In recent decades victims of crime have been receiving a lot of attention in science and policy. It gave rise to the development and flourishing of a separate discipline, victimology. The emphasis was on mapping victimization and fear of crime, the consequences of victimization, the development and evaluation of victim support, victims’ rights and newer forms of conflict resolution (e.g. restorative justice). Much victimological research was – and still is – focused on policy and improving the plight of victims of crime. However, more recently, we have seen a growing interest in studying victimization in a broader, societal context. This is done inter alia under the banner of a cultural victimology and in the wake of studies into processes of transitional justice, but also in the context of a socially critical debate about an alleged culture of victimization, therapy or complaint. It is such perspectives on victims and victimization that are at the center of this special issue on ‘cultures of victimhood’. The introductory article identifies and discusses some of the main developments and issues in this area of research and debate.

This article focuses on social mobilisation by victims in societies that are dealing with the legacies of mass human rights violations to better understand how victimisation is collectively shaped and deployed in such post-conflict or post-dictatorial contexts. By looking at how victims organise in function of broader societal demands, the authors aim to widen the one-sided focus on the individual trauma as a precondition of victimhood to include the role of victims as multifaceted political actors. In order to do so, the authors look at three incentives for victim mobilisation in four countries (Peru, Guatemala, Northern-Ireland and Cyprus): expressing concerns about political distrust and an unjust society; meeting the basic needs of victims and their families; and putting women’s rights on the public agenda. The authors argue that a better understanding of victim mobilisation generates insights that can serve the improvement of victim participation in transitional justice processes, as well as enrich debates about citizenship, socio-economic rights and social justice for victims of gross human rights violations.

On July 8, 2009, a monument for ex-Dutchbat soldier Raviv van Renssen was unveiled in Srebrenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. This monument is the focus of this article. What are the symbolic functions of this monument and what role does this commemorative practice play in the perception of the Dutchbat soldiers and the attempts at dialogue between the survivors of Srebrenica and Dutchtbat?

This essay argues that developing a victimological imagination of mass extinctions and our transience is needed to put the current global climate crisis in a different perspective. Today’s climate victim culture seems to revolve more and more around an existential belief in an eternal human existence that is at odds with the possibility that everything will eventually perish (in Latin: ‘omnia cadunt’). A perspective of a meaningful victimological imagination of transience will be unfolded. Also, a geological and evolutionary biological interpretation is given to previous mass extinctions in relation to the transience of former forms of biodiversity and it is explained why this transience imagination matters.

This essay analyses the global rise and various meanings of musealised prisons and torture centres. As sites of memory, they refer to painful, often gruesome episodes from the past. They use the same museum grammar, the roots of which can be traced back to the musealisation of Nazi concentration and extermination camps, in particular Majdanek at the end of the Second World War. Further research shows that despite the similarities in form, the meaning of all these memorial sites may vary widely. In a country like Argentina, these sites of terror are primarily symbols of crimes against humanity and human rights violations, while in the Baltic States and Hungary, among others, they primarily refer to a national victimhood; as theatres of remembrance, they are a source of national identity. The study of such places can give us a lot of insight into the political relations within, but also between countries.

In this essay the author points out that the idealization of the victim has many counterproductive effects. Believing in victimhood and embracing victim status can trigger a dynamic of ‘necessary’ self-defense and legitimization of violence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a striking example of this. Israel sees itself as a victim nation par excellence and has developed a defensive mentality that conjures up threats everywhere. We might ask ourselves how we can shake off the dichotomous image of the good victim and the evil perpetrator. We should resist the temptation to idealize victimhood and reassess the victim’s responsible role in public life.

In this essay the author addresses a number of shortcomings in the conceptualization of secondary victimization. He contends that these stem from a lack of clarity concerning the nature of the injustice in secondary victimization. He argues that the concept of epistemic injustice can fulfil this role, bringing coherence to the concept of secondary victimization as well as a number of additional fruitful avenues for research and reflection.