This article investigates the interactional organization of racism through participant production and uptake of explicit racial membership categories across a corpus of 50+ hours of audio-/video-recorded interaction in three U.S. states. The discourse analysis examines one participant method for addressing “hearably racist” talk: echoing extreme versions of the problematic utterance to provide opportunities for repair work on inferable associations between membership categories and category-bound activities. Orienting to implicit inferential material as the source of trouble licenses participant account-seeking; treating the racism as a repairable downgrades its status as an overt instance of racism.
BhatC. S. (2008). Cyber bullying: Overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance counsellors, and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 18, 53-66.
2.
BilligM. (1988). The notion of prejudice: Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. Text, 8, 91-110.
3.
BushnellC. (2014). On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis. Pragmatics, 24, 735-756.
4.
ButtnyR. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London, England: Sage.
5.
CondorS.FiggouL.AbellJ.GibsonS.StevensonC. (2006). “They’re not racist . . .” Prejudice denial, mitigation and suppression in dialogue. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 441-462.
6.
CraigR. T. (2005). How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest. Journal of Communication, 55, 659-667.
7.
CraigR. T.TracyK. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272.
8.
EdwardsD. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 347-373.
9.
FiggouL.CondorS. (2006). Irrational categorization, natural intolerance and reasonable discrimination: Lay representations of prejudice and racism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 219-243.
10.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
11.
JeffersonG. (1984). Transcription notation. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix-xi). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
KitzingerC.FrithH. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse and Society, 10, 293-316.
14.
KuryloA.RoblesJ. S. (2015). How should I respond to them? An emergent categorization of responses to interpersonally communicated stereotypes. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44, 64-91.
15.
PomerantzA. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219-229.
16.
RaymondG. (2004). Promoting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 185-218.
17.
RoblesJ. S. (2011). The interactive achievement of morality in everyday talk: A discourse analysis of moral practices and problems in interpersonal relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.
18.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
19.
SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG.SacksH. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
20.
SpeerS. A.PotterJ. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk: Conversational resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse and Society, 11, 543-572.
21.
StokoeE. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14, 277-303.
22.
StokoeE. (2015). Identifying and responding to possible -isms in institutional encounters: Alignment, impartiality and the implications for communication training. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 426-444.
23.
TileagaC. (2005). Accounting for extreme prejudice and legitimating blame in talk about the Romanies. Discourse and Society, 16, 603-624.
24.
TracyK. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 195-215.
25.
TracyK. (2011). “Reasonable hostility”: Its usefulness and limitation as a norm for public hearings. Informal Logic, 31, 171-190.
26.
TracyK.AshcraftC. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 297-316.
27.
van DijkT. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse and Society, 3, 87-118.
28.
WaltonD. (1993). Commitment, types of dialogue, and fallacies. Informal Logic, 14, 93-103.
29.
WhiteheadK. A. (2009). “Categorizing the categorizer”: The management of racial common sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 325-342.
30.
WhiteheadK. A. (2015). Everyday antiracism in action: Preference organization in responses to racism. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 373-388.
31.
WhiteheadK. A.LernerG. H. (2009). When are persons “white”?: On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society, 20, 613-641.
