"What do other people think?" - The role of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay men

It is generally acknowledged that it is no longer socially acceptable to espouse prejudiced beliefs, yet prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviours still occur. The present study sought to determine when and by whom prejudiced attitudes would be expressed. Specifically, an experiment was conducted to examine the impact of injunctive social norms emanating from a social group with which participants identified and participants' level of homophobia on the expression of opinions about gay men. Participants were presented with information indicating that the majority of group members agreed with a number of prejudiced injunctive statements (pro-prejudice norm), that the majority disagreed with the statements (anti-prejudice norm), or they were given no information about other group members' opinions (control). Participants then reported their own responses to the same injunctive statements. Participants' levels of homophobia were assessed either before or after they were given the normative information. The results indicated that activation of a pro-prejudice injunctive norm for those higher in homophobia resulted in more prejudiced opinions being expressed in comparison to those who received no normative information or those who had a nonprejudiced norm activated. Those lower in homophobia expressed less prejudiced opinions than those higher in homophobia and this did not differ as a function of social norm. The results demonstrate how prejudice can come to be expressed even in the presence of a broad societal norm that suggests that is it wrong to express such opinions.

'Nothing good ever came out of Japan': Race-mixing and the limits of diaspora

This paper argues that postcolonial notions of diaspora are premised on immigrant subjectivities and standpoints which do not fully apprehend the mixed-race / bi-racial experience and the local effect of cultural hybridity in Western settings. The paper was prompted by a recent conversation with Dee, the daughter of a Japanese warbride. As a child Dee recalled being told by her friend's mother that 'nothing good ever came out of Japan'. The significance of constant interpolations into 'Asianness' by statements such as these; by the 'where do you come from?' question and by more blatant discriminations are inadequately addressed by traditional and postcolonial notions of diaspora. 'Roots' and 'routes' imagery feature prominently in discussions of diaspora and hybridity which aim to decolonise culture and identity in deconstructive moves that highlight their flexible, multiple, contractedness. While it has been argued that even these conceptualisations are problematic because they privilege orders of explanation, theory and standpoint that are forced back into line with traditional notions of discrete 'races', cultures, ethnicities and identities, cultural studies and postcolonial theorists do not appear to find this contradiction overly troubling. Lodged in bodies that do not easily conflate to neat either/or cultures, politics and genetics, race-mixing also defies and yet return us to culture and biology. However, I argue that their refractions though the same tired old orders of racial, ethnic, cultural and national differentiation prevent us from disregarding the discursive effects of racism and racialisation.