MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076400968 · doi:10.1353/ces.0.0026

Discourses of “Democratic Racism“ in the Talk of South Asian Canadian Women

2007· article· en· W2076400968 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismDemocracyGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite societal norms of tolerance and diversity, covert “democratic” racism (Henry and Tator 2006) flourishes in Canada on individual and systemic levels. Democratic racism, an ideology that allows the coexistence of both egalitarian values and racist attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, is often expressed by the dominant group through powerful discourses that shape the social reality for many minority individuals. However, racist discourses, such as blaming the target of racism and denying that racism exists, are often manifested very subtly. In this article, we use democratic racism as a framework to investigate the multiple ways in which our participants — South Asian Canadian women — described their experiences of racism. A discourse analysis of participants’ talk revealed that they used various rhetorical strategies and discursive devices to avoid attributing negative experiences as racism. Surprisingly, we found that the same discourses used by the dominant group to dismiss and erase racism are available to, and are also utilized by, members of visible minority groups. We conclude by discussing possible reasons why participants in the study might deny racism. We also note the societal implication of such denial: racism becomes invisible, both to the perpetrators and the targets, and systemic inequalities and injustices remain unchallenged. Malgré les normes sociétales de tolérance et de diversité. un racisme «démocratique» sous-jacent (Henry and Tator 2006) fleurit au Canada à deux niveaux : individuel et systémique. Idéologie qui permet la coexistence à la fois de valeurs d’égalité et d’attitudes, de croyances et de comportements raciaux, il imprègne souvent un discours drastique tenu par le groupe dominant et qui altère la réalité sociale vécue par nombre de personnes minoritaires. Le racisme, cependant, se manifeste souvent de manière très subtile, par exemple en blâmant sa cible et en niant sa propre existence. Dans cet article, sa forme démocratique nous sert de cadre pour enquêter sur les multiples façons dont nos participantes — des Canadiennes sud-asiatiques — décrivent leur expérience dans ce domaine. Une analyse discursive de leurs propos révèle qu’elles se servent de stratégies rhétoriques et de moyens d’expression variés pour éviter d’attribuer au racisme des expériences négatives. Nous avons étonnamment découvert que le discours employé par les membres de groupes de minorités visibles était le même que celui dont se sert le groupe dominant pour démentir et gommer son racisme. Nous concluons en analysant les raisons possibles qui porteraient les participantes à cette étude à un tel déni. Nous en notons aussi les implications sociétales : le racisme devient invisible, et pour les auteurs, et pour leurs cibles; par ailleurs, aucune contestation ne remet en question les inégalités et les injustices systémiques.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it