Notas de pedidos - copia (mejora). * *

In this section, we consider how different ethnicities are represented. Because minority ethnicities are not generally afforded positions of power in the social hierarchy, it is not surprising that representations of these groups are not positive. Racism consists of ‘the everyday, mundane, negative opinion, attitudes and ideologies and the seemingly subtle acts and condi- tions of discrimination’ (van Dijk 1993: 5). When a group is singled out, it draws boundaries and allocates people to membership in categories they might not themselves have chosen.

Teun van Dijk has worked extensively on racist discourse and defines it as follows: ‘Racist discourse is a form of discriminatory social practice that manifests itself in text, talk and communication’ (2004: 351). Framing this discourse as a ‘social practice’ reminds us that speaking and writing are actions, and that in using racist discourses we are doing something. van Dijk argues that there are two forms of racist discourse: ‘(1) racist discourse directed at ethnically different Others; (2) racist discourse about ethnically different Others’ (2004: 351). One of the most obvious ways that racist discourse manifests is in pejorative words about the other.

van Dijk (2004: 352–3) identifies three further ways that people construct racist discourse about the ‘other’:

a. difference –the ‘other’ is not like ‘us’

b. deviance –the ‘other’ behaves in a way that ‘we’ feel is amoral c. threat the ‘other’ is dangerous.

Example 7.1 from the British press about immigration demonstrates racist discourse (from van Dijk 1999: 103).

Example 7.1

Our traditions of fairness and tolerance are being exploited by every terrorist, crook, screwball and scrounger who wants a free ride at our expense . . . Then there are the criminals who sneak in as political refugees or as family members visiting a distant relative.

At first glance, Example 7.1 looks like an argument about immigration and illegality; however, we can see van Dijk’s three strategies of racist discourse at work here. Difference can be seen with the identification of ‘our tradi- tions’, creating a contrast with ‘them’. Deviance is found in the mention of ‘terrorist’, ‘crooks’ and so on. Further, the particular kinds of deviance identi- fied suggest these figures are a threat to ‘us’ and ‘our traditions’. Note that ethnicity is not explicitly mentioned.

The backgrounding of anything explicitly racist is another common tactic in discourse that it is in fact racist. van Dijk (1993) observes that people go to great lengths to deny that they are racist by presenting themselves positively. A common way of doing this is through an explicit denial: ‘I’m not a racist, but ... ’ followed by a statement about an ethnic group in negative terms (Bonilla-Silva & Forman 2000).

The belief that immigrants are criminals, terrorists or looking for something for nothing seems to always be present in public minds, applied to any group that happens to be moving to a country. Example 7.1 was printed in 1985. Example 7.2 is the first line of a 2013 story about Romanians arriving in the UK following the removal of immigration restrictions.

Example 7.2

The first coachload of Romanian migrants left for the UK yesterday — with some boasting of plans to beg and steal from ‘generous’ Brits.

(Flynn 2013)

Look closely at Example 7.2 and explore the way this extract speaks about the ‘Other’. See if you can identify examples in each of van Dijk’s three topic categories. What do you think the rest of the story reported?

Activity 7.3

7.4.1 Reclaiming terms

Whether or not discourse can be racist depends on context, including who is speaking. For example, a term may be racist when a person from the out-group uses it, but a positive identity marker when used by the group itself. In other words, terms that were originally used to demean a group can be reclaimed for use by the in-group as a positive marker of identity. Although reclamation of negative terms may be relatively unconscious action by a group, it can be considered a form of agency (see Section 6.3). One example of this is the word ‘nigger’, an extremely derogatory word used to refer to African Americans in the US. The term is so inflammatory that US speakers typically use the euphemism ‘the N-word’ in public discourse about

the term (Rahman 2012). When used by African Americans to each other, the term ‘nigger’ can mean a variety of things, however, that are not always pejorative (Croom 2014; Kennedy 1999). Thus, this marginalised group takes charge of the use and meaning of a word that had been used by out-group members to demean them. This process allows a marginalised group to reject the majority group’s portrayal of them.

A similar case of reclamation exists in Australia where ‘wog’ is a term used to refer to migrants (and their children) from Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean generally, including Lebanon and the Middle East. While it was once a derogatory term, it has since been reclaimed and ‘used to claim a common migration experience and background’ (Kiesling 2005: 4). As a marker of identity, ‘wog’ began to be used to positively (by in-group members) affiliate with a particular ethnic identity. This was so much the case, that the group even parodied their own language, their ethnolect, and other cultural behaviours, in productions for television and theatre, such as Wogs out of Work.1

Can you think of other previously pejorative terms that have been reclaimed? You might know some that aren’t connected to ethnic identi- ties, but to some other aspect of identity. Do your colleagues agree that they have been reclaimed? Can everyone use these terms or are they restricted for the use of certain people?

Activity 7.4

7.5 ETHNOLECT