%0 Journal Article
%T What Constitutes ¡®Discrimination¡¯ in Everyday Talk? Argumentative Lines and the Social Representations of Discrimination
%A Eleni Andreouli
%A Katy Greenland
%A Martha Augoustinos
%A Richard Taulke-Johnson
%J Journal of Language and Social Psychology
%@ 1552-6526
%D 2018
%R 10.1177/0261927X18762588
%X Most people agree that discrimination is wrong, but the boundary between ¡®discrimination¡¯ and ¡®not discrimination¡¯ is often highly contested in everyday practice. We explore the social representations of ¡®discrimination¡¯ as an object of study in qualitative interviews and focus groups with both minority (self-identified as BAME [Black, Asian, and minority ethnic] and/or gay men) and majority (self-identified as White and/or heterosexual) participants (n = 54). Our analysis suggests three repeated and pervasive argumentative lines in social representations of discrimination: (1) that there are two distinct kinds of discrimination (hard vs. soft), (2) that you need to understand the intention of the actor(s), and (3) that a claim of discrimination requires strong evidence. We outline the macro Functions of these resources to argue that each was non-performative: They appeared to be tools to make claims of discrimination, but in practice they were much more effective at making claims of what was not discrimination
%K discrimination
%K prejudice
%K racism
%K homophobia
%K discourse
%K social representations
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0261927X18762588