attitudes to diversity: new perspectives on the ethnic geography of brisbane, australia
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Sydney Ward]On: 18 December 2011, At: 19:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20
Attitudes to Diversity: newperspectives on the ethnic geographyof Brisbane, AustraliaJames Forrest a & Kevin Dunn ba Macquarie University, Sydneyb University of Western Sydney, Australia
Available online: 09 Dec 2011
To cite this article: James Forrest & Kevin Dunn (2011): Attitudes to Diversity: new perspectives onthe ethnic geography of Brisbane, Australia, Australian Geographer, 42:4, 435-453
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.619957
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Attitudes to Diversity: new perspectives onthe ethnic geography of Brisbane, Australia
JAMES FORREST & KEVIN DUNN, Macquarie University, Sydney;University of Western Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT As a consequence of changing immigration policy over the past 50 years,
contemporary Australia has a culturally diverse population. Focusing on Brisbane, one of
Australia’s smaller immigrant-receiving cities but where some 19 per cent of the population
is born overseas, this study examines attitudes to and perceptions of culturally different
ethnic (non-Anglo) immigrant groups. Emphasis is placed on patterns of tolerance and
intolerance for the city as a whole, both in areas of contact and in areas of minimal contact.
Findings show that variations in attitudes vary somewhat from commonly accepted socio-
economic and age-based correlations (the lower the status or the older people are the less
tolerant), depending on the particular mix of ethnic birthplace groups present. They also
show levels of intolerance in areas of minimal contact, which is implicitly attributed to mass
media influences. In light of these findings, a concluding plea is made for anti-intolerance
strategies to be developed for cities that pay regard to the geography of attitude-forming
contexts.
KEY WORDS Ethnic diversity; tolerance; racism; Brisbane; Australia.
Introduction
Australia’s contemporary ethnic diversity is a product of its more recent immigra-
tion history. Historically, Australia’s people comprise three main elements: a
pre-colonial Indigenous people; a mostly British colonial past from the time
of European settlement to the later 1940s; and extensive immigration from
many different parts of the world and cultures since then. The latter period, of
increasing diversity, was marked by immigration from mainly European sources
up to the ending of the White Australia policy in the early 1970s, and since
then from any part of the world, subject only to immigration policy settings
in terms of labour force and family reunion considerations, plus a relatively
small refugee component and free entry from some specified countries, principally
New Zealand (for a history of immigration to Australia and its impacts, see
Burnley 2001).
During the period mid-2007 to mid-2008, for instance, some 174 000 immi-
grants arrived in Australia to take up permanent settlement. Of these, 62.6 per cent
Australian Geographer, Vol. 42, No. 4,
pp. 435�453, December 2011
ISSN 0004-9182 print/ISSN 1465-3311 online/11/040435-19 # 2011 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.619957
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
were in the skilled migrant category (including 3.8 per cent in the business category);
28.8 per cent entered with family reunion visas; and 7.5 per cent under the
humanitarian (refugee) program; the remainder entered under special category or
exempt from visa provisions. Among those who arrived on business, skilled entry
and family reunion visas (humanitarian visa entries were not included), the third
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA3 2005) shows that the
majority first settled in Sydney (38 per cent) and Melbourne (27 per cent), with
smaller proportions settling in Perth (9 per cent), Brisbane (7 per cent) and Adelaide
(5 per cent). The largest proportions came from Britain (18 per cent), China,
including Taiwan and Hong Kong (12 per cent); North America (7); India (5) and
the Philippines (5).
Many of the immigrants entering Australia over the past five or six decades
thus came from cultural backgrounds which were different from most of the host
(receiving) society. This increased ethnic diversity and raised issues regarding the
acceptance of culturally different ethnic immigrant groups. A number of important
research traditions presently occupy the attention of social scientists interested in
this issue. Among these, one important strand focuses on ‘lived diversity’ in urban
spaces (for a recent review, see Wessel 2009; see also Noble 2009; and Wise 2009
on ‘everyday multiculturalism’). A second strand, more deeply embedded in the
Australian research literature, concentrates on what has come to be referred to as
‘new racism’ (Sniderman et al. 1991).
New racism, sometimes called cultural racism, focuses on an ‘insurmountability
of cultural differences’ (Markus 2001; see also Dunn et al. 2004, pp. 410�12).
Ethnic immigrant groups cease to be viewed as socio-biologically inferior,
embodying overt notions of a racial hierarchy and racial separation (Wieviorka
1995). Rather, racism is expressed more covertly, as varying levels of threat to
‘social cohesion’ and ‘national unity’ as perceived according to the cultural values
and hegemonic integrity of the dominant (receiving) society (Jayasuriya 2002,
pp. 41�2). Most pertinent to this study are two main and interrelated aspects. One
is the notion of the existence of out-groups; of intolerance towards specific cultural
groups based on historic constructions of Australia’s national identity and who does
or does not ‘belong’ (Rizvi 1996, pp. 176�7). The other involves notions of cultural
diversity (cf. Ang et al. 2002, pp. 17�20) and the ideology of nation (e.g. Hage
1998, pp. 27�55).
Much of the existing research in the new racism strand, however, has been at
the national (e.g. Jayasuriya 2002; Markus 2001) and sometimes State levels (e.g.
VicHealth 2007; Paradies et al. 2009), with some consideration of the major
immigrant-receiving cities, principally Sydney and Melbourne (e.g. Dunn et al.
2009; Forrest & Dunn 2010). Much less attention has been paid to other
metropolitan areas, of secondary importance in terms of numbers received but
nevertheless important as immigrant-receiving cities. Among these, Brisbane
occupies a special place. The still relatively high proportion of immigrants arriving
from English-speaking birthplaces (some 25 per cent*LSIA3) and first taking
up settlement in Brisbane continues a trend established in the several decades after
the Second World War, when Brisbane was subject to Queensland State govern-
ment population policy which was anti-diversity and focused on settlers from
English-speaking backgrounds (Burnley 2001, pp. 321�6). So while Brisbane now
has as large a proportion of non-English-speaking-background (NESB) residents
by place of birth (19 per cent) as Perth and Adelaide, many of these first established
436 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
themselves elsewhere in Australia before moving to Brisbane. This especially
applied to people of Asian origins who moved into Brisbane’s middle-income
districts.
While much of the emphasis in the Australian literature, and indeed elsewhere,
has been on compositional aspects, such as the attitudes of particular socio-
demographic groups (Dixson 1999), in several recent studies Forrest and Dunn
(2006a, b, 2007) have brought out a significant spatial consideration. These
compositional and spatial aspects together comprise a basis for what Pietsch and
Marotta (2009, p. 198) have referred to as the multiple constructions of host society
perceptions and attitudes. This has been characterised as an ‘everywhere different’
view of new racism attitudes (Dunn & McDonald 2001). Attitudes to immigrants
from other cultural backgrounds are increasingly seen as social constructions within
places (Forrest & Dunn 2006b), such that attitudes vary among specific socio-
demographic groups and from place to place, even among people of a similar social
background, depending on the mix of immigrant groups present and public
reactions to particular groups in the mix.
There is, however, another aspect of any place-based perspective, identified by
Forrest and Dunn (2006b, 2007; see also Dunn & McDonald 2001), which
attempted to enlarge upon contact theory*the idea that contact leads to
acceptance (e.g. Putnam 2007), though sometimes the opposite occurs and is
embodied in conflict theory*to stress the need to look not only at areas of contact
between the ‘host’ society and minority ethnic immigrant groups but also at
areas where there is less, even minimal, cultural diversity. While many studies focus
on areas of direct contact (e.g. Amin 2002; Putnam 2007), there has as yet been
little research attention on areas of non-contact where attitudes, tolerance or
intolerance, are nonetheless important (Forrest & Dunn 2010).
This study is therefore set within the second or ‘new racism’ research strand.
It adopts a social constructivist approach (Jackson & Penrose 1993; see also Dunn
et al. 2004, p. 410) aimed at identifying the elements of category (attitude)
construction. It seeks to deconstruct attitudes to diversity in Brisbane across the
range of socio-demographic and spatial contexts. Its aim is to further expand our
understanding of the acceptance of ethnic diversity in Australia.
Attitude and place
The centrality of spatial context to attitude formation has become increa-
singly important in the thinking of social scientists and cultural geographers in
recent years (Duncan et al. 2004, p. 2). In contemporary theoretical terms, the
specific histories of ‘host’ society cultures are seen, as in Australia, to generate
specifically national attitudes and policy approaches to the treatment of diversity
(e.g. Lamont & Aksartova 2002; Waters 1997). At the local level, research into
voter behaviour, for example, points to the influence of similar contextual effects,
especially the neighbourhood effect whereby people are influenced by information
circulating within their social networks, much of it spatially constrained to the local
area (Johnston & Pattie 2005; see also Huckfeldt 1980). Thus recent work on racial
attitudes in England (Bowyer 2009) points to the importance of the local ethnic
mix, and more specifically to which particular combination of ethnic minority
groups resides there.
Attitudes to Diversity 437
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Much of the research on attitudes to and tolerance of diversity at the sub-national
level is bound up with contact theory (Allport 1954). Thus cross-cultural contact
can inspire positive attitudes and perceptions under certain conditions: where the
groups have equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation and where there is
official support (see Pedersen et al. 2005, pp. 23�4). To these Pettigrew (1998)
added a fifth, namely opportunities to become friends. Additional considerations
include factors such as a balanced ratio of in-group to out-group numbers, an
expanding economy and low levels of anxiety (Dixon et al. 2005). In later work,
however, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found an inverse relationship between
contact and prejudice regardless of whether or not all five of the above conditions
were met. Others have emphasised the co-importance of perceived racial threat (or
conflict) theory, and, as Bowyer (2009) found, the importance of the nature of the
local ethnic mix. The critical point in all of this discussion for the present study,
however, is less the way in which contact or conflict theory works as the way in
which it provides a framework which emphasises the formation of tolerance or
otherwise at the local level. Hence the value, indeed the necessity, of conducting
analysis and deconstruction of attitudes at that level.
Mass media and place impacts
In the above discussion an explanation of acceptance or conflict was sought in
the presence or otherwise and nature of cross-cultural contact. But there are also
macro or structural influences impacting upon such attitudes. Intolerance and
conflict may occur in the near absence of diversity (Forrest & Dunn 2007).
A synthesis of two distinct fields of research helps us speculate on the geography of
this situation. The first includes research which has critically analysed the media
portrayal of diversity and ethnic minorities. The second includes work by social
psychologists and other social scientists on the morbid effects of adverse media
portrayal. Mass media and other public discourse can be macro stressors upon
community relations, depending on the way in which cultural diversity and ethnic
minorities are portrayed.
The treatment of ethnic minority groups in the mass media has been found to
be especially problematic (Hall 2000; Van Dijk 1993). As Hall (2000, p. 271) has
noted, the media are both producers and transformers of ideologies, of ‘those
images, concepts and premises which provide the frameworks through which we
represent, interpret, understand and ‘‘make sense’’ of some aspects of social
existence’. Or as Weingart (2009) put it: ‘[r]ace is a social construction, and one
that is continuously constructed by today’s media’. The importance of the
mass media in creating and perpetuating attitudes towards ethnic minorities has
been well noted in media and cultural analysis. It has been found to be especially
problematic in tabloid newspapers and on talk-back radio (Bell 1993; Dreher 2010;
Goodall et al. 1994; Poole 2002; Poynting et al. 2004; Poynting & Noble 2004;
Richardson 2004). These representations of diversity and of minorities have been
found to have substantive impacts on the well-being and belonging of those who are
portrayed adversely (Nairn et al. 2006; Paradies et al. 2008). Such media treatment
can also have wider negative effects. Thus the NSW Police Force report into the
Cronulla race riots pointed to the content and tenor of talk-back radio as a primary
cause of the expressed intolerance and racist attacks (Hazzard Report 2006, pp. 7�8,
25�8).
438 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
There is an as yet under-examined geography to the influence of media on cross-
cultural relations. Those living with generally unproblematic everyday experi-
ences among ethnic groups may be less influenced by negative media messaging
(Noble 2009). There is an emerging set of scholarship on the generally productive
impacts of everyday cultural diversity in Australia. Researchers from human
geography, anthropology and cultural studies, using more ethnographic methods,
are finding that most cross-cultural contact in day-to-day city life has positive
or neutral effects on perceptions of cultural diversity (Bloch & Dreher 2009,
pp. 195�7; Delanty 2006; Gow 2005; Noble 2009; Wise 2009).
However, this is less likely to occur in areas where there is a minimal ethnic
presence, in outer suburbs for instance (Forrest & Dunn 2007, 2010), where media
influence may be inferred and written into the circumstances of place. Emerging
work by social psychologists reveals a strong link between contact and the potency
of perceptions of threat, and hence prejudice. Stephan and Stephan (1996)
concluded that in the absence of cross-cultural contact people will not have
sufficient knowledge to judge whether or not an out-group poses a realistic threat.
The form of threat perceived (e.g. symbolic, realistic), the extent of intolerance or
prejudice, could be dramatically dependent upon influences that confound
(or confirm) those of the mass media. Although not addressed explicitly in this
study, this would help explain the tensions that emerge around proposals for places
of worship or private schools by ethnic minorities in areas where diversity is
accelerating, perhaps from a circumstance of ‘nearly absent diversity’. In Sydney
this might include areas like Annangrove or Camden where there have been tense
debates over development proposals from Australian Muslims (Dunn et al. 2004).
Social psychology research has long shown that intolerance, or lack of empathy, is
associated positively with stronger in-group identification (Saucier et al. 2005).
A geographical variation of media effect may be especially pronounced between the
inner city and outer suburban or rural areas of major immigrant-receiving countries
like Australia, especially in cities like Sydney and perhaps Brisbane (Forrest &
Dunn 2007). Although not part of this study, this could help explain city-wide
variations in dispositions towards diversity which should be addressed in later
research.
Discomfort about cultural difference
Australia has a long history of anxieties towards ‘otherness’ relating to notions
of national belonging and its international geopolitical location (Markus 1979;
Noble 2005, p. 108). Burke (2001) recorded Australia’s historical preoccupation
with security born out of its status as an outpost of British colonialism in the
Asia-Pacific region. This was reflected in its ongoing reactions to illegal
immigration, racial purity and national integrity, whether relating to the threat
of the ‘yellow peril’ from China during the mid- to later nineteenth century or to
more recent streams of Asian and Middle Eastern (Muslim) immigration in the
later twentieth century. Such discomfort in fact represents an ambivalent situation
where 87 per cent of Australians from a national survey agree it is a good thing
for a society to be made up of people from different cultures on the one hand,
while on the other only 42 per cent disagree that Australia is weakened by people
of different ethnic origins maintaining their ‘old ways’*cultural pluralism
(Challenging Racism Project 2011). This is to suggest that older (pre-1970s)
Attitudes to Diversity 439
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
policies favouring integration continue to challenge newer policies of multi-
culturalism in the national perception.
Until at least the early 1970s and the birth of multiculturalism, racism
was deeply embedded in the Australian national psyche, in association with an
official White Australia policy which was one of the first pieces of legis-
lation enacted by the new federation in 1901 (Kamp 2010). A socio-biological
attitude to ‘otherness’ prevailed in which some racial groups were deemed inferior.
As Jayasuriya (2002, p. 40) notes: ‘[i]n the era of European colonial expansion
of the 19th century . . . race [was] employed to exclude . . . racialised groups, [with
an] emphasis on inequality’. More recently, this socio-biological form of racism, or
‘old racism’, has been transmuted into ‘new racism’. There emerged ‘. . . a new
ideology of racism [based on] a racist argument . . . expressed primarily, though not
exclusively, on . . . [a need for] ‘‘social cohesion’’ and ‘‘national unity’’’ (Jayasuriya
2002, p. 41).
During the 1990s, McAllister and Ravenhill (1998) identified hesitation and
anxiety associated with closer ties with Asia, leading to the emergence of the
conservative populist One Nation Party in the mid- to later 1990s and its policy
platform that a unified, stable and homogeneous nation was undermined by
multiculturalism (Leach 2000, p. 42). Multiculturalism was a policy formulation
whereby immigrants from NESBs were encouraged to maintain their existing
cultural affinities while adhering to the broader principles governing the national
polity. But since 2001 and 9/11, Pietsch and Marotta (2009, p. 193) argue that the
cultural ‘other’ has come to be associated with Muslims, Arabs*many Australians
do not distinguish between Muslims and Arabs (Manning 2003)*and southeast
Asians, reinforced with respect to ‘Muslims’ by heightened anxieties about
increased crime rates and security concerns1 (Poynting et al. 2004). However,
within the broad acceptance of diversity characteristic of most Australians, Pietsch
and Marotta (2009, p. 192) especially note a significant level of acceptance of better
educated and skilled (ethnic) immigrants in recent years.
Class-based differentiation
Any explanation of tolerance towards ethnic minority groups by the Australian
‘host’ (receiving) society is, however, far from simple. Chief among identified
sources of variation in attitudes to cultural diversity is socio-demographic back-
ground. Betts (1999, p. 3) referred to a contemporary social divide between
‘professionally educated internationalists (people attracted to the wider world of
‘‘overseas’’) and . . . lower class parochials who value the [pre-existing] character of
their national home’. Dixson (1999, p. 33) offered a similar categorisation
between a new, knowledge-economy-based managerial�professional class and lower
and middle-class parochials (to use Betts’ term). In between these two binaries,
however, Forrest and Dunn (2007) pointed to further variations among middle-
class groups which tended to set them apart from the categories suggested by
Dixson (1999). Jones’s (1997, pp. 296�8) findings further tended to support the
need for greater social class differentiation in any assessment of social divides.
Pietsch and Marotta (2009) saw implicitly that this suggested a need for greater
social class differentiation as linked to variations in concerns about job security
and housing affordability among low-middle (working)-class groups, and more
440 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
generally because of negative images increasingly being created about some ethnic
immigrant groups.
Age-based differentiation
Age is the other commonly used basis for social differentiation relating to attitudes
held. Dunn et al. (2004, p. 424) found a strong relationship between increasing
age and assimilationist, anti-diversity views among a sample of respondents in New
South Wales and Queensland. Subsequently, Forrest and Dunn (2007) developed
a three-way categorisation of age data from the census: aged 65� as acculturated
during the pre-Second World War period of the dominantly British origin of
immigrants and the operation of the White Australia policy; aged 35�64,
acculturated during the post-Second World War period of the dominantly
European origin of immigrants; and aged 18�34, acculturated since the end of
the White Australia policy in the early 1970s. General support for such a
categorisation again comes from Jones’s (1997, pp. 296�8) findings as to important
differences among these three age groups, although he divided the middle group in
two to emphasise differences between the 35�49s and 50�64s.
Class and age, then, have been the main variables associated with attitude
differentiation in Australian research using compositional (census) variables
(Dunn et al. 2004). There remains the contextual or spatial component, previously
identified as an important independent factor in attitude formation, to which, in
conjunction with compositional considerations, we now turn.
Survey, data and analysis
Based on a view that attitudes to diversity are indeed best considered as social
constructions from within places (Dunn & McDonald 2001; Forrest & Dunn
2006b), this study proceeds on the basis that it is the particular ethnic mix
(or lack of it) and socio-demographic profile of places which work to generate
specific dispositions. Such a constructivist approach has made an important
contribution to such a conceptualisation (Bonnett 1996, pp. 872�7); recent
cultural geography has seen a proliferation of studies of ‘race’ embedded in the
larger discourse on social construction (Kobayashi 2004, p. 239). Set within this
discourse, the UNSW/MQU Racism Study survey provided multiple indicators of
attitudes towards diversity and related considerations. A telephone survey of
Queensland and New South Wales, among those aged 18 and above, was
conducted in October and December 2001 (Dunn et al. 2004; see also Forrest &
Dunn 2006b). Information on 831 respondents living in Brisbane was extracted
for use here.
Five attitude questions focusing on acceptance of aspects of cultural diversity
were used. The first three of these related to the new racism, to notions about
nation and national identity, which Sniderman and Tetlock (1986, pp. 129�30)
referred to as ‘symbolic racism’ that ‘yokes together prejudice and traditional
values [which] both veil and legitimise . . . racism’: a more covert prejudice, more
subtle, expressed in symbols and replacing the overt racism of earlier times.
Respondents were asked whether it was a good thing for a society to be made up of
people from different cultures. Response options to this and the other attitude
questions used a Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree and strongly
Attitudes to Diversity 441
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
disagree. Measurements used in the analyses reported here were derived from the
percentage responding positively (agree�strongly agree). Other questions around
attitudes to diversity included the respondents’ sense of security in the presence of
cultural difference, and whether they disagreed with a suggestion that Australia
was ‘weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways’, used
here as a surrogate for their position on multiculturalism. A fourth question,
on attitudes to intermarriage, is a commonly used measure indicative of social
distance between ‘host’; and non-host groups (Park 1924; Qian 2002). People were
asked, using the same Likert scale as for the attitude questions, whether it was a
good idea for people of different ‘races’ to marry one another. The final question,
on out-groups, was predicated on whether or not the respondent had a perception
of any ethnic groups as socially distant from their concept of a national polity, based
on historic constructions of Australian national identity and who did or did not
or cannot ‘belong’. Follow-up questions asked respondents to identify particular
out-groups.
Analysis stage I: social area analysis
Because there were only nine internal Local Government Areas in the Brisbane
metropolitan region, the sample respondents were drawn randomly from the 224
Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) within the built-up areas of Brisbane City, Logan
City, Ipswich City, part of Gold Coast City, and the Shires of Redland, Beaudesert,
Pine Rivers, Redcliffe and Caboolture at the time of the 2001 census (see Figure 1).
The structuring of the sample, randomised across all SLAs, prevented obtaining
results from respondents evenly across the metropolitan region. Instead, analysis
proceeded in two stages. The first was a social area construction of Brisbane derived
from selected 2001 census variables for each SLA. Groupings of SLAs were
then linked in the second stage to analysis of attitudes to diversity and out-groups
held by Brisbane people in each social area group.
In this first stage, three sets of census variables were selected. The first set
identified the population mix, the dominance or otherwise of the host society and
major ethnic groups present. The first two variables provided an initial focus on
those born in Australia or from non-English speaking background birthplaces*birthplace was used as there was no question on ancestry in the UNSW/MQU
Racism Survey of Brisbane*followed by a further breakdown to include those
from the UK and Eire, parts of Asia, with a Muslim background, and two main
southern European origin groups to round out the major elements of Brisbane’s
mix profile.
A second set comprised three age groups, selected as previously noted to
represent the three main stages of immigration history from dominantly Anglo,
European/Middle East and post-White Australia periods in post-federation
Australian immigration history. Finally, three socio-economic status variables
were included, based on education so as not to undervalue the position of females
otherwise at risk when income or occupation is used to type people in areas.
The construction of social areas was undertaken using entropy analysis (Johnston
& Semple 1983; see also Forrest & Johnston 1981). The major advantage of the
entropy procedure over more commonly used regression-based approaches, such as
principal components analysis, is its ability to take a whole-of-profile approach to
the grouping of sub-areas*SLAs in this case. Groups brought together SLAs
442 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
with broadly similar profiles across the variables used. Output was then expressed
in terms of group profiles, the significance of which can be assessed, as here, by
standard deviations about variable means; in Table 1(A) those variables with
standard deviations (SDs) of 90.5 per cent from variable means are shown in
bold to assist interpretation. It may further be noted that the entropy procedure
is not constrained by normalcy of distribution and, unlike other grouping
procedures, the amount of within-group variance for (1 . . . n) groups is tested
separately for each higher level of grouping; it does not depend on building upon
groups already formed, as in cluster analysis. The number of groups selected is
determined subjectively when a decreasing amount of additional variation is
accounted for by further increasing the number of groups. For Brisbane,
nine groups accounted for 72 per cent of variation across the 224 SLAs and the
16 attribute or compositional variables.
FIGURE 1. Brisbane Local Government Area and suburb locations referred to in the text.
Attitudes to Diversity 443
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
In Table 1(A) the groups have been arranged between 1 and 9 in terms of greatest
diversity (NESB presence) to most homogeneous (Australian born or born in the
UK and Ireland) (cf. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002). With reference to the
variables shown in bold (90.5 SD), groups 1�4 represented areas of greatest
diversity with a strong NESB presence. Particular groups present were
also brought out: nearly all the major immigrant groups by birthplace region in
group 1; southeast Asians and Muslims in group 2; other parts of Asia and also
Muslims in group 3; and predominantly Asians in group 4. All of these clusters
were located in inner city and in middle or middle-inner southern Brisbane (Figure
2(A)�(D)). All were dominantly younger (18�34) populations and of mixed socio-
economic status (SES) but with an emphasis on the middle to higher end of the
SES scale.
Statistical Local Areas with greatest diversity were located in two higher SES
districts of the inner city (the Brisbane City-Fortitude Valley and South Brisbane
areas); and to the south (the Robertson-Runcorn-Karawatha region) (Figure 2(A)).
TABLE 1. (A) Entropy analysis of Brisbane SLAs for social area characterisation; (B)attitudes to diversity; and (C) perceptions of out-groups (percentage values9from respective
means)
Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean
(A) Social area characteristicsBorn in Australia �22.8�13.3 �7.3 �5.9 3.7 4.5 3.6 5.8 7.1 72.7NESB 18.7 8.0 6.5 5.1�2.1 �2.9 �2.9 �5.0 �6.1 17.0Born in SE Asia 2.1 6.9 1.0 1.1�2.5 �0.7 �0.9 �1.2 �1.2 2.2Born in China/Hong Kong 2.3 �0.3 0.6 0.5�0.1 �0.5 �0.3 �0.3 �0.6 0.8Born in S & central Asia 0.4 �0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 �0.4 0.1 �0.1 �0.3 0.6Muslim 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 �0.2 �0.4 �0.3 �0.6 0.7Born in UK/Eire �1.5 �1.3�0.8 �1.0 �1.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.6 5.9Born in Greece 0.9 �0.1 0.1 �0.1 �0.1 �0.2 �0.2 �0.1 �0.1 0.2Born in Italy 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 �0.3 �0.1 �0.1 �0.3 0.5Aged 18�34 5.1 �2.1 3.6 18.9�1.9 1.7 �1.9 �1.1 �8.3 40.6Aged 35�64 �2.2 1.0 �3.0 �14.5 �3.3 2.3 1.5 6.8 0.9 45.8Aged 65� �2.9 1.2 �0.6 �4.4 5.2 �4.0 0.5 �5.7 7.4 13.6Up to Year 10 schooling �12.6 17.6 �9.0�23.3 0.7 14.4�15.2 1.1 14.2 36.6Years 11�12 schooling 6.7 �9.0 4.9 12.1�0.5 �6.1 6.1 0.6 �8.4 49.1Tertiary educated 6.0 �8.6 4.1 11.2�0.2 �8.3 9.1 �1.7 �5.9 14.3
(B) Attitudes to ethnic diversity (positive differences indicate ‘agree’�‘strongly agree’)(negative differences indicate ‘disagree’�‘strongly disagree’)Pro-diversity 3.4 �9.9 �4.9 6.2 0.1 �1.1 8.3 �2.3 0.1 85.5Secure with other cultures �0.9 �7.9 4.2 12.2 14.0 �5.3 6.5 �6.3 �5.2 75.0Pro-intermarriage 5.4 �5.8�2.9 8.3 7.3 1.4 6.1 3.7 �13.4 79.3Pro-multiculturalism 18.4�13.1�4.7 15.4 5.6 �5.9 6.1 5.0 �1.9 40.8There are no out-groups 2.5 �9.2�2.6 11.4 11.9�0.5 6.8 �4.1 �5.2 56.7
(C) Perceptions of out-groups (positive differences indicate ‘no, they are not an out-group’)Sn & SEn Europeans 2.6 1.4 �2.9 2.6 2.6 �1.2 1.4 �3.7 �0.6 2.6Asians 3.9 �12.2 �9.0 6.1 9.7 �2.1 13.4�2.2 1.8 14.6Muslims 1.2 �2.6 2.8 �4.4 0.9 1.9 2.2 �3.2 0.3 8.3Foreigners undifferentiated 4.7 1.0 1.9 0.4 1.0 0.9 �2.7 2.6 �4.1 4.7
Note: Values greater than 90.5 standard deviations from respective means are shown in bold.
444 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Elsewhere, NESB clustering was more specific. A lower status region (Sumner-
Inala-Acacia Ridge-Larapinta*Figure 2(B)) emphasised NESB elements from
southeast Asia, and Muslims. In group 3 areas (Figure 2(C)) the emphasis was on
FIGURE 2. Social areas in Brisbane, entropy groups 1�4.
Attitudes to Diversity 445
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
ethnic groups from east, south and central Asia with a significant intermixing of
Muslims and some Italians, in widely scattered parts of inner and middle
suburbia: (Lutwyche-Kelvin Grove, East Brisbane-Annerley, Belmont Heights
and Forest Lake). Group 4 areas (Figure 2(D)) showed a shift in focus to
Asians (St Lucia-Indooroopilly-Milton) in part associated with the University of
Queensland in St Lucia.
An increasingly above-average presence of those born in Australia, and of some
diversity but at average to below-average levels, in areas of mixed age and varied
socio-economic status, was highlighted in groups 5�7. In the case of group 5
(Figure 3(E)), Muslims and south Asians were present in slightly above-average
proportions in two suburban areas (Bridgeman Downs-Kedron and the Seven
Hills-Mt Gravatt-Salisbury districts) north and south of the Brisbane River. Both
were areas of older populations but a wide SES range. Groups 6 (Figure 3(F)) and
7 (Figure 3(G)) were polar opposites in socio-economic status terms, of low, and
middle to high SES, respectively, but both tending towards middle age (35�64).
Group 6 comprised a scattering of outer suburbs: to the north (about Dakabin-
Caboolture), to the east (Birkdale-Burwood Heights), to the southwest (Carole
Park) and in the south (much of Logan City). Group 7 was made up of dispersed
central and western suburbs: towards the western edge of the city (The Gap), south
of the river (Kenmore Hills-Chapel Hill and Sherwood-Annerley), and a region in
central-east Brisbane (extending south from Lutwyche across the river to include
Sherwood-Annerley).
Two other groups were dominated by those born in Australia, but with an
above-average presence of immigrants from the UK and Ireland. One was of
middle age but did not highlight any particular social status category (group 8*not
mapped). The other comprised a significantly older population of low SES
(group 9). Both groups were in the outer suburbs. Group 8 comprised northern
(Mango Hill-Griffin and Eatons Hill-Bunya), southern (Palara-Larapinta and
coastal Logan City), western (Karana Downs�Karalee), and Wakerley to the east of
the city. The other (Figure 3(H)) brought together older populations of lower socio-
economic status in the outer southwestern suburbs (Ipswich), to the north
(Redcliffe and Sandgate-Taigum); to the east (Wynnum and Burwood Heights-
Redlands Bay); and smaller areas round Waterford and southeast towards the
northern edge of Gold Coast City.
Analysis stage II: attitudes to diversity
Overall, the people of Brisbane were noticeably tolerant, though slightly less so
than Queensland generally (Forrest & Dunn 2006b, p. 176). Most (85 per cent)
were pro-diversity, secure with other cultures (77 per cent), and did not see other
groups as socially distant (79 per cent were accepting of intermarriage). However,
they were less certain about the presence of out-groups (only 56 per cent agreed
there are none); while acceptance of diversity was accompanied by a contrary
attitude where only a minority (40 per cent) accepted multicultural values (i.e. the
majority held pro-assimilation views).
This analytical stage connected the social area characterisations (Table 1(A))
with attitudes held (Table 1(B)) and with perceptions of out-groups (Table 1(C)).
To calculate values in the latter two categorisations, respondents from each
group formed from the social area analysis were aggregated and results converted
446 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
to percentage values above or below respective means in the right-hand column.
Results for Brisbane highlighted the importance of recognising multiple construc-
tions of attitudes towards immigrant groups from culturally different backgrounds.
FIGURE 3. Social areas in Brisbane, entropy groups 5�7 and 9.
Attitudes to Diversity 447
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
At a national level, Pietsch and Marotta (2009) have shown that tolerance of
immigrants among the population generally depends on the recent history
of attitude formation towards different groups as well as the cultural backgrounds
of the immigrants themselves. Thus (Pietsch & Marotta 2009, pp. 193�5) from
the early 1990s many Australians have been unsupportive of any increased intake of
immigrants from either the Middle East or Asia. Poynting et al. (2004; see
also West & Walker 2002) have also referred to ‘moral panics’ increasingly
associated with the ‘Arab other’ in media representations of Muslims in Australia.
These findings were reflected in perceptions of out-groups in Table 1(C).
Two main findings emerged. First, Asians were seen much more as an out-group
(by 15 per cent of respondents) than were Muslims (by 8 per cent), which may
well reflect the much higher proportion of the former than the latter present in
Brisbane (see Table 1(A)). Second, in general terms attitudes were found to vary
with socio-economic status (the higher the status the greater the tolerance) and age
(older people are less tolerant) (Dunn et al. 2004). But results also showed,
for Brisbane, that while such generalisations, derived from the national mood,
occurred where immigrant groups were largely absent, elsewhere they were very
much subject to variation depending on the particular mix of immigrant cultures
present at the local area level (cf. Bowyer 2009 for the UK), even among people of
similar social backgrounds.
Evidence for local-area-based multiple constructions of tolerance and intol-
erance among middle to higher social status groups was apparent in four groups
(groups 1, 3�4 and 7). The first three had a significant NESB presence and the
last had below-average NESB numbers. Among the high-presence areas, two
(groups 1 and 4), with an above-average presence of younger (18�34) persons,
largely inner city but including some middle suburban areas (Figure 2(A) and (D))
were pro-diversity, pro-multiculturalism, and generally had an above-average
rejection of any notion of out-groups. In group 4, however, higher overall
tolerance was offset by their attitude to Muslims as a significant out-group in a
cluster of SLAs with a significant Asian presence (but who were not seen as an out-
group) yet no significant numbers of Muslims. However, the other culturally diverse
group of areas (group 3; Figure 2(C)), with a significant Asian and Muslim presence,
was comparatively less tolerant. While feeling secure with other cultures, people here
were significantly above average in their anti-cultural diversity and intolerant of
Asians, but not of Muslims, a reversal of what was found in group 4. Finally, among
clusters of higher social status SLAs, a group of inner-middle SLAs (group 7, Figure
3(G)) represented low levels of NESB presence, apart from those from south Asia
(largely India). Here, comparatively high levels of tolerance of ethnic diversity were
matched by non-recognition of out-groups, especially Asians, yet an above-average
rejection of ‘foreigners’ generally. This latter finding was consistent with attitudes
among higher status groups (cf. Forrest & Dunn 2006b), though offset in this case by
positive attitudes towards south Asians with whom they were in local contact.
At the opposite end of the social status scale were two groups (2 and 6)
dominated by lower education levels (up to year 10 education), but at opposite
ends of the diversity (NESB presence) spectrum. One of these (group 2,
Figure 2(B)) had significantly above-average numbers of southeast Asians and
Muslims (largely refugee groups) in a block of southern suburbs. Relatively high
negative attitudes to all aspects of ethnic diversity, especially multiculturalism, were
apparent, accompanied by a strong negative attitude towards Asians but less so to
448 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Muslims. This was an obvious case of contact being associated with feelings of
racial tension (cf. Forrest & Dunn 2010). The other low-status group of outer
suburbs (group 6, Figure 3(F)), though with below-average contact with NESB
immigrants locally, still had some above-average negative attitudes. In particular,
they felt insecure with other cultures and had noticeably anti-multicultural values;
Muslims, though minimally present, were identified as a significant out-group,
suggesting a reflection of the national mood post-9/11 rather than any locally
generated racial tensions.
The two clusters of SLAs highlighting those aged 65 and older brought out
noticeable differences in their attitudes towards NESB people. One (group 5)
spanned the social status range in middle suburbia north and south of the Brisbane
River (Figure 3(E)), while the other (group 9) was a lower status cluster in older,
coastal areas and in Ipswich in southwestern Brisbane (Figure 3(H)). Residents of
group 5 areas were noticeably more tolerant*secure with other cultures, pro-
intermarriage and especially tolerant of Muslims. However, in group 9 areas, in the
relative absence of NESB people, there was a comparatively high negative attitude
towards ethnic diversity, and identification of out-groups. This was a non-specific in-
tolerance: the out-group most strongly identified being ‘foreigners undifferentiated’.
There was only one cluster of dominantly middle-aged SLAs, where the only born
overseas group significantly present were those of Anglo background (from the UK
and Ireland). These were largely in outer suburbia (group 9, Figure 3(H)).
Compared with other groups, they showed mixed attitudes to cultural diversity
but significant feelings of insecurity with other cultures and identification of out-
groups, especially southern and eastern Europeans and Muslims; but in the absence
of any noticeable local presence of either. Again this was a case of largely Anglo areas
in outer suburbia (see also Forrest & Dunn 2007, 2010) where the general mood of
Australians towards certain immigrant groups prevailed, largely, though implicitly in
the absence of any significant local contact, engendered by representations in the
mass media (Forrest & Dunn 2010, p. 85).
Conclusions
The literature shows strong correlations between compositional factors, in
particular socio-economic status and to a lesser extent age, and combinations of
these with attitudes to ethnic diversity. But some researchers have more recently
also noticed situations where the impact of ethnic group immigrant presence
operates differently from the socio-demographic contextual relationships than
might be anticipated. Even less remarked upon previously has been the fact that
attitudes to diversity are important not only in areas of high cross-cultural contact
but also in areas of minimal contact. What has emerged here, therefore, has been
the importance of focusing on a geography of attitudes to diversity and their socio-
demographic contexts for the city as a whole, and not just for contact areas.
The anticipated relationship between cultural/ethnic diversity and social status or
age was generally found in Brisbane, along lines suggested by Betts (1999)
and Dixson (1999), but tempered by important variations associated with
circumstances surrounding the local mix of ethnic groups present and perceptions
of their out-group status or otherwise. These variations were less apparent among
lower SES groups, however, which tended to be anti-cultural diversity and less
tolerant regardless of the presence (opportunities for intergroup contact) or absence
Attitudes to Diversity 449
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
of cultural diversity. As to anticipated age�attitude correlations, older people were
less tolerant, but where there were instances of departures from the general rule an
explanation could in part be found in the age�class mix. Thus while a significantly
older population in one group of areas in a mixed-class situation were pro-diversity,
as much so as in much younger areas, another group of areas, also more strongly
elderly but of lower SES, were noticeably anti-diversity.
It was in below-average contact areas, those without any significant ethnic
minority group presence, however, that in most cases the strongest anti-diversity
attitudes were found. This was especially so in outer suburban areas, which largely
replicated attitude patterns found in Sydney and Melbourne. Given the relative lack
of contact opportunities, this may be attributed to the influence of the mass media,
but to date there is no specific body of available evidence either to support or reject
this view in so far as it may apply to Brisbane. This is an area where further research
is needed: a geography of media influence. Contact can generate tolerant attitudes,
as media-borne stereotypes are vanquished by positive everyday association that
humanises the Other. Lack of such contact can arguably have the opposite effect
when driven by adverse media reporting.
Emerging Australian and British research on everyday multiculturalism, cosmo-
politanism and social cohesion suggests that macro processes of intolerance
generation can be assuaged locally. This was generally, though not always, reflected
in middle to higher social status Brisbane. There is, however, a need for more
research into situations where the relative absence of contact allows the development
of intolerant attitudes implicitly brought about by media treatment (cf. Manning
2003), and the inculcation of ‘false beliefs’ (cf. Pedersen et al. 2005). In places of
lesser diversity there may be much stronger scope for ethnic insularity that is
associated with more negative dispositions towards cultural diversity. In any
discussion of tolerance or intolerance towards ethnic minority groups, all this is to
re-emphasise a need to look at the whole city, at areas that are culturally diverse and
those that are not, to refocus anti-intolerance strategies on the nature of particular
spatial and compositional*hence attitude-forming*contexts right across our cities.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge funding received from the Australian Research Council
(ARC) Large Grant project (A10007234) for the survey data collection, and the
comments of two anonymous referees.
Correspondence: Jim Forrest, Department of Environment and Geography,
Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]
NOTE
[1] The survey used here post-dates both 9/11 and the Tampa*illegal entry of (Muslim)immigrants*incident earlier in 2001. However, the relative perception of Muslims asthe least accepted of immigrant groups indicated here is similar to their positioning inearlier studies (McAllister & Ravenhill 1998; McAllister & Moore 1991).
450 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
REFERENCES
ALLPORT, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.AMIN, A. (2002) ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity’, Environment and
Planning A 34, pp. 959�80.ANG, L., BRAND, J.E., NOBLE, G. & WILDING, D. (2002) Living diversity: Australia’s
multicultural future, Special Broadcasting Services Corporation, Artarmon, NSW.AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2002) 2001 Census of population and housing*
Brisbane, a social atlas, ABS Catalogue No. 2030.3, Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra.
BELL, P. (1993) Multicultural Australia in the media, Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra.
BETTS, K. (1999) The great divide: immigration politics in Australia, Duffy & Snellgrove, Sydney.BLOCH, B. & DREHER, T. (2009) ‘Resentment and reluctance: working with everyday
diversity and everyday racism in southern Sydney’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 30, pp.197�204.
BONNETT, A. (1996) ‘Constructions of ‘‘race’’, place and discipline: geographies of ‘‘racial’’identity and racism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 19, pp. 864�83.
BOWYER, B.T. (2009). ‘The contextual determinants of whites’ social attitudes in England’.British Journal of Political Science 39, pp. 559�86.
BURKE, A. (2001) In fear of security: Australia’s invasion anxiety, Pluto, Annandale and Sydney.BURNLEY, I.H. (2001) The impact of immigration on Australia*a demographic approach,
Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.CHALLENGING RACISM PROJECT (2011) Challenging racism*findings, challenging racism:
the Anti-Racism Research Project, available from: http://www.uws.edu.au/social_sciences/soss/research/challenging_racism/findings_by_region (accessed 31 March 2011).
DELANTY, G. (2006) ‘The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and socialtheory’, British Journal of Sociology 57, pp. 25�47.
DIXON, J., DURRHEIM, K. & TREDOUX, C. (2005) ‘Beyond the optimal contact strategy.A reality check for the contact hypothesis’, American Psychologist 60, pp. 697�711.
DIXSON, M. (1999) The imaginary Australian: Anglo-Celts and identity*1788 to the present,University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
DREHER, T. (2010) ‘Speaking up or being heard? Community media interventions and thepolitics of listening’, Media, Culture & Society 32, pp. 85�103.
DUNCAN, J.S., JOHNSON, N.C. & SCHEIN, R.H. (eds) (2004) A companion to culturalgeography, Blackwell, Oxford.
DUNN, K., FORREST, J., BURNLEY, I. & MACDONALD, A. (2004) ‘Constructing racism inAustralia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 30, pp. 409�30.
DUNN, K., FORREST, J., PE-PUA, R., HYNES, M. & MAEDER-HAN, K. (2009) ‘Cities ofrace hatred? The spheres of racism and anti-racism in contemporary Australian cities’,Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 1, pp. 1�14.
DUNN, K. & MCDONALD, A. (2001). ‘The geography of racism in NSW: a theoreticalexplanation and some preliminary findings for the mid-1980s’, Australian Geographer 12,pp. 29�44.
FORREST, J. & DUNN, K. (2006a) ‘‘‘Core’’ culture hegemony and multiculturalism:perceptions of the privileged position of Australians with British backgrounds’,Ethnicities 6, pp. 237�64.
FORREST, J. & DUNN, K. (2006b) ‘Racism and intolerance in eastern Australia: a geographicperspective’, Australian Geographer 37, pp. 167�86.
FORREST, J. & DUNN, K. (2007) ‘Constructing racism in Sydney, Australia’s largestEthniCity’, Urban Studies 44, pp. 699�721.
FORREST, J. & DUNN, K. (2010) ‘Attitudes to multicultural values in diverse spaces inAustralia’s immigrant cities, Sydney and Melbourne’, Space and Polity 14, pp. 81�102.
FORREST, J. & JOHNSTON, R. (1981) ‘On the characterisation of urban sub-areasaccording to age structure’, Urban Geography 2, pp. 31�40.
FORREST, J., POULSEN, M. & JOHNSTON, R. (2006) ‘Peoples and spaces in a multiculturalnation: cultural group segregation in metropolitan Australia’, Espaces, Populations, Societes2006(1), pp. 151�64.
Attitudes to Diversity 451
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
GOODALL, H., JAKUBOWICZ, A., MARTIN, J., MITCHELL, T., RANDELL, L. &SENEVIRATNE, K. (1994) Racism, ethnicity and the media, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards.
GOW, G. (2005) ‘Rubbing shoulders in the global city: refugees, citizenship and multiculturalalliances in Fairfield, Sydney’, Ethnicities 5, pp. 386�405.
HAGE, G. (1998) White nations: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society, PlutoPress, Annandale, NSW.
HALL, S. (2000) ‘Racist ideologies and the media’, in Marris, P. & Thornham, S. (eds)Media studies: a reader (2nd edition), New York University Press, New York, pp.271�82.
HAZZARD REPORT (STRIKE FORCE NEIL) (2006) Cronulla riots: review of the police response, 1.Report and recommendations, New South Wales Police Force, Sydney.
HUCKFELDT, R.E. (1980) ‘Variable responses to neighbourhood social contexts: assimila-tion, conflict and tipping points’, Political Behaviour 2, pp. 231�57.
JACKSON, P. & PENROSE, I. (eds) (1993) Constructions of race, place and nation. UniversityCollege London Press, London.
JAYASURIYA, L. (2002) ‘Understanding Australian racism’, Australian Universities Review 45,pp. 40�4.
JOHNSTON, R. & PATTIE, C. (2005) ‘Putting voters in their places: local context and votingin England and Wales, 1997’, in Zuckerman, A.S. (ed.) The social logic of politics: personalnetworks as contexts for political behaviour, Temple University Press, Philadelphia,pp. 184�208.
JOHNSTON, R.J. & SEMPLE, R.K. (1983) Classification using information statistics, CatmogNo. 39, Geobooks, Norwich.
JONES, F.L. (1997) ‘Ethnic diversity and national identity’, Australia and New ZealandJournal of Sociology 33, pp. 285�305.
KAMP, A. (2010) ‘Formative geographies of belonging in White Australia: constructing thenational Self and Other in parliamentary debate, 1901’, Geographical Research 48, pp.411�26.
KOBAYASHI, A. (2004) ‘Critical ‘race’ approaches to cultural geography’, in Duncan, J.S.,Johnson, N.C. & Schein, R.H. (eds) A companion to cultural geography , Blackwell, Oxford,pp. 238�49.
LAMONT, M. & AKSARTOVA, S. (2002) ‘Ordinary cosmopolitanisms: strategies for bridg-ing racial boundaries among working-class men’, Theory, Culture & Society 19, pp.1�25.
LEACH, M. (2000) ‘Hansonism, political discourse and Australian identity’, in Leach, M.,Stokes, G. & Ward, I. (eds) The rise and fall of One Nation, University of Queensland Press,St Lucia, pp. 42�56.
LSIA (LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF IMMIGRANTS TO AUSTRALIA) (2005) Wave 3.1,Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra.
MANNING, P. (2003) Dog whistle politics and journalism: reporting Arabic and Muslim people inSydney newspapers, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, Sydney.
MARKUS, A. (1979) Fear and hatred: purifying Australia and California 1850�1901, Hale &Iremonger, Sydney.
MARKUS, A. (2001) Race, John Howard and the remaking of Australia, Allen & Unwin, CrowsNest, Sydney.
MARKUS, A. & DHARMALINGAM, A. (2007) Mapping social cohesion: the Scanlon Foundationsurveys, Scanlon Foundation, Melbourne.
MCALLISTER, I. & MOORE, R. (1991) ‘The development of ethnic prejudice: an analysis ofAustralian immigrants’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 14, pp. 127�51.
MCALLISTER, I. & RAVENHILL, J. (1998) ‘Australian attitudes towards closer engagementwith Asia’, Pacific Review 11, pp. 198�205.
NAIRN, R., PEGA, F., MCCREANOR, T., RANKINE, J. & BARNES, A. (2006) ‘Media, racismand public health psychology’, Journal of Health Psychology 11, pp. 183�96.
NOBLE, G. (2005) ‘The discomfort of strangers: racism, incivility and ontological security ina relaxed and comfortable nation’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 26, pp. 107�20.
NOBLE, G. (2009) ‘Everyday cosmopolitanism and the labour of intercultural community’,in Wise, A. & Velayutham, R. (eds) Everyday multiculturalism, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke, pp. 46�65.
452 J. Forrest & K. Dunn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11
PARADIES, Y., FORREST, J., DUNN, K., PEDERSEN, A. & WEBSTER, K. (2009) ‘Morethan tolerance’, in Mansouri, F. (ed.) Youth identity and migration*culture, values and socialconnectedness , Common Ground, Altona, pp. 207�26.
PARADIES, Y., HARRIS, R. & ANDERSON, I. (2008) ‘The impact of racism on Indigenoushealth in Australia and Aotearoa: towards a research agenda’, Discussion Paper No. 4,Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Darwin.
PARK, R.E. (1924) ‘The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial attitudesand racial relations’, Journal of Applied Sociology 8, pp. 339�44.
PEDERSEN, A., WALKER, I. & WISE, M. (2005) ‘Talk does not cook rice: beyond anti-racismrhetoric to strategies for social action’, Australian Psychologist 40, pp. 20�30.
PETTIGREW, T.F. (1998) ‘Intergroup contact theory’, Annual Review of Psychology 49, pp.65�85.
PETTIGREW, T.F. & TROPP, L.R. (2006) ‘A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, pp. 751�83.
PIETSCH, J. & MAROTTA, V. (2009) ‘Bauman, strangerhood and attitudes towardsimmigrants among the Australian population’, Journal of Sociology 45, pp. 187�200.
POOLE, E. (2002) Reporting Islam: media representations of British Muslims, I.B. Tauris,London.
POYNTING, S. & NOBLE, G. (2004) Living with racism: the experience and reporting by Araband Muslim Australians of discrimination, abuse and violence since 11 September 2001, HumanRights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), Sydney.
POYNTING, S., NOBLE, G., TABAR, P. & COLLINS, J. (2004) Bin Laden in the suburbs:criminalising the Arab Other, Sydney Institute of Criminology, Sydney, No. 18.
PUTNAM, R.D. (2007) ‘E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-firstcentury’, Scandinavian Political Studies 30, pp. 137�74.
QIAN, Z. (2002) ‘Race and social distance: intermarriage with non-Latino whites’, Race andSociety 5, pp. 33�47.
RICHARDSON, J.E. (2004) (Mis)Representing Islam: the racism and rhetoric of British broadsheetnewspapers, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
RIZVI, F. (1996) ‘Racism, reorientation and the cultural politics of Asia�Australia relations’,in Vasta, E. & Castles, S. (eds) The teeth are smiling: the persistence of racism, Allen & Unwin,Sydney, pp. 173�88.
SAUCIER, D.A., MILLER, C.T. & DOUCET, N. (2005) ‘Differences in helping whites andblacks: a meta-analysis’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 9, pp. 2�16.
SNIDERMAN, P.M., PIAZZA, T., TETLOCK, P.E. & KENDRICK, A. (1991) ‘The new racism’,American Journal of Political Science 35, pp. 423�47.
SNIDERMAN, P.M. & TETLOCK, P.E. (1986) ‘Symbolic racism: problems of motiveattribution’, Journal of Social Issues 42, pp. 129�50.
STEPHAN, W.G. & STEPHAN, C.W. (1996) ‘Predicting prejudice’, International Journal ofIntercultural Relations 20, pp. 409�26.
VAN DIJK, T.A. (1993) Elite discourse and racism, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.VICHEALTH (2007) More than tolerance: embracing diversity for health: discrimination affecting
migrant and refugee communities in Victoria, its health consequences and solutions, VictorianHealth Promotion Foundation, Melbourne.
WATERS, C. (1997) ‘‘‘Dark strangers’’ in our midst: discourses of race and nation in Britain,1947�1963’, Journal of British Studies 36, pp. 207�38.
WEINGART, J. (2009) Media, film, music, religion: institutional racism and Australia’s mediatoday, available from: http://religionandmediacourse.blogspot.com/2009/09/institutional-racism-and-australias.html (accessed 26 October 2009).
WESSEL, T. (2009) ‘Does diversity in urban space enhance intergroup contact andtolerance? ’, Geografiska Annaler, Series B 91, pp. 5�17.
WEST, A. & WALKER, F. (2002) ‘‘‘Terror threat grips a nation’’ and ‘‘Paranoia in the luckycountry’’’, Sun-Herald 29 December, pp. 1, 4.
WIEVIORKA, M. (1995) The arena of racism, Sage, London.WISE, A. (2009) ‘Everyday multiculturalism: transversal crossings and working class
cosmopolitans’, in Wise, A. & Velayutham, R. (eds) Everyday multiculturalism, PalgraveMacmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 21�45.
Attitudes to Diversity 453
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
este
rn S
ydne
y W
ard]
at 1
9:18
18
Dec
embe
r 20
11