Discourse 2004). Individuals were asked questions about

Discourse analysis can be
described a phenomenon which has its own properties which have an influence on
individuals and their social interaction. The central aspect of discourse
analysis is to emphasize the way in which participants themselves have an at least
implicit understanding that discourse has these properties (McKinlay and McVittie, 2009). Discourse analysis can be taken to refer to both talk and text (spoken
and written utterances).

 

I have read through three extracts
which were taken from the television documentary ‘Keep Them Out’ (Dispatches,
2004). Individuals were asked questions about how they felt about asylum
seekers joining their community and many of the interviewees were not very
happy and were also worried about their own welfare. Reading through all three
extracts, most individuals displayed prejudice through their talk using
numerous discursive strategies. Prejudice is an attitude
(usually negative) towards an individual or group that is based on their
membership of that group.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

There are many theories which try to explain the causes of prejudice
such as Badura’s social learning theory. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory explains how children
imitate behaviors from their parents and caregivers. The social learning theory,
therefore, suggests parents who are directly perform prejudice in front of
their children can influence their children to behaviour in the same way and
share similar thoughts and opinions.

 

Tajfel and Turner (1979)
also attempt to explain the cause of prejudice. They state that individuals ‘invoke
part of their social identity’ whenever they think of themselves as being one
gender/ethnicity/class rather than another. Tajfel and Turner (1979) introduced
the social identity theory where they described a series of group processes to
allow us understand social groups from the position of the individual. The
first process is ‘social categorization’ where we categorize individuals to
identify them. The second process involves ‘social identification’ where individuals
adopt their identity that they have categorized that they belong to. The final
process is ‘social comparison’, during this process individuals compare
themselves to other groups and this can lead to prejudice as competition and
positive self and negative other increases.

 

Experimental social psychology believes prejudice is an attitude which
is usually negative towards an individual or group that is based on their
membership of that group.  Experimental psychology is a branch of
psychology which is concerned with scientific investigation in order to ‘discover
causal and correlated relationships’ which allows researchers to predict and
explain psychological phenomena (Dunn, 2015).      

 

Critical social psychology, however, believes that stigma is a social
action performed in talk. Critical
psychology focuses on the individual rather than the group and larger society.
Critical psychology believes mainstream psychology over emphasizes, ‘individualistic
values, hinders the attainment of mutuality and community, and strengthens
unjust institutions’ (Fox, Prilleltensky and Austin, 2009).

 

In this practical the research
question we produced and tried to answer was, “how do individuals do
prejudice?” which we will be discussing throughout this report.

 

Methodology:

In this practical, I was the researcher conducting an analysis of how
individuals displayed prejudice through their talk. The participants were the
individuals being interviewed on the TV programme ‘Keep Them Out’ (Dispatches,
2004). The individuals discussed how they felt about asylum seekers joining
their community. 

 

I was given a copy of the interview that these participants were
involved in. Whist viewing the TV programme, I was able to witness and identify
various discursive strategies used.

 

Ethics is an important factor in research. When carrying out this sort
of research it is important for a researcher to have respect for an
individuals’ autonomy and dignity. The research conducted should also have a
scientific value and social responsibility. Psychologists should also protect
themselves and their participants from harm e.g. the right to withdraw at any
time (BPS, 2010).

 

Findings:

Prejudice was a common theme displayed throughout all three extracts.
Individuals that were interviewed displayed discursive strategies through their
talk. Potter and Wetherell (1987) claim that patterns in talk around race is
often a set of ‘descriptions, arguments and accounts’ that individuals use in their
race talk to create versions of the world. Also, discursive repertoires such as, ‘positive
self and negative other presentation, grounding one’s views as reflecting the
external world rather than one’s psychology and the denial of prejudice’ were
displayed throughout the extracts.

 

Billig
(1988) believed that prejudging is a combination of ‘irrationality, poor
reasoning and unexamined views. To prejudge individuals is seen to be violating
societal rules in which reason and rationality has become of an increase.
Therefore, it is vital to individuals within society not to appear prejudice
and present their views and opinions as reasonable and rational. Billig (1988)
suggested that a successful way of doing this is for one to express their views
‘reflecting on the external world rather than one’s internal psychology’ and
therefore potentially being racist but is not seen to be prejudging.

 

Extract
one begins with an interviewee describing how their “colonial friends” have
moved into the Oxford Road area of Reading (Dispatches, 2004). The term
‘colonial’ presents a negative view of the outgroup, no names are mentioned of
the individuals whom have moved in and instead a term has been given to label
the group as outsiders. “Colonial” is also an inappropriate explicit
non-prejudice term which also known as political correctedness. The issue
addressed in this extract is housing and the means of mentioning the term
“colonial” displays the interviewee has already a stereotypical view and made assumptions
about this out-group. However, the use of the term “friends” allows the
interviewee to justify their comment and allows their race talk to be seen as
non-prejudice. The term “friends” allows individuals to believe that the
in-group is welcoming and friendly. Van Dijk (1992), claims that this strategy
is commonly used where individuals redefine racism so that their views and
actions are not presented as racist.

 

The
interviewee further explains that these individuals have “took” over the road
(Dispatches, 2004). The verb “took” suggest that this group of individuals have
taken something that does not belong to them suggesting that this group of
minorities have ‘stole’ something which is not theirs. This implies that this
minority group does not conform to societal values and norms where ‘stealing’
is wrong. This presents a discursive strategy known as de-racialization
(presenting negative views of out groups as a concern with more socially acceptable
issues) where the interviewee indirectly identifies this out-group as different
without making reference to their race whilst creating assumptions.

 

Extract
two, the interviewee claims that he has “nothing against” the minority
out-group “not one little bit” (Dispatches, 2004). This ubiquitous disclaimer
(denial of prejudice proceeding a negative representation of an out-group) allows
the interviewee not to be perceived as prejudice or racist.  

 

It is said that one of the
extensive features of race discourse is the denial of prejudice. Pervasive disclaimers
such as “I’m not racist but …” are preceded regularly and often have a
negative representation and evaluation on minorities. Race talk, therefore to
this present day is said to be deliberately organised to deny racism.
Individuals have changed the way in which their language/talk is worded to
prevent being seen as ‘racist’ or possible charges of prejudice. Individuals
whom desire to express negative views against out-groups in this historical
climate ‘take care to present these views as justified, warranted, and rational’
(van Dijk, 1992).

Extract three, the interviewee mentions that
the minorities whom have moved in “haven’t got any jobs to do so presumably
they would just be in gangs talking amongst themselves, probably smoking”
(Dispatches, 2004). Positive self and negative other presentation is identified
here. The interviewee has already a stereotypical view on this out-group
believing that they have no jobs and are up to no good whilst indirectly
implying that they are more useful to society by having jobs and not doing
anything which is out the norms of society, Membership category features (descriptive
traits which are inferentially linked to a category) is a discursive strategy
that can be identified here, the interviewee is stating that all members in
this out-group are jobless and deviant.

Positive self and negative other presentation is another
key feature of race talk displayed in the extracts. Individuals can be
perceived as prejudicial using an ‘us and them distinction’ where individuals
in the in-group present themselves as favorable when compared to an out-group.
Individuals within the in-group will present themselves in a positive light and
being different and better than those in the out-groups. This discursive
strategy can work as a denial of prejudice as individuals are not directly
prejudging individuals, however, individuals can be perceived to indirectly
construct negative assumptions about an out-group whilst protecting the speaker
from charges on racism and prejudice. 

Van Dijk
(1992) also argues that positive self-presentation also protects the dominant
in-groups. Discursive strategies such as ‘civil rights slogans and nationalist
rhetoric’ are often used by the elites to present themselves as amicable,
friendly, and rational, while characterizing the minorities as problematic. The
elite also criminalized the minorities portraying them as deviant and
troublesome.

Van Dijk
(1992) also claims that individuals to validate
their views, often ‘appeal to observable and thus purported “factual” claims
about minority out-group behaviour’ that is exemplified as negative,
antisocial, or disobeying the in-group’s social norms.

 

Discussion:

To summarize, holding prejudicial views can make an individual look
irrational and unreasonable and therefore is something that should be avoided. It has also been shown that individuals
use numerous strategies to avoid appearing prejudice. However, by using these
strategies, individuals are still able to make claims that may function to
serve prejudice.  

 

The research question for this practical was, ‘how do people do
prejudice?’. Discursive strategies such as, positive self and negative other
presentation, denial of prejudice, the grounding of views reflecting the
external world and discursive de-radicalization are all ways in which
individuals do prejudice.

Direct forms of prejudice, is frequently referred
to as “old-fashioned racism,” which has recently been replaced with a subtler and covert change known as
“modern” (McConahay, 1986), “symbolic”.  Although,
this ‘modern’ and ‘new racism’ is said to subtle and covert (Barker, 1981),
many critics have argued that what is declared to be modern and symbolic alternatives
of racism is not racism at all but ‘rather political and ideological
conservatism (Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986).

Bandura’s
(1977) social learning theory and Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity
theory (as mentioned above) have allowed us to understand why individuals and
groups do prejudice. The social identity theory allows us to gain a better
understanding on why individuals favor the in-group and perceive those in the
out-group as non-favorable and outsiders.

Condor (2006) argues
that discursive psychologists pay too much attention on how individuals avoid being
accused of prejudice. He believes that discursive psychologists fail to
understand what individuals understand from the term ‘prejudice’ and therefore
what they may be trying to
distance themselves from.

Foggou and Condor (2006) have also
faulted the discursive understanding of the term ‘prejudice’ in relation to
which researchers use the term ‘prejudice’ and ‘racist’ in the same context
without taking into consideration that they are two different concepts. Therefore,
individuals can be prejudice without being racist and vice versa.

Despite the critiques on the what is
understood by the term ‘prejudice’. Discourse analysis allows researchers to
look at ‘real data’ (Brain, 2000). When carrying out this practical we viewed a
real conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee and therefore made
our method valid. Another advantage of discourse analysis is that it tends to
use a small number of participants which makes it easier for the researcher to
conduct.

However, a disadvantage of discourse
analysis is that any analysis, even of the same material is most likely going
to be different and therefore the method of discourse analysis is not valid.
Discourse analysis is also said to be subjective as the discourse between the
researcher and participant can be linked to what is studied and therefore bias
(Brain, 2000). Also, using a small number of participants can be easier for the
researcher, however, it does not allow the results to be generalizable. Discourse
analysis can also be extremely time consuming.

When conducting this practical, there
was other students that viewed the same video clip and analyzed the same
extracts. One of the limitations, included that we all had different analysis
of the texts. Although we agreed on some of our analysis, we had different
views about if an individual was being prejudice or not.

To conduct, this report has
outline an overview of the various discursive patterns of formal and informal
talk about race.