The recent apology by the Australian Prime Minister to Indigenous Australians demonstrates the increasing willingness of nation states to apologize for historical injustices. In this critical discursive analysis of Rudd's apology, we analyse the pragmatic and linguistic features of the apology in light of recent research on political apologies as a generic type of discourse. We demonstrate how the act of offering and justifying an apology was accomplished through the use of emotion and identity categories. In particular, we examine how the reason-emotion dilemma was managed rhetorically by tying emotion to facts, and how differing levels of categorization can all be used to evoke support for apologizing for historical injustice. In contrast to social-psychological experimental work on apologies and forgiveness, we show that different levels of categorization -the personal, intermediate and superordinate -can all be used flexibly in discourse to invoke empathy and identification with the 'other', and that rather than invoking emotions in the ingroup, humanizing the 'other' is a powerful strategy for eliciting support for redressing social injustice.

What is at stake for women who challenge sexism? In October 2012, Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, delivered a speech in Parliament in which she accused the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, of sexism and misogyny. The speech attracted local and international media coverage, and sparked widespread debate about precisely what constitutes sexism and misogyny, and whether the accusation was justified. This study adopts a discursive psychological approach to analyse a corpus of 216 articles published in the Australian print media in the week following the speech. The analysis identifies common discursive patterns and resources used to construct and represent sexism and examines the ways in which this accusation of sexism was dismissed, minimised and undermined. The analysis also demonstrates how Gillard’s identity was negatively constructed and problematized, and the implications this may have for other women who wish to confront sexism. Finally, the analysis suggests that silence is privileged over speaking up against sexism, and provides evidence for the existence of an ideological dilemma – in which speaking up against sexism is considered “dangerous”, but failing to do so is to tolerate an injustice.

No abstract

Since the seminal work of McIntosh, research on multiple forms of privilege (race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability, class, religion) has expanded, with a particular focus on how inducing recognition of privilege can build support for equality. However, evidence has been mixed on whether interventions increase support for policies designed to redress inequality. The present study looks at how respondents use arguments about privilege in naturalistic discussions, in this case, 357 online comments regarding a US Supreme Court ruling of racial discrimination. In particular, we can see how four cumulative strategies build to allow the presentation of racial privilege: connecting past to current inequality; constructing ongoing unequal treatment as contributing to current disadvantage; reclaiming 'liberal' arguments for 'liberal' ends; and defining group differences as consisting of both disadvantage and privilege. These strategies can be deployed to build a privilege discourse to contest inequality and racism. This provides potential strategies for privilege-based interventions to achieve their aims in increasing support for equality policies.

There are multiple alternative proposals for alleviating poverty, but unless these receive public support they are unlikely to be implemented. Drawing on Feagin's work, this research predicted support for different poverty alleviation proposals among Australians based on individual characteristics and attitudes, including explanations for poverty. Overall, participants (N ¼ 526) favoured the minimum income proposal (traditional welfare) significantly more than the guaranteed jobs or equal income proposals. The results indicated differences in predictors of support for each proposal, but structural causes of poverty had the most consistent effect across all three. Other variables included gender, age, having received welfare, selfreported social class, self-reported financial situation, egalitarianism, conservatism, and support for individualistic explanations for poverty. The results suggested that Australians prefer traditional welfare-style measures to alleviate poverty, compared to the other proposals examined here. Support for all proposals, however, was predicated on people's beliefs being consistent with those underlying the proposal. Those interested in implementing more radical solutions to address poverty need to emphasise the relations between the causes of poverty and the solutions to it in order to increase public support.