Ulster University Logo

Accountable preferences? Discourse, identity and the anti-prejudice norm

Stapleton, Karyn (2016) Accountable preferences? Discourse, identity and the anti-prejudice norm. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35 (4). pp. 491-514. [Journal article]

Full text not available from this repository.

URL: http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/5/491.pdf?ijkey=535TlKuytxAFwKV&keytype=finite

DOI: 10.1177/0261927X15615635

Abstract

There is, today, a powerful social norm against the expression of prejudice. Hence, as shown in many discursive studies, speakers treat prejudice as an accountable matter and use various strategies (e.g., disclaimers, mitigation, denials, and reformulations) to avoid being seen as personally prejudiced. Analysts have identified this practice as a “new” form of discriminatory discourse, which allows expression of prejudice without negative identity repercussions. Relevant studies are generally undertaken from a critical perspective and focus on structural inequalities (particularly race and gender). However, speakers may also demonstrate sensitivity around unexpected issues which lack overt prejudice connotations. This article examines one such example of unexpected sensitivity to the anti-prejudice norm. It analyses how five young female academics problematise and resolve their preference for an “intelligent” romantic partner. Their preference is uncontroversial in relationship terms, but here, in the academic context, it is clearly treated as accountable and as possibly inviting negative attributions. The data show functional and lexical features of “new” discriminatory discourse. The speakers orient towards attributions of intellectual elitism and use various means to deflect these, while ultimately upholding their stated preference for an intelligent partner. The analysis demonstrates how the anti-prejudice norm extends across settings/topics and how accountability is occasioned and context specific. This has implications for how prejudice itself, as a discursive construct, may be identified and evidenced. Specifically, it might be argued that analysts only have empirical access to accountability (occasioned in specific contexts), rather than to exclusionary or prejudiced ideologies per se.

Item Type:Journal article
Keywords:discourse, identity, prejudice, accountability, anti-prejudice norm
Faculties and Schools:Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Communication
Faculty of Social Sciences
Research Institutes and Groups:Institute for Research in Social Sciences > Linguistics
Institute for Research in Social Sciences
ID Code:35771
Deposited By: Dr Karyn Stapleton
Deposited On:06 Sep 2016 13:51
Last Modified:06 Sep 2016 13:51

Repository Staff Only: item control page