http://jls.sagepub.com/Psychology [Open] [Cite (Author, Date)] [Cite Author (Dat e)] 2007 Administrator ?

? Page 3: [Open] [*Highlights*] and Australia (Augoustinos, Tuffin, & Every, 2005; Augoustinos, Tuffin, & Rapley , 1999; Le Couteur, Rapley, & Augoustinos, 2001; O Doherty, 2001; Rapley, 1998, 20 01) have identified pervasive discursive repertoires and rhetorical devices that are combined flexibly by majority group members to justify negative evaluations of minority out-groups. Collectively, this research has demonstrated the flexib le, contradictory, and ambivalent nature of contemporary race discourse, organis ed by common and recurring tropes used by majority group members to justify and rationalise existing social inequities between groups. This article reviews some of these discursive patterns or ways of talking about the other and concludes by em phasising the significant contribution this work has made to research on languag e and discrimination within social psychology. Before embarking on this review, however, it is important to emphasise at the outset that there are heated debate s within the academic literature and within Western ? Page 3: [Open] [Edit] Race(ist) talk that is specific to twitter - "twitter race talk" - certain ways of talking via use of (multiple) hashtags however, it is important to emphasise at the outwithin the academic literature a nd within Western racist. Indeed, critics have argued that what is ? Page 3: [Open] [*Highlights*] rather political and ideological conservatism (Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986). Indee d, a common strategy for speakers is to redefine racism so that one s own (or othe rs ) views or actions are presented as not racist (van Dijk, 1992). As we will see below, the denial of racism and prejudice is so ubiquitous that this denial its elf is sometimes treated by analysts as evidence of the existence of underlying prejudice in the speaker. Indeed, precisely how to analyse racial discourse, whi ch is often ambiguous and contradictory, has been at the forefront of recent deb ates in this literature (van den Berg, HoutcoupSteenstra, & Wetherell, 2003). Ta king a lead from the methodological principles of conversation analysis, Edwards (2003) has argued that analysts should refrain from imposing their own categori es of judgment as to what counts as racist but instead ? Page 4: [Open] [*Highlights*] examine whether speakers themselves treat the talk as such and analyse how it is managed and attended to in social interaction. Given the multiple and shifting meanings of racism that are argued over and debated both by researchers and ever yday members, we attempt in this article to refrain from labelling any discourse or stretch of talk as racist or prejudiced per se, as if racism were something that could be readily diagnosed by us as analysts. Rather, what we seek to do is to overview recurring and pervasive patterns of talk that have been identified across a number of studies that nonetheless negatively position minority out-gro ups and rationalise their continued marginalisation and/or exclusion from mainst ream society. Our theoretical and methodological approach to the analysis of dis course is one that attempts to bring together what have sometimes been positione d as antithetical approaches: critical discourse analysis, which sees language a

nd discourse as constituted by broad patterns of sense-making practices that sha pe and furnish our understandings of the world (Wetherell, 1998), and discursive psychology, which has been informed by ethnomethodology and conversation analys is and focuses primarily on the local pragmatics and action orientation of peopl e s talk (Edwards & Potter, 1992). This synthetic approach,as it has been described b y Wetherell and Edley (1999; Wetherell, 1998),emphasises that people s talk is sha ped both by broader social and cultural repertoires of understanding and by the practical and local concerns of social interaction. Indeed, the patterns of talk around race which we discuss below can be seen to reflect not only interpretati ve repertoires, that is, a set of descriptions, arguments, and accounts that are recurrently used in people s race talk to construct versions of the world (Potter & Wetherell, 1987), but also discursive resources that perform social actions s uch as blaming, justifying, rationalising, and constructing particular social id entities for speakers and those who are positioned as other. These discursive re pertoires include the following: (a) the denial of prejudice, (b) grounding one s views as reflecting the external world rather than one s psychology, (c) positive self and negative other presentation, (d) discursive deracialisation, and (e) th e use of liberal arguments for illiberal ends. Again, we would like to reiterate t hat we are not arguing that the examples we provide below are instances of racis t discourse per se (although, in some cases, it would be difficult arguing other wise).1 1Rather, what we Augoustinos, Every / Language of Race and Prejudice 125 ? Page 4: [Open] [Edit] critical discoure analysis and local twitter space - collapse this distinction via assemblage theory (use Guattarian semiotics? see G. Langlois) furnish our underwhich has been primarily on the Potter, 1992). This (1999; Weth erell, and cultural repersocial interaction. below can be seen to ? Page 4: [Open] [*Highlights*] eschews the explicit expression of such sentiments. The Denial of Prejudice As v an Dijk (1992) has clearly documented, one of the pervasive features of contempo rary race discourse is the denial of prejudice. Negative representations and ? Page 5: [Open] [*Highlights*] evaluations of minorities are commonly preceded by ubiquitous disclaimers such a s I m not racist but . . . or I have nothing against migrants but. . . . Contemporary race talk, therefore, is strategically organised to deny racism. Researchers hav e demonstrated how people orient to the increasing social norms against prejudic e by framing their talk in such a way as to inoculate themselves from possible c harges of prejudice. Those who wish to express negative views against out-groups in this historical climate take care to construct these views as justified, war ranted, and rational. Such denials not only attend to the positive self-presenta tion of the speaker (see below) but also allow what otherwise would be unsayable t o be said. van Dijk (1992) gives the following example from an interview with a Dutch woman: Extract 1 126 Journal of Language and Social Psychology ? Page 5: [Open] [Edit] footnote unique use of #notracist hashtag, cf. much more frequent phrase "not ra cist" as used in twitter and other social media. Use o f#notractist is direct(?) and inclusion of multiple #s ? Page 5: [Open] [*Highlights*]

by boundaries of social acceptance established by majority group members who pos ition themselves as entitled to police out-group behaviour. Although most empiri cal research on the denial and mitigation of prejudice has examined the ways in which individuals self-monitor and manage their talk, more recently Condor, Figg ou,Abell, Gibson, and Stevenson (2006) have emphasised how prejudice denials can also be accomplished collaboratively in social interaction. Condor et al. prese nt the following example of an elderly couple, in which Hilda defends her husban d Jack from potential charges of xenophobia. ? Page 5: [Open] [*Highlights*] not to ask, why are they all coming here? (p. 452) Note how in this example the denial of prejudice is preceded with an apology to the interviewer ( I m sorry about that ), which not only recognises the increasing opprobrium against the explicit expression of such views but also attends to the possible offence that Jack s rema rks may cause. Jack and Hilda collaboratively work up ? Page 5: [Open] [Edit] Note other #s, such as #apology type ? Page 6: [Open] [*Highlights*] implication, as irrational. Grounding One s Views as Reflecting the External World : Reason and Rationality Indeed, as Billig (1991; Billig et al., 1988) points ou t, the commonsense notion of prejudice to prejudge has become associated with irrati onality, poor reasoning, and unexamined views. As such, prejudice is recognised as violating a commonsense belief in the values of reason and rationality, which have increasingly become the very underpinnings of democratic societies. To app ear not prejudiced, it is important to present one s views as reasonable, rational , and thoughtfully arrived at. An effective way of doing this is to present one s views as reflecting the external world rather than one s internal (and therefore p otentially racist) psychology. In the previous extract, we demonstrated how Jack was able to accomplish this by suggesting that his views were arrived at on the basis of asking reasonable questions about refugees. To justify their views, sp eakers often appeal to observable and thus purported factual claims about minority out-group behaviour that is represented as negative, antisocial, or transgressi ng the dominant group s social norms. These factual claims often take the form of storytelling, which presents firsthand personal experiences of undesirable out-g roup behaviour (van Dijk, 1992). ? Page 6: [Open] [*Highlights*] tual claims often take the form of storytelling, which presents firsthand person al experiences of undesirable out-group behaviour (van Dijk, 1992). Verkuyten (1 998), for example, found that participants in his focus groups argued that they themselves were not responsible for their negative views of foreigners. Rather, their negative views were presented as the natural and inevitable outcome of liv ing with foreigners. In such accounts, minority out-groups were constructed as h aving only themselves to blame for their negative portrayal. This type of strate gy is useful for establishing oneself as reasonable and rational. The following example ? Page 7: [Open] [*Highlights*]

account further by the use of a consensus warrant, Its not just me who says so, o ther people say so too, which receives shared agreement and corroboration from Tr ees. As Edwards and Potter (1992) have noted, the use of rhetorical devices, suc h as the provision of vivid description, the use of reported speech, and the inv oking of consensus warrants, is a discursive tool that helps build the facticity of an account or version of an event, grounding that account in the external wo rld rather than in the psychology or mind of the speaker (Edwards, 2003). Likewi se, Reeves (1983), van der Valk (2000), and Jones (2000) have identified a patte rn of talk that attributes racism and the rise of extremism to immigration and ? Page 7: [Open] [*Highlights*] within the new racism that the coexistence of different cultural groups is not w ithin human nature and therefore unnatural (Barker, 1981). Presenting negative vie ws of out-groups as a concern with more socially acceptable issues, such as econ omic parity, is also an effective way of externalising one s views and presenting them as justified and warranted. Augoustinos et al. (1999) found that participan ts rationalised negative or what may be heard to be racist comments about Indige nous Australians in terms of justifiable anger over perceived ? Page 8: [Open] [*Highlights*] et al., 1999, p. 367) Positive Self and Negative Other Presentation Prejudice de nials may attend not only to strategic self-presentation but also to protecting the dominant in-group as a whole (van Dijk, 1992). In elite discourse, particula rly that of politicians, a general pattern of positive self-presentation and neg ative other presentation has been identified (van Dijk, 1993). In this pattern, elites use a variety of discursive formulations such as civil rights slogans, na tionalist rhetoric, and populism to present themselves as tolerant, hospitable, and rational, whereas ? Page 8: [Open] [Edit] Not present in #notracist dataset? this pattern, elites use slogans, nationalist rhetoric, and rational, whereas ma rginalise them: as crimi ? Page 10: [Open] [*Highlights*] in Lynn & Lea, 2003, p. 433). This discursive device of differentiating between a genuine and bogus other is useful in bringing off a criticism while simultaneo usly appearing reasonable and sympathetic toward asylum seekers. van Dijk (1997) s uggests that the notion of bogus refugees (also identified by him as a key politic al strategy in his research of parliamentary debates in Britain, the Netherlands , and the United States) arose in 1985 ? Page 12: [Open] [*Highlights*] Discursive Deracialisation A very notable feature in some of the extracts, which we have yet to examine in detail, is the way in which speakers attempt to derac ialise negative representations Augoustinos, Every / Language of Race and Prejud ice 133 ? Page 12: [Open] [*Highlights*]

A very notable feature in some of the extracts, which we have yet to examine in detail, is the way in which speakers attempt to deracialise negative representat ions of minority out-groups. Reeves (1983) has referred to this phenomenon as th e deracialisation of discourse, in which racial categories are attenuated, elimi nated, or substituted and racial explanations are omitted or de-emphasised. For example, in Extract 4, the speaker S justifies other people s negative perceptions of Indigenous people by suggesting that such representations may appear to be r acist, but they are ? Page 12: [Open] [*Highlights*] people by suggesting that such representations may appear to be racist, but they are really about economic parity (e.g., it s not necessarily they re racist, it s more a case of the way they see their money spent and managed. ). In such accounts, ne gative views continue to be expressed, and the institutionalisation of racial ex clusion continues, but this is accomplished by downplaying race as an explanator y construct. In particular, it has been noted that the category of nation is inc reasingly taking over from race in legitimating oppressive practices toward mino rity groups and, indeed, as ? Page 13: [Open] [*Highlights*] imperative to collectively identify at the level of the nation state. Liberal Ar guments for Illiberal Ends As Wetherell and Potter (1992) have argued, discourse does not have to be explicitly racist to create circumstances that have discrim inatory, exclusionary, and oppressive effects. In fact, discursive practices tha t remove overt signs of racism in favour of explanations that maintain, for exam ple, roots in egalitarian discourse possess distinct advantages over classic bio logical and overt racist discourse. In particular, it is extremely difficult to pin down. To label a statement or action racist is problematic when the express purpose of that discourse is to justify discriminatory practices nonracially. In this final section, we examine the mobilisation of classic liberal tropes of fr eedom, individualism, equality, and progress by majority group members in their talk on racial issues and intergroup relations. ? Page 13: [Open] [*Highlights*] ical, and historical texts, Wetherell and Potter (1992) identified 10 commonplac e arguments that were typically deployed by majority group members to justify ex isting inequalities between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. These commonplaces functioned as rhetorically self-sufficient arguments that required little elaborat ion or explanation. Based on the liberal intellectual tradition, principles such as freedom, equality, and individualism were recurrently drawn on by speakers i n their talk to account for and rationalise their views. The following taken-for -granted arguments ? Page 16: [Open] [*Highlights*] Conclusion In this article, we have presented an overview of discursive patterns of formal and informal talk about race, ethnicity, and immigration that have be en identified across a number of studies as having become increasingly pervasive in Western liberal democracies. Whether or not such talk is racist in and of it self is a moot point, but what is clear is that such discourse nonetheless funct ions to negatively position minority out-groups and to rationalise their continu ed marginalisation and/or exclusion from mainstream society. In the extracts abo

ve, minorities were referred to variously as low-life (Extract 2), as being respon sible for the aggressiveness of majority group members ( Yeah, they really make yo u aggressive ; Extract 3), as ? Page 17: [Open] [*Highlights*] these extracts, the Indigenous minority in Australia was constructed as receivin g more than their fair share and, as a consequence, disadvantaging the non-Indig enous majority. van Dijk (1992) notes that this is a common reversal move in con temporary race talk in which majority group members represent themselves as the victims of discrimination and political correctness. The most significant contribu tion that discursive work has made to the field of language and discrimination, and social psychology in general, is that it has been able to explicate the prec ise manner by which people articulate a complex set of positions that blend egal itarian views with discriminatory ones. The detailed analysis of discourse, as i t is used in naturalistic settings such as that found in everyday conversation a nd formal institutional talk, has been able to demonstrate how exist ? Page 17: [Open] [*Highlights*] quantitative surveys and questionnaires that purportedly measure underlying and enduring levels of prejudice and racism. In contrast, discursive research has de monstrated how attitudes about race and ethnicity and cultural difference are rh etorically and flexibly organised when they are produced in their more natural c ontext of everyday discourse. It is through everyday language practices, in both formal and informal talk, that relations of power, dominance, and exploitation become reproduced and legitimated. The analytic site for discursive psychology i s how discursive resources and rhetorical arguments are put together to function in this way and to construct versions and accounts of intergroup relations that have discriminatory