Trading Blame: Drawing Boundaries around the Righteous, Deserving and Vulnerable in Times of Crisis.

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Jordan Foster, David Pettinicchio, Michelle Maroto, Andy Holmes, Martin Lukk
{"title":"Trading Blame: Drawing Boundaries around the Righteous, Deserving and Vulnerable in Times of Crisis.","authors":"Jordan Foster,&nbsp;David Pettinicchio,&nbsp;Michelle Maroto,&nbsp;Andy Holmes,&nbsp;Martin Lukk","doi":"10.1177/00380385221137181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Symbolic boundaries shape how we see and understand both ourselves and those around us. Amid periods of crisis, these boundaries can appear more salient, sharpening distinctions between 'us' and 'them' and reinforcing inequalities in the social landscape. Based on 50 in-depth interviews about pandemic experiences among Canadians with disabilities and chronic health conditions, we examine how this community distinguishes between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving', and how emotions related to blame and resentment inform the boundaries they draw. We find that people with disabilities and chronic health conditions drew boundaries based on unequal health statuses and vulnerabilities and between those who are and are not legitimately entitled to government aid. Underlying these dimensions are a familiar set of moral tropes that respondents use to assert their own superiority and to inveigh their frustrations. Together, they play an important role in solidifying boundaries between groups, complicating public perceptions of policy responses to crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":48356,"journal":{"name":"Sociology-The Journal of the British Sociological Association","volume":"57 5","pages":"1040-1059"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a9/85/10.1177_00380385221137181.PMC10555531.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology-The Journal of the British Sociological Association","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385221137181","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Symbolic boundaries shape how we see and understand both ourselves and those around us. Amid periods of crisis, these boundaries can appear more salient, sharpening distinctions between 'us' and 'them' and reinforcing inequalities in the social landscape. Based on 50 in-depth interviews about pandemic experiences among Canadians with disabilities and chronic health conditions, we examine how this community distinguishes between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving', and how emotions related to blame and resentment inform the boundaries they draw. We find that people with disabilities and chronic health conditions drew boundaries based on unequal health statuses and vulnerabilities and between those who are and are not legitimately entitled to government aid. Underlying these dimensions are a familiar set of moral tropes that respondents use to assert their own superiority and to inveigh their frustrations. Together, they play an important role in solidifying boundaries between groups, complicating public perceptions of policy responses to crisis.

Abstract Image

交易指责:在危机时期为正义、应得和弱势群体划定界限。
象征性的界限塑造了我们看待和理解自己和周围人的方式。在危机时期,这些界限可能会显得更加突出,加剧“我们”和“他们”之间的区别,并加剧社会格局中的不平等。基于50次关于加拿大残疾人和慢性病患者疫情经历的深入采访,我们研究了这个社区如何区分“值得”和“不值得”,以及与指责和怨恨相关的情绪如何影响他们划定的界限。我们发现,残疾人和慢性健康状况不佳的人基于不平等的健康状况和脆弱性,以及合法和不合法有权获得政府援助的人之间的界限。在这些维度的背后是一套熟悉的道德比喻,受访者用这些比喻来维护自己的优越感,并抨击自己的沮丧情绪。它们共同在巩固群体之间的界限方面发挥着重要作用,使公众对危机应对政策的看法复杂化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.90%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: The objective of Sociology is to publish outstanding and original articles which advance the theoretical understanding of, and promote and report empirical research about the widest range of sociological topics. The journal encourages, and welcomes, submission of papers which report findings using both quantitative and qualitative research methods; articles challenging conventional concepts and proposing new conceptual approaches; and accounts of methodological innovation and the research process. Research Notes provide a means of briefly summarising results from recent or current studies or short discussions of methodological problems and solutions. Critical review essays and book reviews are seen as ways of promoting vigorous scholarly debate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信