Page 388 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

366 Martin Reisigl

ally denotes “distinguish”, “differentiate”, “separate”, “set apart”, and this is –
so to say – the “harmless” original meaning of the word which does not yet auto-
matically represent negative social exclusion and segregation. The English ex-
pression is first recorded to assume the negative denotation of “debasement”
and “disadvantaging” in 1866, when the word related to the making of distinc-
tions prejudicial to people of a different “color” or “race” in the USA (The Ox-
ford English Dictionary 1989: 758).
The notion of social discrimination is connected with the infringement of
justice. Thus, it serves first and foremost as a legal and political concept, al-
though it has, among others, also been adopted by sociology, social-psychology
and discourse analysis. It follows from the concept’s social-ethical implications
that a discourse analysis and analysis of intercultural communication concerned
with the linguistic and visual realization of discrimination should become social
analysis.
In discourse analytical studies and analyses of intercultural communication,
the term “discrimination” is at times applied in a rather undifferentiated way, as
an unquestioned term of scientific everyday language. A close look brings to the
fore that “social discrimination” is a relational concept which includes at least
five elements. The concept’s three main constituents can be explicated as:
“Someone discriminates against somebody else by doing something”. “Doing
something” (including “omitting doing something” and “letting something
happen”) stands for the discriminating action or process, which includes the two
further conceptual components of “on the basis of a specific feature” and “in
comparison to somebody else”. In other words: “Discrimination” implies (1) so-
cial actors as perpetrators that belong to a specific social or cultural group, (2)
specific persons or groups of persons affected by the discrimination (i.e. victims
or beneficiaries), (3) the discriminating action or process, (4) the “distinguish-
ing feature” or peg on which to hang the discrimination (for example “race”,
“gender”, “language” or “sexual orientation”), and (5) a comparative figure or
group in comparison to which or to whom somebody is discriminated.
(1) “Discriminators” are social actors who commit – as perpetrators – the
social action of discrimination. Discriminators generally have the power to dis-
criminate against others, or empower themselves (at least temporarily) to dis-
criminate against others, often by the discriminatory action itself. Power asym-
metry normally prevents the less powerful to discriminate against the more
powerful, except for situations in which the more powerful are absent and can-
not exert their power (discrimination in absentia is sometimes called “indirect
discrimination”; see Graumann and Wintermantel 1989: 199, and see below,
section 3). A differentiated analysis has to take into account that social beings
adopt very different social roles and can, thus, be discriminators in a specific
situation and respect (e.g. as “white” against “black” people, as men against
women, as heterosexuals against homo- and bisexuals, as citizens against non-