Definitions and hierarchy of victimhood

It seems pertinent to begin any discussion on victimhood by trying to define the term and address the issues of hierarchies of victimhood.

A very broad and inclusive definition would include all those affected by the Troubles -- either physically, psychologically, or economically. It may be accurate to say that anyone living in Northern Ireland during the Troubles has been affected by the conflict. However, as Marie Smyth points out, "we cannot all say we are victims, because to do so implies that we have all had equally difficult experiences" (Smyth, 1998, p. 34). Therefore, we must try to limit the definition somehow.

Unfortunately, this has been done quite radically in Northern Irish politics and society. Many, including the government, have limited the definition of "victim" to include only "innocent" or "legitimate" victims. This problem was highlighted in the former Victims' Commissioner's report "We Will Remember Them" (Bloomfield, 1998), leading some "victims" and "survivors" to feel excluded from government-funded support schemes. However, more recently the Consultative Group on the Past, and the new Commission of Victims and Survivors, along with many other civil society organizations, have tried to define the term "victim" in a way that is more encompassing, and does not exclude individuals who may be perceived by some as "illegitimate" victims.

This begs the question, in terms of my research, how should I define the terms "victim" and "survivor"? Should I adopt a broad and inclusive definition, or should I try to limit it somehow? I could never reduce the definition to exclude certain individuals who may be deemed "illegitimate" by some, because to do so would deny their grief and their opportunity for healing. On the other hand, if a definition is too broad, it risks adding insult to injury for those who have suffered as a result of the conflict, and trivializes their pain. Thus, I will invite any responses regarding the issues presented in this post.