About
CNAME in place; now displaying in my domain. 18JAN08
Accounts
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
March 07 2010
"Discourse variance" ... two faced in daily life
The classic case I encountered in the literature is this: an Australian woman is drawn out to describe her views and opinions concerning Aboriginal people. Over the course of interviews, with the method being applied to explore the "variance", what she says can clearly be seen as belonging to two "heaps". One heap consists of utterances that are, if only very mildly, sympathetic. The other heap is comprised of utterences that are, foundationally, prejudiced.
The first thing to note is that there's nothing "flaming" about the prejudiced statemets. The material is substantially racist, but it is stated as though reasonable and balanced ... nothing obviously inflammatory in the style.
And with the "sympathetic" statements we find something similar; these are almost as under-stated as they are vague.
And now we get to the crux of the matter: the attributions in the "racist" heap actually cross over into the "sympathetic" heap. If there's "variance" in the attitude, I read a consistent set of foundations. What qualifies the reference group for "sympathy" is the same set of attributes used in the racist heap to qualify them for scorn. The difference in attitude is an attitude towards an invariant set of characteristics, characteristics which (need it be said?) are actually not supported by sociological data. (That a large proportion of a visible minority are living in poverty is not evidence that this group is characteristically lazy or pre-disposed to criminality!)
One aspect in particular here attracted and held my attention, given my project's brief and mandate. (I.e.: how do we generate, support, and nurture wholesome community? Design and deploy a community decision making system that serves this end.)
Setting aside motive (I think in both cases the woman aimed at image maintenance; she wanted to be seen / known as thoughtful and considerate.) I imagined how she, as presented, could be subjected to manipulation, with her two heaps of variant discourse utterances serving as hooks.
And what came to mind was this: the "sympathetic" heap seemed to me the stuff of "Damned with faint praise"; though the material was cast as benevolent it was actually presented as a basis for paternalism. (I can practically hear her, voice shrill, lamenting how "Those people are never grateful for what we're trying to do for them" or some such.) The Aboriginals were presented as being "other" by their nature, and requiring integration for the reason of their being distinct. The "sympathy" was actually patronizing and superior. So these utterances set the stage for the imposition of authoritarian activity ... in the name of "doing good for others". There was something like pity in her words, but nothing like a call for justice.
The "prejudiced" set of statements were, essentially, defeatist. The attributions were so substantial and so fixed that ... except for wanting to seem caring ... the situation was to be accepted as hopeless.
In neither of the heaps was there any jingoistic call for some sort of "crack-down". And yet both heaps (or either, played individually) could serve the support the most draconian policy decisions e.g. eugenics.
My contention is that "debate" of the facts absent appreciation for subjective narrative will only lead to polarization. The participant in this experiment exhibited a consistent world-view, regardless of variation in her discourse. Any policy position that challanged that world-view would, necessarily, threaten her attempts at image maintenance and would, probably, give rise to energetic reaction.
"I can see how you'd form that view; it does look that way from here" is very different from, "You're closed minded on this, but actually the facts aren't at all in support of your position".
I can't care about those people (from an authentic sense of solidarity) and not care about this one (because she makes my skin creep).
The first thing to note is that there's nothing "flaming" about the prejudiced statemets. The material is substantially racist, but it is stated as though reasonable and balanced ... nothing obviously inflammatory in the style.
And with the "sympathetic" statements we find something similar; these are almost as under-stated as they are vague.
And now we get to the crux of the matter: the attributions in the "racist" heap actually cross over into the "sympathetic" heap. If there's "variance" in the attitude, I read a consistent set of foundations. What qualifies the reference group for "sympathy" is the same set of attributes used in the racist heap to qualify them for scorn. The difference in attitude is an attitude towards an invariant set of characteristics, characteristics which (need it be said?) are actually not supported by sociological data. (That a large proportion of a visible minority are living in poverty is not evidence that this group is characteristically lazy or pre-disposed to criminality!)
One aspect in particular here attracted and held my attention, given my project's brief and mandate. (I.e.: how do we generate, support, and nurture wholesome community? Design and deploy a community decision making system that serves this end.)
Setting aside motive (I think in both cases the woman aimed at image maintenance; she wanted to be seen / known as thoughtful and considerate.) I imagined how she, as presented, could be subjected to manipulation, with her two heaps of variant discourse utterances serving as hooks.
And what came to mind was this: the "sympathetic" heap seemed to me the stuff of "Damned with faint praise"; though the material was cast as benevolent it was actually presented as a basis for paternalism. (I can practically hear her, voice shrill, lamenting how "Those people are never grateful for what we're trying to do for them" or some such.) The Aboriginals were presented as being "other" by their nature, and requiring integration for the reason of their being distinct. The "sympathy" was actually patronizing and superior. So these utterances set the stage for the imposition of authoritarian activity ... in the name of "doing good for others". There was something like pity in her words, but nothing like a call for justice.
The "prejudiced" set of statements were, essentially, defeatist. The attributions were so substantial and so fixed that ... except for wanting to seem caring ... the situation was to be accepted as hopeless.
In neither of the heaps was there any jingoistic call for some sort of "crack-down". And yet both heaps (or either, played individually) could serve the support the most draconian policy decisions e.g. eugenics.
My contention is that "debate" of the facts absent appreciation for subjective narrative will only lead to polarization. The participant in this experiment exhibited a consistent world-view, regardless of variation in her discourse. Any policy position that challanged that world-view would, necessarily, threaten her attempts at image maintenance and would, probably, give rise to energetic reaction.
"I can see how you'd form that view; it does look that way from here" is very different from, "You're closed minded on this, but actually the facts aren't at all in support of your position".
I can't care about those people (from an authentic sense of solidarity) and not care about this one (because she makes my skin creep).
