Social cohesion has been under threat since COVID-19 sparked a rise in nativism and isolationist politics, but it has not been until this week that we have seen the definitive threat this poses to our way of life, with rising terror threats reportedly attributed to social cohesion under strain.
The comments, attributed to anonymous sources, follow on the back of last week’s release of the Multicultural Framework review — a once-in-a-generation overhaul of multicultural policy that, I believe, will set us up for a cohesive, proudly diverse nation in the years to come.
While this was lauded by those of us who have worked in this sector for decades, right-wing commentators were quick to descend into divisive rhetoric, with the likes of Peta Credlin commenting “Instead of joining Team Australia where everyone accepts that Australia is home and strives to be part of a cohesive Australian community based on giving and getting a fair go, the report thinks we should live in Hotel Australia, where all we have in common is a current geographic location.”
This language comes down to nativist populism. Namely, by grabbing populist elements that claim to represent the ‘common people’, it directly appeals to the people and uses rhetoric to resonate with popular sentiment and grievances.
The problem is that this rhetoric creates a strong division between the ‘in-group’ and the ‘out-group’ (immigrants, minorities, or foreign influences), often portraying the latter as a threat to national identity, the economy and security. Sound familiar?
The issue with this nativist populism is how quickly it manifests in xenophobia that is nuanced and embedded in everyday interactions and institutional practices.
Why do many Australians believe that migrants are causing housing precarity? Because media commentators and political figures have repeatedly told us so.
This rhetoric is contributing to a pervasive atmosphere of exclusion and discrimination. And while we might look to the UK, where violet anti-Muslim riots erupted in reaction to false information claiming a mass stabbing suspect was an Islamist migrant, the fact is this risk is closer to home than we might think.
While the undermining of social cohesion is threatening our safety as it is, it also acts as a red herring that means we’re not focusing on the real causes of socio-cultural and economic issues. We’re so focused on blaming the symptoms, we’re not looking at the cause.Scapegoating migrants only exacerbates social divisions and distracts from addressing the root causes, such as economic inequality, inadequate infrastructure, and insufficient support for local industries.
So, what can we do about it? Public rhetoric is a key activator for change. This means changing the way we speak as public figures, politicians, and journalists. But we also hold a lot of power as individuals to influence change within our own homes and communities.
We can achieve this by resisting the calls to scapegoat.
We shouldn’t feed into this and pass it off as healthy political debate. Instead, let’s focus on what we can do to aid social cohesion and promote solidarity.
We create change in the halls of parliament, but we also create change with a smile at the school gate, a friendly conversation at the supermarket, and, importantly, by ensuring that we call out this scapegoating when we see it. One conversation at a time, we can rebuild social cohesion, change hearts and minds, and work towards a society where all Australians feel valued, equal, and, importantly, safe.