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: jim.forrest@mq.edu.au

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