Suchergebnisse

Literaturverz. S. [297] - 342

Increasingly, political responses to asylum seekers and refugees have become more punitive and exclusionary in many receiving countries. This hardening reflects a broader shift to the right: toward an emphasis on national security and borders, on economic rationalism, and monoculturalism. How can people who are campaigning for less exclusionary policies and laws respond? We review an ethnographic case study in the town of Woodside, South Australia and the first author's discursive research on the political speeches of Australian politicians. These suggest that pragmatic interventions emphasizing win/win solutions and mainstream appeals are useful. Two of these interventions, which we review in this paper, are: 1) creating social and economic benefits for both asylum seekers and residents in the communities in which they are housed, based upon an evidence base developed by establishing the social and economic impacts of asylum seeking; 2) using discourse and rhetoric that presents arguments and interventions made on behalf of asylum seekers as practical, pragmatic and moderate. These strategies are focussed on enacting broad-based change via appeals to the mainstream, which is not the goal of all advocacy or activism, and is not appropriate in all circumstances. The interventions that we propose for community engagement also require that we reconcile the sometimes conflicting needs of asylum seekers and refugees and the residents of communities in which they are housed, which is not always possible. Despite these limits to the applicability of these strategies and interventions, our research suggests that they can create positive changes in attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugees.

Whilst there has been a proliferation of research on the role of nationalism in the exclusion of asylum seekers, less attention has been paid to how nationalism can be mobilised in accounts opposing, rather than supporting, harsh anti-asylum seeker regimes. This paper compares the ways in which 'Australia' is constructed and used in parliamentary speeches on asylum seekers by both refugee advocates and those seeking harsher asylum seeker laws in Australia. This dual focus is particularly important as it highlights the flexibility of nationalist discourse, in that the same constructions of the nation may be used for both exclsive and inclusive purposes. Whilst typologies of inclusive and exclusive nationalisms, such as Smith's (1991) ethnic/civic typology, focus on the content of nationalist ideologies, we argue that the inclusivity or exclusivity of nationalism can best be determined by examining the subject positions, political solutions and social realities they make possible, and who these discourses benefit and oppress. (Nations and Nationalism)

ABSTRACT. Whilst there has been a proliferation of research on the role of nationalism in the exclusion of asylum seekers, less attention has been paid to how nationalism can be mobilised in accounts opposing, rather than supporting, harsh anti‐asylum seeker regimes. This paper compares the ways in which 'Australia' is constructed and used in parliamentary speeches on asylum seekers by both refugee advocates and those seeking harsher asylum seeker laws in Australia. This dual focus is particularly important as it highlights the flexibility of nationalist discourse, in that the same constructions of the nation may be used for both exclusive and inclusive purposes. Whilst typologies of inclusive and exclusive nationalisms, such as Smith's (1991) ethnic/civic typology, focus on the content of nationalist ideologies, we argue that the inclusivity or exclusivity of nationalism can best be determined by examining the subject positions, political solutions and social realities they make possible, and who these discourses benefit and oppress.

Social psychology, as a discipline, has a long tradition of empirical and theoretical research in the field of prejudice and racism, and these are core elements of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. Many researchers have emphasized that a variety of theoretical and conceptual approaches are necessary to fully understand this social phenomenon

Hillary Clinton's nomination as the first female presidential candidate to represent a major party in the 2016 US presidential election represented a key moment in US history. The focus on her gender during the campaign was intensified following the accusation by Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, that Clinton was "playing the woman card". The present article explores US media constructions of Clinton's orientation to the topic of gender during the presidential campaign. Data were identified by searching the Lexis Advance® database between 4 February 2016 and 8 November 2016. Using a qualitative methodology guided by a Critical Discursive Psychology approach, we identify two discursive repertoires that were repeatedly mobilised in these media accounts: 1) a repertoire in which the principle of merit was used to undermine arguments for gender equality, and 2) a repertoire in which Clinton's espoused version of feminism was undermined as 'old-fashioned'. These repertoires functioned to de-legitimise Clinton as a political candidate by positioning her as seeking special treatment as a woman, who played the victim of sexism and was out of touch with the interests and concerns of female voters. We demonstrate how attempts to counter such characterisations can be problematic for female leaders.

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.