Social cohesion is in decline. This has become a common refrain, along with despair about a crisis in our democracy. Yet amid the platitudes and wishful thinking about reversing that trend, there is a glaring absence of strategy or urgency.
At different stages of our history, social cohesion has meant different things. It is an elastic term. Today, it is built on values of inclusion, harmony, respect, equality, fairness and, particularly, multiculturalism. But it has not always been thus.
There was a time not so long ago when maintaining the White Australia policy was claimed to be essential to maintain social cohesion. What was then widely accepted as Australia’s “natural” order was threatened by anyone with dark skin or Asian heritage.
Today it is the reverse: the threat to social cohesion comes from neo-Nazis targeting Asians, First Nations and other dark-skinned people. So let us not be oblivious to how value-laden the term is.
Australia has seen racism since Captain Cook stepped ashore. We would be naive to think it will not continue to show its ugly side.
When white settlers first arrived, whether in chains or not, hostility to Indigenous people was unexceptional: they were regarded as savages and dismissed as a dying race. When free settlers started to arrive, the English colonists made life tough for the Scots, who were fleeing the clearance of the Highlands by absentee landlords. Then the English and Scots together were unhappy about the arrival of large numbers of Irish – survivors of the potato famine.
Then they all banded together against Chinese gold miners. Then the same happened to every other wave of migrants or refugees – persecuted Lutherans, Jews from displaced persons camps after the Holocaust, then the Italians, Greeks, Turks, Vietnamese, Lebanese, and so on, through to today’s punching bag, people from Africa.
We cannot wish racism away. But neither should we shrug, accept it, and minimise the instances and impact of it
A healthy scepticism
While calling for urgency, and avoiding complacency, let us maintain a healthy scepticism about some of the wilder predictions of the imminent collapse of our political and social fabric.
Confident assertions of democratic disenchantment, of democracy being replaced in the wealthy West with some form of authoritarianism or dictatorship seem hysterical.
There is a bookshelf full of recent government reviews, departmental reports, commissions of inquiry, anxious submissions, newspaper opinion pieces and occasionally rabid radio and television commentary bemoaning a decline in social cohesion.
Covid and years of disruption have stressed our community economically, politically and socially. Globalisation and the uneven distribution of wealth, in particular inter-generational inequality, are stubborn challenges that governments struggle to solve.
The barbaric Hamas attacks on Israel two years ago, the resultant Gaza war, the appalling number of civilian casualties and displacement of the Palestinian people have triggered huge and persistent protests that have stress-tested communities here and around the world. May the fragile peace agreement be sustained.
These are not just economic and political challenges, but emotionally complex trials for many of us. They require deep understanding, and a willingness and capacity to balance competing interests and rights.
Sadly, nuance is often lost in this age of performative politics. Bumper-sticker slogans replace meaningful debate, resulting in rapidly growing polarisation.
We have had episodic polarisation before – the Vietnam War era in particular, and the division in 1951 when Robert Menzies tried to outlaw communism.
But Australia has been, and continues to be, remarkably resilient. We score highly on every measure of livability, accountability, democratic functionality and multiculturalism. Our social fabric, while far from perfect, ought to be recognised for what has been achieved. It should not be underappreciated.
Overdue maintenance
The fragile machinery of democracy needs some long overdue maintenance, some lubrication to keep the social compact moving. Social cohesion needs a makeover.
Opponents of multiculturalism gleefully pounce on any sign of stress or tension, any evidence at all of wrongdoing by “ethnics”, to claim that migration and multiculturalism are failed projects to be abandoned, consigned to history.
It is absurd to claim that multiculturalism as a policy is failing. Just look around any town or city in Australia today – any school, creative or cultural organisation, sporting code or contest or public or private sector workplace – and the reality of a remarkably cohesive Australia is on show.
But that narrative of negativity about the supposed failings of multiculturalism could become self-fulfilling. Some of the criticism is designed to trigger a loss of confidence. The more we wallow in pessimism, the more likely it will infect the public square.
The worst attacks on our social fabric have been shown to be orchestrated, contrived – deliberately staged – to unsettle and stress test our society. Russian intelligence interests have been proven to have interfered with free elections throughout the European Union, in former Soviet satellite states, their neighbours and even, notoriously, in the United States.
Iranian intelligence agencies hired petty criminals to commit the fire bombing of a synagogue in Melbourne and to also stage multiple antisemitic attacks in Sydney. The same happened in France, Canada and elsewhere.
Cyber-attacks traced to North Korea, China’s proxy, have targeted many nations and businesses, across the globe. Leading intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Australia caution that we are in an undeclared war.
Sir David Omand, former UK security and counter-terrorism chief, writing in The Economist warned that strengthening
social cohesion in the face of extremist violence is not only a noble aspiration but a security imperative. If communities feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, if children have to hide in synagogues or mosques in terror, if worshippers are murdered at prayer, the social contract is seen to fracture. The very possibility of living together in mutual respect is called into question.
These bad actors – corrupt autocrats and dictators – want to undermine the Western democratic project for several concurrent reasons. They aim to weaken the West economically, strategically and culturally. They want to preserve their own privilege and massive wealth, and they also want to suppress internal activism for democratic reform.
The democracy vandals amplify contrived troubles in the wealthy West to assure their own citizens agitating for democratic change that, in the West, we live in fear and chaos. I recommend Autocracy Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run The World by Anne Applebaum.
Much of our democratic backsliding is thus not a coincidence. It is not home grown, nor is it evidence of widespread grassroots rebellion. It is manipulated and orchestrated.
Neo-Nazis marching down Melbourne streets in the early hours of the morning and then attacking a First Nations camp are undoubtedly getting some outside tutelage. A few fringe cosplay fascists have popped up from time to time for years, but their sudden visibility and growth suggests to me that they are getting external funding and support.
The fascists who organised last year’s riots in the UK were not working in isolation. The inquiry after the riots established many details. Police were attacked, buildings and vehicles were burned, graves desecrated, a hotel where asylum seekers were being housed was torched with people inside. Ugly mobs churned through multiple cities at the same time. 1,280 people were arrested and 796 were charged. Of the 94 rioters arrested in connection with the hotel riot, 80 had prior convictions and 20% were under 18, recruited and targeted through social media.
Their self-appointed leader, with the stage name “Tommy Robinson”, is a serial offender called Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He has a rap sheet of violent assault, fraud, using a fake passport and contempt of court. Despite that, he is supported by Elon Musk, the richest person in the world.
Tommy Robinson and his supporters are wholesale peddlers of conspiracy theories on social media. They have exploited the dropping of guard rails by the tech barons – who did so at the behest of no less a figure than the president of the US, no stranger to inciting a riot himself.
We know that social media thrives on conflict and polarisation. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are weaponised to achieve political and commercial ends. Amplifying outrage is a tactic, a strategy, and it means that small numbers of supporters appear to be a bigger threat to our social cohesion than they actually are.
Decisions by social media platforms to reduce moderation have increased their capacity to promote the extremism of both the left and right. The extremists need each other – violence at one extreme justifies violence at the other.
Balance and fact-checking are no match for mis- and disinformation. It is an ancient adage in journalism that “a lie has gone around the world before the truth gets out of bed”. Online hate speech inciting racism is largely unregulated. Resolving how to do so and to make the AI revolution serve humanity, and not just the tech titans, is the battle that will define our times.
The platform operators, who have amassed the greatest fortunes in the history of capitalism, laughably say they cannot afford to monitor or regulate their own products to make them safe.
Imagine if Ford or General Motors said they can’t be expected to be responsible for making cars safe, but instead it is individual drivers who should be responsible for vehicle safety. Or if food suppliers said they had no role in preventing poisoning, instead it is up to consumers to be wary of what they buy and eat.
Unarguably, those who have been enriched beyond even their wildest dreams by the new tech simply must be forced to make their platforms safe.
Less talk, more action
But I am wandering from my topic. Having cautioned against all this doom and gloom, and having described a scenario that is almost dystopian, there is still cause for optimism. Why? Because social cohesion is kryptonite to bad actors. We are resilient and will continue to be so.
Adjust the frame to see it through an economic lens. A federal government inquiry in 2024, Strengthening Australian Democracy, described social cohesion as a national asset. So why do we spend so little effort – and money – in protecting it?
Capital needs trust – trust in the rule of law, democratic elections and domestic harmony. French economist Thomas Piketty – who writes books many of us buy but hardly anyone reads – has earned global recognition for explaining this, and also explaining how the strongest economies are the most equal, how democracy and social cohesion are bolstered by lower inequality.
We laud those who invest in economic or engineering infrastructure, or who punt billions on new technology, or an innovative business model. But we do not do nearly enough to protect what underpins it all – social cohesion.
Instead of more hand wringing, what should we do about it? Less talk, more action. Here are some fundamentals.
If you want respect, you also must give respect. If you expect someone to listen to you, you have to listen to them.
It is easy to hate someone if you never meet them. It is difficult to maintain prejudice against people once you break bread.
The best way to fight an idea is with better ideas, not censorship. The best way to win an argument is with a better argument, not to cancel someone.
It is as futile to merely dictate that “social cohesion must improve”, as it is to demand that people stop committing crimes, or lose weight. It is a fraud on the populace to present the challenge as being simple. It requires nuance, funding and, more than anything else, leadership, not platitudes and sound bites.
To restore the public square and the capacity to respectfully disagree – to steer people away from the extremes – it is vital to avoid hollowing out of the centre.
Some practical suggestions
Here are a few practical suggestions, achievable and sustainable.
Banish the use of “tolerance” from the lingo of multiculturalism. I don’t want anyone to say they tolerate me. It’s like saying, through gritted teeth, “I’ll hold my nose and somehow manage to put up with you” – a kind of backhander. More significantly, it betrays an attitude of cultural superiority: “My mob will tolerate you, on our terms.” Instead, can we be respectful and inclusive.
We also need to be honest that the politics of multiculturalism has often become a contest between ethnic power blocs over who gets a dollop of taxpayer money shovelled their way – often to buttress ethnic votes in marginal electorates. Social cohesion is not improved by cynical power brokers treating ethnicity as a branch-stacking weapon against their factional enemies and political opponents.
Next, stop fragmenting the battle against racism. In 2024, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appointed both an antisemitism and an Islamophobia envoy. It backfired. Elevating those two hatreds above all others is counterproductive and increases division instead of bringing everyone closer together. Instead, simply give the existing bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission the funds to better perform what is already their job – the urgent task of tackling entrenched racism.
April 2024 saw the release of a federal government Multiculturalism Framework Review, with 29 recommendations. It sank without trace, even though we have the most diverse parliament in our history. Almost nobody outside of the multicultural elite took any notice whatsoever. I suspect the government was quietly pleased.
What we need is a social cohesion strategy, adopted by national, state and local governments, working together to re-imagine what we can be. Such a strategy will invest in strengthening engagement, countering isolation and breaking down barriers to inter-communal activities wherever they are. It should be seamlessly interwoven into the fabric of our daily life, for city and rural communities, inner and outer suburbs, not just the already multicultural active.
Instead of talking about the need for greater cohesion, we need to do things that are more cohesive in their essence. This is no less important than a housing strategy, a “red tape” strategy, a health strategy, or any other area of civic life.
Research commissioned by the Australian Bicentennial Authority nearly 40 years ago found that of all the indicators measuring strength in a democracy, the strongest democracies globally also have the highest number of choirs. A choir is the very embodiment of cooperation between disparate individuals. If you do not work together, it sounds something like the Collingwood cheer squad.
I am not suggesting compulsory choir attendance, but it is instructive. Small grants can subsidise community music festivals, food festivals, grassroots sport, street parties, school events ranging from fetes to excursions. Governments should offer underwriting of insurance and other compliance costs that have become insurmountable barriers. State government insurers should underwrite the risks to save small community groups huge costs and bureaucracy.
Volunteers need tax concessions as incentives, to offset the actual cost of volunteering. Transport, uniforms, training are all barriers that lead to a decline in participation.
We must better use school and church infrastructure after hours as active community hubs, integrated with community houses and men’s sheds, among others. Tax exempt and government assisted private schools and religious institutions must open their gates to the wider community. We who contribute to their funding are shut out of their sometimes extravagant facilities. This is their social licence at work.
Even small and easy programs like first-aid training, English language classes for those newly arrived, homework clubs where retirees assist struggling students with their learning, RUOK days, new parent groups offering support at such a stressful time – so many good initiatives, more common in small country towns, have withered in our suburbs.
Tellingly, this is already happening overseas. In the US, grassroots community organisations are mobilising as a countermeasure to the crisis in their democracy.
A poll in 2021 found that only 20% of young Japanese agree that society can be changed by their own actions. Voter turnout for under 20s in the last election was 10% lower than the overall voter turnout. Similar disconnection was seen in the UK.
Polling on campuses in the US reveals a growing belief that it is ok to use violence to stop someone expressing an opinion you do not agree with. It is beyond polarisation when disagreement is equated with evil. When everything is performative, pushed to extremes, threats and then violence can be normalised.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Look at Irish citizen assemblies, and how citizens in Portugal, Finland and Taiwan are localising again, decentralising and innovating in the ways their political class engage with their citizens.
Local government, once a vital organ for community building, is now struggling with rate caps and cost blowouts. It is always easier for them to cut community programs, rather than chop direct service delivery of child care, meals for the elderly or disability services.
Progressives should also swallow hard and embrace patriotism. Not a jingoistic version, but an authentic pride in our contemporary national project. There is no contradiction between patriotism and diversity. We must deprive the ultra nationalist proto-fascists of their claim to a monopoly on a love of country.
Some of those most passionately protective of the modern project of contemporary Australia are the newly arrived. Anyone who has been to a citizenship ceremony will know how profoundly emotional a day it is. To let the ultra-nationalist racist right characterise the people we used to call “new Australians” as aliens is to surrender the terms of the argument. It denies the reality of daily life and entrenches a “them” and “us” duality that is an absolute fiction.
Forging a shared identity that celebrates diversity is the only reality for contemporary Australia. We are one, but we are many. This is not new, but progressives must lose the cringe, the embarrassment about patriotism.
In a Gallup Poll in 1958, just 4% of Americans approved of mixed-race marriages. The figure today is over 90%. Attitudes can change, but sometimes it takes longer than we want. We can improve our social cohesion, with strong leadership and a clear vision based on shared values.
Change does not just happen automatically; progress is not inevitable. It happens because we make it happen. We all have a part to play.
This is an edited version of a keynote speech given at the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute Social Cohesion Summit In October.
Jon Faine is a member of the Board of Museums Victoria which includes Melbourne Immigration Museum in its portfolio. Being a director of Museums Victoria is a voluntary position, appointed by the state government.
