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

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12780
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会心理学研究发现,人们对优势群体盟友与弱势群体团结一致挑战不平等制度的兴趣日渐浓厚。虽然优势群体成员的声援往往被认为是社会变革的关键,但弱势群体成员对盟友参与的看法却鲜有涉及。本研究深入探讨了丹麦的 LGBTQIA+ 个人是如何看待盟友关系的。通过对同性恋自豪感活动的参与者和组织者进行 26 次半结构式访谈,我们进行了主题分析,确定了三个主题,分别涉及同盟关系如何具体化、同盟关系有哪些风险以及同盟关系涉及哪些人。具体而言,我们提出了一个三层次的同盟关系框架,从个人、关系和结构三个层面来把握同盟关系的实践。我们的分析还揭示了当盟友关系不被视为真正的盟友关系时的风险,以及在讨论盟友关系时群体界限的复杂性,揭示了少数群体社区内的交叉挑战。这些发现说明了在不同社会(亚)群体内部和之间提供和接受盟友关系所涉及的细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
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
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
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.
期刊最新文献
Memorials and collective memory: A text analysis of online reviews. Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection, predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism. From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy Between east and west, between past and future: The effects of exclusive historical victimhood on geopolitical attitudes in Hungary and Serbia. The opposite roles of injustice and cruelty in the internalization of a devaluation: The humiliation paradox revisited
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1