leaders scapegoated anyone associated with urban life, education, or the former government as an enemy of the agrarian revolution. They killed roughly a quarter of the national population in the name of purifying the state.
Executives also use this tactic at smaller scales within corporate environments. They are scapegoating when they blame subordinates or specific departments for failures caused by poor strategic planning. If a product fails in the market due to a flawed initial design, the executive blames the marketing team. If a project runs over budget due to unrealistic initial cost estimates, the executive fires the project manager. The scapegoat is sacrificed and accountability is avoided. The systemic failure remains unaddressed and inevitably repeats.
Researchers studying organizational behavior find that scapegoating thrives in environments with authoritarian leadership and low psychological safety. When employees fear punishment for providing honest feedback, they conceal systemic problems. When the problems finally explode, someone must take the blame, and the blame rarely travels upward to the powerful individuals responsible for the solutions.
Speakers often succeed with scapegoating because they offer something reality cannot provide: simplicity. Complex problems have complex causes. Technological shifts, global trade policies, and aging populations may cause economic decline. Understanding these factors requires effort and tolerance for uncertainty. Easy solutions do not exist.
Blaming a scapegoat is mentally effortless. The problem is given a face. The proposed solution is absolute: remove the scapegoat, and the problem vanishes. This simplicity satisfies, even when it is factually incorrect. We prefer single-cause explanations over multi-cause realities. We gravitate toward narratives with clear villains, and the scapegoat fulfills that role.
To recognize and resist this tactic requires critical thinking.
First, evaluate causality. Ask whether the accused group actually possesses the power to cause the crisis. Speakers consistently blame systemic problems on groups that lack the authority to create them. If a politician blames immigrants for a national loss of manufacturing jobs, demand data proving that specific group caused the economic shift, rather than automation or global trade policies. If a chief executive blames a junior manager for a corporate bankruptcy, examine whether that subordinate actually held the power to prevent the failure. If the target lacks the authority to cause the problem, the blame has been manufactured.
Second, identify who benefits. Scapegoating always serves a strategic agenda. It distracts from administrative failures, consolidates political power, and channels anger away from the people actually responsible. When a speaker targets a group, ask who gains from the tactic. Ask what structural failures would have to be confronted if the scapegoat did not exist to absorb the attention.
Third, track the problem over time. Scapegoating does not solve crises; it only assigns blame. If a society punishes or removes the scapegoated group and the problem remains, the causal link is false. The bubonic plague did not stop when towns massacred Jewish citizens. Structural economic deficits do not disappear when a government marginalizes a minority population. The persistence of the crisis reveals the scapegoating.
Finally, resist the emotional pull of simple explanations. When a crisis causes frustration, the natural desire is for a clear villain. Yielding to that desire harms a target without resolving the underlying problem. Complex causes require understanding, nuance, and realistic solutions.
When a leader offers a simple explanation for a complex problem, and that explanation requires punishing a vulnerable group, they are not proposing a solution. They are using a calculated diversion.
This chapter is from Barriers to Critical Thinking by A.S. Prasad, to be published in December 2026