Notes on: van Dijk, T.
(1992) Discourse and the denial of racism.Discourse
and Society 3(1) 87--118
Dave Harris
There are lots of common disclaimers, discursive
strategies, with cognitive and social function. He
was involved in an interdisciplinary program at
the University of Amsterdam, and there are several
projects. Prejudice is acquired and shared among
Whites 'through everyday conversation and
institutional text and talk' (87). Discourse
analytic approaches ought to be able to
reconstruct cognitions about other groups and
their societal, political and cultural functions,
the way they signal group membership, allegiances
and at the most general the 'conditions for the
reproduction of the White group and their
dominance' (88).
The work requires an explicit theory of discourse
involving 'mental representations such as models,
attitudes and ideologies' about ethnic groups, a
psychology of social cognitions, and a study of
the functions of discourse in-groups, located in a
broader perspective of social cultural series of
racism. The proposal is that the reproduction of
racism operates first at the micro level of
everyday interactions, but that this micro level
implements overall structures and processes of
dominance and inequality at meso and macro levels,
'groups, social formations, neighbourhoods,
institutions, organisations and even nations and
whole world regions'. There is an interdependency
between cognition and action, mental models and
practices at the micro level, social attitudes and
ideologies and social structures at the macro
level. Political media, academic and other elites
play an important role because they have access to
public discourse and a large stake in maintaining
White dominance. There is a continuous interplay
between elite and popular forms, but on the whole
elites '"preformulate" ethnic beliefs which become
popular, especially with modern everyday or new
forms cultural racism. Some elite groups also
oppose and promote antiracist ideologies.
Earlier work looked at topics of discourse, 'text
schemata… storytelling and argumentation… local
semantic movements (such as the disclaimer)…
style, rhetoric and specific properties of
conversational interaction' (89). The work
suggested that many White people pursue 'a double
strategy of positive self presentation while
expressing various forms of 'negative other
presentation' on the other, and the two are
combined especially in public discourse.
Denial is a common strategy of in-group positive
presentation since norms and values and the law
prevent blatant forms of discrimination. Denials
are more common within all racist discourse,
suggesting that users are well aware that they may
be infringing social norms or laws. Denials are
both individual and social, designed to deny
individuals are racists, and defending the
in-group as a whole. The first type is more common
in individual everyday conversation, the second in
public discourse. The social forms are more
influential and damaging and they help form 'the
dominant White consensus', especially because few
White members would 'have reason or interest to
doubt, let alone to oppose such a claim'.
Keeping face and presenting positively are well
known techniques of impression management [and
Goffman is one of the sources]. They involve
mental schemata with categories by which people
are judged according to several 'social norms,
interests or criteria'(90). Judgements may be
local or situational, or more permanent and
context independent, sometimes seen as
'"personality" characteristics'. It is those that
people are most concerned about, and being
categorised as a racist is seen as one of these
more enduring characteristics and therefore it is
'particularly face threatening'. Denial often
tries to block inferences from particular
instances to more general judgements, since the
first kind might be more justifiable.
Alternatively, negative attitudes that apply to
specific characteristics are more acceptable, such
as the illegal entry of refugees, and thus racism
is more deniable. There can be inverted racism
where accusers are seen as exaggerated, intolerant
or inventing problems, serious social infractions
themselves because they also affect in-group
solidarity, ruin the atmosphere, prevent free
speech or sincere expressions.
There can be situational or general denials,
personal or group based ones, and sometimes they
might be intentional. Usually denials are complementary,
so individuals claim they comply with general
group norms. However sometimes individuals might
acknowledge that they differ from groups, but
these are 'rare' because they might give too much
ground to anti-racists. They can have a strategic
function, however involving a 'transfer move'— I
have nothing against Black people but my customers
have.
Denials are usually defensive, which presupposes
explicit accusation, sometimes that they've broken
the law or that they have some negative
personality characteristic. Denials can also be
pre-emptive as in positive self presentation.
Action can be a combination of cognition,
intention and activity, and one may admit to being
engaged in action that has been interpreted as
negative but deny the negative cognitive
counterparts. This places responsibility for
negative action on intentions. Good intentions
mean good attitudes. This is a distinction found
in much criminal law as well, and here we find
excuses for accidents or emotionally defined or
non-planned actions, especially in spontaneous
interaction. These are 'intentional denials' and
are 'strategically very effective' since negative
intentions are hard to prove, as we can see in
discrimination trials — newspapers claim to
publish in the public interest and so on
[reporting minority crime prominantly is seen seen
as 'among the most classical cases of media
racism' (92)].
However people are usually assumed to have control
over their activities and to be responsible for
consequences of them. This sometimes means that
they should have realised these consequences,
despite their intentions. This produces four types
of denial: 'act denial; control denial; intention
denial; goal denial'. This may be extended, for
example by claiming that if there are negative
consequences, one does not have control over them,
as when the media claim that the audience is
beyond their control. Again there are difficulties
legally here, unless acts are repeated in
different situations or tacit expressions of
intentions or goals were revealed. There might
also be statistical calculations of consequences,
sometimes regardless of intentions in law cases.
There can be mitigations, including 'downtoning,
minimising or using euphemisms'. These might be
particularly important where norms are stringent
[so the actual offence is clear?]. Sometimes the
very notion of racism can become 'virtually taboo
in accusatory contexts because of its strong
negative connotations' (93), and may only be used
in public enclosed in quotes, or accompanied by
some markers of doubtful distance such as'
alleged'. Sometimes this can imply that the charge
is unwarranted or preposterous, made by minorities
or other anti-racists. Where racism is undeniable,
other terms tend to be used such as discrimination
or stereotyping, or bias [media examples?]. Terms
like racism tend to be reserved for extremist
right wing groups outside the consensus, or
episodes in the past, or by minority groups and
anti-racists. Euphemisms can therefore presuppose
denial especially of systemic racism and this is
'also the case in much scholarly discourse about
ethnic relations'.
This is partly because the concept of racism is
still largely understood in classical terms,
standing on the inferiority of other groups or the
official overt practices and institutions, as in
aparthedi. There are more modern and indirect
forms, based on cultural difference,
incompatibility. This can be seen as xenophobia,
even as 'legitimate cultural self defence'.
Along with denial there are similar strategies
such as 'justification' where a newspaper
justifies its readers right to know, or people can
justify a negative act directed to an ethnic
minority by saying it is legitimate defence, that
the other person was really guilty. [Compare with
techniques of neutralisation]. Negative acts may
be excused, seen as the result of special
circumstances, [such as overcrowding]. There may
be please of 'provocation and blaming the victim'
(94) as when the police justify their actions
against people who have failed to learn the
language, do not seek jobs, pursue deviance, have
other negative characteristics.
The strongest form is reversal, found among the
radical right although there are also moderate
forms of 'anti-– anti-– racism'. Anti-racists are
intolerant busybodies and racist themselves,
anti-British. This is a 'strategy of (counter)
attack'.
These are strategies that individuals use to
preserve their role as 'competent and decent
citizens', but this depends on racism being seen
as something immoral. If the elites advocate or
condone racism, there is less need to denial. Now
they do not do this, so they share strategies of
denial, sometimes in the form of 'a consensus
about the ethnic situation' (95), an assertion
that there is an official belief that
discrimination and racism no longer exist, so any
episodes that do are mere deviations —
'institutional or systemic racism is denied'.
So public discourse is also concerned with self
presentation face keeping, especially universities
who brag they are equal opportunity employers as
'good PR'. Tolerance and affirmative action are
'symbols of social progress and modernity'
[examples of convergence then?]. However some
forms may conflict, as with positive quotas or
other forms of affirmative action. There may be
other functions of denial, to mitigate the effects
of inconsistencies [with actual equal
opportunity?].
The denial of racism has a role in reproducing it
and overcoming resistance (96). Tolerance can be
promoted as a national myth which makes it
difficult to mount a challenge without appearing
to be oversensitive and inflexible. Refusing to
acknowledge that there is a serious problem, or
explaining incidents away as nothing to do with
racism, as with high unemployment, manages the
problem. Overall the ideology 'skilfully combines
humanitarian values and self interest' (96).
Racists are out-groups of extremists and this
helps ingroup solidarity. The management of
everyday racism by other means is probably no
longer possible [maybe].
There may be other cultural functions, seeing the
denial of racism as a feature of Western culture
like democracy or technology, or Christianity, a
claim to superiority when compared with, say,
Muslim fundamentalism. A case study would be the
Rushdie affair, where Western values were claimed
to be universal and to stress tolerance. World
politics can draw on the same themes as in the
Gulf war. Or the denial of neocolonialism in
favour of international aid. It can all be seen as
'a strategy in the reproduction of hegemony'.
At the level of everyday conversation, crucial
kinds of social interaction go on including
information processing, and minority groups in
ethnic relations are a major topic. It is mostly
how White people learn about minorities and
immigrants. They have pursued extensive analytic
research into everyday talk about ethnic affairs
and it has 'rather consistent properties' (98).
There is a small
range of subjects focused on differences, deviance
and competition, often referring to threats to
the dominant White group.
Storytelling is based around
arguments, personal experience often of a
negative kind, unusual occurrences that we are
not used to and that the government should do
something about
'Style, rhetoric and
conversational interaction generally denote
critical distance, if not negative attitudes',
although this is mitigated with strangers, and
strong aggression is avoided
Speakers follow 'a double
strategy of positive self presentation and
negative other presentation'.
There are frequent disclaimers
such as a denial that I have anything against
foreigners. These are often not supported by
evidence, and so they appear as a face keeping
move and often introduce a negative assertion
following 'the invariable but'. Differences are
constrained, so that people can appear to follow
the normal tolerance although others can be
rejected 'when they "go too far"' (99). Sometimes
speakers are more aware of discrimination and
racism and are more explicit about possible
influences, saying they are aware that they might
sound prejudiced — but this implies that they are
not really prejudiced. One form is the denial of
discrimination, sometimes accompanied by reversal
— minorities say they are exploited or
discriminated against. [Some examples contain
stuttering]. [The topics that induced these
examples are all 'threats or lies by immigrants… A
murder… Cheating on welfare… A radio programme
reporting discrimination… Neighbourhood services'.
Poor Whites are victims of inadequate policies but
'instead of blaming the authorities or the
politicians, they tend to blame the newcomers'.
There is a close association with a general
deterioration of life in the city. [Some old
British stuff cited here]
There is not a universal consensus. Sometimes
there are comparisons with native youths, 'or
young people', and recognition that immigrants can
be victims of discrimination. 'Such talk, however,
is rather exceptional' (100) [NB N equals 170].
The media has an important role especially if
people have few face-to-face dealings with
minority groups. They tend to confirm 'common
sense interpretations' about crime, cultural
difference, violence and social welfare. Overall
minorities and immigrants are seen as problems
[even citing Hartman and Husband here]. The more
liberal press also refer to problems parts ask
liberals to do something about them. Other issues
are routinely ignored such as contribution to the
economy, indigenous culture, most of the topics
that affect the everyday lives of minorities. This
is itself a form of denial. Minorities and their
institutions have little to say, mostly because
there are virtually no minority journalists, even
with ethnic events. There is also the idea of
balance and neutrality, which, ironically, permits
'unwarranted or even ridiculous accusations'
(101).
There are 'virtually no explicitly antiracist
newspapers', although officially, all are against
racism — serious accusations of racism must
therefore be 'a figment of the imagination'.
Newsworthy incidents include violence and
extremism rather than attitudes. Racism is still
seen as an ideology of White supremacy, with
antiracists as 'a radical "loony" group'. The real
enemies are anti-racists who are intolerant
busybodies see racism everywhere, attacking
venerable institutions.
Examples from the British press are revealing when
the press is itself accused, for example by
researchers: they have denied this research as
unproven and a caricature, for example without
further argument. Academic credentials or the
University are attacked. Even moderate criticism
is repelled. There is sometimes the token
employment of a few minority journalists.
Specific strategies include an alternative version
of truth, combined with positive self presentation
[and several examples from the British press are
included, mostly just assertions about the British
and how tolerant they are, including how well they
have absorbed Irish and Jewish immigrants].
Tolerance is seen as a weakness which might give
an advantage to terrorists or other criminals.
Affirmative action and liberal immigration is
'reverse discrimination… Self-destruction' (103).
Excessive toleration is what needs to be opposed.
This is combined with attacks against those
holding different views, upholding those
spectacular examples of people convicted of racism
as the victims of equality legislation, for
example, persecuted by anti-racists. This is based
on common sense, and only denied by outsiders.
There is moral blackmail, and allegations that
antiracism involves censorship, while the press
claimed the need to tell the truth and state the
facts, even if it does break the norms of
tolerance and understanding. Usually there is more
than enough negative material which is not
silenced, but this is a strategic ploy creating
'allies and enemies, victims, heroes and
oppressors', in many ways a mimicry of antiracism
[well spotted!].
There are more subtle denials, for example of
official reports. Terms can be placed in quotation
marks, or prefaced with textual shifters like
claim or alleged, expressions of doubt or
distance. This is often in contrast with opinions
with which the newspaper agrees. It has become
habitual to put sneer quotes around racism.
There is mitigation like downtoning, euphemism or
circumlocution. — Race relations are described as
'fragile', subject to 'misunderstanding'. There
may be impersonality as in '"there is
misunderstanding"' (107).
There can be combinations of defence and offence,
where supporting our side also involves attacking
'"ideologically blinkered" opponents' (107).
Apparent concessions such as acknowledging the
difficulties of Afro-Caribbeans, is a euphemism
which helps deny that racism is the result of
these difficulties. Critics are accused of gaining
pleasure by exposing racism, or inventing it.
Irony is used as in references to '"pocket
Hitlers"' (108). There are conspiracy theories
about the influence of the antiracist left.
A main concern is to defend the right wing
press's own image as a moral influence.
Parliamentary discourse can be analysed in similar
terms, is an example of elite discourse, and the
team examined some major Parliamentary debates.
These are of course on the record, which means
they usually prepared and therefore monitored:
blatantly racist talk is likely to be rare, and
more 'indirect and subtle ways' are more common.
Nevertheless there are still similarities with
other forms.
There is a nationalist discourse for example where
racism is seen as 'a moral indictment of the
nation', permitted in partisan debates, and
countered with positive self presentation and
self-congratulation — 'we are fair, respect human
rights, have a long tradition of tolerance, et
cetera' (110). There is sometimes a 'but' to
follow, or an 'in practice', where pragmatism and
realism are also required in the interests of
harmony and fairness. The contrast between
idealistic and practical aims is very common, as
is reference to fairness and balance, and this can
be positively presented, and supported by
'strategic argumentative moves' (111) . These can
include 'apparent altruism', where policies are
for the best interests of the group; choice of the
lesser evil; national interest {again cf Sykes and
Matza]. A predicament is recognized, but this is
often a semblance and special interests are
represented especially populist ones.
Denials of racism are insistent, although usually
accompanied by 'but', explicitly or implicitly,
invoking natural rights for hierarchy, for
example, or the worries of ordinary people. Worry
is a euphemism here. Sometimes racism is admitted
as a local problem, or a temporary one. There are
constant reminders of colourblindness, sometimes
with supportive argumentation. Elite racism
sometimes takes the form of denying racism among
the elite by expressing worries that it might be
increased among the poor.
Parliamentary debates feature tactics of reversal
like the ones seen above, although it is uncommon
apply to racism. The Front National has a theme of
the betrayal of the French people by letting too
many immigrants in which is '"anti-French racism"'
(114). Overall it is necessary to present balanced
policies, firm but fair, humane but not soft,
essentially reasonable.
Overall discourses about ethnic minority groups
and others is common, but they are also 'complex
and full of contradictions' (115), inspired by
tolerance and acceptance but also by 'distrust,
resentment or frustration'. Stories often take a
negative form overall, but they need to be managed
or mitigated, to keep face. This means various
denials of racism or mitigations or concessions,
or, at its most aggressive, reversals. These
techniques can be found at 'any social level and
in any social context'(116) for ordinary people
and elites. They are essential for social
reproduction. There is an antiracist option which
accepts minorities as equals, but so far White
groups have not chosen that option.
[Naïve and has made his mind up already. There are
academic reservations and doubts here, but also a
rather suspicious certainty. In real life, this
sort of work is deadly if it is coupled with
personal certainty of an aggrieved person that
they have detected offence and have been damaged
by it]
|
|