- Study at Deakin
- Life at Deakin
- Industry and community
- About Deakin
In recent years, the Challenging Racism Project has been researching bystander antiracism; that is, action taken in response to incidences of racism when not directly involved. Nelson and colleagues started the ball rolling with their review of the enablers and inhibitors of bystander antiracism based on international and Australian research (Nelson, Dunn & Paradies, 2011). Following on from that, we found that bystander action depends on whether it is a low-risk situation (e.g., speaking up at a gathering of acquaintances) or a high-risk situation (e.g., speaking up after witnessing racial abuse on a train). That led us to education: how can we teach people not only antiracism but bystander antiracism? We followed on from the principles outlined in our paper which we wrote on how to reduce racism (Pedersen, Walker, Paradies & Guerin, 2012) as well as empirical evidence following on from the Nelson et al. study. We found that teaching bystander antiracism can not only reduce the reporting of racist attitudes but it can increase the intention to take action, make people more confident about taking action and actively lead to people taking action. This is good for the victim, the person who intervenes, and the nation as a whole. It is early days, but teaching people why it’s important to take action, and how to take action, has promise.
Associate Professor Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor, Murdoch University, Australia
Associate Professor Anne Pedersen has been an asylum seeker advocate for approximately ten years and has a keen interest in the integration of such advocacy with her academic work. Associate Professor Pedersen works as an applied social/peace/community psychologist in the School of Psychology and Exercise Science at Murdoch University, Western Australia. Her main academic interests involve prejudice and anti-prejudice against different cultural groups; in particular, asylum seekers, Indigenous Australians and Muslim Australians.
Defending Racial Tolerance
Tolerance, the non-hindrance of things you object to, is commonly considered to be a virtue. That is, those who behave tolerantly are behaving well and displaying good character. But if this is true, then ‘racial tolerance’ seems paradoxical. How can it be good to refrain from negative interference (the key feature of tolerance), when the reason for your initial objection (racism) is far from good? Put simply, on this understanding, we should not be tolerant of race because we should not have negative attitudes about race in the first place. Such a view seems to rule out racial tolerance altogether.
In this paper, I argue there several problems with this view, one of which is practical. Rejecting racial tolerance
does not seem to offer much help in actual crisis points where tolerance seems a useful minimum. Indeed, the problem of lack of application can arise from very much the other direction too. ‘Transformative’ approaches to tolerance which want to get rid of objection altogether may also fail to provide a basic moral minimum. I conclude that in political contexts, at least, it might be better to stop thinking of tolerance as a virtue and simply as a useful practice, and one in which objection is both maintained and not acted upon.
Dr Peter Balint, Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr Peter Balint is a Lecturer in International & Political Studies at The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australia. His research is primarily focussed on the principles for diversity, including respect, toleration, neutrality, and social cohesion. He has published articles in Political Studies, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Res Publica and Educational Philosophy and Theory, and an edited collection (with Sophie Guérard de Latour ) Liberal Multiculturalism and the Fair Terms of Integration (Palgrave MacMillan, 2013). In 2010-11 he was awarded a Senior Research Fellowship at The Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main on the project 'Justitia Amplificata. Rethinking Justice - Applied and Global'. He is a founding member of the Global Justice Network.
Across the West, something called multiculturalism is in crisis. That it is a failed experiment foisted upon overly tolerant liberal elites is the dominant way in which racism racism is articulated in ‘postracial’ times. Parallel communities threatening social cohesion, enemies within cultivated by irresponsible cultural relativism, and mediaeval practices subverting national ‘ways of life’ are evoked.
Choice-based ‘diversity’ is proffered as a solution to multicultural crisis. Yet, this is attenuated by an implicit understanding that there is good diversity that ‘adds value’ and bad - excessive - diversity, that dilutes and threatens the supremacy of ‘our’ way of life. The culturalism upon which social cohesion is now predicated elides other possible foci on the material conditions necessarily undergirding equality, which are sidelined under neoliberalism. In this sense, the crises of multiculturalism lends insight both into the character of contemporary racial formation, but also of politics under (post)racial neoliberalism.
Associate Professor Alana Lentin, Associate Professor, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Dr Alana Lentin is Associate Professor in Cultural and Social Analysis at the University of Western Sydney. She works on the critical theorization of race, racism and multiculturalism. Her current research is on ‘Racism and Antiracism in a Digital Age' with Gavan Titley (National University of Ireland Maynooth).
Her publications include The Crises of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age (with Gavan Titley, 2011); Racism and Ethnic Discrimination (2011); Racism (2008); The Politics of Diversity in Europe (with Gavan Titley, 2008); Race and State (with Ronit Lentin, 2006, 2008); Racism and Anti-racism in Europe (2004). She also publishes extensively in journals such as the Ethnic and Racial Studies, European Journal of Social Theory, the European Journal of Cultural Studies, and Patterns of Prejudice. She is a contributor to The Guardian, OpenDemocracy and Eurozine.
Recently the political philosophy of agonism has been applied by urban theorists to model intercultural urban encounters in so called “micro-publics,” such as the workplace or the classroom. The paper examines to what extend agonism offers a viable model for dealing with urban diversity in these mundane, social encounters. I will argue that, applied to these lower-level social contexts, agonism takes the vulnerability of citizens with regard to their ethnic, cultural or religious attachments insufficiently into account. The resulting injuries will most likely be counter-productive to the goal of living with diversity. By way of a contrast, I will offer two less demanding, more practicable types of intercultural civility.
Dr Bart van Leeuwen, Assistant Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
Dr Bart van Leeuwen is an assistant professor of political theory at the Radboud University Nijmegen (in the Netherlands). He has published on racism, multiculturalism, and cultural diversity in journals such as Political Theory, European Journal of Social Theory, Ethnicities, Social Theory and Practice, Inquiry, Journal of Social Philosophy. He is the author of a book and coeditor of a collection (both in Dutch) on issues relating to recognition and identity. His current research focuses on the promises and challenges of city-life for intercultural citizenship and on spatial justice.
Institutional racism is incongruent with public health values of equity, social justice, and the upholding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. My research findings uncovered entrenched and debilitating institutional racism within public health policy making and funding practices in Aotearoa. Systemic racism was first exposed within the New Zealand public sector in the 1980s with the release of the landmark Puao te Ata Tu report. Deeper historical delving and a review of Waitangi Tribunal claims exposed patterns of state discrimination against Maori dating back to 1840. Racism against Maori has over time become normalised to the point of invisibility.
Using activist scholarship, critical race and kaupapa Maori theory, my research, guided by a Maori research whanau (family), isolated ten distinct sites of institutional racism. These are also potentially potent sites for anti-racism interventions. This presentation will provide an overview of my doctoral findings and share the progress made so far by the public health sector to eliminate institutional racism within the administration of the public health sector by 2017.
Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawanui
Dr Heather Came, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Dr Heather Came is a recent graduate at Waikato Management School. She has a background in public health and anti-racism activism. She currently teaches public health at Auckland University of Technology. She is a seventh generation Pakeha New Zealander.
Despite the fact that longitudinal research can track critical periods, test models of causal relationships, and provide evidence on optimal times for interventions to promote positive development (Sanson & Smart, 2011), this type of research had been surprisingly rare in the field of prejudice reduction. The current experiment addresses this gap by highlighting how long-term intergroup bias reduction can be successfully achieved with multiple sessions of a Dual Identity E-Contact (DIEC) intervention. Here, data from Muslim and Christian students attending religiously segregated high-schools was collected across three years: - Time 1 (pre-DIEC intervention) when they were in Year 7, Time 2 (2-weeks post-DIEC intervention) and Time 3 (6-months post-DIEC intervention) when they were in Year 8, and Time 4 (12-months post-DIEC intervention) when they were in Year 9. At each time point, Muslim (n = 92) and 96 Christian (n = 96) students completed measures of affective intergroup bias, intergroup anxiety, and outgroup knowledge. The findings reveal that the intergroup bias reduction observed among DIEC participants, compared to control participants at Time 2, are maintained at Time 4. However, when this main effect finding was investigated further, within religious group, the long-term bias reduction was found only amongst the Muslim DIEC students, and not the Christian DIEC students. Explanations for these interesting findings are evaluated and implications for future research are discussed.
Associate Professor Fiona White, Associate Dean, The Unviersity of Sydney, Australia
Associate Professor Fiona White received her PhD in Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Sydney in 1997, since then, her work has been recognised internationally for developing new measures of prejudice, identifying sources of prejudice, and developing strategies for the effective long-term prejudice reduction. The quality of her contribution to the field of prejudice reduction is evidenced by her ability to attract competitive grant funding. Specifically, she been awarded funding by the ARC Discovery Project Scheme for a study of "Cooperative dual identity: A new approach to promote ethnic harmony between Muslim and non Muslim Australians." (2009-11). Across her career, Associate Professor White has published over 40 papers in peer-reviewed publications with over 500 citations and 60 conference presentations. These publications appear in high impact psychology journals including Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. She has also been lead author on three editions of a developmental psychology textbook (White, Hayes & Livesey, 2005; 2010; 2013) that has had substantial national impact with over 14,000 copies sold. Associate Professor White also maintains a research active role in the scholarship of teaching having been awarded six highly competitive research-teaching grants. In recognition of the quality embodied by her contribution to the research scholarship of learning and teaching Associate Professor White was the successful recipient of the 2012 Vice Chancellor’s Excellence in Teaching Award.
Schools have traditionally been constructed as conduits for learning in a safe and comfortable environment, free of any forms of psychological, verbal or physical abuse. However, for many schools in multicultural Australia, the ability to create this safe learning environment has been undermined by a recent rise in society-wide intercultural tensions that inevitably permeate the school boundary. Empirical data from a national project about racism among Australian youth provides evidence that these intercultural tensions are generating an unsettling level of racist attitudes and behaviours in Australian secondary schools. The argument pursued in this paper highlights schools, as (1) sites of intercultural relations that reflect wider societal tensions and cultural attitudes; and (2) as being paradoxically the optimal social microcosms with the potential to change social attitudes in particular in relation to diversity, culture and race. The paper will discuss some of the key intervention processes required for this transformative task to be undertaken successfully.
Alfred Deakin Professor Fethi Mansouri, Director, Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Australia
Professor Fethi Mansouri holds a research chair in migration and intercultural studies and is the Director of the Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation. He is the editor of the Journal of Intercultural Studies (Routledge) and founding co-editor of the International Journal of Social Inclusion (Librello). Professor Mansouri is a global expert advisor to the United Nations (Alliance of Civilisations) on cultural diversity and intercultural relations and UNESCO Chair in comparative research on ‘Cultural Diversity and Social Justice’. He is a leading research in the University and a prominent scholar nationally and internationally.
Anti-Racism in the Real-World: The Challenges of Developing and Evaluating Anti-Racism Interventions
The Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) Project is a 4-year pilot. LEAD aims to build positive attitudes towards cultural diversity in the wider community and support local organisations to create fairer, more welcoming and inclusive environments. LEAD is particularly focussed on the benefits associated with implementing multiple anti-racism strategies within the same localities.
The evaluation of this intervention has been particularly challenging because of the need to develop practical strategies and tools based on research that is primarily theoretical in nature. The approach to the evaluation and the findings are discussed in terms of:
These findings have important implications for advancing scholarship on the development and delivery of anti-racism interventions.
Associate Professor Margaret Kelaher, Deputy Director, Centre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Associate Professor Margaret Kelaher is Deputy Director of the Centre for Health Policy Programs and Economics, School of Population Health University of Melbourne. Margaret’s work is at the forefront of research addressing the impact of anti-racism interventions on health. Margaret has established an international reputation research to improve health equity. Her work has a unique focus, bringing an action oriented and intervention based approach to understanding complex social issues and informing theory and health policy. She has attracted over $20 million in funding through competitive grants and tenders since starting at Centre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics (CHPPE) and has published over 90 peer reviewed journal articles.
Is reconciliation a process of masking conflict in order for it to be eradicated from the view, consciousness and responsibility of the state? Or should reconciliation be concerned with giving the conflict a sharper focus so that it may be addressed? Why do we focus on solutions rather than managing and embracing the issues that generate 'conflict'? This paper draws on the politics of ‘post-conflict’ societies to highlight the dangers that emanate from political efforts to bring about reconciliation and conflict resolution. Similar dangers are also apparent in approaches to social inclusion which want to assimilate the excluded to prevailing understandings of appropriate social, economic and cultural behaviour. Through analysis of the experiences of societies like South Africa and Northern Ireland, we contend that uncritical advocacy of reconciliation and the resolution of conflict risks losing sight of the centrality of conflict to the maintenance of identity and contestation around racial and cultural inequalities. The implications of this approach for Australia are profound. It suggests that approaches to indigenous politics focused on reconciliation are too concerned with making demands on the settler population many of which can be seen as irrelevant to the experiences and concerns of Indigenous people. Moreover, they neglect the significance of maintaining indigenous differences and the conflict that indigenous inequality engenders. A political narrative around keeping conflict in view potentially provides greater legitimacy to the need to highlight inequities around race and identity than approaches that are more focused on harmonious social and racial relations.
Professor Adrian Little, Head of School, Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Professor Adrian Little is Professor of Political Theory and the Head of the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. In addition to many articles and chapters, he is the author of several books including, most recently, Democratic Piety: Complexity, Conflict and Violence (Edinburgh University Press 2008), Democracy and Northern Ireland: Beyond the Liberal Paradigm? (Palgrave, 2004), The Politics of Community: Theory and Practice (Edinburgh University Press, 2002), and The Politics of Radical Democracy (co-edited with Moya Lloyd, Edinburgh University Press, 2009). His latest work is entitled Enduring Conflict: Challenging the Signature of Peace and Democracy (New York: Bloomsbury) will be published in 2014.
Dr Mark McMillan, Senior Lecturer, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr Mark McMillan is a Wiradjuri man from Trangie, NSW. He joined the faculty of Melbourne Law School as a Senior Lecturer in 2011 - being the first Indigenous Australian to be appointed to the faculty. Before he commenced at the Melbourne Law School, Mark was a Senior Researcher at the University of Technology, Sydney and a staff attorney at the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. He served as an Appellate Judge, pro-tempore of the Pascua Yaqui Court of Appeals, Pascua Yaqui Tribe in Tucson, Arizona until his return to Australia in June 2011. He is currently working on a number of ARC grants relating to Indigenous nation building; one relating to reconciliation processes in South Africa and Northern Ireland to determine whether there are lessons for Australia as Australia moves to a federal constitutional amendment that might recognise Indigenous Australians in the document; and another relating to the ‘Coranderrk’ enquiry of 1881 - looking at how Australia’s federation was influenced by particular Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices in Victoria. He recently received the National NAIDOC Scholar of the Year award for 2013.
In this paper I maintain that contemporary discourses of diversity and integration are boundary and hierarchy making, and constitute a significant face of contemporary racisms. As such they reproduce the very exclusions that they purport to deal with. Current uses of diversity and integration share a culturalisation of social relations (forestalling concerns with structures of inequality) and posit hierarchical difference (signalling good and bad difference), which stigmatises particular social categories, requiring their elimination either through exclusion or assimilation. The governmentality of the racialised subject found in imperial domination lies in the dehumanisation of the other as ‘species’, whether articulated through biological or culturally determined ascriptions and attributions. The figurations of the diverse can include the racialised which cannot be fully assimilated on the premise that they can never demonstrate their ability to be ‘one of us’. Some of the ‘diverse’ can become assimilable but some are regarded as incapable, a danger or threat, deviant and deficient. It is in the tropes of ‘diversity’ and integration, that we can excavate some of the primary faces of contemporary racism. The paper explores anti racist strategies and perspectives which build on insights from intersectionality and move away from the boundary and hierarchy making of diversity and integration discourse and policies.
Professor Floya Anthias, Professor of Sociology, University of East London, United Kingdom
Professor Floya Anthias is Professor of Sociology at University of East London, Professor of Sociology and Social Justice (Emeritus) at Roehampton University and Visiting Professor at City Universiry, London. Among her books are the following: Racialised Boundaries (Routledge1993), Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Migration (Ashgate1992), Gender and Migration in Southern Europe: women on the move, (Berg 2000), Rethinking antiracisms: from theory to practice (Routledge 2002), Paradoxes of Integration (Springer 2012) and Contesting Integration, Engendering Migration, (Palgrave, forthcoming). Her most recent work has been developing the concept of translocational positionality, and new approaches to anti-racisms and social stratification.
This paper argues that at the heart of anti-racism, collective action and social change is a complex dynamic between social identities and representations of difference that both produces and unsettles ‘race’ (and so racism) as a meaningful and consequential social category. We discuss the ways in which racialising categories, expectations about difference and fears about cultural diversity are incorporated, sustained and sometimes challenged and transformed in the on-going production of identity - and so consider the possibilities for unsettling ‘race’, producing more politicised identities and enabling productive social change. We draw on social representations theory to examine the connections between identity, representation and possibilities for social change, and illustrate this with empirical material from research in community and school contexts. We argue that rather then look for ‘racist’ OR ‘anti-racist’ discourses and practices in the everyday, we seek a more dialectical understanding of the ways in which the some seemingly ‘anti-racist’ strategies may actually sustain ‘race’ and essentalising representations of difference. Hence racist and anti-racist practices do not simply appear as a tidy binary, but are part of a complex, contextually bound dialectic that produces and challenges the production of race, racialised identities and possibilities for social and political change.
Associate Professor Caroline Howarth, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom
Associate Professor Caoline Howarth believes her search for a critical Social Psychology has its roots in her childhood growing up in the culturally divided contexts of Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Kenya. However it was living and teaching in apartheid South Africa that really shaped her quest for a Social Psychology that is theoretically and methodologically rigorous enough to ask and answer the important questions of our time: what are the social and psychological conditions for social change, political engagement and constructive intercultural relations? How can we use Social Psychological studies not only to understand the complexities of the worlds we live and produce, but also to promote social change and improved social conditions? Associate Professor Howarth debates, teachs and undertakes research in these issues at the London School of Economics and Political Science in courses on multiculturalism, racism, community, research methods and Social and Political Psychology.
In this presentation, Dr Nagda will focus on the theory, practice and research of intergroup dialogue. Building on and extending the tradition of intergroup contact, intergroup dialogue seeks to engage participants from diverse backgrounds to explore, understand and transform intergroup conflicts. Participants meet in sustained, facilitated, face-to-face interactions with an explicit purpose of grounding their learning and conversations in issues of societal conflict. Participants meet in sustained, facilitated, face-to-face interactions with an explicit purpose of grounding their learning and conversations in issues of societal conflict. I argue that intergroup dialogue is one method of restorative conflict engagement by embracing four principles: conflict is embedded in social structures - systems of power and privilege - that affect individuals, groups, and interpersonal relationships; the macro-level injustices manifest in intergroup interactions and coalitions; intergroup conflict engagement is a potentially positive experience; and to leverage the positive potential, attention must be paid to specific ways of engaging conflicts constructively. Thus, rather than conflict management or resolution, intergroup dialogue takes a conflict transformation approach promoting restorative justice.
I will share results from a multi-university, mixed methods field study to test the intergroup dialogue model. College students applying to intergroup dialogue courses were randomly assigned to dialogue groups and control groups. Quantitative data from the project showed young people engaged in intergroup dialogue increased more in their skills in working with conflict immediately after the intergroup dialogue and a year later when compared to a matched control group of non-participants. Furthermore, facilitative guidance and engagement in dialogic and critical communication processes predicted the increase in skills in working with conflict. Qualitative data speak to how young people translate their learning about conflict to social change actions.
The presentation will end with a discussion of implications for both practice and research, focusing especially on more deeply understanding the quality of social interactions as restorative justice processes that facilitate conflict transformation and collaborative social change.
Professor Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, Director, Intergroup Dialogue, Education and Action Centre, University of Washington, USA
Profesor Ratnesh Nagda is Professor of Social Work at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the Director of the Bachelor of Arts in Social Welfare (BASW) Program and the Director of the Intergroup Dialogue, Education and Action (IDEA) Center. Professor Nagda is of Indian descent, born and raised in Kenya, East Africa, before going to the United States for undergraduate and graduate studies. He received his BS and MA in psychology, MSW in social work, and PhD in social work and psychology, all from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has been on faculty at the University of Washington School of Social Work since 1996. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Desmond Tutu Peace Center (2005), the Global Development for Peace and Leadership (2007) and the University of Cape Town, all in South Africa, and at the University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations (2011-2012) in Ann Arbor, Michigan.