铲除平等:规范的白人和保守的平等政策

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1177/02610183221093788
Irene Gedalof
{"title":"铲除平等:规范的白人和保守的平等政策","authors":"Irene Gedalof","doi":"10.1177/02610183221093788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on the insights of narrative analysis to critically review recent changes to UK government equality policy through three examples: the announcement of a new equality strategy, changes to the governance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and the establishment and report of the Sewell Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. I argue that these policy initiatives and the narratives justifying them signal moves to further weaken the UK government’s formal commitments to protections against discrimination. This involves not only the familiar argument in favour of a limited, liberal model of individual equality of opportunity, but is also about bolstering normative whiteness in the face of growing calls for a reckoning with the UK’s legacy of colonialism, slavery and deep-seated racial inequalities.","PeriodicalId":47685,"journal":{"name":"Critical Social Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"257 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eviscerating equality: Normative whiteness and Conservative equality policy\",\"authors\":\"Irene Gedalof\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02610183221093788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article draws on the insights of narrative analysis to critically review recent changes to UK government equality policy through three examples: the announcement of a new equality strategy, changes to the governance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and the establishment and report of the Sewell Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. I argue that these policy initiatives and the narratives justifying them signal moves to further weaken the UK government’s formal commitments to protections against discrimination. This involves not only the familiar argument in favour of a limited, liberal model of individual equality of opportunity, but is also about bolstering normative whiteness in the face of growing calls for a reckoning with the UK’s legacy of colonialism, slavery and deep-seated racial inequalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Social Policy\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"257 - 276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221093788\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221093788","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文利用叙事分析的见解,通过三个例子来批判性地回顾英国政府最近对平等政策的变化:宣布新的平等战略,平等与人权委员会(EHRC)治理的变化,以及休厄尔种族和民族差异委员会的成立和报告。我认为,这些政策举措和为其辩护的说法表明,这些举措将进一步削弱英国政府对保护不受歧视的正式承诺。这不仅涉及支持一种有限的、自由的个人机会平等模式的常见论点,还涉及在要求清算英国殖民主义、奴隶制和根深蒂固的种族不平等遗产的呼声日益高涨之际,支持规范的白人化。
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
Eviscerating equality: Normative whiteness and Conservative equality policy
This article draws on the insights of narrative analysis to critically review recent changes to UK government equality policy through three examples: the announcement of a new equality strategy, changes to the governance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and the establishment and report of the Sewell Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. I argue that these policy initiatives and the narratives justifying them signal moves to further weaken the UK government’s formal commitments to protections against discrimination. This involves not only the familiar argument in favour of a limited, liberal model of individual equality of opportunity, but is also about bolstering normative whiteness in the face of growing calls for a reckoning with the UK’s legacy of colonialism, slavery and deep-seated racial inequalities.
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
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;
期刊最新文献
Distanciation as a technology of control in the UK hostile environment. Pregnant racialised migrants and the ubiquitous border: The hostile environment as a technology of stratified reproduction. Bordering social reproduction: The welfare/immigration regimes of Quebec and Ontario in Canada Diminishing returns of growth? Economic performance, needs satisfaction and ecological impacts of OECD welfare states A cure-all for energy poverty? Thinking critically about energy advice
×
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