Cultural-difference discourse naturalizes exclusion without requiring claims of biological inferiority.
Evidence
Discourses of moral exclusion need not make explicit claims to ‘nature’ or biological differences; they can instead be based on a discourse of cultural differences and cultural propensities. What some discourse researchers have called ‘culture as mentality’ (Verkuyten, 1997 ) or ‘culture as lifestyle’ (Augoustinos et al ., 1999 ) is used to account for behaviours that deviate from normative cultural expectations. Disposition formulations are a way of ‘fi xing’ cultural differences and propensities in the moral character of Roma. — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 577
Categorization
- DEFINE: Defines ‘disposition formulations’ as the discursive device that fixes cultural differences into moral character.
- XREF: Connects to the operating premise on moral exclusion and to the reader’s interest in ‘culture as mentality’ vs biological racism debates. — connects to: Biology does not condemn women to inferiority; meaning applied to differences does — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1978; Hobbes’s exclusionary frame is cultural-historical civility rather than biological race — , Stephanie B. Martens - Civilization and…, 25; Acknowledging cultural difference can compound rather than resolve essentialism by implying boundedness — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 949 (+1 more)