Difference between revisions of "Speer-Potter2000"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; Jonathan Potter; |Title=The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims |Tag(s)=EM...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; Jonathan Potter; | + | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; Jonathan Potter; |
| − | |Title=The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims | + | |Title=The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; attitude; conversation analysis; discourse analysis; discursive psychology; heterosexism; homophobia; prejudice; sexuality; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; attitude; conversation analysis; discourse analysis; discursive psychology; heterosexism; homophobia; prejudice; sexuality; | ||
|Key=Speer-Potter2000 | |Key=Speer-Potter2000 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=11 | |Volume=11 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=543–572 |
| − | |DOI=10.1177/0957926500011004005 | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926500011004005 |
| − | |Abstract=This article criticizes current psychological work on | + | |DOI=10.1177/0957926500011004005 |
| + | |Abstract=This article criticizes current psychological work on 'heterosexism', highlighting the way its operationalization tends to obscure flexible discursive practices and settle them into stable, causal attitudes within individuals. It studies extracts from a variety of sources where sexuality is made relevant (in describing someone as a 'poof' or a 'dyke', for example), and considers (a) how interactants attend to 'heterosexism' in their talk and (b) what such 'attending to' is doing interactionally. The analysis highlights four of the resources speakers use to manage such talk: (i) discounting heterosexism; (ii) displaying a lack of understanding; (iii) softening the blow; and (iv) conceding positive features. It is argued that heterosexist utterances do not have their negativity built into them, but become prejudicial, troublesome or otherwise for participants in situ, as their sense is produced and negotiated. The article concludes with a discussion of the wider implications of this type of research for psychological approaches to (what are typically conceived as) 'ideological' or 'cognitive' phenomena. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:03, 19 October 2019
| Speer-Potter2000 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Speer-Potter2000 |
| Author(s) | Susan A. Speer, Jonathan Potter |
| Title | The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, attitude, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, discursive psychology, heterosexism, homophobia, prejudice, sexuality |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2000 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 11 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 543–572 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926500011004005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article criticizes current psychological work on 'heterosexism', highlighting the way its operationalization tends to obscure flexible discursive practices and settle them into stable, causal attitudes within individuals. It studies extracts from a variety of sources where sexuality is made relevant (in describing someone as a 'poof' or a 'dyke', for example), and considers (a) how interactants attend to 'heterosexism' in their talk and (b) what such 'attending to' is doing interactionally. The analysis highlights four of the resources speakers use to manage such talk: (i) discounting heterosexism; (ii) displaying a lack of understanding; (iii) softening the blow; and (iv) conceding positive features. It is argued that heterosexist utterances do not have their negativity built into them, but become prejudicial, troublesome or otherwise for participants in situ, as their sense is produced and negotiated. The article concludes with a discussion of the wider implications of this type of research for psychological approaches to (what are typically conceived as) 'ideological' or 'cognitive' phenomena.
Notes
