Indirect Psychology Approach - Research Paper Example

Journal Review Psychology Research Paper 21 October Augoustinos, M. & Every, D. (2007). The language of race andprejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(2), 123-141. The article reviews patterns of reference to others and emphasizes its significance to research on language and discrimination in social psychology in an argumentative way. Most Western countries are witnessing a rebirth of debates around these issues, which provide sources of data for qualitative analysis by researchers to understand the day-by-day reproductions of racial disparities and unfairness. Places of the Study and Results of the Findings The review concentrates on Western nations including the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. It identifies the unrelenting elusive tactics employed by the members to defend their downbeat assessments of minority groups. It also studies similar trends in South Africa. The research exhibits the varying and opposing nature of existing racism discussions by group members to justify present social inequities between groups. The findings of the study show that clear forms of prejudice “old-fashioned racism” and modern “more cunning and secret racism” still exist in present societies. Summary of the Article Areas of Focus and Analysis Techniques The article employs theoretical and methodological methods in the analysis by attempting to join different approaches such as critical dialogue analysis and indirect psychology. Indirect psychology approach involves conversation analysis by focusing primarily on the logical orientation of people’s talk. Critical dialogue analysis involves scrutiny of debate, language and dialogue constituents by extensively analyzing patterns of sense-making practices. These routines shape and furnish our knowledge of the world by focusing on themes. The journal explores discursive “patterns of text and talk on issues dealing with race, multiculturalism, immigration refugees and asylum seekers.” The journal further includes informal and formal institutional talks found in parliamentary debates, political speeches and the media. Talk Patterns in Race, Cultural Diversity and Immigrant Discussions However, the talk patterns about race discussions do not seem to reflect only direct defensive mechanisms in race talks. The patterns provide indirect resources to social actions such as justification and social identity construction by speakers when referring to the other person. The conversations use denial of discrimination by basing one’s views as if reflecting the outside world’s rather than one’s thoughts. The journal, in addition, suggests the following patterns: positive self and negative other appearance, “indirect racialization,” and the use of open-minded opinions for non-open-minded ends. a) Denial of Prejudice Denial of prejudice indicates reference to the minority groups with disclaimers that mean the opposite of the message being put across. Phrases preceding the statements include “I am not racist” and or “I have nothing against blacks.” Their organization is strategic to refute racism and defend the speaker to say what is “unsayable” to denote tolerance of race and cultural differences. b) Basing One’s View to Reflect the Outside World The commonsense notions of prejudice associate it with irrationality, poor reasoning and unexamined views. Therefore, recognition of prejudice portrays one as violating the commonsense belief in the values of reason and rationality, which have increasingly become the areas of concern in free societies. It is important to present individual views as reasonable and logical to appear impartial. Through this method, one can secretly air out chauvinistic ideas without appearing to violate the principles in the values of reason and rationality. Such circumstances are frequent in sensitive democratic societies. An effective way of doing this is to present one’s views as reflecting the external world rather than one’s internal potentially racist ideologies. In justifying their views, speakers assert first hand “factual” claims about minority group actions that are negative, antisocial, or transgressing unlike those of the domineering group. From the journal we draw the example “No, it seems to be my perception, it’s not necessarily they’re racist, it’s more a case of the way they see their money spent and managed and the way it’s being handled that results in comments that could be considered racist” (Augoustinos & Every, 2007, p. 129). c) Positive Self and Negative Other Positive self and negative presentation of others is not only important to protect strategic self-presentations, but also the views of the entire dominant group, which is regular in influential speeches by politicians and other social elites. The speaker uses indirect diverse formulation like civil rights mottos to present themselves as tolerant, friendly and rational, while depicting minorities in marginal ways that are outrageous, abnormal and culturally foreign. Positive self-presentations are also important in defending one’s country from charges of racism by presenting the nation as self-evidently tolerant. The state appears nonracist by positioning discrimination at the fringes in an otherwise pro-racist society. The journal cites an extract from a French politician “The French are not racist. But, facing this continuous increase of the foreign population in France, one has witnessed the development, in certain cities and neighbourhoods of reactions that come close to xenophobia” (Augoustinos & Every, 2007, p. 130). The explanation denies the racism likelihood in France, although the speaker confesses that there is evidence of xenophobia. “Indirect Racialization” “Indirect racialization” is another outstanding attribute in which speakers attempt to conceal their disapproving views on minority groups. The situation involves substitution or omission of racial categories and racial explanations. An example is the use of the phrase, “it’s not necessarily they’re racist” (Augoustinos & Every, 2007, p. 133). In such contexts, expression of derogatory views continues, racial segregation takes over by downplaying function of race in debates, discussions and speeches. d) Open-Minded Opinions for Narrow-Minded ends Lastly, the paper analyses the use of open-minded opinions for non-open-minded ends (liberal arguments for illiberal ends). Conversations do not have to be explicitly racist to create exclusionary effects. The paper involves mobilization for freedom and equality by majority group members in their talk on racial issues and intergroup relations making it hard to label a statement racist when the idea expresses racially unfair practices. Opinion of the Article The journal derives its ideas from interviews with White New Zealand people and an analysis of media, political and historical texts. It identifies most common arguments that majority group members deploy in the justification disparities existence. The article cites examples of biases between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. These common places function as “rhetorically self-reliant” arguments that require little explanation. The author is of the opinion that speakers in their talk defend their views basing on the liberal intellectual traditions principles such as autonomy, impartiality, and individualism. Flexible Kit for Political Dialogues The authors, in their opinion, suggest a flexible implementation kit in “practical politics” for use in conversations. The kit contains the following rules: resource utilization should be in a cost-effective manner; nobody should live under coercion; everybody should treat each other equally, and you cannot turn the clock backwards. The rules further state present generations are free past generation’s mistakes; turning of social injustices into human rights, and everybody can succeed if they try hard enough. In addition, the kit also requires that opinions of the minority should not carry more weight than opinions of the majority; we have to live in the 21st century, and one has to be practical (Augoustinos & Every, 2007). Fairness and Equality The principle that states, “everyone should treat each other equally” is most important in liberal states. However, the liberal view of equality has a very clear meaning stating it as “a form of social equality with no regard to fairness of outcomes regarding material affluence, status, and right to use resources” (Augoustinos & Every, 2007, p. 134). It does not assure every national the right to political equality and contribution in a democratic system. Therefore, in certain ways it actually constrains political efforts at redressing social disadvantages for particular minorities. Equal treatment of everyone is an argument that involves prejudice-idea mobilization in text and talks opposing affirmative action policies that are meant to redress lower representation of minority groups in various sectors. It is important to note the speaker’s use of the omnipresent disclaimer “not because I’m racist or discriminating, but” to argue against such policies thereby undermining the principle of tolerance regardless of merit. Individualism The author of the journal explains use of “individualism” in prejudice language and discussion about racism. The speakers bring into play the self-sufficient argument that “everybody can succeed if they try hard enough.” Basing on this interpretation, this raises an assumption of equality in opportunities without regard to the means in a context that is contrary to the real situation. The circumstance protects individual benefits at the expense of the other amounting to prejudice and unfairness. Lessons from the Journal Consequences of Prejudice, Racism and Discrimination Individuals and families from marginal groups who suffer racist experiences have negative mental health and social outcomes. There is an increase in negative perception of one’s ethnic group by ethnic discriminations through prejudice propagation by adults and peers in dialogues and debates. People who report experiencing the unfairness are less likely to feel that opportunities are equal for anyone willing to work hard. There is a positive association between discrimination stresses with depression resulting in lower achievement and negative outcomes. In schools, for example, there is an association between discrimination, student dropout rates and entry into the prison system. In general, disparities like special education, discipline referrals, low achievement in graduation and dropout rates are clearly linked to minority groups and contribute to large-scale success gaps. In order to support resiliency of the minority class, all environments should incorporate social justice lens. Psychologists should serve as change agents by promoting and encouraging social justice efforts in support of all individuals. The psychologists endorse, advocate, and engage in culturally competent practices for the benefit of people in all society levels. This endorsement is crucial as people with prejudice and racist inclinations towards the marginal class of people do not reflect open dislike, but rather exhibit more avoidant reactions of apprehension, uneasiness, or fear. That is; they not only avoid others, but at the same time find reasons to prejudge to be intolerant or aversive as well. From the article, this is modern racism and chauvinism, which is frequent in dialogues. Racism and its damaging results on people of minority status pose a great responsibility for psychologists who serve as advocates in promoting equity and social justice. We learn that all people should work collaboratively with others at family and community levels. Relevance of the Information to the Future The journal provides information that may be helpful in the future. The information may be useful in developing policies to establish and maintain racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity among citizens. It may also develop educational methods to integrate social fairness at the individual, national and international levels. To integrate social justice at these levels, the information in the journal may be handy in implementing research-based programs that condense racial achievement gaps. The information in the journal is vital in future implementation of strategies from research that moderate the effects of racism, prejudice, and discrimination and result in flexible social interactions. It is also relevant in promoting active citizen and national involvement in positive outcomes. Lastly, information from the journal can assist in improving ongoing appraisal of institutional policies that passively support negative outcomes for certain groups. The information from the article ensures knowledge and professional practices in the future reflect understanding and appreciation for human diversity to promote efficient services, advocacy, and social justice for all persons. The authors insist practices ought to base on frameworks that incorporate the best available research evidence and thorough knowledge of how diversity factors influence development, behaviour, and social tolerance. Learning about the different group representations in the community and the use of knowledge diversity facilitates understanding of how difference aspects of discourse influence behaviour of individuals, communities and the nation as a whole. Engaging in critical reflection lends a hand in identifying one’s biases and ensures that these biases do not negatively affect people of the minority classes. From the article, we learn consultations with families, community members, and others are vital in clearly understanding individual and minority population needs as a whole. Therefore, people can labour to establish positive, productive relationships with colleagues from all backgrounds. The authors’ views encourage people to seek consultations when dealing with unfamiliar situations that otherwise challenge one’s multicultural competence and fair-mindedness to enhance co-existence. Lastly, the authors provide an effective and ongoing professional assessment regarding multicultural competence and self-reflection. Therefore, this assists administrators in evaluating practices in contemporary debates regarding referrals to ascertain any potential disparities in involvement among people from different groups. Eventually, this promotes system changes in suspicion and identification of unfair practices in dialogues. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Journal Strengths The journal’s strength lies in the fact that it analyses the use of racist tone and language that leads to prejudice in the various levels of life including those in power and regular citizens. The journal clearly points out common places of rampant prejudice conversations and racism. The areas are socio-cultural events, political functions and the press. The mechanisms involve use of moral blackmail and national glorification. a) Socio-Cultural and Political Functions and Racism More often racism manifests itself at small levels of social organization that is, in everyday conversation and interpersonal communication. However, the denial of racism not only has individual functions as people deny. It as well serves in moderating, justifying and excusing negative acts towards minorities. Politicians use crafty and devious methods to pass negative messages in their rallies and speeches. The reason behind the secrecy is to emphasize their compliance with the law and to stress their role as competent and respectable citizens especially to the public. The journal clearly uncovers this “self-preservation technique” that more often goes unnoticed. b) Racism and the Press Denial of racism in and by the mass media is the most intense especially when the press itself is the target of accusations. Many of the ethnic events people talk about on a daily basis life are not from personal encounters but the media. Until recently, in many parts of Europe and some regions of North America, many white people had few individual duels with members of minority groups. Arguments in everyday talk are normally about crime or cultural differences they read about in the press. As such, these reports are taken as “testimony” of the negative attitudes the speakers have about minorities. The journal, therefore, unmasks this practice by the press in propagating racist tendencies through discourse. c) Moral Blackmail and Racism The journal also clearly brings out use of blackmail in conversations in propagating racism. The pro-racist individuals not only ignore the truth about multicultural society, they also prevent others from telling the facts hence disseminating racism in debates and dialogues. d) National Glorification and Racism National glorification occurs in situations involving international norms and values like democracy, equal rights and acceptance. Accusations of racism this context brings moral condemnation of the nation as a whole. Although racism is illegal and resented, in partisan debates one party accuses the other surreptitiously of racism in the guise of being a nationalist, for national glorification and national integrity protection purposes. Weaknesses The biggest challenge of the journal is that it does not propose ways to naturalize prejudice and racism in language and debates that is an unavoidable feature of our cognitive human nature. It ignores the fact that survival and the present day societies require cooperation, trust and reconciliation. Therefore, the authors do not give out strategies on how to move beyond the derogatory groupings such as ‘us’ versus ‘them’ to include and diplomatic forms of social identity. Its critical approach primarily deals with white people identities as those that primarily shape institutionalized forms of racism. The scenario brings about the illusion of perceived benefits to the dominant majority because of their positions in society and the responsibilities and does not exhibit cases where the minority groups act in racist ways. In conclusion, conceptualization of racism in social psychology has made racism become norm, which is invisible to the system of social practices, cognitions, feelings and discussions. Racism insinuations in discussions are present in all levels (individual, interpersonal, institutional and international) that give privileges one social group and at the expense of other social groups. These practices are open allegations of biological differences, but in today’s social and political climate, they are not openly spoken of but have negative implications in social interactions increasing the need for urgent solutions. Reference Augoustinos, M. & Every, D. (2007). The language of race and prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(2), 123-141. Read More