近年美国“白人至上”话语的回潮——对美国平权运动最高法院判例的批判话语分析  

Resurgence of “White Supremacy” discourse in the United States in Recent Years:A Critical Discourse Analysis of Supreme Court Precedents on American Affirmative Action

作　　者：刘风丽 LIU Feng-li

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院中国边疆研究所,北京100101

出　　处：《中南民族大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2024年第6期122-129,186,共9页Journal of South-Central Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“从文本到实践的新时代民族事务法治化研究”(19BMZ044)。

摘　　要：20世纪70年代,美国平权运动正当性的话语表达从“补偿歧视”转向“获得多样性效益”,即从“补偿”逻辑转向了“多样性价值”逻辑,使得美国种族进步改革陷入停滞,甚至在学界衍生出了“色盲白人主导”的忧虑。基于该理论与背景,以联邦最高法院的判决意见为分析文本,将“多样性”置于批判话语分析视角下审视,提出“多样性”话语建构以“白人种族框架”为基础,通过拒绝对历史上受歧视、排斥群体的补救、并将其“商品化”为“白人的财产”,来继续维护和强化“白人至上”。从促进种族平等的角度,需推动话语祛序与重构,重构的逻辑为将“白”(whiteness)及其背后的特权予以揭示,突出强调历史上用于歧视性、排斥性目的的显著性差异——种族/族裔,并将当前基于色盲、功利逻辑的“多样性”话语向基于平等逻辑的“多样性”话语建构转向。In the 1970s,the legitimacy discourse of affirmative action in America shifted from “compensating discrimination” to “obtaining diversity benefits”,which stagnated the racial progressive reform,and even spawned the concern of “colorblind white dominance” in academic circles.Based on this theory and background,based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States,this paper examines “diversity” from the perspective of critical discourse analysis,and proposes that the discourse construction of “diversity” is based on the “white race framework”,and continues to maintain and strengthen “white supremacy” by refusing to remedy the historically discriminated and excluded groups and “commodifying” them into “the property of white people”.From the perspective of promoting racial equality,it is necessary to promote the discourse order and reconstruction.The logic of the reconstruction is to reveal “whiteness” and the privileges behind it,highlight the salient differences historically used for discriminatory and exclusionary purposes – race/ethnicity,and shift the current “diversity” discourse based on utilitarian logic and color blindness to a “diversity” discourse based on equality logic.

关 键 词：平权运动 “多样性”话语 批判话语分析 色盲逻辑 功利逻辑 

分 类 号：C958.1[社会学—民族学]