Membership categorization analysis of racism in an online discussion among neighbors

Abstract

This article addresses relationships between micro and macro aspects of language use through analyzing online interactions among neighbors discussing racism in their neighborhood. Membership categorization analysis supplemented with critical theory highlights how the ways neighbors name, characterize, and position categories orients to their rhetorical and identity goals (to construct reasonable stances, to seem not racist), which in turn motivates alignment with critical, folk, or colorblind ideologies of racism. Thus, ideologies do not determine interactional choices participants make, but rather are constituted by those choices. Findings also illustrate how discursive strategies such as reported speech, absurdity, three-part lists, and metadiscourse support ways that neighbors organize categories and achieve their aims. Additional contributions to this study include demonstrating the utility of membership categorization analysis for analyzing discourses of racism and providing practical insight into how racially diverse groups can have productive conversations about racism. (Racism, ideology, membership categorization analysis)*

Racism and misrecognition

“…In that sense, it then points towards an unreflective societal racism. Note how the original post begins, ‘It finally happened' (line 1), which makes available OP’s orientation to what has happened as an expectable and therefore commonly known problem (see Shrikant, 2020). Through this the OP and the child’s membership categories are also made inferable – they are the commonly known targets of ‘racist comments’ or misrecognition.…”

“…There is a substantial body of discursive psychological research that examines racist discourse. This shows how racism is debated, denied, or alleged (e.g., Every & Augoustinos, 2007;Goodman, 2014;Goodman & Burke, 2010;Shrikant, 2020;van Dijk, 1997) and highlights the subtle and delicate character of reporting racism. For example, Stokoe and Edwards (2007) investigated racial insults in complaints made to a mediation service and in police interrogations.…”

“…These reports thus assemble an arena wherein racial misrecognition is accounted for (by the reporters of racism) and interpreted (by the immediate recipients) in situ. Studying how these personal experiences are reported in these public domains can therefore inform us not only how these experiences are valuable at a public level, but also for us analysts, what and how racial common-sense knowledge is invoked and (re)constructed by these interlocutors (Shrikant, 2020;Whitehead, 2011Whitehead, , 2012.…”

‘A police officer shot a Black man’: Racial categorization, racism, and mundane culpability in news reports of police shootings of black people in the United States of America

“…Few studies document when the White category is used by White people. For example, Shrikant (2019Shrikant ( , 2020a illustrates how White participants name the White category to call attention to problematic activities bound to the White category such as leading an organization without making room for more diverse people (Shrikant, 2019) or expecting to learn from minorities about racism instead of taking an active role in learning about racism (Shrikant, 2020a). Whitehead and Lerner (2009) show how making visible a takenfor-granted and invisible racial (White) category works to explain events and actions that are otherwise inadequately explained.…”

“…Research on racial categorization illustrates that members use racial categories as a resource in interaction to meet a variety of interactional and/or relational goals (Cresswell, Whitehead, & Durrheim, 2014; Hansen, 2005; Robles, 2015; Sambaraju, 2021; Shrikant, 2018, 2020a; Stokoe & Edwards, 2007; Whitehead & Lerner, 2009; Wilkinson, 2011). Some studies illustrate how racial categories are used as resources for negotiating whether particular people, talk, or actions are racist (Robles, 2015; Sambaraju, 2021; Shrikant, 2020a; Stokoe & Edwards, 2007).…”