Recent events in the United States of America and elsewhere have shown the persistence of racism in violent forms (Al Jazeera, 2020).Social scientists, including social psychologists, have offered significant insights into how racial formations and actions between White and Black peoples are realized (Bonilla-Silva, 2017;Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000;Salter & Adams, 2013). Related but distinct issues of racial formations and actions across and in between non-White groups have been relatively underexamined. In an increasingly diverse world, these latter forms of interaction are prominent and, problematically, can lead to similar forms of violence. In the present article, I focus on anti-Black racism in India (Adegoke, 2017).In much of social psychology, issues of race and racism have rarely been examined in settings where non-White groups are implicated as perpetrators. This omission is important on three fronts. First, the minimal examination of such contexts relates to concerns over psychology being developed as a WEIRD discipline (Henrich et al., 2010), that is, a discipline concerned with people and behaviours in Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic, or largely White-majority, settings to the effect of excluding people in other settings. Second, much research in social psychology focuses on the role of racial/ethnic group membership and intergroup relations in examining racism.In settings where non-White groups are implicated as perpetrators of racism, alternative forms of group membership and identities are likely to be relevant. While being "White" might allow for a ready understanding of being in the majority group or in a position to oppress others, membership in other racial categories (non-White) might complicate claims of being oppressors. We know little about how those in marginalized communities who themselves face/d racism manage issues with racism (cf. Salter & Adams, 2013). Third, in these settings a ready possibility is for them to claim victimhood. This means that alongside considering

While online spaces and media offer unique possibilities for participating in critical and mundane communication, these also introduce several problems in the form of abuse such as trolling, flaming, or other anti‐social behavior. Social and personality psychologists offer a range of explanations for abusive behavior online. Here we distinguish between explanations that treat online abuse as readily known and consequently proceed with examining possible causes of such abuse, and those that treat abuse as a situated act of communication worth examining in its own right. The latter examines how abuse is accomplished, treated, and negotiated in specific online settings. A central advantage of doing so is that the specifics and details of instances of abuse become amenable to examination and consequently allow for identification of in situ means by which abuse maybe challenged. In taking this approach, online abuse is examined for how it is produced and situated in specific social and interactional settings.

Discursive social psychological research shows the centrality of treating arrival nations as unitary entities that are incompatible for nonnation others (immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees) in legitimately warranting their exclusion. We extend these findings for the current Special Issue and for broader literature in examining inclusion issues in the European Union (EU) in the ongoing context of the “refugee crisis.” We offer a discursive analysis of transcribed talk in the Dáil Éireaan (Irish Parliament) for the year 2015 when issues of migration and refugees were prominent. Analysis shows that Deputies treat the adequacy of ongoing inclusion efforts as a concern. This was worked up through foregrounding possibilities for Ireland to take up inclusive efforts and managed through avowals of commitment to inclusion juxtaposed to treating the issue and responses to it as EU concerns. Findings show that unique aspects and sovereignty of nations can be downplayed in negotiating warrants for inclusion. Alongside this, in specific contexts and settings transnational collectives, such as the EU, can be treated as stand‐ins for nations and used to negotiate inclusion of nonnation others. These are discussed in relation to implications for inclusion advocacy.

The current socio-political circumstances in the United States (US), constituted by the increasing visibility of police shootings of Black people, present a compelling moment for analysing how news media report about law enforcement, culpability, and racism. This paper conducts a membership categorization analysis of recent news media reports of police shootings of Black people (May 2020-October 2020) and investigates how news media negotiate culpability of agents involved these shootings. Findings illustrate how news reports (1) use the repeated category formulation 'police shooting of a Black man' to imply police are culpable for engaging in racist shootings, (2) upgrade culpability of police officers through adding to racial categorization of victims in ways that foreground victims' moral character (e.g., 'unarmed Black man'), and (3) highlight racism as an explanation for shootings and culpability of police through using racial categorizations for police officers. Overall, news media reports use racial categories as a resource to construct racism as an explanation for police shootings and to construct police officers and policing institutions as culpable for these shootings. Thus, we highlight how race and racism are constitutive of, and inseparable from, culpability in news media reports.

The present paper examines the talk of three senior figures from the Palestinian Hamas political movement. Data are drawn from a series of journalistic interviews that were conducted in the months leading up to the invasion of Gaza by Israel in December 2007. Using membership categorization analysis, we explore the membership categories and category-bound attributes that interviewers use in questions about responsibility for potentially culpable actions and the ways that these are taken up, challenged, or reworked by interviewees in presenting their own versions. The analytic findings show that interviewers deploy categories bound up with terrorism while interviewees develop alternative categorizations of resistance. Interviewers construct Palestinians as victims of Hamas' actions while interviewees construct them as victims of Israeli aggression and international indifference. In warranting these alternative constructions, the interviewees contrast current behaviours of the international community with those of the past and align current Palestinian actions with those previously taken by Western nations in resisting illegitimate occupations. Through these descriptions of categories and actions, the interviewees attribute to the wider international community responsibility for addressing the events of the ongoing conflict.