| Popis: |
As part of a broader struggle for equal treatment and recognition for longtime discrimination and prejudice, minority groups sometimes also seek changes in discursive norms, in particular regarding the term to be used for designating their group. In and outside of the group, shifting attitudes and norms can come along with the replacement of previously dominant labels with new terms or resurrected old terms. This experiment examines the short-term impact exercised on public opinion by the use of a “politically correct” term designating a severely disadvantaged racial/ethnic minority. The term whose impact we examine is not, strictly speaking, new, but its rise in use and its establishment as the “go to” term in certain contexts – such as official legal and policy documents - is a relatively recent development that occurred in multiple countries more or less simultaneously. We carry out the fieldwork in Romania, where the transition from the use of “Gypsy” to that of “Roma” in some settings occurred in the last two decades, spurred by the advocacy of domestic activists and a change in common legal norms across Europe. The group was for a long time almost universally referred to by “Gypsy”, a term that in Romania is heavily associated with negative stereotypes, demeaning idioms, and a history of oppression. Today, however, “Roma” is the standard term used by Romanian state institutions and increasingly the default term used by elites – e.g. in the press and in parliament. Still, anti-Roma prejudice and its public expression remain prevalent in the country, as is the colloquial use of “Gypsy”. We administer surveys to citizens and 2020 candidates for parliament that carry a battery on principles, policies and resentment regarding Roma rights and anti-discrimination policies. We expect that the randomized stimulus – whether the questions in the battery refer to “Roma” or “Gypsy” people – alters responses both among the totality of respondents and among respondents with certain features. The theoretical expectations are testable and clear but partly contradictory. Thus, the tests should have implications for our understanding of the likely impact of, and the stakes in the political fights over appropriate choice of words regarding minority populations. |
