Malevolence, stigma, and social distance: Maximizing intergroup differences in HIV/AIDS discourse

This study examined the intergroup language used by young heterosexual Australians in conversations about HIV/AIDS and safe sex. Sixty male and 72 female heterosexuals participated in four-person facilitated conversations (same-sex or mixed-sex) about HIV/AIDS and safe sex, which were recorded and transcribed. We focused on extracts concerning strangers or malevolent individuals who appear to be group members, along with extracts involving foreign national groups. Discourse analysis showed that groups at lower levels of social distance were constructed mainly in terms of individual responsibility. At moderate social distance, stereotypes were more negative, but sub-typing was common, whereas at the highest levels, people were constructed entirely in intergroup terms. The findings of this study suggest that HN prevention programs should make reference to all salient outgroups, so as to neutralize communicative strategies that strengthen intergroup boundaries as a means of reducing perceived personal threat of HIV infection.

Sociology and literary criticism

The crisis of literary criticism, an essay published by Theodor Adorno in 1953, is dedicated to important problems of Literary Studies, such as the role of the critic himself. Adorno gave a class on Social Sciences in Frankfurt, in 1968, discussing ways of studying and thinking social matters. As an ensemble, these two works are an important contribution to the debate on quality of academic production.

Language, discourse and politics

After discussing the meaning of the word politics, this paper shows that there are four possible approaches to the issue of the relationships between language, discourse and politics: a) the intrinsic political nature of language; b) the relations of power between discourses and their political dimension; c) the relations of power between languages and the political dimension of their usage and; d) linguistic policies. This paper addresses only the first two of these items. Languages have an intrinsically political nature because they subject their speakers to their order. The acts of silencing operationalized in discourse manifest a relation of power. The spread of discourses in the social space is also subject to the order of power. The use of language may be the space of pertinence, but is also that of exclusion, separation and even the elimination of the other. Therefore, language is not a neutral communication tool, but it is permeated by politics, by power. Because of the dislocations that it produces, literature is a form of swindling language, unveiling the powers that are imprinted on it.