Tony Abbott on divisiveness

…the things which unite us as Australians are infinitely greater and more enduring than the things that divide us.

It's a nice thought; one of those comforting stories we tell ourselves during times of trial or international sporting events. There is value in working towards collective goals and the nation state remains a key political actor.

The problem with these sentiments is that where there are divisions and it is proposed to address them, these efforts can be portrayed as threats to national unity.

Consider the proposed referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and remove racially discriminatory provisions. What is particularly noticeable in the debates around this issue is the argument that such a move would be divisive. Such responses seem to presuppose that we currently enjoy racial harmony and substantive equality as between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and that therefore addressing the legacy of colonialism would somehow createdivision rather than recognising some fairly obvious facts. As noted elsewhere, conservatives sometimes find it difficult to acknowledge the ongoing existence of racism - instead, it is easier to accuse those who raise this issue of stimulating conflict.

Similarly, Abbott's stated aim not to divide Australians on the basis of class, gender and faith is admirable. We shouldn't resile from stating the obvious, though - that there are already divisions there and not talking about them won't make them disappear.

For instance, income inequality appears to be rising, 'reflecting differences both between regions, and within major cities'; a recent report by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (which has been subject to critique) found that the annual gender salary gap had risen from $2,000 a year in 2011 to $5,000 in 2012; and the accommodation of different religious groups within a secular state will necessarily involve disagreement from time to time - consider the concerns expressed on last week's Q&A about the teaching of creationism in our public schools.

These distinctions are not a linguistic trick created by conflict-fostering conspirators - they are rooted in empirical fact.

Claiming that a policy or a public conversation on an issue is 'divisive' is an excellent, if manipulative, tactic. Firstly, it makes your opposition look like nasty people who want to create conflict just for the hell of it. 'Divisive' comes from the same songbook as 'envy politics' - it is a useful way of associating one's ideological opponents with negative emotions.

Secondly, historically an emphasis on national unity has helped to distract from the very fact that there are some people, industries or interest groups with more of the pie than others.

Seeking to rectify inequality is often lumped in together with divisiveness for its own sake, and it is, indeed, a marvel that attempts to ensure that disadvantaged schools are adequately funded are inevitably derided as 'class warfare' while, for instance, the mining industry's 2010 campaign against the resources super-profits tax was not widely regarded as such.

Australians are, like every other nation, characterised by our differences as well as our similarities. If we can't talk about the cracks in our egalitarian gloss for fear of being 'divisive', the appearance of unity will come at too high a price.