不同的理解,不同的反应:受过高等教育的第二代德国黑人的种族主义经历。

IF 2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Frontiers in Sociology Pub Date : 2025-02-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2025.1450981
Eunike Piwoni
{"title":"不同的理解,不同的反应:受过高等教育的第二代德国黑人的种族主义经历。","authors":"Eunike Piwoni","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2025.1450981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article argues that there is a close relationship between individuals' understandings of specific incidents of racism, their ideas of how racism operates, and their (repertoires of) responses to such incidents. The argument is based on a qualitative interview study with 21 highly educated Black Germans with at least one parent born outside Germany, and draws on both the extant literature on responses to experiences of ethnoracial exclusion and research into how people make sense of such experiences. The analysis specifically explores two contrasting types of interviewees: Type 1 felt that they were constantly and potentially always affected by racism and had a broad knowledge of racism. These interviewees recounted many different incidents, many of which they clearly labelled as \"racist.\" Type 1 interviewees reported a variety of response options, with direct confrontation being one of them. In stark contrast, Type 2 respondents tended to normalise the relatively few incidents they mentioned or indicate only feelings of unease. They also believed that they were largely unaffected by racism, had a less deep understanding of racism and tended to respond to incidents of exclusion in ways that allowed the encounter to continue without disruption. Overall, the study calls for greater attention to racialised people's meaning-making in relation to concrete incidents of exclusion and to their knowledge of racism. This requires methodological adaptations to qualitative interview research, which remains the most popular method for exploring experiences of racism. In particular, the study highlights the importance of understanding the ways in which respondents talk about their experiences (categorisation, indication of feelings of unease, and normalisation). It also emphasises the need to go beyond considering only interviewees' responses to direct questions about their experiences of racism and/or discrimination and/or incidents clearly categorised by interviewees as, for example, \"racist.\" Moreover, reconstructing interviewees' knowledge about racism offers a path towards understanding not only their sense-making but also their repertoires of responses. This, in turn, provides insight into why individuals of comparable class position and educational background respond to racism in different ways.</p>","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":"10 ","pages":"1450981"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893846/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different understandings, different responses: experiences of racism among highly educated, second generation Black Germans.\",\"authors\":\"Eunike Piwoni\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsoc.2025.1450981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article argues that there is a close relationship between individuals' understandings of specific incidents of racism, their ideas of how racism operates, and their (repertoires of) responses to such incidents. The argument is based on a qualitative interview study with 21 highly educated Black Germans with at least one parent born outside Germany, and draws on both the extant literature on responses to experiences of ethnoracial exclusion and research into how people make sense of such experiences. The analysis specifically explores two contrasting types of interviewees: Type 1 felt that they were constantly and potentially always affected by racism and had a broad knowledge of racism. These interviewees recounted many different incidents, many of which they clearly labelled as \\\"racist.\\\" Type 1 interviewees reported a variety of response options, with direct confrontation being one of them. In stark contrast, Type 2 respondents tended to normalise the relatively few incidents they mentioned or indicate only feelings of unease. They also believed that they were largely unaffected by racism, had a less deep understanding of racism and tended to respond to incidents of exclusion in ways that allowed the encounter to continue without disruption. Overall, the study calls for greater attention to racialised people's meaning-making in relation to concrete incidents of exclusion and to their knowledge of racism. This requires methodological adaptations to qualitative interview research, which remains the most popular method for exploring experiences of racism. In particular, the study highlights the importance of understanding the ways in which respondents talk about their experiences (categorisation, indication of feelings of unease, and normalisation). It also emphasises the need to go beyond considering only interviewees' responses to direct questions about their experiences of racism and/or discrimination and/or incidents clearly categorised by interviewees as, for example, \\\"racist.\\\" Moreover, reconstructing interviewees' knowledge about racism offers a path towards understanding not only their sense-making but also their repertoires of responses. This, in turn, provides insight into why individuals of comparable class position and educational background respond to racism in different ways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"1450981\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893846/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1450981\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1450981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,个人对特定种族主义事件的理解、他们对种族主义如何运作的看法以及他们对这些事件的反应(通常的)之间存在着密切的关系。这一论点是基于对21名受过高等教育的德国黑人的定性访谈研究,他们的父母中至少有一人出生在德国以外,并借鉴了关于种族排斥经历的反应的现有文献,以及人们如何理解这种经历的研究。该分析特别探讨了两种截然不同的受访者类型:类型1认为他们不断并可能总是受到种族主义的影响,并且对种族主义有广泛的了解。这些受访者讲述了许多不同的事件,其中许多都被他们明确地贴上了“种族主义”的标签。第一类受访者报告了多种回应选项,直接对抗是其中之一。与之形成鲜明对比的是,第二类受访者倾向于将他们提到的相对较少的事件正常化,或者只表示不安的感觉。他们还认为,他们在很大程度上不受种族主义的影响,对种族主义的理解不那么深刻,并且倾向于以不受干扰的方式应对被排斥的事件。总的来说,这项研究呼吁更多地关注种族化的人在具体的排斥事件和他们对种族主义的认识方面的意义建构。这需要对定性访谈研究进行方法调整,这仍然是探索种族主义经历的最流行的方法。该研究特别强调了理解受访者谈论他们经历的方式(分类、不安情绪的表示和正常化)的重要性。它还强调,有必要不仅仅考虑受访者对直接问题的回答,这些问题涉及他们的种族主义和/或歧视经历,以及/或被受访者明确归类为“种族主义”的事件。此外,重构受访者关于种族主义的知识不仅为理解他们的理解提供了途径,也为理解他们的反应提供了途径。这反过来又让我们深入了解为什么阶级地位和教育背景相似的个体对种族主义的反应不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Different understandings, different responses: experiences of racism among highly educated, second generation Black Germans.

This article argues that there is a close relationship between individuals' understandings of specific incidents of racism, their ideas of how racism operates, and their (repertoires of) responses to such incidents. The argument is based on a qualitative interview study with 21 highly educated Black Germans with at least one parent born outside Germany, and draws on both the extant literature on responses to experiences of ethnoracial exclusion and research into how people make sense of such experiences. The analysis specifically explores two contrasting types of interviewees: Type 1 felt that they were constantly and potentially always affected by racism and had a broad knowledge of racism. These interviewees recounted many different incidents, many of which they clearly labelled as "racist." Type 1 interviewees reported a variety of response options, with direct confrontation being one of them. In stark contrast, Type 2 respondents tended to normalise the relatively few incidents they mentioned or indicate only feelings of unease. They also believed that they were largely unaffected by racism, had a less deep understanding of racism and tended to respond to incidents of exclusion in ways that allowed the encounter to continue without disruption. Overall, the study calls for greater attention to racialised people's meaning-making in relation to concrete incidents of exclusion and to their knowledge of racism. This requires methodological adaptations to qualitative interview research, which remains the most popular method for exploring experiences of racism. In particular, the study highlights the importance of understanding the ways in which respondents talk about their experiences (categorisation, indication of feelings of unease, and normalisation). It also emphasises the need to go beyond considering only interviewees' responses to direct questions about their experiences of racism and/or discrimination and/or incidents clearly categorised by interviewees as, for example, "racist." Moreover, reconstructing interviewees' knowledge about racism offers a path towards understanding not only their sense-making but also their repertoires of responses. This, in turn, provides insight into why individuals of comparable class position and educational background respond to racism in different ways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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