‘He talks about the long-term inhabitants, which presumably means white people’: Race

and racists in news interviews with UK politicians.

Abstract

Discursive social psychologists have examined discursive practices of modern racism in many contexts. They note that racism in public contexts, such as parliaments, political speeches, and media appearances, is characterised by denials of racism, deracialisation and a preference for covert expressions of racist sentiments. Here, we examine one discursive practice associated with modern racism in media news interviews with British politicians. Using discourse analysis we examine interviews where politicians were asked questions on immigration into the UK, its perceived effects and policies on immigration. The findings show that interviewees can and do offer particular versions of racism and racists in talk on immigration. They do so in showing that such positions are irrational and come to little fruition. These versions serve the particular purpose of managing their own positions made problematic by the interviewer. However, in cases where the interviewer makes ethnicity relevant, interviewees show no recourse to this strategy of pointing at others as racist, instead of themselves. These findings show that participants treat racists and racism as irrational and nonsensical. A contrast with such manages their positions, however, a similarity with such irreparably damages their position.

Discursive research on racism

Discursive social psychologists studying racism have examined language use in a range of public-facing contexts (Augoustinos & Every, 2010; Hanson-Easey, Augoustinos, & Moloney, 2014; Hastie, 2009; Hastie & Augoustinos, 2012; Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000; Rojo & van Dijk, 1997; van Dijk, 2000). By this, it is meant that researchers have examined talk in parliaments, political speeches, and media appearances on issues bound up with racism. One ubiquitous feature in such talk is the denial of racism. For instance, Capdevila and Callaghan (2008) show explicit denials of racism in a political speech by the British Conservative Political Party leader in 2005 on the problems and perils of immigration. Auguoustinos and Every (2007) in a review of similar sort of research make two interrelated points. Firstly that it is now broadly agreed upon that in public-facing contexts speakers engage in less blatant, less overt and subtler forms of expressing prejudice and/or discrimination. Secondly that this is partly because of a taboo against blatant expressions of racist sentiments (Augoustinos & Every, 2007; Billig, 1985; Billig, 1991). For instance, Augoustinos and Every (2007) show that accusations that a parliamentarian has made a racist statement are objected to much more seriously than the accused statement

1

itself. This kind of phenomena has been called ‘new racism’ deriving its name from a contrast with earlier forms of more blatant racism (Barker, 2001; Bonilla-Silva, 2005; Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991).

A central issue identified here is an overwhelming concern to appear rational. Billig (1988) argues that people equate prejudice with irrationality. Disclaimers such as that ‘I’m not a racist, but..’ (van Dijk, 1992) and denials of racism serve to present the speaker as rational. Edwards (2003) shows that people present their attitudes as grounded in some ‘reality’ to prevent the inference that those attitudes are an outcome of prejudice. Figgou and Condor (2006) show similar findings in interview talk by Greek respondents towards Albanian refugees. They show that participants formulated their attitudes towards Albanian refugees as a security issue rather than prejudice to treat such attitudes as reasonable. Goodman and Rowe (2014) show similar findings in case of discussions on Gypsies in the UK. They argue that participants orient to opposition to Gypsies as prejudiced but treat such prejudice as an outcome of Gypsies’ behaviour. In so doing, they resist implications of racism, where, racism is understood as a psychological abnormality.

The thesis that racism and prejudice are symptomatic of irrational thought is one of the earliest explanations of such behaviour in psychology (Adorno, 1950; Allport, 1958; for a critique see Blauner, 1972). Bonilla-Silva (1997) calls this an idealistic explanation of racism. It is idealistic because it treats racism as ahistorical and epiphenomenal (Fields, 1982; 1990). Bonilla-Silva (1997) argues that such a view of racism, as a social scientific concept, is problematic as it misses the everyday, banal, and rational aspects of racism, it limits the possibilities of identifying institutional racism and racism at a societal level, and, it limits the possibilities of challenging prevalent racism. In many ways, such critique echoes Frantz Fanon’s call that we need to abandon thinking of racism as some ‘mental quirk’ (Fanon, 1967: 77).

It is then not such a surprise that those making apparently racist statements invest so much in appearing rational and that there exist so many approaches that treat racism to be irrational. Here we examine one such phenomenon where participants work to present themselves as expressing rational points of view on immigration. The rationality of which is worked up, among other ways, by a contrast with some irrational view. We do so in the context of talk on immigration in the UK media.

UK immigration

Immigration has been a rather popularly contentious issue in the UK over the last 6 years. An Ipsos MORI survey (Ipsos MORI, 2011) showed that 75% of the respondents agreed with the statement that immigration was a problem. For many, this sentiment was given voice by the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s infamous statement of “British jobs for British workers” (Jones, Helm, & Wilson, 2007). Although this was retracted, justified, and apologized for, it was taken up and has remained a rather popular stance. A Financial Times poll (Financial Times, 2009)

2

conducted around the time of “British jobs for British workers” protests showed a 78% support for anti-immigration policies.

In the UK immigration has been a consistently troublesome issue, particularly, for formulating policies on it. At times it was the case that immigration policies were formulated on social, political and cultural considerations, rather than economic or other considerations (Freeman, 1978). The 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act is one such policy that only permitted the immigration of those with parental links to British citizens (Murray, 2011). Joppke (1998) argues that these sorts of policies were designed to stop certain sorts of people from immigrating to the UK. However, the immigration that did take place resulted in a responsive drive for further restrictive policies (Brau, 2011). Gilroy (2004) makes the case that these reflect ‘imperialist mentalities’, in that a rise in xenophobic attitude and racism was not a result of immigration, rather that such attitudes were already prevalent.

In the more recent times, restrictive immigration policies have cited the impact of immigration on employment for British citizens (Brau, 2011; Mendick & Duffin, 2013; Migration Watch UK, 2012; Trott, 2012). However, recent reports show that such impact is rather minimal and claims on such impact were exaggerated (Travis, 2014). Those claims were voiced and were subsequently used by the current UK Government came into office in 2010. The introduction of one ‘points-based system’ and a further limit on the number of skilled immigrants allowed have directly cut down the number of immigrants in the UK (British Broadcasting Company., 2010).

These policies that aimed to reduce the number of immigrants coming into the UK are similarly open to accusations of racism as earlier ones (Brau, 2011). Here we examine some of these instances. We show instances in the media where politicians are held accountable for having made some policy-related utterance on immigration. The interest is in showing how those British politicians attempt to manage such accusations.

Method

Data and participants

The data for this study are transcripts of media news interviews with British politicians. A search for these transcripts was conducted using Google’s News Archival™ search engine. The aim was to come up with full transcripts in English of interviews conducted with politicians from the UK within a two year period that saw the financial recession (The Guardian, 2012) and the introduction of these policies: 1st of August 2007 to 31st of August 2009. The following terms were used for the search: UK, Britain, MP, Prime Minister, politician, interview, and transcript. Now, this procedure yielded few relevant results, however, one prominent feature was that most of the relevant results came from “the Politics Show” and “the Andrew Marr show”. These televised shows are broadcast by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) live. Following this lead to the archives hosted by the BBC showed 146 transcripts of televised shows, from which

3

48 were randomly selected for analysis. Added to these were 13 transcripts from the initial search using Google’s News Archival search engine. In total, the corpus contained 61 transcripts. These transcripts were eyeballed for talk on immigration, immigrants, foreigners and related issues. This procedure resulted in 12 transcripts that were directly relevant to the aims of the study. From these transcripts, stretches of question-answer sequences where the interviewee was made to account for some statement or policy were selected for further analysis.

It is to be noted that the transcripts are records of interviews produced by certain agencies for specific purposes. The media agencies produce these transcripts for consumption by various parties, in that the transcripts would have undergone some editorial clean-up (Ashmore, MacMillan, & Brown, 2004). Their use for analysis then has to take into account such features. However, these are the closest surviving records of such interactions available for access to the public and transcripts such as these were used for analyses in other instances (McVittie et al., 2011).

Methodology

The data were analysed using discourse analysis (McKinlay & McVittie, 2008; Potter & Edwards, 2001). By discourse analysis we mean to treat discourse as an object of study in its own right. We are primarily interested in the sorts of descriptions, accounts and versions included in these transcripts. In so doing, we aim to examine the sorts of actions that are accomplished in employing such formulations. The analysis is constructionist, in that it aims to identify what versions of the world, the agents and actions are constructed in these specific instances and what it is that is accomplished by those constructions (Potter & Hepburn, 2008).

The analysis also employs some conceptions found in conversation analytic studies on media news interviews. Specifically, it employs the notions of challenging questions (Clayman & Heritage, 2002), working on the question (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991; Heritage & Clayman, 2010), footing-shifts (McVittie, Sambaraju, & McKinlay, 2011) and the use of reported speech (Buttny, 1997). In so doing, the analysis takes into account that media news interviews are a specific sort of interaction that have their unique interactional properties. However, the analytic concerns here are different.

The topic of analysis here is ‘racism related actions’. The analysis will examine how it is that certain accusations are worked up and made hearable and how it is that these accusations are managed. In so doing, the analysis although is cognizant of certain ‘taboos’ on explicit expression of charges of racism, xenophobia and/or prejudice, it does not employ such notions as analytic tools. Rather, they are employed in the discussion of these findings.

Results

The findings here focus on (a) how is that the problem of ‘race’ is made hearable in the interviewers’ questions and (b) how is that the interviewees orient to and attempt to deal with such a problem.

4

In the first of these we see David Cameron, the current Prime Minister of UK and a Conservative political party Member of Parliament from Witney, managing the implication that he had made a problematic statement on immigrants. The extract below is from the transcript of an interview by an unnamed interviewer (Int) of Sunday Times conducted on the 28th of September 2007.

Extract 1.

123456789

Int:

Cameron:

Just going back on the immigration point. What did you mean when you said there are too many immigrants? What I said was I thought that… this is very important because if you listen to that answer, what I said was that you have to use language very carefully when you’re talking about this issue, what I said was that over the last decade I thought that the overall level of immigration had been too high. It had put too much pressure, particularly on public services. And when you look at what a huge amount of illegal immigration there has been, I think it’s an extremely sensible, very moderate thing to say.

The interviewer’s question, which hearably treats Cameron’s statement as problematic, explicitly indexes ‘immigration’ (line 1) as the agenda at this point in the interview. It is within this interactional agenda that the interviewer questions Cameron on his statement that ‘there are too many immigrants’ (line 2). The question what did Cameron ‘mean’ (line 1) when he ‘said’ (line 2) that, points to some unsaid or unclarified stance on that issue. It is to this stance that Cameron addresses his response.

In his response, Cameron orients to such question as problematic and attempts to manage those implications. Cameron’s attempts at reformulating the statement attributed to him by the interviewer and his version of ‘this issue’ (line 5) show that he orients to the question as an accusation that he entertains some untoward stance on immigration. Prior to doing the reformulation, Cameron challenges the accuracy of the IR’s statement by treating it an ‘answer’ (line 4) to some unstated question. Also prior to his reformulation, Cameron characterizes the matter at hand as one that is ‘very important’ (line 3) and is open to a range of implications, some of which could reflect badly on the speaker. This is done by offering a word of caution on how to talk about ‘this issue’ (line 5), namely that one has to ‘use language very carefully’ (line 5). In so doing, Cameron treats the question to be an accusation

It is only then that he reformulates the statement at lines 5-6 into one on ‘the overall level of immigration’ (line 6). The reformulation contains further details such as that this immigration happened ‘over the last decade’ (lines 5-6) and that it was ‘too high’ (line 6). Furthermore, Cameron describes certain outcomes of such immigration, namely that it ‘had put too much pressure, particularly on public services’ (lines 6-7). This reformulation then not only manages the accusation that Cameron entertains some problematic stance towards immigrants, but it also works up a particular version of immigration. This version is that such a level of immigration

5

has caused problems, with the inference that making a statement on it would not necessarily imply some underlying anti-immigration stance.

Indeed, he justifies such sort of a statement at lines 7-9 by including a further problematic aspect of this immigration, namely that of ‘a huge amount of illegal immigration’ (line 8). He cites such state of affairs in presenting his statement as ‘an extremely sensible, very moderate thing to say’ (lines 8-9). This sort of justification is interesting for it points to potentially insensible and extremist things that could be said about immigration.

In the following two extracts we see the participants discussing some insensible and extremist statements on immigration. The extracts were taken from the transcript of an episode of ‘The Andrew Marr Show’ broadcast on the 19th of July 2009. Marr here interviewed Alan Johnson, the then Home Secretary and a Labour party MP for Hull West and Hessle.

Extract 2.

1234567891011121314

Marr

Johnson

Marr

You grew up on a sort of white working class estate. Now on estates around the country, as you know, quite a lot of people have been turning to parties like the BNP on this because they perceive that people from outside are getting a better deal and are talking British jobs for British workers, to use a well-known phrase. Now is that all got up by the BNP or do they have a point? I didn't grow up on a council estate. My mum didn't even qualify to get a council house. I grew up in the slums of Notting Hill. On the corner was Oswald Mosley - the corner of my street, Southam Street in Notting Hill when I was a kid. It started off the Notting Hill race riots when I was a 9 year old. Mosley would stand there with the same argument of hate and division and intolerance as we hear from the BNP now. It's not new. It comes around in waves. He stood as a parliamentary candidate in North Kensington. Didn't get very far.

In his question, Marr, works up the status of statements such as ‘British jobs for British workers’ or anti-immigrant attitudes as either reflecting genuine concerns or those that are brought up by extremist political parties. In so doing, he offers the implication that such statements can be symptomatic of extremist politics.

Marr situates the issue in particular socio-geographical areas. This involves offering descriptions on Johnson’s childhood (which he later challenges), ‘white working class estate[s]’ (line 1), and the goings-on in such places. These latter are offered in the form of a list (cf. Jefferson, 1990) that includes an occurrence, its cause and a symptom that links the cause to the occurrence: ‘quite a lot of people have been turning to parties like the BNP’ (lines 2-3), ‘because they perceive that people from outside are getting a better deal’ (lines 3-4) and ‘are talking

6

British jobs for British workers, to use a well-known phrase’ (lines 4-5). This formulation constructs these goings-on, those of increasing support for an anti-immigrant sentiment, as events with certain reasons and some validation. This last is made relevant by the third item in the list, which is indexed to be a ‘well-known phrase’ (line 5). These events are presented to include extremist elements and those that possibly reflect a genuine case.

In response, Johnson challenges Marr’s descriptions of his childhood and offers an alternative socio-geographical narrative. The narrative includes details on Johnson’s childhood, namely that he ‘grew up in the slums of Notting Hill’ (line 8). It is here that he locates certain events packaged as the beginnings of a race riot: ‘on the corner was Oswald Mosley – the corner of my street, Southam Street in Notting Hill’ (lines 8-9). Now, while Johnson does go on to claim that Mosley’s actions ‘started off the Notting Hill race riots’ (line 10), for Marr and other range of audiences Mosley is readily recognisable (Kitzinger, 2000) as a far-right politician. This working up of Mosley as a racist agent is employed in treating as similar his actions such as making the ‘same argument of hate and division and intolerance’ (lines 11-12) to those of ‘the BNP’ (line 12). The inference made available is that ‘the BNP’ are similar to ‘Oswald Mosley’ – racist, interested in stirring up racial tensions and seeding division. Moreover, Johnson’s evaluation that it ‘is not new’ (line 12) and that these kinds of events come ‘around in waves’ (lines 12-13) treats agents, parties and events like these to be the sorts of things that happen cyclically. This sort of description has a rather neat structure to it, in that it allocates some specific place to parties like ‘Mosley’ and ‘the BNP’. Working up these agents as ‘racists on the margins of society’ is furthered by a description on Mosley’s political career at lines 13-14. Of particular note is that this is collaboratively done by Johnson and Marr. This is important for while it adds to presenting these agents as politically unimportant, it also entertains the possibility that agents who are politically important would not engage in racist acts. The latter topic is explicitly taken up in the next extract.

Extract 3.

1516171819202122232425

Johnson

MarrJohnson

Marr

I brought my kids up on a council estate - a very good council estate, the Brickwell Estate in Slough - as a postman, and I know very well how the argument at times when jobs are harder to find, this argument that the racists use can be so destructive. I have absolute faith in the British people who not just fought a war against Fascism, but have seen this come in waves - Mosley, National Front, now BNP. Okay. I have absolute faith in their ability to look at these issues, to ens… Of course politicians have to speak to people in the language they can understand about the problems they are facing … Okay.

7

262728

Johnson … and successive mainstream politicians of all political parties have done that in this country, which is why we don't have the same problem with a Right Wing established group as they do in countries like France and Italy.

Here, Johnson explicitly contrasts the categories ‘racists’ and ‘politicians’, in ways to show that those in the former set engage in dubious actions, whereas those in the latter engage in serious actions.

Johnson includes details on actions, locations and employment, such as that he brought his kids up ‘on a council estate – a very good council estate, the Brickwell Estate in Slough’ (lines 15-16) and that he was working as ‘a postman’ (line 16). Now, these details work up a specific identity, hearable as that of someone who is from a working class background. Johnson treats this to give him some license (Stokoe, 2009) in talking about ‘this argument that the racists use’ (lines 17-18) in the sorts of socio-geographical areas included in Marr’s question. This includes references to a delimiting context, namely that of ‘at times when jobs are harder to find’ (line 17).

This account of racism involves attributing certain arguments to ‘the racists’ (line 18) along with an, unsurprisingly unfavourable evaluation of the outcome of such arguments, namely that they are ‘destructive’ (line 19). The use of the category “the racists” is noteworthy because it offers inferences on the sorts of actions expected of its incumbents, namely that they would engage in racist arguments. The use of this category in itself serves as an account for the making of racist arguments (Stokoe, 2010). Johnson’s use of it here attends to treating these actions as those of ‘the racists’ while allowing him to make claims on members of the other category, namely ‘the British people’. Johnson ascribes specific attributes to members of this latter category, namely that they had ‘fought a war against fascism’ (line 20) and have seen these racist actions ‘come in waves – Mosley, National Front, now BNP’ (line 21). In so doing, Johnson treats ‘the British people’, so described, as those who will not be swayed by ‘the racists’, rather as those who would stand against those people. This serves to invalidate the acts of ‘the racists’, among who are the BNP.

In contrast, Johnson’s description of those who are ‘politicians’ (line 23) and ‘successive mainstream politicians’ (line 26) hearably treats their actions to be of some use to ‘people’ (line 23). Furthermore, he claims these actions to have done some good service to the country in uprooting ‘Right Wing established groups’ (lines 27-28). In these ways, Johnson invalidates the actions of those categorized as the ‘racists’, while defending the actions of ‘politicians’. He undermines the actions of the former by treating those as politically short-lived and as unwelcomed by ‘the British people’.

In the following two extracts we see the interviewer treating these categories of ‘racists’ and ‘politicians’ as not so different. Marr’s question to Cameron offers the inference that Dominic Grieve, an aide of Cameron, has indeed made a racist statement. These two extracts were taken from the transcript of an episode of “The Andrew Marr Show” broadcast on the 28th

8

of September 2008. Here, Dominic Grieve who was, at that time, the Shadow Attorney General and a Conservative Party MP from Beaconsfield also features as a relevant actor.

Extract 4.

1234567891011

Marr:

CameronMarrCameronMarrCameron

Okay. Do you agree that mass immigration has meant that this country has done something terrible to itself? Well you're talking about Dominic Grieve's... I am. ? interview in the Observer. That's not actually what he said. That was quoted. This quote here, it's quite clear. What he said was that state multiculturalism - the idea that as welcoming people into our country, we should keep them all in silos and treat British Muslims as Muslims rather than British citizens, treat British Jews as Jews rather than British citizens -that is wrong and state multiculturalism, keeping people separate rather than trying to build a common identity, that has been...

Marr’s question at lines 1-2 asks for Cameron’s agreement on a specific version of immigration and its consequences. This version, ‘that mass immigration has meant that this country has done something terrible to itself’ (lines 1-2), clearly treats immigration in problematic ways. In Extract 1 we saw that such straightforward complaints on immigration are themselves treated as complainables. Here, Cameron orients to this possibility and attempts to manage such implications. Now, noteworthy here is that Cameron introduces ‘Dominic Grieve’ (line 3) as the animator, author and principal (Goffman, 1983) of this statement. What this does is inserts a bit of distance between Cameron and the making of such a statement. However, it is not that kind of distance designed to shrug off responsibility, rather it is one where Cameron can now work on that statement. This involves introducing a gloss of what Grieve may have said, namely that he was against ‘state multiculturalism’ (line 7) and unpacking it via offering a specific version of this state multiculturalism.

At lines 7-11, it is described as one that translates into some set of actions. The first of these implies a rather harsh and segregationist treatment of ‘immigrants’: ‘welcoming people into our country, we should keep them all in silos’ (lines 8-9). It is noteworthy that Cameron manages the issue of agency here, in that he treats some vague (Potter, 1996) ‘we’ to be ‘welcoming people’ (line 8) into the UK. This is furthered in similar ways of describing these actions at lines 8 through 10. Now, this is noteworthy for it points to a distinction between those who are ‘we’ (line 8) and who are welcomed ‘into our country’ (line 8) ascribing agency to those who are doing the welcoming rather than those who are entering the country.

9

Secondly, this allows Cameron to demonstrate this version of ‘state multiculturalism’ (line 7) through employing a distinction between a singular “British” identity and other fused identities. Specifically, he treats such a policy to value a religious or an ethno-religious identity over a national identity: ‘treat British Muslims as Muslims rather than British citizens, treat British Jews as Jews rather than British citizens’ (lines 8-10). Now, Cameron’s evaluation that this version of state multiculturalism is ‘wrong’ (line 10), works on the notion that some unspecified ‘people’ are being welcomed into the UK, being acted upon and being treated in two ways – either as different sets of people or as a common group of people – the former being problematic. Of central importance, here, are the banal references to nation (Billig, 1995) and the implication that in treating ‘ourselves’ to retain agency over immigrants, ‘we’ retain the right to value an identity grounded in nationality rather than identities that have other bases. On the one hand favouring a ‘common identity’ (line 11) of being British is rhetorically effective, for the seemingly ubiquitous character of nations. On the other hand, Cameron can do this owing to the relevance of descriptions that made nation and belongingness in the nation relevant throughout the interaction. This is particularly noticeable in Cameron’s favourable treatment of building ‘a common identity’ (line 11) over the version of ‘state multiculturalism’ (line 7) presented.

In the following extract, we see Marr taking issue with what exactly is meant by being ‘British’. While this goes unexamined, unexplained and implicit in many instances, here Marr offers one implication which turns out to be problematic for Cameron.

Extract 5.

12131415161718

Marr

Cameron

And he uses this very eloquent phrase: ?we have actually done something terrible to ourselves in Britain' and he talks about the long-term inhabitants, which presumably means white people... Do you agree with that? And I think, I think state multiculturalism - the idea that you keep people separate - I think is a bad approach and I think trying to integrate more, trying to bring people together more, trying to build a strong common British identity for the future, I think that's absolutely right.

As seen in media news interviews (Heritage & Clayman, 2010), the interviewer Marr pursues his earlier line of questioning that treats Grieve’s statement as problematic. He does so by directly reporting (Holt, 1996) Grieve’s speech that ‘?we have actually done something terrible to ourselves in Britain'’ (lines 13-14), in an ironic way: ‘very eloquent phrase’ (line 12). The use of direct reported speech (Wooffitt, 2001) serves to establish the factuality of that utterance (Potter, 1996), which was at issue earlier in the interaction.

This speech treats some policies to have led to problematic consequences to what are described as ‘ourselves in Britain’ (line 13). While this description may be taken in many ways, Marr extends that description and offers a specific reading of this: ‘and he talks about the long-

10

term inhabitants, which presumably means white people’ (lines 13-14). Marr offers the inference that for Grieve mass immigration has meant problems for those who are ethnically white. Clearly, such a complaint on immigration is deeply problematic because it indicates that firstly, immigrants coming into the UK are not ethnically white and secondly that such immigration, which involves immigrants who are ethnically non-white, should be stopped. He offers this for agreement to Cameron.

Cameron’s response to, what is hearable as an accusation that Grieve had made a racist statement, is to repeat his earlier account of Grieve’s statement made in ways to display difficulties in giving a response. These difficulties are noted by the use a hedge – ‘I think’ (line 15) – and a repetition such hedge. Furthermore, Cameron’s response is marked by a footing shift (Goffman, 1981), in that he now offers such an account by presenting himself as the author, animator and the principal of what ‘state multiculturalism’ (line 15) implies and what a better alternative would be. Such a response is hearable as orienting to the question as problematic with little left by way of justifying or accounting for what Grieve may have meant. However, the use of such a footing shift allows, at least, for the interaction to continue without breaking down (McVittie et al., 2011).

While particular ways of problematizing policies and statements on immigration are open to possible management, the above was not. This involved making ethnicity relevant and allowing for an overt inference that such a position would be racist.

Discussion

The results show how the interviewees manage problematic implications on talking about immigration offered in the interviewers’ questions. The questions make relevant a problematic reading of some utterance. The interviewees orient to this problematic reading in their responses and manage it. However, this does not happen in Extract 5, as the problematic reading offered is explicitly racist. There the attempt at managing such accusation is abandoned. The interviewees’ management of these accusations primarily involved treating some other positions, statements or actions as extreme, segregationist and/or racist. These were either readily recognisable as racist or problematic, worked up in that way or implicitly constructed to be so. In Extract 1, Cameron treats his statement as being ‘moderate’. In Extracts 2 and 3, Johnson works up a contrast between ‘racists’ and ‘politicians’ in ways that treats the former’s actions as invalid and not entertained by the ‘British public’. Whereas, the latter’s actions are treated favourably and as helping the country. In Extract 4, Cameron works up the policy of ‘state multiculturalism’ as segregationist and presents Grieve’s statement to be against such a problematic policy.

This however does not hold for Extract 5. In Extract 5, the interviewer makes such an accusation explicitly inferable. Doing so leaves little room for Cameron to attempt a management of such an accusation. Here we see that explicitly making race and racism relevant in talking about immigration in media is a problematic task. We see that this only happens once

11

by the interviewer, in Extract 5, which is also a continuation from an attempt at managing such implications earlier. The interviewee, in Extracts 2 and 3, does it in response to the interviewer’s reference to the extremist political party ‘BNP’ and only after offering substantial credentials to show that he has some rights for doing so. Together, these indicate that participants orient to ‘racism’ as extreme, the prerogative of ‘the racists’, untenable and not easily sayable in public-facing contexts while talking about immigration. The interviewers and the interviewees make use of this orientation to ‘racism’ in accusing and managing accusations.

Discursive researchers (Augoustinos & Every, 2007; Billig, 1988; Eliasoph, 1999) have shown that explicit use of ethnic or race category labels is uncommon in public interactions because it can lead to interactional and other sorts of problems. Indeed, this underlies the phenomenon identified as ‘new racism’ (Augoustinos, Tuffin, & Every, 2005; Barker, 2001; Bonilla-Silva, 2005), where racism is accomplished without the explicit use of racial/ethnic category labels. The introduction of an ethnic category label then can lead to intense outcomes, in that their use can either allow for a ready implication that the speaker is prejudiced or can be part of making a serious accusation against another speaker. Their use is so circumscribed that explicit usages happen in highly specific occasions such as jokes on dedicated racist websites (Billig, 2001; Holtz & Wagner, 2009) or by political parties known for their far-right political stances (Wood & Finlay, 2008).

Participants here orient to racism in a similar fashion, in that they treat the explicit uses of race related lexical items and the actions of those known to be in the far-right political parties as racism. Unsurprisingly, they orient to this in deeply problematic ways. Participants here use it in showing certain positions, utterances or actions as not racist. Of particular note is that the consequences of making racism directly relevant are shared by the interviewer and the interviewee. In Extract 2, the interviewer, Marr, readily agrees to the interviewee Johnson’s evaluation of Mosley’s political career and participates in the account being given. In Extract 5, the more overt invocation of racism results in Cameron abandoning attempts at managing the accusation. These suggest that for participants certain versions of racism, where it is explicitly brought to the surface, are oriented to in similar ways, such as that they are inexcusable.

Billig (1998) shows that those in the far-right political parties like the National Front in the UK avoided being seen as prejudiced. Instead, they accuse those accusing them of being prejudiced. What we see here is not so much of role reversal but pointing at those who can be taken as racists in one’s own defence. However, the similarity is that participants here treat particular versions of racism to have similar sorts of negative connotations. They do not seem to be contending what it implies. Rather they employ such implications in doing interactional actions. Billig (1982) shows that agents used references to Nazis as the real racists in managing implications of anti-Semitism on themselves. While we see something similar in Extract 2, it is to be noted that Johnson does not readily introduce the BNP or treat them as racists. Rather, this happens in response to Marr’s treating the BNP as an active agency in the prevalent anti-immigrant sentiment. Moreover, Johnson offers a narrative on his childhood and the goings-on at that time in presenting the BNP as racists. The point is that explicitly introducing race, racism and/or racist agencies is oriented to as a delicate task. In Extracts 4 and 5, we see that while this

12

‘strategy’ might work, it does not always finish the interactional engagement, others have recourse to alternative means, such as making race explicit, in doing an accusation.

In some ways, the findings here complement those of Durrheim, Greener and Whitehead (2014). There the authors show how deracialized discourses can be used to make race and racism hearable in problematic ways. We see this happening in the interviewers’ questions and in interviewees’ efforts in managing implications of racism. Durrheim et al (2014) also argue that explicit formulations of race and racism were avoided, while ‘race trouble’ became noticeable through implication. Marr’s use of the ethnic category label ‘white people’ in Extract 5, makes it rather apparent that there is a racial element to that utterance and this leads to interactional trouble in the form of a repeat of the earlier response by Cameron. In other extracts, softer versions of making racism relevant were oriented to as problematic, nevertheless their management was attempted.

Interestingly, interviewees’ responses bear a striking resemblance to two sorts of narratives on racism. Cohen (1992) argues that theories on racism and accounts that explain racism can be thought of as those that are functional and those that are dysfunctional. The former involve offering a rational account of racism, usually attributed to intergroup conflict over resources. The latter involve an irrational account of racism, usually attributed to specific agents or agencies that encourage blind hatred towards an out-group. The interviewees here offer dysfunctional narratives on the other ‘racists’ or some policies, whereas present their positions in functionalist terms, such as based on pressure on ‘public services’ or having done some good for the country.

What we see here is that participants orient to racism and prejudice as irrational and inexcusable positions. This orientation comes through in the ways in which they manage similar implications on their own or related-others’ utterances. Participants here work up their positions as rational, sensible and/or somehow accountable. An integral part of doing so involves working up the status of some other utterances and/or positions as racist, prejudiced or discriminatory. Together, their accounts trade on the notion that racism is irrational and their acts in being rational could not have been racist and/or problematic.

Such findings demonstrate that studies on racism in language use should not just be focused on identifying racism in language, but also examine the social and interactional life of race and racism.

13

References

Adorno, T. W. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Allport, G. (1958). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Ashmore, M., MacMillan, K., & Brown, S. D. (2004). It's a scream: Professional hearing and

tape fetishism. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 349-374.

Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). Contemporary racist discourse: Taboos against racism and

racist accusations. In A. Weatherall, B. M. Watson & C. Gallois (Eds.), Language,

discourse and social psychology (pp. 233-254). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2010). Accusations and denials: Managing moral accountability

in public discourse. Discourse & Society, 21(3), 251-256.

Augoustinos, M., Tuffin, K., & Every, D. (2005). New racism, meritocracy and individualism:

Constraining affirmative action in education. Discourse & Society, 16(3), 315-340.

Barker, M. (2001). The new racism. London: Junction Books.

Billig, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a

rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 79-103.

14

Billig, M. (1988). The notion of 'prejudice': Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. Text, 8 (1-

2), 91-110.

Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.

Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of the klu klux klan. Discourse &

Society, 12(3), 267-289.

Billig, M. (1982). Anti-semitism in the eighties. Month, 15, 125-130.

Blauner, R. (1972). Racial oppression in aamerica. New York: Harper Row.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (1997). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American

Sociological Review, 62(3), 465-480. doi:: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657316

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2005). "New racism", colour-blind racism and the future of whiteness in

america. In A. W. Doane, & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), (pp. 271 -284). New York: Routledge.

Brau, E. (2011). UK immigration: Motivations behind the introduction of the points-based

system. Migration Studies Unit Working Papers,

British Broadcasting Company. (2010). UK government agrees on skilled migration cap.

Retrieved 08/10, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11816979;

Buttny, R. (1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication

Research, 23, 475-504.

15

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the

air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, P. (1992). 'It's racism what dunnit': Hidden narratives in theories of racism. In J. Donald,

& A. Rattansi (Eds.), 'Race', culture & difference (pp. 62-103). London, England.: SAGE.

Durrheim, K., Greener, R., & Whitehead, K. A. (2014). Race trouble: Attending to race and

racism in online interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, doi:10.1111/bjso.12070

Edwards, D. (2003). Analyzing racial discourse: The discursive psyhcology of mind-world

relationships. In H. van den Berg, M. Wetherell & H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (Eds.), Analyzing

race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview (pp. 31-48). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Eliasoph, N. (1999). 'Everyday racism' in a culture of political avoidance: Civil society, speech

and taboo. Social Problems, 46(4), 479-499.

Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove.

Fields, B. (1982). Race and ideology in american history. In M. Kousser, & J. McPherson (Eds.),

Region, race and reconstruction: Essays in honor of C. vann woodward. (pp. 143-177).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Fields, B. (1990). Slavery, race and ideology in the united states of america. New Left Review,

181, 95-118.

16

Figgou, L., & Condor, S. (2006). Irrational categorization, natural intolerance and reasonable

discrimination: Lay representations of prejudice and racism. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 45, 219-243.

Financial Times. (2009). FT poll reveals hostility to jobless migrants. Retrieved 9/10, 2012, from

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48a5c55a-11b5-11de-87b1-

0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2WVQ74lPm,

Freeman, G. (1978). Immigrant labour and working-class politics: The french and british

experience. Comparative Politics, 11(1), 24-41.

Gilroy, P. (2004). After empire: Melancholia or convivial culture. London,UK.: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Goodman, S., & Rowe, L. (2014). ‘Maybe it is prejudice … but it is NOT racism’: Negotiating

racism in discussion forums about gypsies. Discourse & Society, 25(1), 32-46.

doi:10.1177/0957926513508856

Hanson-Easey, S., Augoustinos, M., & Moloney, G. (2014). 'They're all tribals':  Essentialism,

context and the discursive representation of sudanese refugees. Discourse & Society,

doi:10.1177/0957926513519536

Hastie, B. (2009). 'Excusing the inexcusable': Justifying injustice in nelson's sorry speech.

Discourse & Society, 20(6), 705-725.

17

Hastie, B., & Augoustinos, M. (2012). Rudd's apology to the stolen generations: Challenging

self-sufficient arguments in ?race? discourse. Australian Psychologist, 47(2), 118-126.

doi:10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00021.x

Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case

of news interviews. In D. Boden, & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure:

Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. (pp. 93-197). Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in action: Interaction, identities and institutions.

Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research

on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219-245.

Holtz, P., & Wagner, W. (2009). Essentialism and attribution of monstrosity in racist discourse:

Right-wing internet postings about africans and jews. Journal of Community and Applied

Social Psychology., 19, 411-425.

Ipsos MORI. (2011). Strong support for a cap on immigration amidst economic concern.

Retrieved 8/10, 2012, from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/latestnews/644/Strong-

support-for-a-cap-on-immigration-amidst-economic-concern.aspx.

Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and interactional resource. In G. Psathas. (Ed.),

Interactional competence (pp. 63-92). Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Jones, G., Helm, T. & Wilson, G. (2007). British workers for british jobs says brown. Retrieved

18

Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266-

293.

Kitzinger, C. (2000). Media templates: Patterns of association and the (re)construction of

meaning over time. Media, Culture & Society, 22, 61-84.

doi:10.1177/016344300022001004

Leudar, I., & Nekvapil, J. (2000). Presentations of romanies in the czech media: On category

work in television debates. Discourse & Society, 11(4), 487-513.

doi:10.1177/0957926500011004003.

McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2008). Social psychology & discourse. Sussex: WIley-Blackwell.

McVittie, C., Sambaraju, R., & McKinlay, A. (2011). “There will only be lots of chit-chat”: How

hamas leaders and media interviewers handle controversial topics. Research on Language

and Social Interaction, 44(1), 92-105. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.546057

Mendick, R., & Duffin, C. (2013). True scale of european immigration:  An EU study has found

600,000 unemployed migrants are living in britain - a 42 per cent rise. Retrieved 03/21,

2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10375358/True-scale-of-

European-immigration.html

Migration Watch UK. (2012). Economic impacts of immigration to the UK. Retrieved 03/21,

2014, from http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/briefingPaper/document/235

Murray, A. (2011). Britain’s points based migration system. (Publication). London:

CentreForum.

19

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In J. A. Holstein, & J. F. Gubrium

(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 275-293). New York: Guildford.

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London:

Sage.

Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson, & H. Giles

(Eds.), (pp. 103-118). Chichester: Wiley.

Rojo, M. L., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Legitimating the expulsion of `Illegal' migrants in spanish

parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523-566.

doi:10.1177/0957926597008004005

Sniderman, P., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P., & Kendrick, A. (1991). The new racism. American

Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 423-447.

Stokoe, E. (2009). Doing actions with identity categories: Complaints and denials in neighbor

disputes. Text & Talk - an Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and

Communication Studies, 29(1), 75-97. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2009.004,

The Guardian. (2012). Financial crisis: Timeline. Retrieved 9/10, 2012, from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/07/credit-crunch-boom-bust-timeline

Travis, A. (2014, ). Report reveals little evidence foreign migrants put british workers out of

jobs. The Guardian

20

Trott, D. (2012). A capital mistake? the neglected effect of immigration on average wages.

Applied Economic Letters, 19(9), 873-876.

van Dijk, T. (2000). New(s) racism: A discourse analytic approach. In S. Cottle (Ed.), Ethnic

minorities and the media (pp. 33-49). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

van Dijk, T. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse and Society, 3(1), 87-118.

doi:10.1177/0957926592003001005

Wood, C., & Finlay, W. M. L. (2008). British national party representations of muslims in the

month after the london bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 707-726. doi:10.1348/014466607X264103

 

21