Bao‐Thi Van Cong, Séamus A. Power, Thomas A. Morton
{"title":"与谁团结?从少数群体角度看丹麦同性恋空间中的盟友关系","authors":"Bao‐Thi Van Cong, Séamus A. Power, Thomas A. Morton","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social psychological research has witnessed a burgeoning interest in advantaged group allies acting in solidarity with disadvantaged groups to challenge systems of inequality. While solidarity from advantaged group members is often deemed critical for social change, the perceptions of disadvantaged group members regarding ally participation are seldom addressed. This research delved into how LGBTQIA+ individuals in Denmark conceptualize allyship. Through 26 semi‐structured interviews with participants and organizers of queer pride events, a thematic analysis identified three themes addressing how allyship materializes, what risks it bears and who it involves. Specifically, we present a three‐levelled framework of allyship, which captures practices of allyship on a personal, relational and structural level. Our analysis also reveals the risk of allyship when it is not perceived as genuine and complexities of group boundaries when discussing allyship, shedding light on intersectional challenges within minority communities. These findings illustrate the nuances involved in providing and receiving allyship within and across various social (sub)groups.","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solidarity with whom? Minority perspectives on allyship in Danish queer spaces\",\"authors\":\"Bao‐Thi Van Cong, Séamus A. Power, Thomas A. Morton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjso.12780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social psychological research has witnessed a burgeoning interest in advantaged group allies acting in solidarity with disadvantaged groups to challenge systems of inequality. While solidarity from advantaged group members is often deemed critical for social change, the perceptions of disadvantaged group members regarding ally participation are seldom addressed. This research delved into how LGBTQIA+ individuals in Denmark conceptualize allyship. Through 26 semi‐structured interviews with participants and organizers of queer pride events, a thematic analysis identified three themes addressing how allyship materializes, what risks it bears and who it involves. Specifically, we present a three‐levelled framework of allyship, which captures practices of allyship on a personal, relational and structural level. Our analysis also reveals the risk of allyship when it is not perceived as genuine and complexities of group boundaries when discussing allyship, shedding light on intersectional challenges within minority communities. These findings illustrate the nuances involved in providing and receiving allyship within and across various social (sub)groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12780\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12780","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Solidarity with whom? Minority perspectives on allyship in Danish queer spaces
Social psychological research has witnessed a burgeoning interest in advantaged group allies acting in solidarity with disadvantaged groups to challenge systems of inequality. While solidarity from advantaged group members is often deemed critical for social change, the perceptions of disadvantaged group members regarding ally participation are seldom addressed. This research delved into how LGBTQIA+ individuals in Denmark conceptualize allyship. Through 26 semi‐structured interviews with participants and organizers of queer pride events, a thematic analysis identified three themes addressing how allyship materializes, what risks it bears and who it involves. Specifically, we present a three‐levelled framework of allyship, which captures practices of allyship on a personal, relational and structural level. Our analysis also reveals the risk of allyship when it is not perceived as genuine and complexities of group boundaries when discussing allyship, shedding light on intersectional challenges within minority communities. These findings illustrate the nuances involved in providing and receiving allyship within and across various social (sub)groups.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.