Difference between revisions of "Kitzinger2005"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; Elizabeth Peel |Title=The De-gaying and Re-gaying of AIDS: Contested Homophobias in Lesbian and Gay Awareness Training...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; Elizabeth Peel | |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; Elizabeth Peel | ||
| − | |Title=The | + | |Title=The de-gaying and re-gaying of AIDS: contested homophobias in lesbian and gay awareness training |
|Tag(s)=AIDS; conversation analysis; heterosexism; HIV; homophobia; | |Tag(s)=AIDS; conversation analysis; heterosexism; HIV; homophobia; | ||
|Key=Kitzinger2005 | |Key=Kitzinger2005 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=173–197 | |Pages=173–197 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926505049618 |
|DOI=10.1177/0957926505049618 | |DOI=10.1177/0957926505049618 | ||
|Abstract=From the first recognition of AIDS as a disease, it was publicly conceptualized as a ‘gay plague’. In response, health education and diversity training sought to counter this association claiming that AIDS is an ‘equal opportunity’ virus - that it can affect anyone. In this article, we analyse talk about HIV/AIDS within a data corpus of 13 tape-recorded lesbian and gay awareness training sessions. Counter to the way in which interactions are described in the lesbian and gay awareness training literature, we found that it was trainees, rather than trainers, who pursued discussions about HIV/AIDS, and who did so in order to claim the ‘de-gaying’ of AIDS, which they treated as representing a ‘non-prejudiced’ position. By contrast, and in response to trainees’ insistence on de-gaying AIDS, trainers were ‘re-gaying’ AIDS. Our analysis highlights that in these sessions - designed explicitly to counter homophobic attitudes - apparently ‘factual’ claims and counter-claims about infection rates and risk groups are underpinned by essentially contested definitions of what constitutes a ‘homophobic’ attitude. We conclude by pointing to the value of detailed analysis of talk-in-interaction for understanding professional practices, and suggest strategies for improving the pedagogic value of training. | |Abstract=From the first recognition of AIDS as a disease, it was publicly conceptualized as a ‘gay plague’. In response, health education and diversity training sought to counter this association claiming that AIDS is an ‘equal opportunity’ virus - that it can affect anyone. In this article, we analyse talk about HIV/AIDS within a data corpus of 13 tape-recorded lesbian and gay awareness training sessions. Counter to the way in which interactions are described in the lesbian and gay awareness training literature, we found that it was trainees, rather than trainers, who pursued discussions about HIV/AIDS, and who did so in order to claim the ‘de-gaying’ of AIDS, which they treated as representing a ‘non-prejudiced’ position. By contrast, and in response to trainees’ insistence on de-gaying AIDS, trainers were ‘re-gaying’ AIDS. Our analysis highlights that in these sessions - designed explicitly to counter homophobic attitudes - apparently ‘factual’ claims and counter-claims about infection rates and risk groups are underpinned by essentially contested definitions of what constitutes a ‘homophobic’ attitude. We conclude by pointing to the value of detailed analysis of talk-in-interaction for understanding professional practices, and suggest strategies for improving the pedagogic value of training. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:59, 3 November 2019
| Kitzinger2005 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kitzinger2005 |
| Author(s) | Celia Kitzinger, Elizabeth Peel |
| Title | The de-gaying and re-gaying of AIDS: contested homophobias in lesbian and gay awareness training |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | AIDS, conversation analysis, heterosexism, HIV, homophobia |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 16 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 173–197 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926505049618 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
From the first recognition of AIDS as a disease, it was publicly conceptualized as a ‘gay plague’. In response, health education and diversity training sought to counter this association claiming that AIDS is an ‘equal opportunity’ virus - that it can affect anyone. In this article, we analyse talk about HIV/AIDS within a data corpus of 13 tape-recorded lesbian and gay awareness training sessions. Counter to the way in which interactions are described in the lesbian and gay awareness training literature, we found that it was trainees, rather than trainers, who pursued discussions about HIV/AIDS, and who did so in order to claim the ‘de-gaying’ of AIDS, which they treated as representing a ‘non-prejudiced’ position. By contrast, and in response to trainees’ insistence on de-gaying AIDS, trainers were ‘re-gaying’ AIDS. Our analysis highlights that in these sessions - designed explicitly to counter homophobic attitudes - apparently ‘factual’ claims and counter-claims about infection rates and risk groups are underpinned by essentially contested definitions of what constitutes a ‘homophobic’ attitude. We conclude by pointing to the value of detailed analysis of talk-in-interaction for understanding professional practices, and suggest strategies for improving the pedagogic value of training.
Notes
