In this article, we explore how speakers discuss whether or not it is racist to oppose asylum seekers. A discourse analysis is conducted on the parts of a corpus of data collected from focus groups with undergraduate students talking about asylum seeking in which they were asked if it is racist to oppose asylum. It is shown that speakers use the word ‘just’ as part of a contrast structure which is used to present a topic as self-evidently unreasonable. While some participants orient to the taboo against prejudice, it is shown that there is also an orientation to the idea that accusations of racism are unreasonable and that opposition to asylum is usually based on practical and economic reasons rather than racism. These findings are discussed in light of the growing literature surrounding the changing nature of race talk and new taboos on accusations of racism.
In this article, we explore how talk about Nazis is used in Internet discussions regarding asylum seeking, and the issue of whether or not opposition to asylum seeking is racist. Discursive analysis was conducted on discussions about asylum seeking from the social networking website Facebook, where references to Nazis were made. Three strategies were identified: (1) people supporting asylum seeking accuse asylum opponents of being racist by referring to Nazis; (2) opponents of asylum seeking deal with such accusations by arguing that the debate is being suppressed because of references to Nazis; (3) in the final, and most striking, strategy, opponents of asylum draw upon ideas associated with the Nazis and Hitler to bring about their anti-asylum position. These findings are discussed in relation to how the link between Nazis and racism is emerging in the asylum debate.
In this paper, critical discursive psychology is used to analyse the Islamophobic discourse by the far‐right party Britain First in its “solidarity patrol” video. Britain First patrolled in Golders Green, North London, to show support for Jewish communities following the ISIS shooting at the kosher supermarket in Paris on January 9, 2015. The Charlie Hebdo shooting and the shooting at the kosher supermarket (as well as other attacks by members of the Islamic State) have led to Muslims being seen as a threat to Britain and exposed to Islamophobic attacks and racial abuse. This presents far‐right parties in the United Kingdom with the dilemma of appearing moderate and mainstream in their anti‐Islamic stance. The analysis focuses on how Britain First used the shooting at the kosher supermarket in order to construct Jews as under threat from Islam. The analysis also includes visual communication in the solidarity patrol video that was used to provide “evidence” that Britain First supported Jewish communities. Results are discussed in light of how Britain First used aligning with Jews in order to appear as “reasonable” in projecting its anti‐Islamic ideology and how critical discursive psychology can be used to show how conflicting social identities are constructed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.