Why is violence and bigotry in Australia so impossible to curtail?

Recently the TV host Daryl Somers was forced to apologise on air after a controversial act on the Hey Hey It's Saturday reunion special in which singers painted their faces black to mimic The Jackson Five. Notably, it took an American visitor Harry Connick Jr., to point out the political incorrectness and bad taste associated with this skit.

Unfortunately, all too few Australians appeared to see the seriousness of this event. As such we might assume that this kind of bigotry in Australia is deeply embedded in the culture and fully normalised. This gives credence to the arguments of Indian students that Australians are racist. Perhaps that should be “inherently” racist! Given the high incidence of violence against Indian students and other racially motivated forms of violence, shouldn’t we be asking where do Australians get their crass racial attitudes and their legitimisation of violence towards people of difference?

With this in mind, I would contend that Australians adhere to an old narrative of systemic inequality that needs to urgently change.

Innocent jokes or harmful narratives?

In the course of my recent research on small communities and resilience I came across the following little gem:

The Bathtub Test.

During a visit to a mental asylum, I asked the director as to how he determined whether or not a patient should be institutionalised.

“Well” said the director, “We fill up the bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub”

“Oh, I understand”, I said. “A normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the tea-cup.”

“No”, said the director, “A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”

This joke appeared in the News Letter of a Rural Transaction Centre [RTC], which included in its logo a statement to the effect that the RTC is “A Federal Government Service”. It also acts as an agency for the ANZ Bank, Centrelink, Veterans Affairs, The Taxation Department, Medicare and various businesses. On the back of the publication it displays the logo of a Shire Council and the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development. The publication has no disclaimer, nor was the material referenced and it has a local circulation 440. This may not be a significant number but it is not the only example of a narrative that has the potential to poorly shape community attitudes, in this case towards what is perceived “normal” and what is not. Further, the circulation happens to cover an area where there are a disproportionate number of mentally challenged individuals and families. The question remains: is this just an innocent joke or a harmful narrative?

In the same publication an entire page is devoted to a story (reproduced from an American Newspaper) of how a man who was mugged went about seeking retribution against the mugger by carrying out a barrage of criminal activity - including threats against the American President - for which the mugger was intended to get the blame. Again, are there moral, ethical and legal issues here that need to be addressed? While the article might be entertaining reading, we might ask, do the publishers of community newsletters and the like have a duty of care in terms of how their material is perceived and possibly acted upon? Moreover, if the sponsors of this material knew what was contained between the pages would they support it? If so, where is their sense of community responsibility?

This is an issue for every writer including myself. Where does one draw the lines of integrity and who has the right to be judge? Undoubtedly, if people feel aggrieved they have a right to a voice and the writer is often the vehicle for that voice. Moreover, if we care for one another in communities should we be seen making each other’s disabilities [or crimes] the object of humour, even by default?

Measuring the impacts

One of the most common problems presented to researchers and therapists like myself, are the effects of societal violence and bigotry. These effects come in many forms although the outcomes are always the same; trauma, stress, loss of confidence in the self and system.

There are strong correlations between bigotry and violence and both are a major contributing factor to health costs as well as a burden on the already stretched community services. This in turn impacts on the loss of productivity and the nation’s economy. Despite all efforts to curtail it, societal violence and bigotry is escalating and we need to understand the underlying causes of why this escalation is happening. Changing demographics and social disparities account for some of the reasons but it is not the whole story. We must come back to a narrative of violence and bigotry that is deeply embedded in the Australian psyche and those who espouse it are often also the victims of similar violence and bigotry.

What the sociologists say

In the past sociologists might have argued that violence in Australian society is inherent in our culture beginning with settlement and the genocide of the first Australians. In addition to this we can count the violent treatment of prisoners and women transported from the northern hemisphere for petty crimes. Colonisation was a distinct regime of violence. In Australia the legitimation of this violence also took place when it became the basis of the outback and bushranger culture. In this respect violence became akin to the taming of the wilderness (or the wildness in human nature): we called this being civilised or civilisation and it became linked to what was viewed as normal socialisation.

In Australia this still means an all white, middle class, dominant male positioning. Anyone not normal was subject to various forms objectification and abuse that included beatings, incarceration, medicalisation and/or electric shock treatment for the desperately wayward (mostly women). Little has changed, we still objectify and abuse people who present as different.

Bullying

Recently, we opened our newspapers and read the tragic story of a seven-year-old blind boy who is forced to experience bullying at school. According to the Herald Sun and other media outlets on December 2, 2009, “Brave little Tyler Fishlock” - “who captured the hearts of Victorians after having both his eyes removed to save his life from cancer - has been beaten with a ruler and a xylophone stick, kicked and punched, pushed, and had scissors clicked dangerously in front of this face”. Why was he treated this way? Because he is different? The bulwark against honouring and respecting difference is commonplace in our society. Witness the comments from Tyler’s school:

When contacted by the Herald Sun, college director Patrick Waring said the Fishlocks had no right to demand the boy be removed …"Parents are in no position - it doesn't matter who they are - to tell us ... what they want done with other people's children," Mr Waring said.

"These are six-year-olds who are having a bit of trouble getting on with each other. We are not talking about high-end bullying, it is just spasmodic bad behaviour." He soon called back to say an agreement had been reached and the boy would be moved.

It took a public campaign to get the school to act against this violence. Instead “bad behaviour” was viewed as normal behaviour. We might liken this to the bad behaviour of footballers that can end in glassing a girlfriend, or sexual assault and/or rape. Or the bad behaviour of spouses that sometimes ends in murder. What constitutes bad behaviour and should we be tolerating it? What are we teaching our children; that it is OK to be badly behaved even if it is hurting someone?

The Department of Education has been plagued with similar cases of school bullying, which in some instances have lead to student suicides. Bullying victim Alex Wildman was the second teenager to take his own life after being targeted by students at the Kadina High School, in Lismore on the Far North Coast. He had been bullied over a long period and no one came to his aid.

Violence breeds violence

Violence in general has risen in Australia and will continue to rise unless we change the narrative of violence that circulates all areas of our society. This is especially problematic in small communities that do not have diverse populations and a wide range of ideas to compare. Small communities are often the places where abuses are best hidden.

In a recent Ombudsman’s report South Gippsland was said to be one of the worst areas for displaying chronic dysfunction in its Human Services. This is largely due to the fact that the Human Services’ workers are born and bred into small towns and into the cultures they are meant to redress. Being in and of the state as a strategy for reform might work in urban areas but it doesn’t work in small towns where people who do not adhere to the unwritten laws quickly become ostracised.

The same scathing Ombudsman’s report went on to detail the fact that almost a quarter of abused children were not given case workers and it said that some staff manipulated documents to meet performance targets. This is affirmation that government policy is more important than people, even when kids are dying.

The police view

Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland concedes it may take decades for police to end alcohol-fuelled violence on Melbourne’s city streets.

In Victoria assaults were up 1.9 per cent over robberies at 0.9 per cent in 2008. Other figures revealed almost 100,000 women a year experience sexual assault. Child abuse figures have gone through the roof according to the Ombudsman’s Report, which highlighted the way “Victoria’s vulnerable children have been left exposed to paedophiles”.

Something of an irony when you have the Police Department fighting to bring pedophiles to justice and Human Services providing them with victims. Not a problem for the Minister. The embattled Community Services Minister Lisa Neville saw no reason to resign her position. Violence just happens doesn’t it? One wonders if the Minister would feel the same if it were her kids being deprived of a happy and fulfilling future. One wonders if she fully understands the power of narrative to bring about generational violence and abuse. Who does understand the power of narrative?

More than half of Australia’s women will face some form of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime. We don’t know how much violence and bigotry contributes to generational disabilities or teenage suicide. What does seem clear is if you happen to have a child who is autistic then you must go overseas to get adequate services. This government has written the “spectrum” kids off as not worthy of help.

Under these circumstances it is becoming very difficult for the average Australian to comprehend the nature of this social upheaval. We can retell the story in order to eliminate some of these acts. We could have a non-violent, egalitarian society. It is something we must do to turn the abusive situation around and make Australia safer for everyone.