The Experience and Fear of Violence in the Public Realm: Hegemonic Ideology and Individual Behaviour (Routledge Advances in Sociology) [1 ed.] 1032473762, 9781032473765

Citation preview

Routledge Advances in Sociology

THE EXPERIENCE AND FEAR OF VIOLENCE IN THE PUBLIC REALM HEGEMONIC IDEOLOGY AND INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR Charlotte Fabiansson

The Experience and Fear of Violence in the Public Realm

This book explores violent and discriminatory values and beliefs and their interconnectedness between societal echelons. Violence has a foundation and a context. It comes from somewhere and is directed at someone or something, and it has an ambience established through generations of social, cultural, political, financial and religious strategies. It fashions nation-states’ hegemonic ideology and frames individual behaviours and attitudes, thus creating a milieu that enables the normalisation of violence. The focus is on violence-infused behaviours and actions in the public realm, a multifunctional environment for social and cultural activities, as well as a workplace, entertainment and transport hub. It is a public setting, sometimes demanding onerous deftness of individuals to stay safe. Attitudes, values and beliefs around violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm frequently occur openly without anyone noticing that a crime has been committed, including by close bystanders. An audience steeped in societal hegemonic social and cultural patriarchal ideology might be oblivious to harassing or discriminative behaviours and attitudes against females, minority genders and ethnic minority groups. The habitual nature and normalisation of these invisible crimes make them easy to dismiss. Violence materialises on all societal levels: the hegemonic structural (macro) level, consisting of the society’s dominating political, financial, social, cultural and religious leaders, educational and community institutions (meso) level and the individual-agency (micro) level, hence the nationstate’s populace. Societal order is underpinned by structural, systemic and symbolic violence, all integrated into contemporary society’s cultural and social fabric, thus inconspicuous social norms as ingrained through internalisation. The book is written from a sociological perspective and within the risk society discourse, where the risk of violence in the public domain is omnipresent. Discourses of Arendt, Bauman, Bourdieu, Marx, Foucault, Galtung and Beck and present-day analysis underpin the discussions. The agency and political leadership research emphatically show that violence and discrimination are normalised and ingrained in the contemporary milieu. Charlotte Fabiansson has a PhD in Sociology, is an Associate Professor and Adjunct Fellow at the College of Arts & Education, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. She is the author of ‘Belonging and Social Identity among Young People in Western Sydney, Australia, after the Cronulla Riots’, Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2018, 19, (2): 351–366; Pathways to Excessive Gambling: A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits (Ashgate Publishing Group, UK, 2010). She is the co-author of Food & the Risk Society: The Power of Risk Perception (Routledge, UK, 2016).

Routledge Advances in Sociology

This series presents cutting-edge developments and debates within the field of sociology. It provides a broad range of case studies and the latest theoretical perspectives, while covering a variety of topics, theories and issues from around the world. It is not confined to any particular school of thought. Debates Around Abortion in the Global North Europe, North America, Russia and Asia Fabienne Portier-Le Cocq Class Boundaries in Europe The Bourdieusian Approach in Perspective Johs Hjellbrekke, Cédric Hugrée, Étienne Penissat, Alexis Spire Covid-19 Responses of Local Communities around the World Exploring Trust in the Context of Risk and Fear Khun Eng Kuah, Gilles Guiheux, and Francis K.G. Lim Space, Mobility, and Crisis in Mega-Event Organisation Tokyo Olympics 2020’s Atmospheric Irradiations Rodanthi Tzanelli Subaltern Workers in Contemporary France To Be Like Everyone Else Olivier Masclet, Thomas Amossé, Lise Bernard, Marie Cartier, Marie-Hélène Lechien, Olivier Schwartz, and Yasmine Siblot Cultural Values, Institutions, and Trust Seung Hyun Kim and Sangmook Kim For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Advances-in-Sociology/book-series/SE0511

The Experience and Fear of Violence in the Public Realm Hegemonic Ideology and Individual Behaviour Charlotte Fabiansson

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Charlotte Fabiansson The right of Charlotte Fabiansson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 9781032473765 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032473758 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003385813 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813 Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

Figures and table Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1

Introduction Book structure 2 Societal and individual violence in the public realm 5 The public realm 9 Hegemonic discourses 12 Definition of violence, harassment and discrimination 15 Hegemonic ideology and violence 17 Systemic and symbolic discrimination 21 Power discourses 23 Interconnection between structural and agency levels 29 Agency-level research 31 Risk society discourse 33 Risk surveillant modern technology 37 Social class and social status 39 Inequality discourses 40 References 42

2

Theoretical framework and literature review Introduction 47 Symbolic violence discourses 52 Ethnic discrimination 53 Language discourses 59 Gender creeds 62 Violence, harassment and discrimination on the structural level 64

viii ix xii xiii 1

47

vi

Contents Agency-level violence 70 In summary 75 References 75

3

Structural- and agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination Introduction 82 Structural violence 83 Systemic violence 86 Gender and ethnicity discrimination 90 Symbolic violence 95 Nation-state symbolic violence 97 Agency-level systemic and symbolic violence 100 References 105

4

Agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination 108 Introduction 108 Research design 111 Sample cohort 113 Socio-demographic sample profile 115 The meanings and interpretations of words and concepts 118 The meanings of being safe and risky public realms 119 Reflections around verbal, social, physical and sexual violence 122 Safety in the public realm 128 Risks and safety as influenced by time of the day 130 Safety in metropolitan milieus 130 Respondents’ comments about risks in the city milieu 132 Violence, harassment and discrimination on university campuses, teaching settings and stalking experiences 141 Introduction 141 Violence and discrimination on university campuses 143 Students’ reflections about violence on university campuses 145 Harassment and discrimination in teaching settings 146 Student lecturer/tutor harassment and discrimination 146 Students as perpetrators and victims of violence 152 Witnessing violence and harassment as a bystander 156 Harassment among students outside the direct teaching setting 157 Minority ethnic young adults’ experiences of violence versus Anglo-Australians 158 Ethnic minorities’ experiences of violence on university campuses and in the public realm 164

82

Contents

vii

Ethnic minorities’ experiences of harassment and discrimination in the teaching setting 169 International students’ harassment quandary 171 References 176 5

First Nation peoples and people of colour First Nation peoples’ experiences of violence 180 First Nation Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ experiences of violence 181 Females of colour’s experiences of violence 186 Internationalisation of violence and discrimination 188 References 189

180

6

Interconnectedness between structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values Introduction 191 Interconnection between structural and agency societal levels 197 Societal acceptance of structural violence and harassment 200 Discrimination and harassment within governance and public institutions 202 Harassment and discrimination within the Australian Commonwealth Parliament 206 Societal acceptance of agency violence and harassment 220 References 221

7

Concluding comments References 231

225

Index

233

191

Figures and table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16

Gender and age distribution in per cent Financial status by gender in per cent Overall well-being by gender in per cent. Respondents’ assessment of their overall well-being situation by age in per cent The overall feeling of safety in the public realm by gender in per cent The overall perception of feeling safe by age in the public realm in per cent Being safe in the public realm day and after dark by gender (the respondents could give more than one response) Concerned about safety in the metropolitan centre during the day and night by gender in per cent Safety as an issue when socialising with friends in the city by gender in per cent Experiences of violence and harassment by gender in per cent Experiences of violence and harassment by age in per cent Safety concerns on university campuses in per cent Safety concerns at university campuses by gender in per cent Respondents born overseas and bilingual by gender and age group in per cent The overall feeling of safety in the public realm by birthplace and bilingualism in per cent Harassment in teaching settings, on campuses and stalked by bilingual proficiency in per cent

6.1 Female representation in Australian Federal Parliament in per cent (Parliament of Australia 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Parliamentary Library 2022)

115 116 117 118 128 129 131 131 133 142 142 143 144 161 164 166

203

Preface

The book explores violent and discriminatory values and beliefs and their interconnectedness between societal echelons. Violence has a foundation and a context. It comes from somewhere and is directed at someone or something, and it has an ambience established through generations of social, cultural, political, financial and religious strategies. It fashions nation-states’ hegemonic ideology and frames individual behaviours and attitudes. Thus, creating a milieu that enables the normalisation of violence. The focus is on violence-infused behaviours and actions in the public realm, a multifunctional environment for social and cultural activities, as well as a workplace, entertainment and transport hub. It is a public setting, sometimes demanding onerous deftness of individuals to stay safe. This research theme of interconnectedness between hegemonic and individual society levels was initially examined in my PhD, exploring society’s legal frameworks and the use of corporal punishment. A research focus progressed into elucidating violence and harassment in the public realm, risk-taking, gambling, community belonging and young people of minority ethnic heritage’s understanding of acceptance and belonging in Australian society. Actions of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm are offences committed 24/7 and frequently occur openly without anyone noticing that a crime has been committed, including by close bystanders. The habitual nature and normalisation of these invisible crimes make them easy to dismiss. Furthermore, perpetrators steeped in societal hegemonic social and cultural patriarchal ideology might be oblivious to harassing or discriminative behaviours and attitudes against females, minority genders and ethnic minority groups. Notwithstanding this, the line between being classified as a victim or perpetrator can be opaque, depending on the assessor’s social and cultural habitus. Violence materialises on all societal levels: the hegemonic structural (macro) level, consisting of the society’s dominating political, financial, social, cultural and religious leaders, educational and community institutions (meso) level and the individual-agency (micro) level, hence the nation-state’s populace. Societal order is underpinned by structural, systemic and symbolic violence, all integrated into contemporary society’s cultural and social fabric, thus inconspicuous social norms as ingrained through internalisation.

x

Preface

Arendt and Bauman stressed that violence is embedded in historical and modern epochs. However, each era has its unique configuration of violence, harassment and discrimination to fashion the period’s political, economic, cultural, social and religious ideology, thus its hegemony. The concept of violence is, however, complex. Violence is everywhere in society, organisations and institutions, whether small or large. Moreover, the meanings of violence, harassment and discrimination are incredibly diffuse and multifaceted. Thus, defining these concepts, including establishing acceptable standardised definitions, is futile, as they all have social, cultural and religious connotations affecting individual perception. Therefore, to be harassed, discriminated against or violated is not an exact science but a matter of judgement influenced by hegemonic ideology and individual habitus, family milieu, social values and norms. Violence and discrimination are deep-rooted global societal phenomena, and each nation-state has normalised an acceptable level of violence. Consequently, violence and fear prevail throughout all societies, aided by societal beliefs and values and social and cultural traditions emphasised by political leaders, legal frameworks, social entrepreneurs and educational institutions and communicated by mass media. Violence is a universal scourge tearing at the fabric of all societal structures, albeit it is predominately felt on community levels as it threatens people’s livelihood. Subsequently, violence might be perceived as an unavoidable part of the human condition. A fait accompli to manage rather than to avert because ‘violence is often seen as an inevitable part of the human condition – a fact of life to respond to, rather than to prevent’ (World Health Organisation 2002:3). Notwithstanding this, even if violence is global with no country or few communities untouched and appears everywhere, violence should not be ‘an inevitable part of the human condition, nor is it an intractable problem of “modern life” that cannot be overcome by human determination and ingenuity’ (World Health Organization 2004:77). The book is written from a sociological perspective and within the risk society discourse, where the risk of violence in the public domain is omnipresent. Furthermore, the risk of violence is discriminatory as the populace who does not adhere to the hegemonic societal ideology is more at risk than others. Violence and discrimination are ingrained phenomena on all societal levels. It is everywhere but not always seen, acknowledged or experienced because of its normalisation and society’s accepted social and cultural stratification. Using the risk society discourse analogy, violence, harassment and discrimination are risk factors that create a probability scenario of an individual risking being a victim. However, even if the risk scenario might be low, the perceived risk depends more on the individual’s social and cultural experiences and vulnerabilities, fashioning a milieu of fear for the unknown or, on the opposite, a more resilient attitude to risks. The book focuses on violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm and how it is presented on different societal levels. Nevertheless, violence is of various embodiments and analysed through a multitude of disciplinary

Preface xi discourses, thus, too innumerable to embrace in a single text. Consequently, the emphasis here is to inspire further discussions and research of public realm violence, the invisible crime prevailing among all people and societal milieus.

References World Health Organisation [WHO] (2002) World Report on Violence and Health: Summary. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. World Health Organization [WHO] (2004) Preventing Violence: A Guide to Implementing the Recommendations of the World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Acknowledgements

This book is about violence, young adults, particularly university students and student staff facing challenges of violence, harassment and discrimination within the university environment, from academic staff and fellow students. The book is about their stories and experiences, but also how society leaders present similar behaviour and attitudes in governing positions. Without the students’ contributions and willingness to tell their experiences of violence, there would not have been a book. I am indebted to their stories and in awe of their bravery in presenting them, taking a stand against violence and sharing the often very personal incidents experienced in the public realm. In addition, they described events about discrimination against highly educated individuals who cannot find qualified employment matching their education mainly because of gender, surname and/or ethnic belonging. I am grateful to the two reviewers who gave encouraging, pertinent and thoughtful comments. They have aided the quality of the content and the discussions. Furthermore, I express my profound gratitude for all the sustained support and assistance from Neil Jordan and his excellent team at the Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, in publishing the book. Finally, the seed grant from the College of Arts & Education, Victoria University, Melbourne, to undertake the reseach was appreciated. Ultimately, but not least, authoring a book is a challenging journey. It is made easier with wonderful encouragement from family and friends. Stefan, Christoffer and Hien have been of immense help with suggestions and reading earlier drafts; nonetheless, all mistakes are mine. Sydney 2023 Charlotte Fabiansson

Abbreviations

ABC ABS AHRC AIATSIS AIC AIHW ASIS BCS BRÅ CALD CPWs CSW57 CWP EU-28 FRA GFC ISCED KPMG LGBTIQ+ MOP(S) MP NATO NSW PM SET SEU SFS SMH SVAWG

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Human Rights Commission Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Australian Secret Intelligence Service British Crime Surveys Brottsförebyggande Rådet Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Australian Commonwealth Parliament Workplaces United Nations Commission for the Status of Women Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians European Academic classification European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Global Financial Crisis United Nations International Standard Classification of Education Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Gender Diverse, Intersex and Queer+ Members of Parliament Staff Member of Parliament North Atlantic Treaty Organization New South Wales Prime Minister Student Evaluation of Teaching Student Evaluation of Unit Svensk Författningssamling Sydney Morning Herald Safe Cities Free of Violence against Women and Girls

xiv Abbreviations THE UN WHO WoCA XR

Times Higer Education United Nations World Health Organisation Women of Colour Australia Extinction Rebellion

1

Introduction

This book explores violence, harassment and discrimination incidents in the public realm. Frequently, the victims are females, minority genders and/or minority ethnic groups, and males are the perpetrators. Notwithstanding this categorisation, it is only part of the reality, as discussed in the following chapters. Agencylevel violence and harassment are not isolated from societal hegemonic ideology, as it is proposed that the structural and agency levels intersect. Violence-inspired language, attitudes and behaviours are interconnected between all societal echelons, social stratifications and population groups. Furthermore, examining the hegemonic structural level’s use of systemic and symbolic violence. As communicated through discriminating language and actions by political leaders, and social entrepreneurs, social and cultural key powerholders, thus fashioning the atmosphere that influences attitudes and values among individuals and groups of citizens in the public realm. Significantly, the book explores if violence-inspired and harassing behaviours, discriminating language and attitudes are transmitted from the hegemonic structural level onto the individual-agency level. There is a presumption that news media broadcasting, opinion articles and social mass media enable attitude and value transmission between influential and powerful leadership groups to the populace. Thus, the focus is on whether behaviour and attitudes, verbal or written violence-infused and derogative communication are transferred between societal levels. For example, discriminative language and abhorrent behaviours, as presented on the structural level, interweaves with an acceptance by the populace to adopt similar attitudes and values; hence whether structural-level values and beliefs inspire citizens to engage in analogous values, attitudes and behaviours in their mundane communication. Furthermore, the tone in communication and choice of words matter in understanding harassing behaviour. Consequently, it is noteworthy to elucidate the language, attitudes and behaviour of political leaders, key powerholders and social entrepreneurs on the macro-level. In this context, social entrepreneurs are an elite group of political, professional experts, opinionated social, cultural or business-affiliated individuals who are regularly called upon to comment on political, financial, environmental, social or cultural issues raised through a public or private newsworthy up-to-date topic. This loose assemblage of social entrepreneurs is limited in numbers but well known as DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-1

2

Introduction

approached frequently by mass media organisations to comment on topical issues, not necessarily because of expertise and knowledge in the area. Consequently, a selected group communicates personal, financial or political opinions or expert advice, although not necessarily promoting unanimous suggestions. Nevertheless, it is an elite group that dominates public discussions and undoubtedly influences the structural level’s political and financial agenda. Additionally, it is often from this elite group that leading positions in political and financial institutions are selected. For instance, social entrepreneurs’ derogative or violence-infused opinions or language is broadcasted by mass media. It underpins or permits citizens to act comparably with attitudes, actions and violent language against fellow citizens without repercussions. Thus, a postulation is that macro-level behaviours and attitudes create an environment where imitation and normalising violence, harassment and discrimination are accepted and standardised on the meso and micro levels. However, in this context, the aim is not to establish a causal link to explicit events. On the contrary, it explores the change in atmosphere and if there is a flow-on effect of violent language, attitudes and behaviour from the hegemonic political, religious, social and cultural ideology to individuals’ perception of accepted behaviour. Thus, violence, harassment and discriminatory actions are analysed from sociological perspectives within the framework of Bourdieu’s analysis of social and cultural habitus, social identity and symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977) and Beck’s (2007) dissertation of constructed or manufactured risks, e.g., excluding risk caused by natural disasters. Likewise, Arendt’s (1969, 1970) discourses on violence and power in contemporary society. Arendt’s analysis confers an essential insight into the nature of violence, as well as Bauman’s (1989) postulation that violence is an integral part of modern twenty-first-century society, following a historical foundation, thus not disjointed from present-day society.

Book structure This introductory chapter presents the rationale for the research, the interconnection between the hegemonic structural ideology, and the individual–agency-level attitudes and behaviours. Thus, from a sociological perspective, exploring contemplations, interpretations and actions of violence, harassment, discrimination, risks and fear transpiring in the public realm. The explanatory background section discusses the underpinning research of young adults’ experience of violence and harassment in the public domain. Furthermore, it analyses in what context violence and discrimination are accepted and framed by the society’s hegemonic ideology. This section is followed by examining violence-inspired, harassing and discriminating language and the broadcasting of values and beliefs from the hegemonic structural level onto the individual-agency level, how the normalisation of violence-inspired values and attitudes affect females, minority genders and ethnic groups in the public domain. Additionally, key concepts are defined, such

Introduction 3 as hegemonic ideology, drawn from Gramsci’s hegemonic discourse, violence, harassment, discrimination, risk, inequality, social class, systemic and symbolic violence discourses, as well as an introduction to the agency research. The second chapter, ‘Theoretical framework and literature review’, focuses on the sociological theoretical framework of the research. Discuss discourses and research about societal violence, such as systemic and symbolic violence, ethnic discrimination, derogatory language and gender attitudes, including Marx’s social class theory, Weber’s professional stratification and Durkheim’s community belonging. Societal order’s interconnectedness with violence and power is analysed from the discourses of Arendt, Foucault and Bauman, Galtung’s structural violence and Beck’s risk society. The public realm, urban planning and surveillance of urban areas. Furthermore, a discussion about how social and cultural traditions influence ethnic and racial discrimination. Disrespectful language is significant in this context and how it is normalised in describing females, minority genders and ethnic minority groups from structural to agency levels. The third chapter, ‘Structural and agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination’, examines Arendt’s (1969) and Bauman’s (1989) discourses about structural- and agency-levels violence as present-day phenomena. Violence and its associations have successfully adapted to modern living in the contemporary technology-driven and universally increasingly competitive twenty-first-century world. Moreover, how political, economic, religious, cultural and social conceptual transformations are encouraged by financial and technological innovations over time. Violence, structural, systemic and symbolic, is examined, for example, how Galtung’s structural violence discourse elucidates avoidable and unavoidable violence. Including a discussion of violence and power structures and how the GFC (Walby) can be viewed as augmenting structural and agency levels of competition. Hence contests that primarily disadvantage outsiders (Becker 1966). Furthermore, the social stigma (Goffman 1963; Becker 2003) attached to not managing everyday life’s trepidations is seen as a weakness of individual character in not adjusting to the hegemonic dominating societal culture and traditions, thus frequently referred to as outsiders of the public realm, e.g., females, minority gender, ethnic and faith groups. The agency research and examples lead to the agency-individual research of university students and student staff. The fourth chapter, ‘Agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination’, discusses the agency research and the young adults’ experiences of violence. The research builds on the influence the #MeToo movement had in voicing violence and harassment in the public realm. It is a movement that initiated discussions, re-evaluation of attitudes and awareness about violence and harassment in society, including the acceptance of articulating experiences of harassment. The chapter introduces the university student agency research and its conjecture of interconnectedness between societal levels, comparative research about diverse legal frameworks and attitudes to corporal discipline. The central part of the chapter is the agency research, applied research method, sample and the collation of data. Thus, presenting the socio-demographic profile of the agency research, as well as the respondents’ understanding of critical concepts, such as safety,

4

Introduction

risk, physical violence and harassment. The agency research is centred around student and student staff experiences of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. Statistical presentations are included to give an overview of cases, while the extensive examples enhance the understanding of the nature of the violence, harassment and discrimination experienced, including how these experiences influence young adults’ behaviour and increased risk awareness in the public realm in teaching settings, on campuses, public transport and city visits. In the fifth chapter, ‘First Nation peoples and people of colour’, is discussed how people from outside the majority population are exposed to violence and discrimination in the public realm. These actions of discrimination often have an intersectional component. The distinction between violence and attitudes and behaviours depends on the victim’s gender, age and ethnic belonging. Unfortunately, a significant added factor is belongingness to a minority ethnic group, First Nation peoples, than not to the societal majority populace. In many countries, the First Nation peoples constantly endure a struggle to be recognised and given equal rights to the colonising entity. In primarily white societies, the people of colour are another cohort facing increased violence and discrimination because of colour, despite often having citizenship, being a long-time resident or being born in the country but because of inherent physical attributes and cultural and social traditions perceived as an outsider. The sixth chapter, ‘Interconnectedness between structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values’, examines structural-level violence and disseminates its influence over the populace, including how the power structure, the hegemony-created ideology and its managers of structural, systemic and symbolic discrimination act to exclude minority groups and often also females in public realm settings. Thus, the practice of undiplomatic language, gaslighting female parliamentarians and how sections of mass media facilitate political and social influencers’ positions and perceptions. It includes a discussion of gender and minority ethnic representation in academia, institutions, corporations and among elected parliamentarians. For instance, with the election of President Trump, a change arrived in the diplomatic language where verbal disrespect of females, political opponents or nation-state leaders was publicly expressed. However, customary and habitual violence are adjusted to each society’s era, hegemonic societal ideology, political systems, technological inventions and the way of life in the private and public realms. Moreover, increased individualism has limited collective community social control of violence in the public realm. The Australian Federal Parliament is an example of unequal gender, and ethnic diversity and the extent of violence and harassment in the Australian Parliament House are examined. An international comparison is included to set the analysis in context. Notably, violence and discrimination primarily affect females, minority genders and minority ethnic groups, albeit not exclusively. Notwithstanding this, violence in public and private realms are prevalent offences and misdemeanours affecting people’s perception of being safe in society, thus emphasising the interconnectedness between hegemonic structural ideology and individual beliefs and values.

Introduction 5 Finally, in Chapter 7, ‘Concluding comments’, the structural and agency levels are drawn together. The significance of critical discourses in this context is discussed as highlighted to elucidate the scope of violence, harassment and discrimination in present-day society. Arendt, Bauman, Beck and Galtung’s discourses emphasise the normalisation of violence and demonstrate how the structural and agency levels are interconnected.

Societal and individual violence in the public realm Violence has a foundation and a context. It comes from somewhere, and it is directed at someone or something. The nation-states’ habitual and normalisation of violence has its roots in hegemonic ideology. It is underpinned on all societal levels by structural, systemic and symbolic violence and discrimination applied as social order strategies. This book focuses on violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. In any societal era, the ruling hegemonic ideology promotes a legal and social order atmosphere that benefits the political and financial leadership of the nation-state, strengthened by overt or covert violence to achieve its objectives. Consequently, protecting the powerful insiders and excluding the marginalised outsider, e.g., preventing political antagonists, minority faith and/or ethnic groups from insiders’ benefits. A social order that in some cultures excludes females from government positions, political activities and public settings. The pivotal point in this discussion is to examine if the atmosphere of violenceinspired beliefs and values at the societal structural level directly or indirectly influences the agency-level populace’s attitudes and behaviours against minority groups’ beliefs and values. Thus, to explore whether or not violent, harassing, discriminative behaviours and actions or derogatory language communicated on the structural level filter down to the agency level. This premise of transferal attitudes and values is based on the presumption that society’s legal framework, political ideology and social and cultural traditions fashion political leaders, social entrepreneurs and key influencers. The mass media’s communication of these beliefs and values on the structural level enables similar values to be internalised and accepted, thus, normalised and embraced by the populace on the agency level. However, this assumption does not propose a direct tangible link between attitudes and values. Instead, it is about creating an ambience of accepted values and beliefs in accord with the dominant societal ideology. Notwithstanding this, it is essential to not perceive a nation-state’s diverse social and cultural population cohorts as necessarily a homogenous unit in values and beliefs, e.g., the members of a minority ethnic group will have as diverse values as the majority ethnic population. In this context, exploring if the present-day atmosphere and attitudes towards acceptance of violence and discrimination against females and minority citizen groups or habitually perceived outsiders are more openly accepted and normalised. For example, has the global financial crisis (GFC) and its created exacerbated financial stress and competition about available resources transferred to be

6

Introduction

more acceptable to voice issues around violence and discrimination in the public realm? Did the GFC forge an environment of increased societal antagonism, and did the attitudes filter down to include people competing for employment opportunities and access to resources (Walby 2015)? Is it possible that this increased antagonism between the haves and have-nots has changed the social and cultural atmosphere and created an undercurrent of acceptance of violence and discrimination in the public domain? An environment where the imperatives to gain employment, promotion or financial advantage is becoming less meritorious and more social network based. Additionally, it is plausible that the GFC crise contributed to interconnections between the macro-, meso- and micro levels in beliefs, values and attitudes towards harassment and discriminating behaviours perceived by some as necessary survival strategies. Bourdieu (1998:39–40) notes: You cannot cheat with the law of conservation of violence: all violence is paid for, and … the structural violence exerted by the financial markets, in the form of layoffs, loss of security, etc., is matched sooner or later in the form of suicides, crime and major everyday acts of violence. Moreover, the issue is if this created antagonism signifies that violence and discrimination at the structural level give individuals at the agency level permission to become more intolerant and harassing, including using derogative and abusive language without repercussions. Furthermore, do these experiences of violent actions also underpin citizens’ fear of the public realm? Fear of the public realm can be underpinned by structural or symbolic obstructions to limit gender and ethnic diversity in engaging in community social and cultural ways of living and the employment market. This fear scenario affects diverse people, specifically vulnerable citizens, females and minority ethnic and gender groups. Public sphere violence offences are global crimes. The crimes are committed in the public realm where the perpetrator and the victim are non-partners, non-ex-partners or personally known. However, it includes people that attend the same university or workplace. Notwithstanding this, even if family violence is more prominent than public domain violence, the risk of being violated by an unknown perpetrator creates a public fear atmosphere. Such fear impacts individuals in diverse ways, but it is particularly of concern for females and minority ethnic and gender groups, a fear engendering for some an unmeasurable anxiety of the public realm. Moreover, the present-day fear of violence has far-reaching historical connotations. As highlighted above and discussed further below, Arendt and Bauman stressed that violence is inherent in hegemonic ideology and frames societal acceptance of violence. Violence is an integral part of global and national societies and a significant force in maintaining social order. The hegemonic value and belief systems define the society’s political, economic and religious laws and social order. Henceforward, the society’s uniqueness of socially and culturally accepted violence and discrimination is created

Introduction 7 within this hegemonic ideology. Consequently, the social and cultural fabric and the belief system infiltrate the populace, a framework developed through generations. Furthermore, throughout their lives, the populace internalises the society’s hegemonic values and belief systems, including social and cultural ethics and attitudes about violence. In addition, the hegemonic creed establishes societal accredited violence that supports the normalised way of life throughout the residents’ lifecycle. Consequently, it becomes a naturalised and normalised part of society and the populace. Even if present-day violence differs from historical violence in its presentation, it is a significant factor in the governance of the populace. A society’s specific form of violence is customised by its political and religious framework. Thus, it is problematic for citizens to critique their internalised normalised violence without any reference to its illogicality or the existence of alternative ways of living. Besides, the ability to criticise and protest against wrongdoings is particularly intricate if the hegemonic societal structure of violence, harassment or discrimination has, throughout generations, become habitual and ingrained into everyday traditions, thus internalised. In everyday public settings, citizens will be out and about. Public realm activities such as commuting to work, using public transport, attending university campuses or schools, shopping, socialising, exercising and strolling the streets for enjoyment or window shopping are all mundane pursuits. In urban environments, the public sphere is populated and used extensively, with many eyes on fellow citizens, and, according to Jacobs (1961), it should be a safe place. Additionally, in most highly populated areas, surveillance cameras are in use. However, a place’s safety must also be considered from gendered positions. Females and males do not perceive risks in the same way. As Kern (2020) discusses, a society’s racist, colonial, capitalist and patriarchal nature are reproduced in the urban social milieu. Notwithstanding this protective surveillance by public domain users, it can still be seen as risky because, in present-day society, safety is scarcely reassured when everyone diligently minds their own business. A substitute for bystanders’ unwillingness to engage in public violence is the mitigation provided by technological advancements with the uptake of, for example, mobile phones. The mobile phone gives the individual protection based on the presumption that if anything happens, help is available by just pressing a few buttons. Consequently, the mobile phone has become a valuable safeguard against violence and harassment and a substitute for public engagement. This presumed safety provided by the mobile phone can alleviate feelings of fear of risky situations as a friend, or the authorities could likely be in the vicinity. Hence, a setting that induces and contributes to a feeling of a harmless public realm. However, public spaces are unpredictable, as threatening incidents can be unforeseen and impossible to anticipate. This involves milieus, where the flow of strangers or unsettling situations, albeit not necessarily threatening, can be felt as personally risky. Additionally, perceptions of risks are accentuated by the time of day or unfamiliarity with a place. Therefore, a minor issue can appear as a dangerous event.

8

Introduction

Residents internalise an understanding of fears of violence and the nature of violence and harassment in their social environment from an early age. They also learn to avoid risky settings. This resilience is created by internalising the society’s belief and value system as aggregated by its hegemonic structural ideology, emphasising the core of political, social, cultural and religious habitus (Bourdieu 1992). Societal belief systems are triggered by actions and directives conveyed by historical and present-day political leaders, social entrepreneurs, educational institutions and mass media. It is also on this structural conceptual level where attitudes and values are framed, and the classification of insiders versus outsiders is created (Becker 1966). Violence, harassment and discrimination against females and minority groups in the public realm have a low public profile as a crime. It is an almost invisible offence and rarely appears in crime statistics or news mass media. Notwithstanding this comprehension, violence is a serious offence requiring public awareness and acknowledgement. A public profile as a serious crime is not necessarily about physical trauma but social, cultural and emotional harm. Despite most political leaders, lawmakers and social entrepreneurs conceding that discrimination, harassment and violence in public and private domains are serious offences, their acknowledgement fluctuates depending on the perceived political implications of the incidents. Hence, these crimes are still given only minor notability unless a young female is killed. In addition, the use of language, the choice of words and intonations are powerful tools used by people in authority. For example, the choice of words and phrases will instigate violence or peace. For instance, the language used in Trump’s speech in early 2021 (6 January) was allegedly perceived as setting in motion or encouraging domestic terror attacks against the US Capitol building during the presidential confirming debate. Another example was the Cronulla riots in 2005. It was fuelled by a right-wing broadcaster advocating for AngloAustralians to congregate and protect the Cronulla beach from minority ethnic young citizens (Fabiansson 2018). The definitions of violence, harassment, and discriminating behaviours and actions are not universally accepted as there is no agreed comprehensive definition of the concepts. Instead, they are in everyday settings, defined chiefly by the individual’s understanding created within the family’s social and cultural habitus, personal faith, as well as social and cultural experiences in the public domain. Henceforth, the interpretation of violence, harassment and discriminating behaviours are manifold and subjective. To be a victim or witness to violent acts in the public realm can scare citizens beyond the immediate event. A minor incident can create lifelong scars where the risk of harassment influences how safe an individual feels in society. In addition, experiences of violence in the public domain can contribute to social isolation. Subsequently, feeling fear of violence limits people’s desire to be part of the public realm, community engagement, social networking or the use of public transport. Situations affect individuals in different ways. For instance, females and minority genders and ethnic groups might see the urban environment as riskier

Introduction 9 than male majority residents. Nonetheless, hardly anyone is safe from being a victim of discrimination and harassment. As in present-day society, the prolonged isolation due to COVID-19 lockdowns, restrictions of public movements and frustrations about its longevities create unsureness of the future. Besides, mental health concerns are intensified by renewed public realm unfamiliarity and the belief that it is a scarier place than prepandemic. Nonetheless, the fear of violence and harassment in public realms is a society-wide phenomenon, where cohorts of citizens might become or are made to feel excluded from civic and social engagement in the community. From this perspective, with an unknown, unpredictable and frightening public realm, the book discusses violence and harassment in present-day society. It situates violence within the society’s political, judicial and economic ideology, religious faith and social and cultural traditions. The focus is on Western Englishspeaking societies, especially Australia, where the agency research was undertaken. However, the examples and situations should not be dismissed as nation-states unique as acts of violence against females, minority genders, minority ethnic and minority language groups exist everywhere. The same issue is present in American, Asian and African nation-states. The examples and settings are global phenomena. Hence, comparable examples can be found in all milieus. Henceforth, the focus is to emphasise the significance of power structures, social class, gender and ethnic equality in attitudes and behaviours of violence, harassment and discrimination. Additionally, Bauman (1988) noted the fluid boundaries between societal reality and subjective perception of reality, a perceived reality judged by the images presented in social and mass media. According to Baudrillard (1983), in presentday television broadcasting, the dissemination no longer portrays reality but supplants reality with images. It distorts it or lies about the real world. The viewer is fashioned to believe that the television presentations reflect life as lived or interpret its meaning as a reality. Thus, facilitation of alternative interpretations, the individual substitutes its repetition for hermeneutics. Hence, society is created to the measure of televising or, in present-day society, more likely by social media. It opens the door for “alternative facts” and interpretations. Consequently, history is nothing but a spectacle where everyday life is presented as debauchery signs. The mass media has become ‘an endless play of simulation, drama and grotesque political minuet, an immoral promiscuity of all forms’ (Bauman 1988:797). Subsequently, societal reality gives the interpreter a construction of perceived reality created within social and cultural habitus, not necessarily a factual reality. The following sections focus on discourses of the public sphere, followed by discussions of hegemonic ideology, systemic, symbolic and structural violence and definitions of the significant concepts of violence, harassment and discrimination. The public realm The public realm is a contested space with a segregating ethnic and gendered history. Historically, the public domain was a place for male residents and ruled by

10

Introduction

the bourgeoisie under the guidance of the state. The marketplace was the city’s centre of business. New urban areas were developed with the modernisation of goods and service production, attracting people from rural areas seeking employment in the newly established manufacturing industries. The advancement of industrialisation demanded momentous change in people’s living environment from intergenerational to single-generation households in the late nineteenth century. It was driven by a growing need for easily moveable family units and a skilled workforce to service the increased mechanisation of production tasks. The first industrial revolution was British centred from approximately the mid-eighteenth century to 1830, and the second industrial revolution, between the mid-nineteenth century and early twentieth century, spread beyond Britain to continental Europe, North America and Japan and later to other parts of the world. The industrial revolution created innovation in technology and products requiring specialised skills and an educated workforce. Thus, a drastic change in product transactions was developed with modern industrialisation. Before industrialisation, relationships between producer and buyer were personal, and products were personalised for the buyer. The modernisation of production also opened the way for professionalism and diversity in trade specialisations creating pathways for recognised diversity in skills. However, it also underpinned increased wealth stratification of the population beyond the bourgeoisie and proletariat social classes (Marx and Engels 1973; Weber 1964). Furthermore, the industrialisation periods created an environment for pioneering urban planning ideas and bureaucratisation of governance, allowing marketplaces for readymade products to flourish, thus fashioning an impersonal transaction. However, early in the industrialisation period, the public space was designed around utilitarian principles of efficiency to move carriage traffic and enhance business, not for the enjoyment and relaxation of the populace. Modern city planning was ‘as mere transitory space and not as a place for sensory and bodily interaction among strangers’ (Sennett 1994:15). Simmel had already noted in his 1905 essay, The Metropolis and Mental Life, concerns about the modernisation of urban areas and increased individualism. Notwithstanding this, Simmel was not against modernisation but acknowledged its negative influence on residents. The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and the technique of life. The fight with nature which primitive man has to wage for his bodily existence attains in this modern form its latest transformation. (Simmel 1964:409, italics in original) Following Simmel, Sennett also stressed that modernisation had produced a deadness of the urban public space. It had become a space creating “sensory deprivation”, deprived of social interaction and face-to-face communication. Thus, fashioning ‘an increasingly sterile and socially segregated urban environment’

Introduction 11 (Sennett 1994:15). Furthermore, Sennett emphasises the significant drawback of modern metropolitan cities with its early utilitarian business focus and disregard of physical places establishing personal social and cultural interactions and community activities (cf. D’Andrea 2021). Without an active social and cultural interactive environment, the urban area becomes a dead milieu after work hours. Sennet (1978:12) stressed that ‘social interaction among strangers is vital in order to transform urban public space into a public realm’. The same philosophy was emphasised by Jacobs (1961) in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Simmel (1964) and later Lefebvre (1996) highlighted another problem with the early physical functionalistic approach to the urban environment. It did not consider the populace’s need to belong to or “adopt” a physical place or building but to create a bridge between the visual/physical and the social. The significance of satisfying citizens’ senses is the ability to see, hear, touch and even taste their space. According to Lefebvre and de Certeau (1999), among others, these are fundamental human survival elements for the public realm. Individuals define their place in the city and create a home feeling, e.g., ‘social needs inherent to urban society’ (Lefebvre 1996:147). Lefebvre (1991) also stressed the significance of the social construction of space and the missing focus on bodily and sensory practices involved in creating a social milieu. Lefebvre (1991:106) stresses that people experience and understand the public space, though often as an abstract realm, ‘many people, members of a variety of groups and classes, suffer (albeit unevenly) the effects of a multiplicity of reductions bearing on their capacities, ideas, “values” and, ultimately, on their possibilities, their space and their bodies’. Space is interpreted individually and influences the populace in diverse manners. [They] are situated neither in the geometrically objectified space of squares, rectangles, circles, curves and spirals, nor in the mental space of logical inherence and coherence, of predicates bound to substantives and so on. For they also – indeed most importantly – involve levels, layers, and sedimentations of perception, representation, and spatial practice which presuppose one another. (Lefebvre 1991:226) Thus, contemporary urban planning and the present-day public realm give meaning to the citizens and envisage a “home” atmosphere. A milieu that facilitates social interactions and sensory experiences, ultimately fashioning a “home” environment in the metropolitan city, not a homogeneous belonging. Consequently, modernising the urban physical space requires a planning philosophy to move from a single focus on the physical environment for business and transport to a social and cultural realm encouraging community interactions, thoughts and contemplations, including recreational activities. Nonetheless, an environment employs means of control and power domination (Lefebvre 1991:26).

12

Introduction

Hegemonic discourses Hegemony refers to the structural level embracing a nation-state’s political, financial and religious powers. These powers, together with social and cultural customs, are moulded throughout generations and, in aggregated form, create the society’s dominating hegemonic ideology. A power system and way of living that are more or less adopted at the agency level through social and cultural internalisation. Social norms, regulations and laws, underpinned by structural, systemic and symbolic violence procedures, coercively or by consent, enforce the society’s hegemonic ideology and the governance of the populace. In the late twentieth century, the hegemony concept became a critical discourse in political discussions about the conceptualisation of structural power (Williams 2020). However, the hegemonic discourse is still an incompletely defined and ambiguous term (Thomas 2009). Notwithstanding this, hegemonic ideology should not be confused with an allinclusive democratic system where the whole of the populace’s collected values and beliefs inform the governing body of the nation-state, as the accepted ideology is shaped throughout generations. Despite this, it is ultimately a minority “elite” framing the hegemonic ideology: the nation-state’s political frameworks and financial and legal systems with little influence from the majority population. Thus, an elite group of the democratically or non-democratically elected political and financial leadership class achieve overwhelming power in the nation-state’s governance. Additionally, these political and financial elite groups are amalgamated by a religious elite class in nation-states where the political and religious powers are not separated in governance. The elite theory discourse is founded on the philosophy of exclusivity, where membership is restricted to a minority of influential leaders with positions in financial and political institutions, as well as religious institutions in societies where the state shares powers with the church. Thus, power is concentrated and united within the elite establishment, while the non-elites, the majority populace, are diverse and powerless. Hence, the all-encompassing nation-state’s governance and authority are concentrated in the elite ruling class. However, the elite class does not necessarily gain their positions through democratic elections or meritorious qualifications. These non-elected elite members have reached their positions through social class and heritage, wealth creation, profession and networks. Thus, their power status is facilitated by a fusion of interests, unifying professional networks and social and cultural backgrounds. An elite class focused on securing their power positions’ stability in significant political, financial and religious institutions. Consequently, members of the elite group are opposed to pluralism. Without exclusiveness, their power influence would be diluted if they accept democratic and merit-based elections and ethnic or gender-diverse cohorts in leadership positions. The elitism theory has its roots in the Italian school of elitism, which was primarily founded by Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941), and Robert Michels (1876–1936). Pareto lived in a time of discussions about

Introduction 13 political systems, increased power and wealth inequality. Discourses that are still raging in present-day society. As a political thinker, Pareto (1935) has been classified as a radical libertarian. Mosca (1939) presented a more conservative leaning in his discourses. He postulated that elitism overrides social movements, e.g., their influence is marginal in changing the elite’s ideology. This postulation highlights the difficulties for protest movements to gain sustainable changes in hegemonic ideology. Finally, Michels (1962) has been described as a misled socialist who became a vocal supporter of the fascist regime in the 1930s. Michels maintained a lifelong conviction that the emerging European social-democratic political ideology presented the citizens with a “false democracy” (Hirschman 1991), as the elite class would continue to dominate the political, financial and religious landscape. Historically, elitism can be seen as emanating from within the noble classes based on land ownership, wealth and access to education, followed by the wealthcreating bourgeoisies during early industrialisation. The restricted membership into the elite class secured their authority over governance and urban planning. After that, however, it became more diversified with professionalism and stratification of the workforce with influential and wealthy industrialists outside the upper class. However, aside from the access to power by the elite ruling class, Karl Marx acknowledged that the ability to use unrestrained power and economic exploitation were the foundation behind capitalism and serving the power elite. The capitalist system was reinforced by the dominance of the bourgeois, their financial power, future-shaping ideas and the status quo in maintaining the privileged status and values the ruling class treasured. Marx’s economic and power insight interconnects with Engels’ discourse about “false consciousness”, the inability of the working class to dispute or question the inequality, oppression and exploitation they faced in the capitalist society. A contributing factor was the lack of alternative working conditions for the unskilled farm workers flocking to the cities to find employment in the manufacturing industry. A circumstance that facilitated and magnified inequality, social class differences and internalised allocated lower-class status, thus, a normalised and legitimised social class order and exploitation. As a result, the false consciousness impeded the proletarian working class from recognising and protesting against their social status position and exposure to political, economic, social and cultural oppression (Heywood 1994:85). Antonio Gramsci followed Marx’s economic exploitation discourse of the proletariat and the Marxist tradition in analysing hegemonic power, how the capitalist state is made up of two overlapping spheres, a “political society” ruled through force and a “civil society” ruled through consent (Gramsci 1971). Significantly, hegemony pragmatism is not passively fixed in time but dynamically adjusts to societal influences. Thus, it is continuously renewed, recreated, critiqued, defended and thus modified to be reshaped by resisting, limiting, altering or challenging the status quo. Thus, an evolving structural power ideology. Gramsci proposed that the society’s dominating pivotal groups and classes will effectively exercise power through cultural leadership based on intellectual and

14

Introduction

moral thoughts and actions, though not necessarily excluding the use of force. The modifying nature of hegemonic ideology to changing societal situations can be seen in emerging contesting forces or revolutionary powers that challenge the existing hegemony. A change or modification is driven by introducing a new “national popular” hegemonic normality (Bennett, Grossberg and Morris 2005:301). Furthermore, Gramsci outlines a “third face of power” or an “invisible power” as embodied in the hegemonic ideology. A power component derived from Marxist thinking, particularly the penetrating power of ideology, values and beliefs, is transferring social class relations from one generation to the next. This unconscious transmission of values and beliefs conceals contradictions in social class hierarchies and life sustainability barriers (Heywood 1994:100). Thus, Gramsci’s public sphere is created as a civil society environment where trade, civil engagement and political parties congregate in the public domain. The bourgeois state leadership gives society organisations and political parties a forum to converge to explore and shape ideas and beliefs, albeit under the ultimate control of the state. Consequently, it becomes a public civic domain where bourgeois hegemonic ideology is reproduced and normalised. Furthermore, its beliefs and social and cultural values are communicated to citizens through mass media, religious and educational institutions – child-rearing practices, compulsory schools, universities and trade training, thus lifelong internalisation. Henceforth, the present-day capitalist-based bourgeoise leadership’s hegemonic ideology underpins the societal framework, securing the populace’s acceptance of the societal dogma and its legitimacy (Heywood 1994:100–101). An “intellectual and moral” leadership dominance is gained when a social group’s development reaches the stage where they begin to articulate their specific interests by collaboratively incorporating other groups’ concerns and aspirations. In the following stages, the social group moves beyond their unique professional and/or economic structure and into developing “superstructural” elements. Finally, these superstructural elements become “germinated ideologies” that congregate into a “party” framework (Gramsci 1971:81). Furthermore, Gramsci (1971:169–170) often compared hegemony with consensual articulations in opposition to coercive ones, a consensus of mundane society life accepted by the majority populace. For instance, mutually and momentarily, relations reinforce an overall process of accepting the residing hegemonic ideology. The party philosophy underpins ‘the extent that ideologies are historically necessary [as] they “organise” human masses, and create the terrain on which men move, [and] acquire consciousness of their position’. Thus, the process symbolises a struggle to create a dominating political or economic party group to establish cohesion or affiliation with others (Gramsci 1971:377). Consequently, hegemonic ideology is not a free-floating set of simple ideas but has an actual existence corresponding to given social, cultural, political and economic configurations (Williams 2020:96). Likewise, the dominant group develops and expands its strategies to augment and increase its power, thus presenting itself as representing its original interest

Introduction 15 group, as well as collaborating with like-minded groups and organisations within the nation-state’s framework. Subsequently, it is an ideological struggle to ‘forge unity between economic, political, and intellectual objectives … on a “universal” level’ (Mouffe 1979:180). A place for power struggles and complex interactions where coercion and consent are traded. Thus, according to Gramsci, societal power is founded on two interlinked relationships. On the one hand, domination by intellectual and moral leadership, and on the other, coercion and consent: ‘A social group dominates antagonistic groups [while] it leads kindred and allied groups’ (Gramsci 1971:57). In Gramsci’s writing, coercion and consent are not necessarily opposites, as coercion can be framed as consent for the nation-state because the relations of leadership and domination ‘do not form separate worlds’ (Buci-Glucksmann 1980:62). It is state power and domination of the societal milieu that establishes popular ideology and a system of alliances that reinforces hegemonic leadership. Besides, force is framed as consent from the populace and enforced through mass media communication. The attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinionnewspapers and associations – which, therefore, in certain situations, are artificially multiplied. (Gramsci 1971:80) The idea of power as “hegemony” has also influenced debates about civil society as a public sphere of political struggle and contestation over ideas and norms. Thus, achieving “civil society strengthening” values and developing new policies can emphasise civic capacities in the Gramscian sense. Hence, it gives the public opportunities to have alternative beliefs and values, including challenging existing assumptions and norms and the freedom to articulate new ideas and visions (Williams 2020), albeit hardly challenging the foundation of the elite power class, according to Mosca (1939). In this context, violence, harassment and discrimination on the agency level are analysed from the perspective of hegemonic structural power and its influence on the populace in the public realm. Unfortunately, a society’s hegemonic ideology is often unquestioned as it is ingrained into the societal fabric, following generations’ created habitus and social as well as cultural traditions. Therefore, it can be problematic to identify specific discriminating and violence-infused elements of hegemonic beliefs and values because of their intrinsic nature, normalness and thus uncritically accepted adaptation to be obeyed. Definition of violence, harassment and discrimination Another significant concept underpinning the discussions is violence. World Health Organization (2002:5, Figure 1) classifies acts as violence when (1) a person inflicts an injury upon himself or herself, (2) inflicted by another individual

16

Introduction

or by a small group of individuals on others, and/or (3) inflicted by larger groups such as states, organised political groups, militia groups or terrorist organisations. In this context, the focus is on interpersonal, public community violence and collective social, political and economic violence, thus aligning with the second and third classification points. Harassment is closely associated with violence. However, in an everyday context, it has a broader definition than violence. It refers to both minor and severe offences. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission (2021a) describe harassment as including insulting jokes about minority ethnic groups or people with a disability, sending explicit or sexually suggestive emails or text messages, in addition, displaying racially offensive or pornographic posters or screen savers, making derogatory comments or taunting someone about race or ethnic belonging, and asking someone intrusive questions about personal life and sexual preferences. Harassment incidents also refer to when an individual is treated less favourably based on personal characteristics, such as race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, breastfeeding, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Independent of the seriousness of the behaviour or if the individual is showing physical signs, violent and harassing behaviour against others is unlawful in most societies. The Australian Human Rights Commission (2021a) defines discrimination on the structural level as ‘when an unreasonable rule or policy applies to everyone but has the effect of disadvantaging some people because of a personal characteristic they share’. For example, preference for migrants from some ethnic and religious groups while excluding others, e.g., Australian White Policy (Jupp 2002; Ang 2003, see Chapter 5, ‘First Nation peoples and people of colour’). Agency-level discrimination is defined as ‘when a person, or a group of people, is treated less favourably than another person or group because of their background or certain personal characteristics’. These meanings of discrimination, harassment and violence have analogous interconnections and intersectionality with sliding scales of seriousness or harm between them from a judicial perspective. The concepts refer to harmful behaviour, where violent actions often have physical or sexual connotations. At the same time, harassment is more likely to apply to verbal, social and cultural remarks or actions, including stalking, unwanted touching and discrimination against otherness and exclusion. The concepts of violence and harassment are used interchangeably throughout the text. Notwithstanding this, harassment was used in the survey of young adults (see below, ‘Agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination’) because the harassment conceptualisation embraces a broader scope of incidences from minor to more severe acts of discrimination and mistreatment than violence in everyday language. Additionally, fear of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public sphere might be judged as minor offences in the broad societal picture of criminal offences. Although notably, violence and harassment offences are often judged through a moral lens, as well as based on conservative social and cultural moral

Introduction 17 values. For instance, the individual’s perceived contribution to the harassment becomes a mitigating factor in assessing the incident, such as moral judgements around “appropriate” female behaviour, e.g., dress code, drunkenness or being unaccompanied by male chaperon at night events. A traditionalist perspective is that “respectable” females or minority ethnic groups should not attend “inappropriate” venues. Subsequently, social and cultural norms are gender-specific, and moral principles are applied accordingly. A creed grounded on traditional habitus, religious and cultural traditions where the public space is for males and the private for females. Females are out of place if venturing out late at night, socialising, taking drugs or drinking alcohol, a behaviour that challenges moral, social and cultural customs, thus co-contributor to being a victim of violence (Douglas 2000). For us dirt is a kind of compendium category for all events which blur, smudge, contradict, or otherwise confuse accepted classifications. The underlying feeling is that a system of values which is habitually expressed in a given arrangement of things has been violated. (Douglas 1975:51) Notwithstanding the nature of violence, harassment, discrimination and associated acts, violence has evolved throughout history to changing societal values and attitudes, economic developments, technological advances, cultural traditions and altering social environments. Female emancipation and financial independence have changed the gender mix of the public milieu. A gender emancipation movement that some might still see as a threat to male power dominance both in the private and public realms. Nonetheless, in combination with violence, power is a forceful tool that can easily be misused. Acts of violence, harassment and discrimination beyond the society’s legal framework create anxieties, a consciousness of risky milieus, feelings of intimidation and fears about the unknown. Such dispiriting feelings augment exclusions of places citizens deem not safe to attend. Again, a deduction reinforced by systemic and symbolic discrimination that single out citizens perceived as undesirable politically, religiously, socially and/or culturally in their behaviour or beliefs. Hegemonic ideology and violence A society’s accepted hegemonic ideology is founded throughout generations where political, financial, religious, cultural and social class stratification cultivates the society’s normalness. Social norms promote political, social and cultural frameworks and mould the populace’s well-being dependent on their insider or outsider status. In practice, though constraining access to, intentionally or unintentionally, public settings, access to resources, health services, public engagement and career trajectory in political and financial leadership positions.

18

Introduction

The scope of accepted violence varies from nation-state and era. Noteworthily, national violence has overall changed from overt to covert. It has changed from public floggings and executions as law enforcement demonstrations and public education sessions to hidden correction strategies within penal institutions. Initially, a community security necessity mainly because the historical public “entertainment” in public executions of punishment created unmanageable riots (Foucault 1977; Bennett 1995). Furthermore, public state hangings lost their crime deterrence and were perceived as inhumane demonstrations. As a result, the British, Capital Punishment Amendment Act of 1868 was introduced to end public executions, while the last public execution in the USA was not until 1936. Hence, violence as a correctional or educational tool moved inside the prison walls and was executed without direct public oversight, aside from political and judicial regulations. However, the educational law enforcement elements are still publicly displayed in museums, such as torture tools and prisoners’ living conditions to instil lawful behaviour in the populace (Bennett 1995; Piche and Walby 2010). As presented in historical public displays of structural imposed violence, a present-day substitute for citizens’ appetite for violence and crime is replicated in entertainment, social and news mass media. Through these mediums, people can devour a prolific array of crime, torture and law and order dramas. Likewise, the news media focus on crime, public brawls, street fights, and police brutality, frequently giving inflated and disproportional viewing time in commercial broadcasters’ news bulletins, hence painting an extreme scenario of violence in society (Baudrillard 1983). Consequently, mass media’s focus on crime and violence becomes a medium to educate but also frighten viewers about violence, risks and the dangers of the public realm. Notwithstanding this, violent offences in the public domain, where the offender and the victim are unknown to each other, are less commonly acknowledged than family violence, albeit both crimes are underreported (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021). Nevertheless, in the historical and contemporary phase, the violence doctrine is culturally and socially ingrained within a society’s fabric. Thus, it is complicated for the populace to distinguish or comprehend it happening because of its normalisation. On the individual, agency level, violence and harassment perpetrated in the public realm, public transport, city streets, workplaces and social settings by fellow citizens are in various milieus given a normalised nature, except when presented with excessive violence and lost lives. Violence, overt or covert and perceptions of violence create fear among the less powerful, e.g., among females and minority genders and ethnic groups, nonnative language speaking citizens and religious minority groups. A setting that emphasises a trepidation of exposure to violence, harassment or discrimination is manifested and conveyed throughout mass media, political and legal systems and social, cultural and religious traditions. For instance, the proclaiming that the unknown is dangerous and precarious, particularly after the 11th of September 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA, where “unknown” people, especially people

Introduction 19 from the Muslim faith, were treated with suspicion and perceived as potential terrorists. Nonetheless, fear beliefs are experienced differently depending on the citizen’s alliance with the dominating society’s hegemonic ideology. The normalisation and the populace’s internalisation of accepted violence make it difficult to acknowledge and expose discriminative, harassing actions and derogatory language. However, even if people acknowledge the discrimination, they will have reasons to fear losing out on societal positions, employment or promotion opportunities if making a complaint. Furthermore, being excluded from social networks or thought about as a troublemaker for not accepting the ascribed societal role and the allocated place in the societal hierarchy are significant impediments that discourage people from speaking up and voicing critical viewpoints. It is also a factor in the facilitation of normalising violence and discrimination. Likewise, violence, harassment and discrimination are societal failings and should not be relegated to individual issues. The extension of the internet facility and mobile phones with cameras and recording capabilities have changed the communication landscape. As a result, incidents and behaviours on the structural level by political leaders, key stakeholders or social media influencers can no longer safely be assumed to be kept outside the public domain. Moreover, the internet has made it easier to distribute recordings and pictures globally. Hence, it creates opportunities to increase documentation and visibility of violent and harassing behaviour, images that can be widely communicated through news and social mass media carriages. Noteworthy is that violence has existed throughout history and is practised in all societal settings. The primary difference in communicating violent content is the extensive public uptake of mobile devices with cameras and recording technology, as well as the possibility of instantly distributing information worldwide through social media. As this technology evolution makes it possible to communicate visually and circulate a broad range of incidents over nation-state borders, it also creates a historical record of incidents. Incidents that predate mobile technology might only be known to a select minority group. A group that would not deliberately leak the behaviours and actions outside their social networks, social or professional class. Thus, restricting knowledge about discriminating or violent incidents within their social network and minimising public access to information negatively influencing their career trajectories, e.g., public knowledge about driving under the influence of alcohol, substance abuse, derogatory language, family violence, mistreatment of staff or acquaintances, including sexual abuse. The question is if these more unfiltered recordings of violence, harassment and discriminatory behaviour of political and financial leaders and social entrepreneurs give citizens a fairer understanding of how powerful and influential leaders behave in society and their privately held values and attitudes. Does it legitimate for citizens to apply the same attitudes and behaviours towards fellow citizens? Unfortunately, in the mobile phone and internet society, the filters between the structural and agency levels have become more porous and more challenging to erase misdemeanours.

20

Introduction

Domestic violence is mass media news, usually only when the victim is a young female, children involved or gruesome. This is despite approximately one female being killed by a partner or ex-partner in Australia each week. The official statistics show that the risk of being murdered in the public domain by an unknown person is less common for females and minority ethnic groups than in the home environment. It is young males who are most at risk in the public domain (Australian Institute of Criminology 2022). Nevertheless, it is a commonhold perception that females are at significant risk of being victims of violence or discrimination in the public realm. This misconception creates a risk sensitivity that the public space should be feared. Thus, violence, harassment and discrimination offences have a muted public profile; they are “invisible” but transpire seven days a week. These abusive incidents are rarely discussed or reported to the authorities because they are inconsequential, albeit not necessarily for the victim. Additionally, they seldom result in visual, physical or other forms of harm or death. The perpetrator is habitually unknown or unidentifiable, thus unlikely to be found out or apprehended, hence a somewhat “safe” crime to commit. Furthermore, the victim might have difficulties describing the perpetrator, identifying the person sufficiently or feeling embarrassed about being attacked. Additionally, public domain violence might be seen as a female, minority gender and ethnic group issue, thus less significant. Nonetheless, no one is risk-free even if females, minority genders and ethnicities, including non-English language groups, are the primary targets of debilitating attitudes and behaviour, discrimination, violence or harassment. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that the classifications of violence, harassment and discrimination are grounded on ideologically defined values. Societal values, where females, minority genders and ethnic groups are defined as less significant citizens, e.g., they do not belong to or have not gained a place in the hegemonic defined powerful elite group. Additionally, some citizen groups are excluded because of their gender, ethnicity, faith or language. For instance, they are classified as others or outsiders. Besides, these outsider assumptions of groups of citizens have become normalised by the hegemonic elite. Thus, it is acceptable to discriminate against them following societal, political, economic, religious, cultural and social traditions. Notwithstanding this, the invisibility of harassment and violence incidents changed with the 2017 #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement created a global augmentation of violence and harassment awareness. As a result of the campaign, policies around discrimination and harassment were revisited or introduced at numerous institutions and workplaces. Anti-harassment and discrimination policies aim to protect vulnerabley and exposed people, although more significantly, to safeguard institutions and organisations against violence, harassment or discrimination driven by employee complaints or lawsuits. Henceforth, establishing anti-bullying, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies becomes a safeguard measure and economically sensible strategy. Furthermore, it is a benefit for organisations to publicly demonstrate

Introduction 21 a progressivity standpoint in accepting new policies and treat violence and harassment incidents as serious and significant issues within their jurisdiction, albeit without significantly changing the organisation’s culture and attitudes concerning females, minority genders or ethnic groups.

Systemic and symbolic discrimination Systemic discrimination or meso-level discrimination discourses relates to practices, norms, routines or social and cultural customs embedded into the hegemonic societal structure. It informs how everyday things are performed. While the judicial system does not necessarily support them, they underpin beliefs and attitudes that informally are integrated into the hegemonic ideology and these habitual unwritten rules fashion institutions as well as configure work environments and the social and cultural atmospheres of institutions. On the agency level, it is within this systemic discrimination philosophy where customs and attitudes towards minority ethnic and gender diversity are applied. Thus, a perceived disadvantage for the work atmosphere is if staff who do not fit into the hegemonic majority ethnic belief system are employed in the institution. Furthermore, systemic discrimination differentiates between social class belonging, minority ethnic or gender diversity. For example, only heterosexual males from the majority ethnic group are promoted to management positions within the organisation due to its long tradition of having only male managers. Consequently, females and minority ethnic individuals are restricted to below management positions, not because of ability and qualifications, but because of gender and ethnic belonging (Becker 1966:17–18). Who can, in fact, force others to accept their rules and what are the causes of their success? This is, of course, a question of political and economic power. … Rules are made for young people by their elders. … Men make the rules for women in our society. … The foreign-born and those otherwise ethnically peculiar often have their rules made for them by the Protestant Anglo-Saxon minority. The middle class makes rules the lower class must obey – in the schools, the courts, and elsewhere. Differences in the ability to make rules and apply them to other people are essentially power differentials (either legal or extralegal). Those groups whose social position gives them weapons and power are best able to enforce their rules. Distinctions of age, sex, ethnicity, and class are all related to differences in power, which accounts for differences in the degree to which groups so distinguished can make rules for others. In contrast, symbolic discrimination discourses denote historical and contemporary discrimination, emblematic prejudice and minority ethnic resentment. Symbolic violence is a concept interconnected with harassment and systemic violence. Bourdieu (2001a:1–2) defines symbolic violence as

22

Introduction a gentle violence, imperceptible and invisible even to its victims, exerted for the most part through the purely symbolic channels of communication and cognition (more precisely misrecognition), recognition, or even feeling.

Likewise, von Holdt (2012:115) notes that the invisibility of symbolic discrimination and coercive behaviour emanates from citizens’ internalisation of societal hierarchies and structures. As a result, attitudes and behaviours become part of their minds and bodies and take the form of “durable dispositions”. These durable dispositions create social structures, and the durable social structures become natural and immutable parts of individuals’ beliefs and value systems. Bourdieu (2000:170) notes that: Symbolic violence is the coercion which is set up only through the consent that the dominated cannot fail to give to the dominator (and therefore to the domination) when their understanding of the situation and relation can only use instruments of knowledge that they have in common with the dominator, which, being merely the incorporated form of the structure of the relation of domination, make this relation appear as natural. Consequently, symbolic violence, harassment and discrimination are normalised and internalised parts of citizens’ social and cultural traditions and are shaped throughout generations. Nevertheless, symbolic violence is not necessarily easy to identify because alternative pathways do not exist to challenge the majority populace’s societal conventions. The re-evaluation process is measured even if new ways of thinking challenge established customs. A changing society will also adjust the accepted perception of symbolic violence. Thus, assessing underlying one-dimensional prejudice towards new and established minority ethnic or gender groups that were previously not deemed suitable for employment or professional pathway. For example, lawyers, financial leaders and medical doctors traditionally belong to the majority ethnic population, having graduated from private schools and eminent universities. Notwithstanding this, labour shortage creates a need to re-evaluate preceding assumptions. For instance, prestigious positions are rarely occupied by individuals from minority ethnic groups progressing from public school education and less-ranked universities. Nevertheless, albeit minority ethnic belonging or working-class origin has not hindered some from achieving high political and financial positions, developed multinationals corporations from fledgling enterprises, for example, John Paul DeJoria (hair products), Jan Koum (WhatsApp), Howard Schultz (Starbucks), Oprah Winfrey (entertainment media), Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (computer technology), Richard Branson (Virgin Group), and Sam Walton (Walmart) (University of the People 2022). These inventive entrepreneurs, taking unconventional career pathways, have succeeded, not necessarily without facing discrimination and financial challenges, but developed wealth-generated creative and innovative businesses. Though not necessarily inscribed, the postulations of systemic and symbolic discrimination embody individual habitus, social and cultural traditions

Introduction 23 and customs and embrace the societal ambience in which laws and regulations are developed. Notwithstanding this, social and cultural customs and practices and their impact on minority groups are often unquestioned. Likewise, systemic policy and symbolic norms frame social and cultural systems conveyed within family habitus, education systems and workplace policies. These social and cultural beliefs, consciously or unconsciously, influence hiring practices, promotion, social and work networks, access to services and resources, including the work atmosphere and attitudes to diversity. Therefore, the foundation of systemic and symbolic societal inequality has implications for accepted power structures and social and cultural traditions. Henceforth, the acknowledgement or understanding that some citizens are given added rights, habitually due to the profession or inherent attributes, qualities that are only available to a select group of citizens. This selected group has innated social status and attributes guaranteeing birth right entitlements, privileges that cannot be earned. Consequently, non-group members cannot achieve the same social and professional status. A societal stratification system of unequal rights creates inequality structures. Unfortunately, inequity structures create an atmosphere of “false consciousness” about available social status positions and an atmosphere where it becomes unquestioning to challenge the societal systemic and symbolic political doctrine and societal hegemonic ideology (Heywood 1994:85; Marx and Engels 1973). Power discourses A concept interlinked with systemic and symbolic violence, harassment and discrimination is power. Power is a multifaceted instrument with an overt and covert function. It has a presence that is felt everywhere and exerted on all societal levels. Additionally, power is embedded as enforcement into social norms and legal frameworks. Janowitz (1978:393) notes the fine line between persuasive and coercive power. He states that in a ‘democratic system, persuasion is the process by which political parties come to power and by which they seek to rule, while coercion is circumscribed and limited by the legitimating norms’, hence a distinction between a democratic and a totalitarian or authoritarian system. This is an analogy of how violence and harassment are applied or not applied at structural and agency levels, where mutual respect, acceptance of diversity, inclusion and sharing of resources are coercive or negotiated from equal power positions. Chiefly, power has a legitimate function accepted by most of the populace and an illegitimate form where power is exerted outside its professional guidelines. Power becomes even more complicated when illegitimate power is combined with violence. Legitimate power refers to sanctioned actions that are part of institutions’ production and service regulations and individuals’ established professional guidelines. Crucially, the nation-state’s judicial structure and legislated regulations define the legitimate use of power by institutions and within professions. Hence, the use of power is established within the user’s legitimate professional

24

Introduction

rights. For example, on the structural level, the right of a government to prosecute terrorism threats to the nation-state and on the institutional level, the police have the right to enforce traffic laws. Thus, within these acknowledged frameworks, the use of power is legal and overwhelmingly accepted by the populace. In contrast, illegitimate power refers to non-legislated power, unlawful use of power or undue force to enhance personal status or benefit. This can take the form of harassment or discrimination, underpinned by unequal customs and traditions, developed over generations and ingrained into systemic and symbolic use of power. For example, as noted by Foucault (1977) and Elden (2017), power is commonly employed outside the professionally prescribed entitlements: (1) power exceeds its legitimacy when power is used illegitimately in unauthorised manners to overcome resistance through coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, force, pressure and/or strength. (2) Violence, intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person or against a group or community, that either result in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment and/or deprivation. (3) Harassment, improper conduct by an individual, an action directed towards an individual or an offensive encounter within an existing social and cultural setting; and (4) discrimination, unjust or prejudicial treatment of diverse groups of people. Foucault’s power discourse, its legitimate and illegitimate status is further analysed by employing the notion of “omnipresence of power”, not because it has the privilege of consolidating everything under its invincible unity, but because it is produced from one moment to the next, at every point, or rather in every relation from one point to another. Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. And “Power”, insofar as it is permanent, repetitious, inert and self-reproducing, is simply the over-all effect that emerges from all these mobilities, the concatenation that rests on each of them and seeks in turn to arrest their movement. (Foucault 1976:93) Additionally, in the essay On Violence (1970), Arendt gives further insight into the complicated relationship between political power and power and violence on the structural level. Although Arendt’s analysis of power and violence has been criticised as racist, it is not a truthful interpretation, as it misses the point in her writing about the relationship connecting power and violence. The concepts of gender inequality, race or ethnic classification are created into arbitrary categories. They are created with politically, financial and/or religious power structures aiming to divide populations after ethnic and gender lines without scientific qualifications, e.g., racism is uniquely defined to benefit the powerholders’ political, religious or economic purposes. Racism, as distinguished from race, is not a fact of life, but an ideology, and the deeds it leads to are not reflex actions, but deliberate acts based on

Introduction 25 pseudo-scientific theories. Violence in interracial struggle is always murderous, but it is not “irrational”; it is the logical and rational consequence of racism, by which I do not mean some rather vague prejudices on either side, but an explicit ideological system. (Arendt 1970:76) Habitually power is exerted non-violently and accepted, thus different from violence, even if these concepts, power and violence, are sometimes used interchangeably. Power is understood as power over (Arendt 1970:36) and accepted within its judicial limitations. However, C.W. Mills (1956:171) notes, ‘All politics is a struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence’. In the same vein, Max Weber (1921), in a speech at Munich University, defined the state’s power as ‘the rule of men over men based on the means of legitimate, that is allegedly legitimate, violence’, thus stressing the fluid line between legitimate power and power in combination with violence, hence mainly illegitimate. Arendt makes a noteworthy distinction between power and violence. Power is not an individual property as it belongs to positions. Significantly, for Ardent, power is a horizontal concept as the accepted or given power is the same for all individuals allocated to the position. Power is collectively agreed upon as it is created and developed when individuals act together in debating diverse political standpoints. Despite contrasting opinions, they treat each other as equals. Power is assigned, not self-granted. Thus, when power is lost, violence is often tried to restore it (Arendt 1970:46–47). When we say of somebody that he is “in power” we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name. The moment the group, from which the power originated to begin with … disappears, “his power” also vanishes. (Arendt 1970:44) The central concept in Ardent power discourse is violence, albeit closely interrelated with the strength, force and power concepts. However, within diverse contexts and used in combination or illegitimately, violence becomes coercive and destructive. Ardent notes that violence is close to strength as ‘the implements of violence … are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength until … they can substitute for it’ (Arendt 1970:46). Thus, for nation-states or individuals, violence is a tool, weapon and sophisticated technological device aiming to multiply strength that can lead to structural and agency levels destruction. ‘Violence always stands ready to destroy power and public freedom’ (Arendt 1970: 53). On the structural level, the ultimate use of violence is terror. However, terror is not the same as violence. Instead, it is a form of governing that has destroyed power and rules with violence, not transforming society but human nature itself (Arendt 1976:458–459). The decisive difference between totalitarian domination, based on terror, and tyrannies and dictatorships, established by violence, is that the former turns

26

Introduction not only against its enemies but against its friends and supporters as well, being afraid of all power, even the power of friends. The climax of terror is reached when the police state begins to devour its own children, when yesterday’s executioner becomes today’s victim. And this is also the moment when power disappears entirely. (Arendt 1970: 55)

These examples and discourses illustrate how power can be misused. They also show how citizens struggle to address injustices that have become customary and practised through generations. Additionally, it is risky for outsiders of the hegemonic power hierarchy to complain about something that is habitual practice. Furthermore, employment of illegitimate power is of particular concern for citizens of less societal political and financial power, e.g., minority ethnic and gender groups and people with social, mental or physical disabilities. For example, excluding females from education, employment in government, and judicial positions as in Afghanistan since the Taliban take over (August 2021), the demand that Iranian females cover their bodies and heads together with the requirement to only venture out in the public domain with a male chaperon. For instance, the arrest of 22-year-old Ms Mahsa Amini by the Iranian morality police and subsequent death after allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely has reignited widespread protests throughout the country and internationally. In addition, females are burning their headscarves in demonstrations against the Iranian regime’s strict rules regarding female dress (September 2022). Arendt’s and Foucault’s discourses of power set out the limitations of power as based on the profession, not the individual. Therefore, that power, combined with violence, is outside its legitimate use. Unfortunately, violent use of power is not unusual, as it is used on the agency level to restrict or exclude individuals or citizen groups from equality and life opportunities. Likewise, unauthorised power conveys disrespect and disregard for the populace’s rights, their legal, moral and ethical right to equality and fair treatment in all settings. The present-day power structures and the use of violence as embodied in the social class system might be outdated in the traditional two-class Marxist capitalist society (Marx and Engels 1973). Nonetheless, a reflective discourse to consider in relation to societal inequalities, as social class, gender and ethnic belonging have significance concerning equal access to sustainable living, quality education, financial support and career pathways. Contests about life chances are timeless as unequal competition around employment, life-essential resources and prosperity opportunities create inequality and social class conflicts. These circumstances go beyond socio-economic status because rivalry around survival and security includes questions about who belongs to the society. Thus, a foundation for conflicts and competitiveness between genders, majority versus minority ethnic and faith groups within and between societies. For instance, a present-day example of social class inequality and equity can be highlighted by events throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global reality. A virus publicly acknowledged at the beginning of 2020,

Introduction 27 a virus that expanded into a pandemic spreading worldwide with mutations and new virus strains emerging. As a result, social distancing became a buzz word and working from home was enforced globally where possible. Hence, a civic duty to avoid congested public environments and contribute to overstressed hospitals. As a result, the twenty-first century internet society has become a necessity and a lifeline to keep the society’s economy going. However, for many, it was an involuntary arrangement to work from home, while others treasured it, requiring innovative mutual trust between employee and employer. Besides, social aspects of the work environment changed significantly with zoom meetings and telephone engagement rather than personal meetings. Nonetheless, the pandemic highlights social class differences between those who occupied work positions that could be undertaken from home and those who could not do so. This refers to employees in the service and hospitality sector, building and health sectors, i.e., essential workers to keep the society functioning. Furthermore, it includes a large group of short-contract cash-dependent employees with insecure employment. Positions that do not include holiday or sick leave entitlements and where attendance is compulsory to receive payment. Thus, a division between those who could work from the home’s safety and be less exposed to the virus and those who could not. The non-office group would have no income if they got sick and did not do their work. As a result, the division caused a higher percentage of the latter group to become infected and experience fatalities. In addition, this group of employees with insecure working conditions habitually belong to low socio-economic highdensity living and cramped housing conditions in multigenerational households where home isolation is impossible. Another population group disproportionately exposed to the virus was those confined to institutional living. These residents are frequently serviced by a lowly paid casualised workforce attending multiple workplaces to earn enough for survival, thus increasing the risk of spreading the virus between institutions. As noted, lowly paid citizens are more likely to be employed in casualised, unskilled, service- and hospitality-based industries, which contrasts with middleand higher-class citizens’ experiences. The latter are more likely to have work positions making it achievable to work from home, live in low-density households and have financial reserves to tap into to take sick leave or annual leave if necessary. Moreover, wealthier nation-states can afford to procure high-quality vaccines and medical care. These services are more accessible to the middle and upper classes than lower socio-economic households (Our World Data 2021), hence a higher mortality rate of COVID-19 cases among these employees and households. Though, prolonged lack of contact with work colleagues, family and friends has mental health consequences. The isolation often creates feelings of loneliness and boredom, especially among young people who are more likely to socialise in the public realm. In contrast, others relished not dealing with workplace policies, gossip, harassment and violent encounters with work colleagues and supervisors, commuting on public transport or risking harassment in public settings.

28

Introduction

Notwithstanding, isolation from friends and services can become grounds for family conflicts. These factors are amplified by unemployment, lack of essential life resources, homelessness and inability to care for personal physical and mental well-being. However, in these changing living conditions in the pandemic era, violence and harassment among citizens should not be assessed as isolated from society’s social, political and cultural hegemony because these interconnections can be linked to communicated language, entertainment trends and behaviours by key trendsetters, political leaders and social entrepreneurs, including mass media. Policies and attitudes on the structural level filter down to the agency level, where some views are promoted while others are not. What things are called always reflects relations of power. People in power call things what they want to, and others have to adjust to that, perhaps using other words of their own in private, but accepting in public that they cannot escape. Whatever my friends and I may think, marijuana is called a narcotic drug by people who can make that name and the perspective associated with it stick. (Becker 2003: 661) Thus, encouraging supporting values while condemning opposing political views and actively engaging in divisive politics that undermine opponents’ credibility, e.g., baring females or political opponents from contesting and representing their parties in public elections. For example, Russia, Belarus, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, among others (Our World Data 2022), impose unachievable conditions for groups of citizens, such as bar females from standing or restricting them from contesting electable electorates. Moreover, the “loser” in any setting, political or entertainment, is commonly presented as less attractive in personality, reputation or social status than the winner. Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge that most residents accept the values and beliefs of the society’s hegemonic ideology and the systemic and symbolic value systems. Consequently, the traditional political, social and cultural values and beliefs are the foundation for acceptance and legitimising violence, harassment and discrimination against outsiders, citizens who do not necessarily adhere to or fit into the society’s established doctrine. Hence, the implementation of systemic and symbolic value systems to fashion organisations and educational institutions according to the hegemonic ideology on the meso-level, e.g., the organisational or institutional levels, an ideology that will filter through to the micro, agency level, to frame citizens’ society views, beliefs, behaviour and actions without excessive protests. Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications, the public realm is still both an exceedingly safe as well as a risky place, as acknowledged by Beck (2007). Fear of violence has many dimensions, not necessarily reflecting citizens’ risk experiences or classifying the public domain as violent. Notwithstanding this, it is unattainable to consider the liveable public realm as a constantly dangerous

Introduction 29 place where violence and harassment are present at every corner. Numerous societal activities are risky, such as taking public transport, walking in the city after dark, or even driving a car, but they are still undertaken daily.

Interconnection between structural and agency levels Within the sociology discipline, there is a long tradition of analysing societal, social, cultural, faith and individual values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours around violence, harassment and discriminating attitudes. Each concept intersects with societal belongingness, social status, ethnicity and gender. All the themes are intricately connected with experiences of inequality and equity status. Furthermore, an individual’s private and public milieu influences interpretations of discrimination and awareness of violence in public environments. Significantly, technological innovations have enabled the use of derogatory language, bullying and trolling anonymously, albeit giving a footprint that can be revealed with the right technology and expertise. Thus, people’s reactions, acceptance, protests or tolerance of derogatorye language give an insight into their living experiences and ethical beliefs. These are themes analysed in the following section from the perspective of structural and agency levels. The structural-level values and beliefs morph into hegemonic ideologies founded on historical and current political, economic, social, religious and cultural generational principles. These values are selectively promoted by political and financial leaders, social entrepreneurs and key powerholders and disseminated by mass media. The hegemonic values and beliefs have a historical foundation but are refashioned according to the society’s era. Likewise, violence and discriminatory practices are built into the society’s fabric, often complementing laws by applying structural, systemic and symbolic strategies to emphasise the preferred beliefs and values to be internalised by the populace. Those who do not fit into the political, social, religious and cultural foundations are outsiders, thus not the preferred citizens (Becker 1966). As a result, they might face limitations in rights to life choices, work and well-being, not necessarily by legal preventions but by structural, systemic and symbolic impediments that are more or less accepted by the majority population. The introduction of anti-discrimination policies is an integral part of the principle of equality and acknowledgement of the presence of structural, institutional, ethnic and gender discrimination. For example, the Australian government proposes the following definition of systemic discrimination or violation of equality. It ensures that no one is denied their rights because of factors such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, or birth. In addition to those grounds, discrimination on certain other grounds may also be prohibited. These grounds include age, nationality, marital status, disability, place of residence within a country and sexual orientation. (Australian Government 2021)

30

Introduction

Definitions of violence and harassment are society and time-sensitive, as the concepts’ meanings will reflect society’s moral and ethical principles, customs and reasonings in a specific era. The Australian Human Rights Commission (2021a) define discrimination on the agency-individual level. Discrimination can be against the law if it is based on a person’s: age, disability, or race, including colour, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status; sex, pregnancy, marital or relationship status, family responsibilities or breastfeeding; sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Systemic and symbolic discrimination is embedded into any society’s political, judicial, social and cultural belief systems, and it is the dominating societal philosophy that shapes the society’s hegemonic ideology. The ideology is communicated and emphasised by authoritative political and financial leaders, social entrepreneurs and mass media. Moreover, the structural level’s governing hegemonic ideology will fashion the agency level, individuals’ attitudes and behaviours (Becker 1966). Thus, the society’s collected hegemonic history, traditions and social and cultural structures are embedded in people’s minds, behaviours and self-identity. Consequently, systemic and symbolic violence is ingrained with deep roots within citizens’ internalised societal attributes, value systems, habitus and traditions (Foucault 1976). Furthermore, structural value systems inform and normalise agency-level ways of life. Therefore, normalising societal beliefs, values and attitudes will make it difficult to question or challenge the present-day social and cultural environment for individuals immersed in the societal attributes. Societal values and belief systems shape the populace’s mindset throughout their pathways to adulthood. It is embedded in family habitus, child-rearing pedagogy, educational institutions and work settings and shapes an individual’s whole life cycle. On the agency or individual level, citizens experience the personal effects of violence, discrimination and harassment from fellow citizens at workplaces, in social settings and the public environment. Hitherto, agency violence has mainly focused on sexual assault in crime statistics and, for example, with recurrent surveys (Australian Human Rights Commission 2017, 2018, 2021b) research. Nevertheless, sexual harassment commonly embraces other forms of violent acts. Such as physical, verbal, cultural, and social harassment, including discrimination in the form of exclusion from professional and social networks, information sessions, work-related meetings, committees, promotion or career trajectories. The Council of Europe Convention defines violence in the public sphere against females as: (a) “violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender‐based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of

Introduction 31 such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. (Council of Europe Convention 2011, Article 3: 8, italics in original) The presented agency research and analysis extend beyond sexual harassment in this book context. It also incorporates physical, verbal, social and cultural violence, actions that inhibit people’s engagement in the public realm. Moreover, it embraces females, males and LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer) identifying people. Minority genders and ethnic groups are, as discussed in earlier research and mass media reports, increasingly exposed to violence and harassment in the public sphere (Sugarman et al. 2018; Fabiansson 2007, 2010:141ff, 2018; Wieviorka 2003). As noted above, the concepts of harassment and violence can be used interchangeably. Both concepts are used in the presented agency research and discussions. However, harassment has a broader scope in everyday language than violence, as it includes minor incidents. In contrast, violence often refers to situations of brutal acts of mistreatment, including life-threatening incidents. Additionally, harassment covers a range of disturbing and offensive actions and behaviours against the victim but might not necessarily be considered violent by others. Citizens build their interpretations of harassment, violence and discrimination on subjective experiences and social and cultural habitus. Nonetheless, the subjective interpretations or meanings of harassment or violence do not necessarily align with the interpretations individuals give these actions. Notwithstanding this, society’s legal definition of violence and harassment is the basis for classifying an incident as a crime. However, to understand the scope of violence, it was essential to explore the respondents’ interpretations of these concepts in the agency research. Concepts interpreted subjectively and based on individual social, cultural, and subjective experiences are often merged or assessed from the perspective of the official legal definitions when reported to the authorities. The emphasis is on violence and harassment in the public realm. The public sphere is referred to as places outside a person’s private residence. Behaviours and actions include culturally and socially influenced harassment, e.g., dress codes and customs foreign to the dominating value system. This includes name-calling, refusal to sit next to a person on public transport, and physical violence. Physical violence and harassment are related to unwanted touching, stalking, physical injuries, and sexual violence, from intrusive behaviour to rape. Verbal harassment narrates offensive, derogative and discriminatory language and shouting actions that can effortlessly occur in the public sphere. Agency-level research The agency research is based on young adults’ experiences of violence in the public milieu. However, as mentioned, the young adults’ recounted experiences of

32

Introduction

violence, harassment or discrimination are self-defined. Thus, they are not necessarily universally accepted definitions of incidents. Besides, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014 (FRA) and the Australian Human Rights Commission (2017, 2018, 2021b) definitions give an overall reference point for exposure to sexual violence and understanding their human rights to a safe environment. However, to achieve a reference point of definitions and to understand the young adults’ perceptions and classification of violence and harassment, the respondents were asked about their interpretation of verbal, physical, social and sexual harassment. For example, the participants were asked about their experiences and thoughts about violence in the urban city milieu, public transport and university environments. The main questions are derived from the author’s earlier research, thus facilitating comparability and assessment of the scope of sexual violence between Australia and EU countries. In addition, it goes beyond discussions about sexual abuse to include physical, verbal, social and culturally originated harassment within diverse ethnic and gender groups. Thus, setting violence, harassment and discrimination into a holistic societal perspective. This approach enhances the understanding of violence in the public sphere on different societal levels, particularly intersectionality and interconnections between influences concerning the structural and agency levels. Finally, bystanders often comment that the victim, a young female, male or minority ethnic young adult is brave to expose sexual violence to tell their stories, even after a long time, including negotiating reactions from family, friends and the judicial establishment. Nevertheless, unfortunately, it sometimes becomes synonymous with reliving the abuse. As a result, victims may never tell their stories or not until decades later because of this anguish. Consequently and understandably, people might keep the experience of the abuse hidden and suffer for many years or their whole life in silence. Reasons for non-disclosures are diverse. The risk of not being believed as a young child, guilt, shame, self-blame and scared of not devolving the abuse by the perpetrator are all significant motives. Unfortunately, attitudinal change has a long way to go before victims are listened to and believed. Besides, children and young people are still seldom given equal voices or standing as perpetrators who frequently are in power positions. Moreover, perpetrators are likely to be well above the victim in social status and age. In this unequal setting, even if the victim is believed, a complaint might tarnish her/his future career and social status because of lingering societal victim-blaming attitudes. At the same time, it does not necessarily change the perpetrator’s position in society. Moreover, an outcome of delayed reporting is that the perpetrator might not even be alive when the crime is publicly revealed. Thus, in summary, the research participants recounted experiences of violence and harassment in present-day society. These often detailed narratives give a picture of everyday harassment that shows its normalised presence in society. The respondents showed exceeding courage in volunteering comprehensive stories about individual experiences. Furthermore, their stories manifest their audacity to

Introduction 33 recount an entire range of violence and harassment incidents, from minor occurrences to frightening situations where they, as victims, have been traumatised. The stories are powerful. They should be heard and reflected over, not stay hidden or ignored. The bravery of the respondents should be an inspiration to others. The findings tell the young adults’ stories and demonstrate how the hegemonic structural level gives the framework and normalisation to violence in the public realm. Notwithstanding this, the home environment can be riskier for females than the public realm. In contrast, public places are often riskier for young males. The common perception of the home environment as safer than the public domain is an observation not supported by official crime statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020). Despite this, the public realm is habitually seen as more dangerous than the family home. Family violence is somewhat acknowledged in contemporary society and alleviated by education programmes and support services. However, the same awareness is not yet shown about public realm violence, even though it is causing fear and risk perceptions of the public environment that hamper civic engagement.

Risk society discourse Risk is a universal concept used in diverse settings, albeit also interpreted subjectively. Ulrich Beck, a renowned sociologist, analysed contemporary manufactured risks in Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992). Beck’s risk discourse focused not on naturally occurring disasters but on manufactured risks that emanate from a lack of extended testing of new technological inventions, products and industrial practices. In contemporary capitalist ideology, financial goals are paramount. Thus, the commercialisation of new products implores compressed time from idea to commercialisation, e.g., the time between idea, exploration, creation, research, testing and the product’s release into the consumer market. A shortening period between idea and commercialisation is an essential competition strategy in a present-day society where time equals money. This strategy makes it implausible to assess the safety of products or techniques needing comprehensive assessment to demonstrate their long-term safety. Consequently, a shortening assessment period can compromise the safety of the product and the well-being of citizens and/or the environment because the long-term outcomes are not assessed and, therefore, are principally unknown (Fabiansson and Fabiansson 2016). Although covering different circumstances, the theoretical framework behind Beck’s risk discourse is still relevant for the discussions here. Therefore, it is elaborated on in some detail. The actual or perceived fear associated with violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm can be seen as manufactured, mainly how the urban and city realm is designed, the promotion of individualism and individual responsibilities, geographical movability and professional specialisation, hence a long interlude from community and family solidarity (Durkheim 1968). These are all factors working against establishing lasting community social networks. Henceforth, present-day social life is influenced by changing societal rules, values, attitudes and the demand for individual responsibility for personal

34

Introduction

safety and well-being. In this context, environmental, physical and social risks can be seen as “manufactured” by the “social man” in contrast to the “natural man” (see Rousseau below). The risk discourse is not a new abstraction. Historically, it concerned insurance in the financial sector and financial risks of economic loss caused by natural disasters (Ewald 1991). However, Beck focused on modern manufactured risks caused by multinational corporations and global production procedures. The setting where the demands for concise production turnaround and financial returns restrict thorough and expensive scientific evaluations. As a result, safety regulations and product harmlessness or a safeguard against emerging risks have become sidelined for economic prosperity. Accordingly, the risk discourse is situated at the structural level, with minimal agency influence, but individuals, animals and the environment will be exposed to adverse effects. Moreover, Beck concentrated on manufactured society risks, defined as a ‘systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself’ (Beck 2007:21, italics in original). Although, unfortunately, in a present-day neoliberal commercial society, risks and risk scenarios are often of secondary significance in manufactured modern technology production (Beck 2007:24). A philosophy symbolising irresponsibility for future product adversity, a manufacturing ideology incorporating elements of possible risk scenarios to be weighed against commercialisation “needs” to release products onto the mass consumer market without rigorous testing (Beck 2007:51ff). The risk society discourse is a product of contemporary living and a societycreated lifestyle with changing production procedures and consumer practices. The adaptation and acceptance of up-to-the-minute manufacturing goods, including food manufacturing and reconstructed food products, have altered consumers’ behaviour and adjusted them to embrace fast food and readymade products. Beck’s research accentuated the shift in risk perception from naturally occurring disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, flooding and drought to large-scale industrial production that enhanced manufactured risks. However, modern manufacturing and food production are interlinked with natural adversities concerning climate change. Food production is driven by modern consumerism and the short shelf lives of new products. The products with the right colour and form are produced through scientific growing and manufacturing technologies, not necessarily for taste and freshness but for longevity and transportability. In addition, as a consequence of globalisation, where ingredients are sourced globally, food production and products require an international market. This has created intense pressure to condense turnaround time from early invention and manufacturing to market release. Therefore, in present-day production, where scientific testing and safety assessment of products and production systems are time and cost compressed, the urge to minimise the production time between expenditure and earnings is a significant foundation within neoliberal capitalism (Fabiansson and Fabiansson 2016). Furthermore, global industrialisation and multi-international corporation structures, production and employment markets make detecting the origin of product sources intricate, including identifying the

Introduction 35 actors responsible for the different sections of the production line. Ultimately, multinational corporations’ leadership at different production stages decides when and where to release products, underpinned by economic considerations, including managing products often short-lived commercial value. For instance, the health risk of smoking was long known among independent scientists. The World Health Organization (2022) estimates that tobacco kills eight million people worldwide, up to half of its users, albeit manufacturers did not acknowledge it for a long time. In January 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly sponsored an advocacy advertisement entitled “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers”, which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities reaching an estimated 43 245 000 Americans. The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. (Cummings, Morley, and Hyland 2002:i110) However, the research outcome did not support but rather refuted the manufacturers’ assertion that smoking is harmless. Furthermore, the independent researchers emphasised that the company failed to fulfil the stated promise in the 1954 “Frank Statement” advertisement. ‘The failure of cigarette manufacturers to honour these promises has resulted in a public that even today remains misinformed about the health risks of smoking’ (Cummings, Morley and Hyland 2002:i110). Another example of misleading information to the populace and medical professionals relates to the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. For example, this company dismissed or understated the danger of addiction with long-term usage of the prescription medication OxyContin. OxyContin is an opioid-based painkiller. It was brought to the market in 1996, and already in 1999, it’s highly addictive nature was flagged. Nevertheless, the OxyContin painkiller continued to be prescribed extensively, a widely used medication for prolonged pain. Despite the knowledge about its addictive nature, the pharmaceutical manufacturing company did not succinctly communicate the information to medical doctors or patients. As with the tobacco industry, scientific and anecdotal findings stipulated the smoking and painkiller’s addictive nature. The misleading or withholding of information for profit prolonged the use of OxyContin instead of focusing on the health and well-being of patients. The pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, pleaded guilty in 2007 and 2020 to misleading information about the opioid medications’ addictive nature (Posner 2020). The global competition encourages companies to rationalise production processes and engage in multination sourcing of raw materials. As a result, product timing of the market and saving money have become essential in modern manufacturing. Moreover, in the global corporation setting, the responsible decisionmakers have become “invisible”, as frequently the decision-makers are long gone

36

Introduction

to other positions before any product’s dangers or safety issues can be scientifically proven. Consequently, modern manufactured products increase risks by truncating scientific evaluations, testing and safety assessment. Furthermore, an outdrawn production process does not necessarily fit into a fast-moving society where a product’s news headlines, value or fashion period can be brief, e.g., a few months (Fabiansson and Fabiansson 2016). Risk-sensitive products include consumer goods, air and water pollution within agriculture, industrial manufacturing and products that destroy habitats and vegetation. Circumstances that exacerbate the effects of flooding, fire and drought thus contribute to and significantly reinforce the climate change trajectory. The current risk scenario with the COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent requirement for safe and effective vaccines. Notwithstanding the time and research restrictions, COVID-19 vaccines, new or based on already scientifically assessed safe vaccines, have been developed, researched, tested and produced within 12 months, despite often being a decade-long process. In this case, the urgency and necessity to impede the spread of the pandemic and an increasing death rate enforced a constricted research phase, testing and production period of the vaccines. Thus, an example of a present-day society where rationalisation of the entire truncated research and production process became imperative to save people’s lives. Furthermore, the risk assessment of saving lives mitigated the requirement for lengthy research and testing periods about possible long-term side effects of the newer vaccines, e.g., the mRNA-based vaccine. This is not to imply that the vaccines are unsafe or that there will be any long-term adverse effects; instead, it is an example of an urgent need to truncate a process for citizens’ health, save lives and retain nation-states’ manufacturing and financial sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic and the need to develop protective means can be examined from Beck’s risk society discourse. Beck’s risk discourse highlights the circumstance that we have moved from the nature of modernity to “reflexive modernization”. The “first modernity” describes a society with a social life and conflicts subjugated by the production and distribution of goods. This first modernity society is different from the present-day setting where reasonable control over socio-material life is transformed into a process where the risk society is based on “reflexive modernization”. In this reflexive modernity society, the society is progressively developed towards self-confrontation with unforeseen effects, including the risk of side effects. Thus, political and economic leaders assess risks in the reflexive modernity society through a global competitive capitalist lens. Side effects are thus appraised by society’s actions or inactions (Beck 1999:73). Any side effects are deemed “manufactured uncertainties” rather than nature-originated (Beck 1999:34), thus wholly or partly controllable. Manufactured uncertainties have become integrated into our living conditions. Unforeseen side effects have thus become normalised (Beck 1999:13), directing or influencing people’s livelihood. “Manufactured uncertainties” are unpredictable, as they are not fully understood and can develop into serious

Introduction 37 risk situations. Beck (1999:8, 73) highlighted risks of nuclear meltdowns, risks that are acknowledged but predicted to be exceptionally rare. For example, the nuclear meltdowns such as the Soviet Union Chornobyl (Chornobyl Ukrainian spelling) disaster (25–26 April 1986) created risks to the citizens, animals and environmental life and livelihood, with the radioactive air, soil and water pollution. The pollution spread from the reactors throughout northern Europe. Radiation contamination at the time of the meltdowns and the continuing radiation from radionuclides takes an exceedingly long time to be eliminated. Thus, the environment and the atmosphere will be unsafe for agricultural production and all living, lasting centuries. Structural risks affecting agency-level living follow any society’s trajectory (Arendt 1969, 1970; Bauman 1989). Thus, new and old risks will have implications for present-day and future citizens’ everyday livelihood and safety, e.g., risks are re-emerging, and new risk substances and technologies are added. Thus, aside from the historical perspective, Beck’s risk society discourse set risks and violence in a societal setting beyond the first modernity, where reflexive modernisation demands government and citizens’ adjustment and precautions to meet changing life cycle risk scenarios. Risk surveillant modern technology Modern technology has created a setting where people have gained increased security, albeit often an artificial safety ambience, by, for example, surveillance cameras in most public and commercial places, including private homes. In addition, innovative technology gives people access to internet-connected mobile phones with cameras and recording functions to document and simultaneously transmit incidents, the carriers’ movements and the surrounding environment globally. The advancement in mobile phone technologies provides people with security, a feeling of safety and a presumption that help can easily be called on. Notwithstanding, it has taken away people’s incognito status, anonymity and liberty. Their public realm movements are tracked, watched and recorded every time they are logged into a cellular mobile phone tower or pass a street surveillance camera. Furthermore, even if the technology is classified as a safety tool, it is also a device to harass, defame, bully or troll individuals anonymously and use a fake identity. For instance, there is a nearly risk-free possibility for perpetrators to abuse or troll people they disagree with, e.g., political, cultural or social opinion communicators, including ex-partners, females, minority genders and ethnic groups. In the early introduction of security cameras in the public space, there was a minimal protest against electronic surveillance coverage in the public domain. However, mainly because of its presumed protective nature, it also gives people a “false” or inflated belief of security and safety. Despite its adverse privacy effects, the surveillance milieu creates an illusion of security in the public realm, even though it is a tool to solve rather than prevent crime (Lim and Wilcox 2017).

38

Introduction

Additionally, the modern technology of applying face recognition software is a tool aimed initially at border security. However, the business community has generally adopted the technology to track or identify customers. In this case, it is not necessarily about agency security but preventing stealing and repeat offenders from accessing the premises. It is also a technology that can limit citizens’ freedom of movement and speech, as currently applied among others in China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Australia and Japan. Australia trialled a similar technology for people with COVID-19 in home quarantine and internationally returning citizens. Limiting face recognition technology to security and border control applications might be more acceptable than extending it to include agency-level surveillance tools to regulate citizens’ domestic activities by commercial entities (Zuboff 2020). Nonetheless, surveillance cameras and mobile phones give people security, which is conveniently in tune with the present-day individualist ideology of taking personal responsibility for public realm safety. Likewise, mobile technology is well adjusted to an individualistic society where people distinguish between friends and strangers, a society promoting individual self-reliance and responsibility and reacting against government interference. However, present-day society is fuelled by increased competition between people about resources in the public domain and a narrow definition of who can be trusted. This individualistic ideology has implications for calling out risk scenarios of violence and harassment in the public realm. For example, a preference to mind one’s own business, avoid showing public support for abuse victims, and take sides in personal conflicts as the involvement can put the individual in personal danger of exposure to harassment. Hence a form of practising protectionist individualism to manage individual safety. Conversely, it is also conceivable that as a bystander, individual protection concerns and an individualistic philosophy override intentions to be involved in preventing violent incidents, including supporting a victim. Thus, an unwillingness to comfort non-family members and a narrow definition of issues of particular individual relevance, e.g., dismissing others as “not my problem”. Henceforth, there is still a stigma around being a victim of harassment, discrimination or violence in public, including in private domains. A patriarch-derived belief that the victim, most commonly a female, has in some way contributed to the incident by disregarding dominating social and cultural norms and traditions in behaviour, dress, intoxication and attending a place at the wrong time of the day. Even if mobile dating apps and websites are increasingly popular and socially acceptable ways of communicating and meeting people, the harassment and violence experienced through dating apps or harassment by social media were not prominent in the agency research. The acknowledged harassment was concentrated on Facebook and emails and confined to senders within the university environment, thus not explored. Nonetheless, app and internet violence are a growing risk area, albeit mainly confined to the private sphere (cf. Wolbers et al. 2022; Gámez-Guadix and Incera 2021; Snaychuk and O’Neill 2020; Chadha, Steiner,

Introduction 39 Vitak and Ashktorab 2020). However, an American survey (a nationally representative survey of 10,093 US adults) found that 40% of the researched Americans had experienced online harassment, and approximately 50% of them cited politics as the reason they thought they were targeted. It was also noted in the survey that there was an increase in more severe online abuse, including sexual harassment or stalking (Pew Research Center 2021:4, 40).

Social class and social status The binary social class division is reflected in the early industrialist society, where people were principally divided into belonging to the proletariat or the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 1973). Max Weber’s (1964) discourse of augmented stratification of proficient knowledge and professionalism in workplaces was an advancement of the social class binary classifications and foundation for further skills specialisation. The introduction of skilled professions follows industrial and technical advances, a social class system based on professionalism, not just heritage and economic wealth. Thus, reflecting diversified social status classification systems based on increasingly knowledge-based qualifications and the requirement of educational credentials to satisfy the highly specialised contemporary employment markets. Meanwhile, Beck’s reflexive modernisation of societal productions goes well beyond social class distributions. Beck considered the social class discourse a redundant construct as non-nature-based risks are not class-bound. Nonetheless, Beck’s position postulating that the social class discourse is redundant can be questioned as risk and violence in the public realm are not necessarily social class dependent but resource-dependent to manage the risk scenario, thus underpinned by access to resources. Consequently, inequality and unequal access to resources and services are still social class issues in present-day society and affect the possibilities of managing risk scenarios. Unequal access to resources is a social class issue highlighted by the COVID19 pandemic in 2020 and beyond. People from low-income societal levels are more likely to be infected and die than high-income citizens due to living and employment conditions. Likewise, social class matters because low- and casual-income employees have work positions that are physically oriented and/or directly include customer contacts, hence increased exposure opportunities. On the other hand, people belonging to high social status groups frequently have added opportunities for flexible working conditions and easier access to quality health care. Moreover, on a global scale, wealthy OECD countries successfully secured enough vaccines to vaccinate whole populations early in the pandemic phase, while poorer countries were left behind. Beck proposes another explanation for the redundancy of the social class discourse. It is grounded on the difference between the first modernity and the reflexive society. As defined by Marx and Engels, social class conflicts were primarily based on the framework of conflict between the ‘logic of the distribution of wealth’ (Beck 1999:62; Marx and Engels 1973). In Beck’s risk discourse and

40

Introduction

the reflexive society, inequalities in the society are “risk positions”, which are different from “class positions” (Beck 2007:36, 39–40). A “risk position” should be understood “as fate” (Beck 2007:40–41). Therefore, setting a risk “as fate” overrides an individual’s social class position. In principle, everyone is exposed to the same risk level independent of social class status. Nonetheless, in this discussion about violence, social class is still a factor concerning violence and discrimination in the public domain. Not necessarily to be exposed to a risk situation, but in the individual’s possibilities to manage “fate”. The divide in access to resources mitigates the effects of risk exposure, e.g., the ability to seek help and services, access to resources such as private transport, and managing the impacts of fateful events. Furthermore, individual skills and resources, including professional and social networks, have become essential to call upon for assistance within an individual’s identified professional and social networks. These are significant factors in mitigating a “fate”-directed risk event. Moreover, the critique of Beck in his dismissal of social class position has come from different directions. For example, the critiques are explored in discussions by Curran (2016), McMylor (1996), Scott (2000), Scott (2002), Elliott (2002), Mythen (2005a, 2005b) and Atkinson (2007, 2010). Researchers questioning Beck’s proposition that social class differentials have become increasingly irrelevant to the growing, universal distribution of risks in the modern risk society (Beck 2007:22).

Inequality discourses An early discussion about inequality discourses can be found in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, namely A Discourse on Inequality, published in 1754, a discussion of the evolution of the human race. Rousseau postulated that there were two kinds of humans: a “natural man” and a “social man”. The natural man is formed by nature, while society creates the social man. Consequently, Rousseau proposed that humankind’s natural happiness becomes corrupted by creating artificial wealth, power and social privilege inequalities, the characteristic of the social human. Moreover, if “primitive” humans were presumed to be equal in their living conditions and ambitions, the characteristics of the social human were different. Rousseau believed that with the modernisation of societies into more diverse sophistication, the most innovative, vital and intelligent constituents would gain an unnatural advantage over their weaker members. Besides, even if laws and regulations were established to rectify societal power imbalances and create equality among citizens, it would be inconceivable that modern societies cannot achieve just and peaceful milieus. Rousseau’s inequality discourse traced modern society’s psychological and political influences on human nature, how the “natural man” merges into a “social man” where human evolution and the creation of inequality between constitutions become intertwined, thus a foundation of inequality milieus. Moreover, Rousseau’s ([1754] 2000) text can be seen as sharply criticising the unequal modern hegemonic society and its political and economic institutions favouring the

Introduction 41 ruling classes, albeit from the perspective of a less stratified and modern society than the present-day high technology and consumerism society. Contemporary inequality discourses emphasise more complicated societal stratifications than Rousseau’s nature versus social. They consider diverse societal elements, such as economic, political, social, cultural, generational, gender and/or sexual belonging. Additionally, inequality has an intersectionality facet, as inequality exposure is multifaceted, where an individual is exposed to or occupies numerous inequality elements at any time. A combination of individual traits, genders and ethnic factors becomes the basis for discriminating actions. Thus, the nature of intersectionality creates added risk factors and contributes to fear of the public realm for outsiders. Twenty-first-century societies are a melting pot of social, ethnic, faith, political and economic inequalities. They can be found where competition exists, for instance, to secure employment, gain financial security, secure housing, health, safety and well-being, all safeguard issues challenging for the majority populace. Consequently, an individual’s cultural, religious and social positions influence the risk of being treated discriminatorily. Furthermore, Bourdieu noted how economic and social risks affect people’s lives. The significance of how financial insecurity shapes individuals’ created habitus (Bourdieu 1984, 2000). Though, Bourdieu did not link inequality solely to the production and distribution of wealth. Instead, Bourdieu saw social class as the foundation of multi-dimensional capitals and how these capitals created possibilities for individuals to benefit from or be disadvantaged by the various fields of social, cultural and religious habitus (Bourdieu 1984, 1998, 2001a). Curran (2016) highlights the existence of an abundance of discourses and research focusing on inequality and social class; aside from this, a systematic analysis of the relationships between risk and inequality in present-day society is missing. Furthermore, an absence of a unifying risk and inequality discourse focusing on ethnic minority group belonging is an obstacle to understanding underlying factors and implications of inconsistent treatment of people and discriminatory actions regarding societal acceptance, access to resources and financial support. Thus, looking different, having an accent or slightly different intonation of sentence structures, and belonging to a minority gender or faith group are all factors underpinning discrimination and inequality. Discriminating racism is normalised in societies where the majority ethnic populace sets the norms reinforced by the hegemonic structural ideology. Thus, even if citizens see themselves as tolerant and accepting, their beliefs and values are ingrained within the hegemonic society’s ideology, the foundation of societal political, social and cultural fabrics. It is a framework from which outsiders are assessed alongside long-time citizens who are not accustomed to multicultural diversity, personal interaction and friendships with minority ethnic groups. The following chapter applies a sociological perspective around violence, harassment and discrimination discussing theories and research underpinning the book’s themes.

42

Introduction

References Ang, I. (2003) ‘From White Australia to Fortress Australia: The Anxious Nation in the New Century’. in J. Laksiri, D. Walker, and J. Gothard (eds.), Legacies of White Australia: Race, Culture and Nation. Crawley, WA: UWA Press. Arendt, H. (1969) ‘Political conflict: Perspectives on revolution’. Journal of International Affairs, 23 (1): 1–35. Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane. Arendt, H. (1976) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Atkinson, W. (2007) ‘Beck, individualization and the death of class: A critique’. British Journal of Sociology, 58 (3): 349–366. Atkinson, W. (2010) Class, Individualization and Late Modernity: In Search of the Reflexive Worker. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2020) Recorded Crime – Victims, Australia, 2019, Cat. no. 45100DO001 and 45100DO003 2019, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/ people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/2019, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2021) Sexual Violence – Victimisation. Statistics about sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse, including characteristics of victimsurvivors, victimisation rates, and police reporting, https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/ sexual-violence-victimisation, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Government (2021) Rights of equality and non-discrimination. AttorneyGeneral’s Department. https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights -and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/rights -equality-and-non-discrimination, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Change the Course: National Report on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at Australian Universities. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2021a) Discrimination. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission. https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12030, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Human Rights Commission (2021b) Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. November 2021. https://humanrights.gov.au/set-standard-2021, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Institute of Criminology (2022) Homicide in Australia. AIC Statistical Report 39. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Baudrillard, J. (1983) Les strategies fatales. Bernard Gasse. English translation, J. Baudrillard (1990) Fatal Strategies. New York: Semiotext(e). Bauman, Z. (1988) ‘Sociology and postmodernity’. The Sociology Review, 36 (4): 790–813. Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press. Beck, U. (2007 [1992]) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Becker, H.S. (1966) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Becker, H.S. (2003) ‘The politics of presentation: Goffman and total institutions’. Symbolic Interaction, 26 (4): 659–669. Bennett, T. (1995) The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge.

Introduction 43 Bennett, T., Grossberg, L. and Morris, M. (eds) (2005) New Keywords. A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2001 [1998]) Masculine Domination. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2005) [2000] The social structures of the economy. Translated by Chris Turner. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Buci-Glucksmann, C. (1980) Gramsci and the State. Trans. D. Fernbach. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Chadha, K., Steiner, L., Vitak, J. and Ashktorab, Z. (2020) ‘Women’s responses to online harassment’. International Journal of Communication, 14: 239–257. Council of Europe Convention (2011) Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. CETS No. 210. Istanbul Convention, Article 3, The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted the convention on 7 April 2011. https://rm.coe.int/168008482e accessed 11 January 2023. Cummings, K.M., Morley, C.P. and Hyland, A. (2002) ‘Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking’. Tobacco Control, 11: i110–i117. Curran, D. (2016) Risk, Power, and Inequality in the 21st Century. UK Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. D’Andrea, F. (2021) ‘On our doorstep. Simmel, weber and the making of reality’. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: H Interdisciplinary, 21 (3) Version 1.0: 15–29. de Certeau, M. (1999) ‘Walking in the city’. In S. During (ed.), The Cultural Studies Reader, Ch 9. London: Routledge. Douglas, M. (1975) ‘Pollution’. In M. Douglas (ed.), Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge, 47–59. Douglas, M. (2000 [1966]) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge. Durkheim, E. (1968) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press. Elden, S. (2017) Foucault: The Birth of Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Elliott, A. (2002) ‘Beck’s sociology of risk: A critical assessment’. Sociology, 36 (2): 293–315. Ewald, F. (1991) ‘Insurance and risk’. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf: 197–210. Fabiansson, C. (2007) ‘Young people’s perception of being safe – Globally & locally’. Social Indicators Research Journal, January 80 (1): 31–49. Fabiansson, C. (2010) Pathways to Excessive Gambling. A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits. Ashgate Publishing Group, UK: Farnham, Surrey.

44

Introduction

Fabiansson, C. (2018) ‘Belonging and social identity among young people in Western Sydney, Australia after the Cronulla Riots’. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19 (2): 351–366. Fabiansson, C. and Fabiansson, S. (2016) Food and the Risk Society: The Power of Risks Perception. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1976) The History of Sexuality Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin/Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House. Gámez-Guadix, M. and Incera, D. (2021) ‘Homophobia is online: Sexual victimization and risks on the internet and mental health among bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual, and queer adolescents’. Computers in Human Behavior, 119: 106728, June. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gramsci, A. (1971) In Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited by Q. Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Heywood, A. (1994) Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction. London: Macmillan. Hirschman, A.O. (1991) The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Janowitz, M. (1978) The Last Half-century: Societal Change and Politics in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jupp, J. (2002) The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Kern, L. (2020) Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World. London: Verso. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on Cities. Edited by E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell. Lim, H. and Wilcox, P. (2017) ‘Crime-reduction effects of open-street CCTV: Conditionality considerations’. Justice Quarterly, 34 (4): 597–626. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1973 [1848]) ‘Manifesto of the communist party: 62–98’. In D. Fernback (ed.), Karl Marx Political Writings: The Revolutions of 1848. Harmondsworth: Penguin: 73–74, 75–76: 78, 98. McMylor, P. (1996) ‘Goods and bads’. Radical Philosophy, 77: 52–53. Michels, R. (1962) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: The Free Press. Mills, C.W. (1956) The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mosca, G. (1939) The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mouffe, C. (1979) ‘Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci’. In C. Mouffe (ed.), Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge: 168–204. Mythen, G. (2005a) ‘Employment, individualization and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective’. The Sociological Review, 8 (1): 129–149. Mythen, G. (2005b) ‘From goods to bads? Revisiting the political economy of risk’. Sociological Research Online, 10 (3). www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/mythen, accessed 2 July 2020. Our World Data (2021) Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations. https://ourworldindata .org/covid-vaccinations, accessed 20 October 2022.

Introduction 45 Our World Data (2022) ‘Electoral democracy. Free and fair elections 2021’. https:// ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-electoral-democracy-popw-vdem?tab=table, accessed 19 October 2022. Pareto, V. (1935) The Mind and Society. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Pew Research Center (2021) The State of Online Harassment. January, www.pewresearch .org, accessed 19 October 2022. Piche, J. and Walby, K. (2010) ‘Problematizing carceral tours’. British Journal of Criminology, 50: 570–581. Posner, G. (2020) Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America. New York: Avid University Press. Rousseau, J-J. (2000 [1754]) A Discourse on Inequality. Introduction and translation by Maurice Cranston. UK: Penguin Classic. Rousseau, J-J. (1754) A Discourse on Inequality. Originally published by Marc-Michel Rey in 1755, Holland. Scott, A. (2000) ‘Risk society or angst society? Two views of risk, consciousness and community’. In B. Adam, U. Beck, and J. van Loon (eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage. Scott, J. (2002) ‘Social class and stratification in late modernity’. Acta Sociologica, 45 (1): 23–35. Sennett, R. (1978) The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism. New York: Vintage Books. Sennett, R. (1994) Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Simmel, G. (1964 [1905]) ‘The metropolis and mental life’. Reprinted in The Sociology of George Simmel. Edited by K. Wolff. New York: Free Press. Snaychuk, L.A. and O’Neill, M.L. (2020) ‘Technology-facilitated sexual violence: Prevalence, risk, and resiliency in undergraduate students’. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29 (8): 984–999. Sugarman, D.B., Nation, M., Yuan, N.P., Kuperminc, G.P., Ayoub, L.H., and Hamby, S. (2018) ‘Hate and violence: Addressing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity’. Psychology of Violence, 8 (6): 649–656. Thomas, P. (2009) The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism. Chicago, IL: Haymarket. University of the People (2022) 10 Most Successful Entrepreneurs that Started with Little to Nothing. https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/10-successful-entrepreneurs-started-with -nothing, accessed 19 October 2022. von Holdt, K. (2012) ‘The violence of order, orders of violence: Between Fanon and Bourdieu’. Current Sociology, 61 (2): 112–131. Walby, S. (2015) Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Weber, M. (1921) The Spirit of Work and Vocation. Second lecture Politics of Vocation. Munich: Ducker & Humboldt. Originally a speech at Munich University (1918) Politik als Beruf, Gesammelte Politische Schriften: 396–450. Weber, M. (1964 [1950]) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, and ed., with an introduction by Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Wieviorka, M. (2003) ‘Violence and the subject’. Thesis Eleven, 73 (1): 42–50. Williams, A. (2020) Political Hegemony and Social Complexity, Mechanisms of Power after Gramsci. International Political Theory. Cambridge: Palgrave Macmillan.

46

Introduction

Wolbers, H., Boxall, H., Long, C. and Gunnoo, A. (2022) Sexual Harassment, Aggression and Violence Victimisation among Mobile Dating App and Website Users in Australia. AIC Report 25. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. World Health Organisation [WHO] (2002) World Report on Violence and Health: Summary. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization [WHO] (2022) Tobacco. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact -sheets/detail/tobacco, accessed 19 October 2022. Zuboff, S. (2020) ‘You are now remotely controlled. Surveillance capitalists control the science and the scientists, the secrets, and the truth’. The New York Times, 24 January 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/surveillance-capitalism .html, accessed 20 October 2022.

2

Theoretical framework and literature review

Introduction Violence, harassment and discrimination are ubiquitous fundamentals in historical and contemporary global societies. These concepts are also core issues of research within the sociology discipline. The concepts are socially and culturally customised and ingrained into the hegemonic societal ideology, the habitus of individuals and part of the dominating language. However, acceptance of violent and discriminative behaviour fluctuates throughout societal eras from being unnoticeable due to its normalisation to being contentious and unacceptable by sections of society. For instance, excessive violence against females is frowned upon in most present-day societies. Nevertheless, females’ right to safety and a voice in the family, children’s upbringing, finances and wealth has historically been contested, although inequality still exists in most societies (Parrot and Cummings 2006). Henceforth, it is accepted when normalised violence is abstract for the majority populace. This perception changes if the violence becomes noticeable and personal. Thus, excessive violence and acts of exceptional brutality are judged outside their normalisation and condemned. Notwithstanding this, the mundane, unseen habitual harassment and discrimination set citizens apart from insiders and outsiders. For example, if the crime is exceptionally violent, mass media will highlight it. Otherwise, it will not. As a result, it only becomes newsworthy when it threatens the social order of society or is gruesome. However, mass media reporting violent acts will increase the belief that the public domain is risky. It will also be a particular reminder for residents familiar with the place of the crime, acquaintance with the victim and/or being of the same age, gender or ethnicity as the victim. Personalising the violence and the crime scene incurs feelings of fear in the public sphere, even if it is only one incident over the last ten years or the first time. However, all these factors will influence the grasp of violence and risks in the public realm, not necessarily just at the crime scene but deferred to all public places. Notwithstanding the variabilities of noticeable or broadcasted violent acts, harassment and discrimination, most public sphere offences are invisible, concealed or silent acts. This unseen nature averts it from being continuously noticed DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-2

48

Theoretical framework and literature review

in present-day society, perceived as a serious offence or recorded in the crime statistics. These ever-present assemblages of violent physical, verbal, social, cultural or sexual encounters were emphasised by Arendt (1969) and Bauman (1989) as natural phenomena of societies and epochs, just as the judicial system reinforces the society’s legitimate violence. Therefore, accepting the judicial system is essential in governance and securing the populace’s adherence to laws and social order. Significantly, Arendt and Bauman stressed that violence does not only belong to the past but is prominent in modern and postmodern societies (Ray 2018; Watts and Zimmermann 2002; Walby and Towers 2017). Notwithstanding this, violence, harassment or discriminatory acts and attitudes have changed with the modernisation of societies, technological advancements and living conditions. The hegemonic and judicial definitions and language of violence, harassment and discrimination can divert from individuals’ perceptions, as they are influenced by personal experiences and social and cultural habitus. The interpretation and acknowledgement of actions as violent, harassing or discriminatory are grounded on the society’s social, cultural and political hegemonic ideology, e.g., the systemic credence in legal acceptance of violent acts through the society’s legitimate framework (structural) and internalised acceptance of the judicial laws and norms around the habitus of violence, harassment and discrimination by individuals (agency). Through ensuring that diverging understandings of violence, harassing behaviours and discriminating attitudes will still exist due to individuals’ subjective interpretations of the incidents. Furthermore, violence has a virtual and actual presence that reaches all fragments of civilisation. Violent attitudes and behaviours maintain social, cultural or political orders on the structural level. These values are communicated by powerful and influential leaders and stakeholders emphasising the preferred domination of societal order by encouraging acceptable or limiting utilisation of violence, aside from penalising non-acceptable behaviour. Nonetheless, violence or discrimination against outsider citizens are often concealed or normalised but are still essential segments of society to emphasise the preferred social order and accepted normalness based on the hegemonic ideology. Thus, social norms underpinned by violence preserve societal order and facilitate an orderly pathway to acceptable societal transformations (von Bredow 2018:98). The societal political, legal, financial and ideological transformations over time set and modify normalisation and acceptance levels of violence, visible or invisible, and frame nation-states’ power structures. According to Walby (2015:1), there was a change in the conceptualisation of violence during the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2007-08. A transformation to more conservative neoliberal politics of austerity. It created increased competition and division between population groups and community sectors, thus reigniting power struggles where violence, harassment and discrimination become tools for enabling endurance and prosperity. The question is if this survival power struggle will continue and be exacerbated by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, as access to health services and vaccines follows society’s prosperity and agency socio-economic status. Will

Theoretical framework and literature review 49 these prosperity and cultural inequity dispositions further divide the wealth gap? Besides, a life sustainability struggle is already occurring concerning our era’s climate change cataclysm. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all humans have the right to create a safe living environment in local and global settings, thus, entailing the right to be safe in the public sphere. Though not legally binding, 193 United Nations member states have ratified at least one of the nine treaties stated in the Declaration, and the vast majority have ratified four or more. Furthermore, Article 01 states: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (United Nations 2015:4). Likewise, Article 02 states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (United Nations 2015:6) Article 03 makes an added clarification that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’ (United Nations 2015:7). However, despite these rights, it is proclaimed in Article 29 that rights to equality and freedom are entwined with duties of responsibilities for all: ‘(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible’ (United Nations 2015:59). Even if nation-states have ratified and accepted the human rights declaration, their actions following the articles’ ambience are patchy. Conversely, in its interpretation, equal rights are ambiguous as it depends on the nation-state’s political, social, cultural and religious ideologies if acceptance and adherence are forthcoming. Historically, the public realm was for males and the private for females. Political rights, such as voting rights and access to political and government employment opportunities, are still primarily dominated by males. Nonetheless, gender inequalities are not restricted to the public sphere. The private domain reflects the public realm, with males and females occupying different power and status positions in the home. Consequently, the males’ more prominent public positions and economic dominance also give them a supremacy advantage over females and children in private and public settings. Notwithstanding present-day progress, gender equality, acceptance of minority ethnic groups’ equal rights, national belonging and religious freedom are still contested. Even though ingrained social and cultural traditions are difficult to change, contemporary educational teaching programmes commonly have incorporated equality components and programmes to educate about the originality of native populations and the significance of ethnic diversity. One example of progress is the United Nations Commission for the Status of Women (CSW57) initiative, Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces and the Safe Cities Free of Violence against Women and Girls, launched in 2010. It was followed in 2013 by identifying various forms of sexual violence against women and girls (SVAWG) in public

50

Theoretical framework and literature review

spaces as a distinct area of concern. They called on governments to introduce preventative measures to limit sexual violence against females. Additionally, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set ‘the elimination of all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres’ as one of its specific goals (UN Women 2019). Unfortunately, significant transformations are painstakingly slow. Overwhelmingly, violence, harassment and discrimination in the public domain have focused on sexual assault. Sexual violence can be seen as the ultimate attack against the right to safety. Consequently, extensive research is focused on sexual violence and harassment (Australian Human Rights Commission 2017, 2018, 2021b). Sexual violence and discrimination habitually include other forms of violation of an individual’s daily private and public life, such as physical, verbal, cultural and social harassment, e.g., violating individuals’ rights to a safe environment. Thus, it is essential to set it in a broader context to explore violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. Henceforth, violence, harassment and discrimination in the public sphere are discussed in this broader perspective, thus beyond sexual harassment, including physical, verbal, social and cultural violence, inhibiting people’s engagement in the public realm. In addition, it embraces LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer) identifying people besides bi-gender groupings of females and males. Minority genders and ethnic groups are, as demonstrated by previous research and mass media reports, increasingly exposed to violence and harassment in the public sphere (Fabiansson 2007, 2010:151ff, 2018; Wieviorka 2003; Lombardi 2009; Vijlbriefa, Saharsob and Ghorashid 2020). Unfortunately, harassment in the public realm can be seen as trivial and not necessarily classified as a crime. For example, an individual who is intensively exposed to starring behaviour, receiving unwanted comments or experiencing wolf-whistling might be insignificant. No physical harm has been committed, but frightening and uncomfortable events for the receiver of the behaviour. Regardless, accepting these incidents creates a “cultural atmosphere” (Kavanaugh 2013:21) where unwanted behaviours are normalised in public settings. Explanations and understandings of violence, harassment and discrimination on the individual level cannot be isolated from society’s ideological and structural level as conveyed by political leaders, society stakeholders, social entrepreneurs and mass media. Therefore, to understand individuals’ perceptions of and attitudes to violence in the public milieu, these actions need to be examined from the perspective of the society’s social, cultural and political ideology. Consequently, political leaders, stakeholders and social entrepreneurs use their power to include or exclude groups of citizens and individuals. Furthermore, they apply systemic and symbolic constraints, such as discriminatory and derogatory language, against individuals and groups that question present-day society’s values and beliefs. These outsiders (Becker 1966) are perceived not to support the prevailing hegemonic society culture and traditions or its political and social agenda.

Theoretical framework and literature review 51 In this context, the focus is on young adults’ assessment of the risks of harassment and violence at the agency level in urban and metropolitan environments. Such as exploring if young adults take or do not take safety precautions when attending university campuses or workplaces, using public transport or visiting the city centre day or night. Young adults are the population group that is one of the most active in the social, cultural and physical public realm. They are primarily within the education system or casual workers, working outside office hours, weekends or late nights. Young people are also frequently engaged in social and cultural entertainment outside their homes, hence extensive involvement in the public domain. Harassment and violence in the public sphere received renewed attention in 2015/16 (December–January) with mass media reports of harassment of females during the Cologne (Köln, Germany) New Year celebrations. This event was followed by mass media reports of harassment during European music festivals. The #MeToo movement (established in October 2017) aided in keeping harassment, gender and ethnic discrimination and violence in the public mass media realm. Since its initiation, the #MeToo movement has become a driving force exposing harassment within the entertainment industry, a trend morphing out to other workplaces. As a facilitator, it helped, in the Australian context, at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, expose sexual harassment by and of elected political leaders and staff. In addition, previously unknown incidents were exposed in mass media by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners programme in 2020 (9 November) and 2021 (22 April) (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2020, 2021a) (see Chapter 6, ‘Interconnectedness between structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values’). However, this is a global issue of sexual misconduct. For instance, former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi was accused of sex-for-hire allegations in 2013, albeit still active in politics. Anita Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Similarly, in 2018 Christine Blasey Ford accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault, which did not disqualify them from being confirmed as Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, the #MeToo movement has highlighted and provided a pathway to acknowledging violence, harassment and discrimination previously secreted and rarely publicly acknowledged. The #MeToo movement has encouraged global discussions about gender inequality and violence. The publicity around violence in the public domain has created an awareness of violence and harassment at educational institutions, workplaces, public transport and social and cultural events in public and private realms. Hence, policies to combat different forms of mistreatment have been introduced in many workplaces, not necessarily to protect victims and whistle-blowers but to present the organisation as a safe workplace that safeguards against legal challenges of future harassment and discriminatory complaints. The following sections focus on reviews of literature and central research underpinning the analysis of structural and agency violence, harassment and discrimination.

52

Theoretical framework and literature review

Symbolic violence discourses A society’s political, religious, social and cultural ideology is ingrained in public and social institutions, including educational curricula and work philosophy. University education and work milieus mirror society’s hegemonic, hierarchical and stratified professional and social status philosophies (Weber 1964, 1968). Likewise, the societal order is manifested in the hegemonic structural ideology, where insiders and outsiders are defined through structural discrimination and enforced by systemic and symbolic violence on the agency level. The focus of this section is symbolic violence. Notwithstanding hegemonic beliefs and values on the structural level, it is a value system removed from citizens’ direct influence. Despite this, the citizens play critical roles in reproducing the societal ideology with its inbuilt superiority and subordinary habitus. The internalisation and acceptance of society’s norms is a lifelong process because internalising societal values become a way of thinking and behaving. It is an inbuilt social and cultural hierarchy of living, adjusted to the profession, social class, gender and ethnicity. Hence, a social stratum is established within the created family and society habitus and reinforced by educational philosophy (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1990a). Correspondingly, the society’s hierarchical structure is carried over into educational institutions, an environment conducive to following the society’s social, cultural, political and financial class system. The stratification is enforced by habitual symbolic violence that imposes directions or constraints on superior or subordinate people. Enforcement of preferred status position through symbolic violence is achieved indirectly and without explicit acts of force, coercion or overt violence by society leaders. The normalisation of the social order makes protest unlikely. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992:168) explain the concept of symbolic violence in the following way, it presupposes on the part of those who are subjected to it a form of complicity which is neither a passive submission to an external constraint nor a free adherence to values … The specificity of symbolic violence resides precisely in the fact that it requires of the person who undergoes it an attitude which defies the ordinary alternative between freedom and constraint. The implementation of symbolic violence is an organic process where the populace, through their family habitus, social and cultural milieu as framed by educational institutions and societal structures, is fashioning and shaping individuals into their social status position within the societal hierarchy. Educational institutions (public vs. private) reinforce society’s ideology, creating an environment of progressively internalised thinking and promoting behaviour aligned with society’s values and beliefs. As a result, people create societal understandings that reflect their lived experiences, internalised beliefs and attitudes, hence moulding a “socialised subjectivity” (Bourdieu 1977:72). Bourdieu (1988:21) states:

Theoretical framework and literature review 53 Legitimation of the social order is not the product of a deliberate and purposive action of propaganda or symbolic imposition; it results, rather, from the fact that agents apply to the objective structures of the social world structures of perception and appreciation which are issued out of these very structures and which tend to picture the world as evident. Durkheim (1995:465) accentuated how socio-political environments shape and configure ‘collective ideas and sentiments’. The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. Furthermore, a single individual does not decide or invent these symbols, ideas, values or ideologies, as it is, more strictly speaking, the populace who collectively creates and fashions them over generations, underpinned by the societal hegemonic ideology. Besides, a nation-state’s social and cultural pluralism is unique as it is initiated by political, economic, religious, cultural and social beliefs and value systems (Nisbet 1996:153). Added factors are nation-states’ association with neighbouring societies, harmony or dissonance, protecting population and ideology homogeneousness or accepting heterogeneity. Societal symbolic violence has implications for agency-level gender equality. For example, even if the research of Bohns and DeVincent (2019) was set in the workplace, their findings show relevance for other sexual violence situations. Settings where females are expected to be pleasant and acquiesce to men’s advances, following the heteronormative sexual script of males’ power and social status above females (Ryan 2011). Nevertheless, despite following the script, females are punished for submissive behaviour when the male does not respond to the female’s customary established gender boundaries concerning, for example, sexual engagement. As a result, males will resort to using force when experiencing female rejection. Henceforth, a female can do and say all the right things that conform to traditional gender role stereotypes and yet still become a victim of sexual violence (Bates 2019:38), thus, a Catch-22 situation, as females habitually do not set the rules for engagement. Ethnic discrimination On a meso-community level, Sutterlüty (2015) analyses collective violence and riots. He notes that even if a situation starts locally, the riots, e.g., the Black Lives Matter movement and the subsequent riots in the US, reignited by Mr George Floyd’s death, can easily modify and amplify. For instance, the phrase that was uttered by Floyd when pinned to the ground by a police officer was, ‘I can’t breathe’ (27 May 2020). The phrase ‘I can’t breathe’ had been used before the Floyd incident by people apprehended by the police and who experienced brutality during the arrest. However, the recording and live streaming of the incident, his last words, ‘I can’t breathe’, became a mantra for the Black Lives Matter movement. A protest movement that spread around the world in 2020. Although mistreatment, profiling and police brutality of African Americans and other minority genders and ethnic groups such as Australian Aboriginal and Torres

54

Theoretical framework and literature review

Strait Islander peoples are not new phenomena. Minority ethnic discrimination is still a persistent undercurrent in many societies. However, technological innovations have facilitated and augmented the role of sharing information and building knowledge about discrimination and violent incidents. For example, in the case of Floyd, mobile phones recording the incident and the use of the world wide web to transmit the ongoing arrest have become powerful tools to make the mistreatment of black people and other minority ethnic individuals publicly visible around the globe. The visualisation of misdeeds and instantaneous distributions through news and social media are twenty-first-century phenomena, albeit not necessarily a hindrance to violence. It has become a powerful tool for citizens to enable and convey information instantaneously about mistreatment. Notwithstanding this, the possibility to upload events still unfolding has also been used to broadcast terrorist classified crimes, e.g., the terrorist attack against Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand (15 March 2019). According to Sutterlüty (2015), riots in recent decades in urban areas in the United States and Europe can be characterised by an undercurrent of social deprivation and ethnic tensions. For example, in the Mr Rodney King case in Los Angeles in 1992 (29 April), four police officers were charged because of a brutal beating of King in 1991 (3 March), but they were found not guilty. The not-guilty verdict ignited new riots, looting and the loss of 53 people. Even if socio-structural inequality and discrimination of minority groups are underlying conditions, they cannot fully explain the trajectory of riots where excessive police violence often exaggerates and unleashes aggressiveness outside the core aims of the riots, even if they had a non-violent and peaceful beginning. For example, concerning the Los Angeles riots, Turner (1994:317) notes how the violence expressed was underpinned by the sense of ‘retaliation for white injustice towards minorities’. The historical and longrunning social, cultural, political and economic equality disputes came to the surface here. Nevertheless, political leaders and social entrepreneurs have a part in stirring up protesters and riots by using disrespectful and derogatory language about the protests’ underpinning causes. For example, the Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, on 19 July 2005, spoke on camera about young “scum” and “rabble” in the banlieues (suburbs), referring to people of Islamic faith living in the outer suburbs of the cities, residential areas seen as melting grounds for terrorism and places fostering criminality (Sutterlüty 2014). Additionally, Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement on the 2011 British riots referred to ‘[T]his is criminality, pure and simple’ (Sutterlüty 2015:65) without acknowledging cultural and socialeconomic inequality factors. Furthermore, President Trump appeared to incite violence in comments concerning Black Life Matters and ethnic minority equality. Additionally, the speech by outgoing President Trump in connection with the presidential confirming process of incoming President Joe Biden can be seen as a precursor to the storming of US Capitol Hill in 2021 (6 January).

Theoretical framework and literature review 55 Another example of the Black Lives Matter movement is this tweet by Trump, seemingly associated with Mr Floyd but simultaneously describing the demonstrators who were seeking justice for Floyd as thugs and criminals. These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you! (Cathey and Keneally 2020) Violence and discrimination against females and minority ethnic minorities have ignited protest marches in most nation-states where lethal violence has been enforced or threatened. For example, the female-driven Iranian protests due to stricter dress codes (September 2022), but also in perceived democratic societies, e.g., the US Black Lives Matter protests marches. An incident about an alleged rape in the Australian House of Parliament, Canberra, brought about an Australian nationwide protest, the “Justice Protest” – “March 4 Justice” (15 March 2021). The protest united hundreds of thousands of females from diverse backgrounds and like-minded males around the country’s major cities and towns. In Canberra, Prime Minister Scott Morrison refused to come outside to meet the protesters. Instead, he commented in the Parliament: ‘Not far from here, such marches, even now are being met with bullets, but not here in this country … it was a triumph that protesters outside Parliament House weren’t met with bullets’. These comments become widely condemned as ‘insensitive, completely inappropriate and saddening’ attitudes towards females by a PM (Lowrey and Snape 2021). Comparable views of condemning protests against discriminative or violent actions and attitudes reflect political leaders’ views about citizens who act outside the dominant political value system in Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Australia, the US, France and Britain, including many other jurisdictions. Hence, the harsher tones refer to the protesters, for example, in England as ‘“feckless criminal underclass” or “mindless, feral youths” that had to be brought to justice’ (Sutterlüty 2014:42; cf. Cooper 2011; Frost and Phillips 2012). In addition, these comments underscore that even if the protesters are citizens of the country, they are not accepted or preferred citizens, as they are perceived as outsiders (Becker 1966). Despite the protesters being born in the country or long-term residents. Applying diversification scenarios between “us versus others” and “insiders versus outsiders” is a well-used strategy to create division and antagonism between population groups. Social, cultural or religious diversity is emphasised while similarities are minimised. An example is the Cronulla beach riots fuelled by conservative influencers and a radio presenter’s encouragement of young AngloAustralians to participate in the riots and defend “their” beach from minority ethnic young adults from the Western multicultural suburbs of Sydney (Australia) (Fabiansson 2018). Thus to “defend” a beach becomes a reason for a riot, a public beach that belongs to all citizens. This tactic to emphasise diversity and group preferences is an established divisive policy strategy by political leaders, social

56

Theoretical framework and literature review

entrepreneurs and mass media to conceptualise favouritism and create a feeling of nationalist belonging sentiments for selected groups, the insiders (Becker 1966). Even if a protest is peaceful and non-violent, there is a fringe aspect that, according to Collins (2008:98, 243ff), gives the rioters leeway in actions and a “moral holiday” from being law-abiding citizens. Some rules are broken but not others, thus a collective disregard for some lawbreaking. Selective lawbreaking was practised in the Black Lives Matter protests, where looting was discouraged and fellow protesters hindered protesters from taking part in the ransacking of shops. Turner (1994) stresses that the motivating actions to participate in a riot are not necessarily purely generated by the original reason for the event. Instead, they can morph into edge actions. Nevertheless, there is one important respect in which the diverse riot participants are thinking alike. The emergent norm has provided a common lens through which to see and understand what they and other participants are doing. For most of them, this is a lens that gives their actions meanings that are different from the meanings they would have assigned to such actions at other times. They are also different meanings from those held by counterrioters or peace-makers. Whether it is physically assaulting or harassing an “enemy”, burning or vandalizing properly, or looting, it is seen as righting a wrong or bringing public attention to that wrong when institutionally acceptable means have failed. (Turner 1994:317–318) Thus, riots have a trajectory, with edge actions more likely to take form in the later stage of the riot, subsequently moving away from honouring the primary intention of the riot. From this perspective, edge actions become legitimate in the context of the riot trajectory, and lawbreaking activities become sanctioned or marginally accepted. Moreover, political leaders’ comments, mass media, police or military invention often amplified the trajectory of the riots. Consequently, the riot’s original aim changes with new emerging meanings coming to light during the riot, thus ‘nullification of meanings that are normally salient’ (Turner 1994:318, italics in original). Therefore, in the French (2005) and British (2011) riots, the main motive was revenge against the police and state authorities. Hence acceptable to destroy institutions and protest against the regulations and laws they represented (Mucchielli 2009:740–741). Furthermore, Dubet (1997:225ff, 232–233, 2003) describes violence-prone and rebellious youths in the suburbs as the “paradox of cultural assimilation”. The circumstance where the chiefly young male rioters are culturally integrated into the majority society. They have internalised the dominating cultural belief and value systems of the society. However, the majority population will still consider the rebellious youths as outsiders, conveying to the minority ethnic youths a feeling of exclusion and injustice in treatment. These young males do not discern that they are given the same opportunities as native French youths. Thus, symbolic

Theoretical framework and literature review 57 obstacles and discrimination due to ethnic belonging are at play, violating their human rights to safety and life prospects because of their heritage. The discrimination is felt emotionally and in practice, even if no laws or regulations directly can be identified as an imposing limitation on them as citizens. Lapeyronnie (2009:43) points to a missing link in present-day low socio-economic and culturally diverse suburbs. Traditional community cohesion with local social and cultural associations and labour unions has disappeared in communities with high youth unemployment. Consequently, the community’s social control, extended families and grassroots engagement have been lost, thus creating a vacuum of emptiness and a lack of direction for young people’s future pathways. Younge (2011) referred to the same setting as the British rioters in 2011, where the youths could be characterised as “political orphans”. Newly arrived young migrants, refugees from war-torn countries, into a new social and cultural society is difficult, particularly without intergenerational family support to uphold cultural and social norms. Consequently, outsiders in a new country have difficulties managing expectations and establishing societal belonging. Hence, these young people, often young males, suffer marginalisation within education systems and employment markets without the guidance of their immediate and intergenerational extended family network. In this setting, boredom and outsider status are created and prevail. Being outside the education and workforce environment, they have ample free time. To occupy themselves, they assemble with like-minded in the public domain to seek comfort, belonging and social status. Henceforth, these groups of perceived outsiders become a threat to societal beliefs and value systems, including social order. Another portrayal of minority ethnic groups proposed by Benyon (2012:13) is that the riots symbolised the ‘ballot boxes of the poor’. Again, an indication of a continuum of the two-class society as discussed by Marx and Engels, not wealth derived but an ethnic heritage divide (Marx and Engels 1973). Thus, in principle, young people and young adults are removed from influencing the political realm and political leaders, as the gaps between local community life and structural societal values and beliefs are unfathomable. Therefore, physical revenge and retribution become the last resource and sometimes the only available power left for these young people to be heard, ‘expressed in violence against a state that had failed to keep its promise and had trampled on the claim to civic equality’ (Sutterlüty 2014:69). An Australian example highlighting where language is used to denigrate not only government policies but also the person is the neoliberal protest march in 2011, where the political opposition leader (Mr Antony [Tony] Abbot), together with the Australian wealthiest female business leader (Ms Gina Rinehart). They participated in a demonstration against a carbon trading scheme (Emissions Trading Scheme - ETS). They chose to speak in front of people displaying signs of derogative slogans against the Australian Prime Minister (Ms Julia Gillard) outside the Australian Parliament (Canberra, 23 March 2011). The background placards displayed discriminatory and sexist derogatory language, for example, ‘ditch the bitch’, ‘Bob Brown’s Bitch’ and ‘Ju-liar’. A scenario that became

58

Theoretical framework and literature review

widely broadcasted throughout mass media. The speakers might not have actively promoted the signs, but they gave them prominence by sharing the podium with the protesters holding the placards. Following extensive verbal sexism, abuse and misogyny against the PM in the Parliament of Australia, outside by mass media, neoliberal conservative social entrepreneurs, industrialist and radio broadcasters, Prime Minister Gillard’s misogyny speech in the Parliament was an overdue wakeup call about disdainful sexism in the Australian House of Parliament. A speech that, with swiftness, spread throughout the world’s news media, albeit hardly acknowledged by Australian mass media until the international mass media published the story. I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man [Tony Abbot]. I will not … If he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he does not need a motion in the House of Representatives – he needs a mirror … I was also offended when the leader of the opposition went outside in the front of Parliament and stood in front of a sign that said ‘Ditch the Witch.’ I was offended when the leader of the opposition stood next to a sign that described me as a ‘man’s bitch.’ I was offended by those things. Misogyny, sexism, every day from this leader of the opposition. (Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 9 October 2012; Sydney Morning Herald 10 October 2012) The normalness in using misogynist and sexist language, derogatory words and phrases aims to incite incompetence, fear and danger of females occupying powerful and influential societal roles on the structural level. These patriarchal hegemonic ideology attitudes are filtered down to the agency level and individual values and thoughts of accepted language, thus creating an ambience that is acceptable behaviour. It gives people in leading positions on the agency level a presumed endorsement to likewise be dismissive of population groups, females and citizens not adhering to the binary gender profile, marginalising citizens of diverging beliefs, ethnicity and faith. The young adult research of incidents reported by the victims and bystanders of violence and harassment emphasises that attitudes towards intolerance of diversity have structural connotations filtering down to the agency level (see Chapter 4, ‘Agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination’). The young adults describe what it means not to feel safe from male colleagues’ advances, to be fearful of reactions to what they say and to how they present themselves. Subsequently, the implications of experiences of risky situations, as replicated from the structural and systemic discriminatory attitudes, highlight the limitations in creating an environment free of violence and discrimination for all citizens. These examples of derogative and discriminative attitudes against young people, females, minority genders and ethnic groups, as presented on the hegemonic structural level, have agency-level implications (see Chapter 6). Hence, violence and harassment of citizens are internalised from structural, systemic and symbolic discrimination, where some citizens are given preference over others.

Theoretical framework and literature review 59 Notwithstanding the countless incidents, it is difficult to make people aware of systemic and symbolic violence, harassment and discrimination at structural and agency levels, as systemic discrimination is ingrained into the society’s hegemonic societal, cultural and social fabric. It primarily belongs to the majority of ethnic, language and population groups, the elite that dominates societal political, legal, economic, social, cultural and religious frameworks. This section leads into the theoretical framework of agency position in discrimination, harassment and violence in the public domain; however, there can be a floating line between the structure and agency levels.

Language discourses The use of language, accent or phrasing gives a pertinent illustration of how systemic and symbolic discrimination and inequality are governed. The hegemonic structural level’s prescribed language, accent and pronunciation usually identify the citizen as native or non-native. Globally, the English, French, Portuguese, German, Spanish or Chinese languages, as examples, are spoken outside the borders of their native nation-states. Each nation-state has its unique choice of words and phrases, pronunciation and accent. Notwithstanding adhering to the same language group, pronunciation, articulation, accent and meanings of words and phrases separate citizens into insiders and outsiders. Moreover, the localised use of language is distinct; e.g., English is spoken in England, Scotland, the USA, Australia and India, all belonging to the same language group. Still, each country uses slightly different pronunciations, phrases and colloquial words, adjusted to the social and cultural environment. Moreover, in the present-day globally interconnected employment market, students and young people’s international movements, diversity in accents and pronunciations within a society are increasingly common. Nevertheless, the native populace will hold an insider advantage over nonnatives who have gained permanent residency or citizenship through migration or heritage association. Even if language proficiency and social and cultural knowledge about traditions can be achieved, a migrant whose language and ethnic belonging are noticeably different from the majority population will still be considered a foreigner. Likewise, different accentuations, pronunciations or accents affect citizens’ acceptance and societal belonging. An added issue is if people’s ethnic or skin colour diverts noticeably from the majority populace, independently of being long-time residents or born in the country, they are classified as outsiders. Consequently, the naturalised residents with non-native accents and/or contrasting ethnic presentations become classified as outsiders or not “genuine” citizens. This classification approach raises barriers for naturalised residents. Although they might have come as young children, gone through compulsory education or might have arrived as students and gained university degrees in the adopted nation-state. Moreover, despite being fluent in the majority language and accentuation, they frequently have difficulties being accepted as truthful

60

Theoretical framework and literature review

and qualified professionals or citizens when competing for employment and promotions. Language accents and pronunciations are habitually identifiable to geographical areas. People’s language skills identify insiders from outsiders. This is a significant discriminative issue within an increasingly multicultural education and employment market. It is a familiar setting within universities with student cohorts from first-generation university students, migrants and refugees from Middle Eastern, African and Asian nation-states, thus an exceedingly socially and culturally diverse student population. However, multicultural diversity is often not reflected in the academic staff cohort, management or university leadership. An illustration of the preference for native language staff and students within the university environment is, for instance, when the nation-state’s native student cohort complains about language pronunciation and accent. If the academic staff is non-native speaking, the complaint will be considered a significant educational obstacle for the native students. Notwithstanding that such a complaint made by a non-native language speaking student, it would rather be dismissed as a non-issue and be up to the student to upskill her/his language skills. In the case of the native language students, it is about equality and fairness. However, previous lack of exposure to multi-language settings might challenge students to acknowledge that there is no “correct” way of a spoken language but variations in intonation and accentuation in all language groups. Exposure to such diversity in minority ethnic, social and cultural milieus is one of the benefits of the university environment and should not be treated as a disadvantage. It is noteworthy to acknowledge that the singularity of language accents and accentuation is a rarity. Social, cultural and habitual manner of speaking influence the pronunciation and use of phrases within a society; e.g., people living in Wales have a different pronunciation than residents in Scotland, the US or India, albeit all speaking English. Thus, language discrimination ignores social, cultural and language diversity and stipulates the nation-states’ hegemonic ideology in emphasising the significance of the native language as the norm. Therefore, any diversion from this “correct” pronunciation or use of phrases is denounced. The university milieu is increasingly multi-ethnic, students choose to study abroad and staff are employed worldwide, thus an environment where discrimination because of language proficiency can be an issue often compounded by intersectionality, e.g., racism. Academic management steeped in the mainstream hegemonic societal culture would not necessarily see it as offensive to complain about language pronunciations but as supporting staff about their “non-correct” spoken language and encouraging them to adopt the “normal” and prescribed formula. Unfortunately, language is an easily divisive discriminative tool demonstrating social, cultural and ethnic tone-deafness, misunderstanding and disregard for ethnic diversity. Nevertheless, in the global milieu and internalisation of academic staff and students in university settings, it is confounding that such thinking still lingers. Nevertheless, there are benefits and necessities to embracing diversity in ethnic belonging, multilingualism and inter-language diversity.

Theoretical framework and literature review 61 Language diversity encapsulates how citizens internalise societal values and beliefs and set the guiding principle and reference for societal life and communication. Thus, not fitting into that framework becomes an encumbrance for nonnative-speaking educators, notwithstanding their qualifications and competence. Hence diversity becomes disruptive and upsetting, not necessarily for all students in the university setting, but for a dominant few. Besides this, the increased globalisation raises questions about why students are not taught cultural, social and language diversity within the compulsory education system. For instance, in the employment market, people will meet clients of diverse ethnic, socio-economic and cultural heritage, including clients with various levels of language proficiency, pronunciations or phrases. Preferably, the curriculum design of university courses should embrace globalism and incorporate multi-language and multi-ethnic understandings within the teaching, supporting graduates in future collaboration with diverse ethnic, social, cultural and language populaces. For example, within the university setting, language, social and cultural understandings also emphasise the connection between course subjects, units and academic staff’s ethnicity and gender. Course and unit evaluations [Student Evaluation of Unit – SEU] are focused on subject content and its outcomes, while staff teaching evaluations [Student Evaluation of Teaching – SET] relate to assessing the academic staff’s teaching performance (Boring, Ottoboni and Stark 2016; Uttl and Smibert 2017). An added factor often missed in the evaluation analysis is the influence of student demographics and who is responding to the evaluations. In principle, two groups respond to SETs, those satisfied with the teaching of the academic staff and expect a good mark. The other group includes those who are overall discontented, showing low attendance and disregarding readings and deadlines. Thus, they are not necessarily dissatisfied with the unit’s curriculum or teaching delivery but generally dissatisfied with their situation. In this context, Uttl and Smibert (2017) highlight that these evaluations are not aimed to be used for promotion and career prospects. Nevertheless, teaching evaluations influence the university leadership when restructuring staff positions and hiring and firing academic staff (Arthur 2009; Shah and Nair 2012; Boring, Ottoboni and Stark 2016). Unfortunately, they are also used to question the staff’s teaching pedagogy, practices and students’ non-pass rate, as funding often depends on students graduating within a set timeframe. Consequently, it is not unusual that academic staff are vigorously queried and sometimes in an intimidating manner about marking and pass rates by the school or college leadership. Moreover, a low pass rate alludes to the shortcomings of the academic staff, notwithstanding that the staff is presented with insufficient teaching resources and an increasing student cohort that is insufficiently prepared for independent studying at the university level. In addition, academics face a stressful environment with increased workload. Furthermore, habitually, teaching evaluations are evaluated without considering prejudicing factors such as gender, age, disability, sexual affiliation, culture or social characteristics of the academic (Valencia 2020). In this vein, an informative reflection regarding discrimination is this quote by the research findings of MacNell, Driscoll and Hunt (2015:301).

62

Theoretical framework and literature review If female professors and instructors are continually receiving lower evaluations from their students for no other reason than that they are women, then this particular form of inequality needs to be taken into consideration as women apply for academic jobs and come up for promotion and review. … Therefore, the continued use of student ratings of teaching as a primary means of assessing the quality of an instructor’s teaching systematically disadvantages women in academia.

Additionally, Heffernan (2021:9) concludes that no university or higher education sector ‘can declare to be a gender equal employer or have an interest in growing a safe, inclusive and diverse workforce if they continue using SETs to evaluate course and teacher quality’.

Gender creeds In numerous societies, cultural and social traditions still adhere to and facilitate male domination over females in the public realm, likewise, the private domain. Even if strategies are present to enable adjustments in gender roles in the twentyfirst century, equal standing between genders nevertheless requires significant re-evaluations of the commonly patriarchal hegemonic structural ideology and nation-state leadership structure in present-day societies. However, it is also necessary to alter public sentiments to underwrite genuine gender equality policy. Besides, authentic reforms need to be strengthened with enforceable strategies throughout all societal levels, with set timeframes and prompt progress evaluation. However, with few exceptions, it is currently difficult to detect tangible and genuine trajectories of gender equality on societal structural levels. Feminist movements for equality throughout the 1900–2000 centuries, particularly the gains reached during the 1960–1990 period, seem to have stagnated or come to a snail-paced trajectory in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, differences and clarification of the formation of feminine and masculine ideologies have been the theme of countless studies. For example, the masculine role is consistently characterised as being strong, fearless, and demonstrating braveness (Goodey 1997; Connell 1987). On the other hand, females are assumed to be weak, afraid of the public sphere and less intellectually and mentally capable of being part of the public domain (Young 1990; Hirtenlehner and Farrall 2014; Graham et al. 2016; Özascilar 2013). Gender roles and traditions are ideology-based, thus, only questioned when confronted by conflicting social and cultural gender values and belief systems. Bredström (2003) has highlighted the difference between mass media portrayal of minority ethnic citizens’ understanding of masculinity. The setting where the majority traditions’ hegemonic masculinity becomes the norm against which other minority masculinities are assessed and classified as outsiders or insiders. For example, a young male who does not accept or fit into the majority hegemonic masculinity role will threaten the normalised stereotypical model of masculinity and be classified as anomalous, an outsider and not a “real” male.

Theoretical framework and literature review 63 Each culture presents its own social and cultural framework of masculinity and femininity. A diversion from long-held values creates suspicion of non-native citizens when confronted with unfamiliar attitudes about ethnic belonging, social class and gender roles. The society’s hegemonic ideology, communicated through mass media, interprets the preferred norms and roles, which might clash with minority gender and ethnic traditions (Fabiansson 2018). This silo thinking of gender roles marginalises and excludes contrasting beliefs of accepted social and cultural roles held by non-citizens or perceived outsiders from mainstream society. Creating a ‘hegemonic view … that there is a palpable difference between “our” patriarchy and “theirs” where “ours” is clearly preferable’ (Bredström 2003:82). Nevertheless, initially diverse social and cultural gender traditions create confusion. For non-native minority groups and newly arrived migrants, it is a process to adjust, accept, understand and make sense of the adopted society’s customary and traditional gender roles and norms around social and cultural interactions (cf. Hobbs, O’Brien and Westmarland 2007; Gracia and Merlo 2016). Notwithstanding this, it can be an arduous self-contradictory experience. If the migrants’ native cultural, social and habitus of conservative male-dominant ideology conflict with the new country’s more equally developed gender philosophy, additionally, if stipulated gender equality, equal rights to education, employment and independence, policies that are foreign criteria for non-citizens. Moreover, society’s cultural, social and political institutions reflect the ideology and people’s attitudes and actions in believing that females and males are allocated different gender roles and places in society. This gender segregation also can embrace intersectionality aspects where accepting ethnic diversity becomes dependent on internalised perceptions of equality as practised by social and political institutions. Consequently, females of minority heritage can experience intersectionality of disadvantage, as habitual negative beliefs about female status and minority ethnic belonging are influenced by hegemonic ideology, social norms and customs cultivated on the society’s structural level and internalised on the agency level (cf. Yamawaki 2007:37, re. sexual violence). Furthermore, Gerber (1991) notes that boys and men in Western culture are socialised around masculine gender norms and values that dictate them to be self-reliant, stoic and powerful. From this follow a created milieu where males are assumed to identify as having a birth right to a dominant masculine public and private social and cultural status. Such a masculine belief and values system contributes to the acceptance of gender and power inequality, including the classification of citizens (Vogel et al. 2011). Underpinning the unequal gender role perspective was highlighted in Bates’ (2019:38) study about the abuse of males. The male gender role, as portrayed in the study, perceived it a weakness to be abused by either gender or classified as a victim of violence, a violation of the stereotypical masculine ideology, hence, to be seen as “weak”. This is one explanation for a low male reporting rate of violence and discrimination acts to the authorities. Glick and Fiske (1996, 2006) divide sexism into “hostile sexism” and “benevolent sexism” the sexism discourse has negative and positive connotations

64

Theoretical framework and literature review

concerning females’ roles. The hostile sexism perspective refers to a traditional conceptualisation of gender discrimination where disadvantaged groups, e.g., females, are viewed negatively. Here females are rejected as being equal to males grounded on a patriarchal society philosophy. Moreover, males’ negative values and the trustworthiness of females dismiss feminist ideology, e.g., campaigning for equal access to education and pay and access to professional and leadership positions. Equality ambitions that threaten males’ traditional power and leadership status. From this perspective, the equality trajectory means that females violate conventional social and cultural gender norms and contradict the stipulated patriarch societal setting. In contrast, the benevolent sexism or positive standpoint of sexism refers to subjectivity, applying a patronising judgement of females. Henceforth an idealisation of females who embrace classical gender divisions with stereotypically feminine gender roles. Glick and Fiske (2000) propose that females adhering to benevolent sexist roles support male dominance and express femininity and vulnerability to fit into the masculinity frame. The females who observe these norms will be rewarded with male protection. Henceforth, masculine patriarchal instilled gender ideology, for example, gives females’ qualifications, knowledge, professionalism and skills attribute less value than males, even if the same outcome is gained. This includes an undervaluation of achievements, particularly if the female exceeds the male’s qualifications and skills. This divisive belief system inevitably undermines gender equality. Furthermore, the dogma that females are of lesser value or benefit to the public realm is aided by excluding females from formal and informal meetings, being selective with information flow to female staff and restricting the sharing of career-enhancing information. These structural, systemic and symbolic discrimination strategies make females’ career pathways more limited and convoluted to gain equality.

Violence, harassment and discrimination on the structural level The language of violence, harassment, discrimination and the definition of risk events have altered over time, signifying changes to human conditions and people’s life worlds (Beck 2007). In genealogical studies during the nineteenth century, risk and violence were analysed not as a language but as a way of thinking (Ewald 1991). Presently, the understanding of risk, harassment or violence is grounded within the individual’s social and cultural milieu, where societal changes and technological discoveries continuously entice and influence people’s behaviour. For example, technology that does not necessarily protect against violation (mobile phones). Its benefit is in the ability to record and document an incident. Moreover, mobile technology also facilitates harassment and discrimination of individuals, with the added security of protecting the perpetrators’ anonymity. Hence, present-day technology is a powerful tool that allows cyberspace bullying

Theoretical framework and literature review 65 and trolling of young people, females, political leaders, social and cultural artists and entertainers, journalists or others disapproved thoroughly by the perpetrator. Additionally, with present-day technology, bullying and trolling citizens because of their opinions, political views, gender or nationality, can be done anonymously by available technology. Nothing restricts an individual from having a handful of social media accounts, using fake names and using different carriers. The targeted individuals or organisations are publicly shamed and discredited, creating stress and anxiety and influencing individuals’ work and social positions. Thus, it becomes a choice to keep quiet, not acknowledge the harassment, or protest. However, protesting risks the individual being stigmatised as a troublemaker, and this might be a reason not to voice or admit that the harassing actions are taking a toll on the individual’s wellbeing. In addition, rightly or wrongly, the victim might assume that a reaction would exacerbate the abuse. In this case, power becomes interlinked with violence (see section ‘Power discourses’ above), a relationship Arendt has extensively analysed and how the atmosphere of inequality, lack of power, human equity and opportunities create an environment conducive to violence and discrimination on all societal levels. Arendt’s discourse about power and violence proposes a distinction between these concepts; where power is the capacity to act in concert (1970:44) and can be an end in itself (1970:52). In contrast, violence is the ‘hope of those who have no power’ (1970:52). Subsequently, violence becomes a means to achieve status and respect for those who lack power through profession or social class. Violence is applied to give illegitimate powerholders authority over less fortunate citizens, such as females and minority ethnic groups, societal or political nonconformists, the outsiders. However, this scenario does not necessarily explain why people in power positions, political leaders, stakeholders and social entrepreneurs use disparaging language and violence-infused actions to gain personal advantages and “benefits”, despite having professional or powerful status positions. One explanation could be that an individual occupying the position does not have the staff management qualifications or skills necessary to carry out assumed responsibilities satisfactorily. However, there are always exceptions to not strictly following pertinent meritorious qualifications and experiences for the leadership position. Thus, preference for meritorious education and experiences might be peripheral when other qualifications are more conducive to gaining society-level authority positions, for instance, belonging to society’s dominating political and financial elite, gender, political, social and cultural values and beliefs, including being part of the accepted or preferred profession, social and cultural networks. For instance, when people in powerful positions, such as politicians, social entrepreneurs and media personalities, disparage and verbally attack citizens, they classify as outsiders. These communicators have the means and ability to engage an audience of like-minded by communicating offensive and violence-inspired language through talkback radio, the internet and social media. The use of social media and internet networks has taken over in-person meetings to organise protests, as happened during the Australian Cronulla riots in 2005, where a Sydneybased talkback radio broadcaster created a protest crowd against ethnic minority

66

Theoretical framework and literature review

groups. This technique has become a common way of communicating to organise targeted protests within a brief period. For example, the organisation of US-wide Black Life Matters protests, Reclaim the Nights/Reclaim the Streets, a protest sparked by the murder of Sarah Everard UK, political protests in Myanmar against the junta, females marching in Iran against the regime’s strict dress code, as well as the Extinction Rebellion pop-up protests. These protests are often streamed live for enhanced publicity. Changes in population compositions were a primary cause of the Cronulla riots, a predominantly white Anglo-Australian population drawing on its English heritage (Fabiansson 2018; Pointing 2006). Thus, some citizens are wary of minority ethnic young people from predominately Middle Eastern but also Asian and African heritage. In addition, multiculturism is progressing in Australia, as in many other nation-states. For instance, most minority ethnic residents born overseas live in Sydney (48%), Greater Sydney at 37%. In New South Wales [NSW], the corresponding percentage is 28%, and in Australia overall, 26% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016), hence a multicultural concentration to the Sydney area, which periodically is prone to an undercurrent of conflicts. This circumstance contributes to a fear of social and cultural changes among the primarily conservative Anglo-Australian long-time residents’ territory, the fear of competing with an influx of young adults from non-English speaking nations. Lash (1993, 2000), among others, has stressed the importance of the cultural environment and its centrality in the social construct of violence and risk. Subsequently, risk and harassment beliefs are often based on sociality, inter-subjectivity, group behaviour or thought rather than the individual forming beliefs of hatred in isolation. Lash emphasises the need for group behaviour where likeminded come together, such as to create a protest movement aided by unifying social influencers and mass media. Consequently, attitudes and values have a habitual foundation, where the cultural and social environment signifies beliefs of how possible risk scenarios influence people’s social behaviour and consciousness about wrongs but also about frightful events. Moreover, interpretations of situations, personal knowledge and previous experiences of harassment will impact the individual’s reactions (Bourdieu 1977). Accordingly, each society and its different eras develop unique vocabularies and languages to disentangle meanings of violence, harassment, discrimination, risk, fear and safety. It is often not the spoken words, abstract meanings or the language sentences but the enactment of tones and gestures that define the interpretation of the communication. Subsequently, it becomes the recipient’s interpretation of the interaction that induces fear or safety. Consequently, deciphering communications and interpreting words and phrases and their connotations at a specific time demand skillfully honed attributes refined throughout the populace’s social and cultural habitus (Bourdieu 1984; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Nevertheless, this prowess is not easily understood by non-native citizens. Furthermore, societal hegemonic ideology and social and cultural traditions underpin the acceptable and unacceptable use of languages, words and phrases.

Theoretical framework and literature review 67 Although sections of any society developed distinct use of the language, pronouncing words and usage of expressions. For example, the language used by the legal profession, academics, political leaders, social entrepreneurs and social media influencers differs from that used by friends and family members. Thus, social and cultural traditions frame the language and its meanings. Additionally, what is classified as acceptable and what is offensive depends on the interpreter. These habitus meanings include understanding expectations or presumptions of what will transpire in the public realm. It is reinforced by skills developed through habitual experiences and observations, creating an environment where people know what to expect and understand expectations, thus normalness. In diplomatic circles, the language is very measured and polite, even if the diplomats, political leaders and the general population interpret the meanings differently and assess the context of discussions from diverse perspectives. Notwithstanding this, citizens can easily understand their meanings with more plainly stated words, including communication between nation-states. For example, clearly spoken words aimed at the wider audience can be demonstrated by the case where Australia had agreed to buy submarines from France, a contract negotiated in 2016 and officially signed in 2019. Despite the recently signed agreement between France and Australia, the contract was reneged by Australia (16 September 2021) without formal or direct communication between French President Emmanuel Macron and the then Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison. Except for the financial implications and the expected diplomatic communication civility, the reneging of the contract from the Australian side was a surprise for the French government. The French anger was publicly visible in the language exchange, displaying more direct public communication in plain language than the customary diplomatic exchanges. The French counterpart felt they were kept in the dark about a new agreement secretly negotiated between Australia, the UK and the USA. In a news conference at the G20 Summit in Rome, Italy (30–31 October 2021), French President Macron was asked by Australian journalists about the cancelling of the contract and if he had prior knowledge about it. President Macron responded that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was lying about having informed him prior to the joint public announcement by President Biden, Prime Ministers Johnson and Morrison. Marcon responded to the question, ‘Do you think he [Mr Morrison] lied to you?’ with ‘I don’t think, I know’. The response was a personal comment directed at Mr Morrison, not against the Australian people or country, as President Macron succinctly declared: ‘I have a lot of respect for your country. I have a lot of respect – and a lot of friendship – for your people’ (Feik 2021). Notwithstanding this, it was a sensational and perspicuously worded public exchange on the world stage between nation-state leaders. Mr Morrison deflected President Macron’s characterisation of lying to him by saying he resented any slur against Australia. However, this misrepresents the communication exchange because the comment related to Morrison personally, not the country. Nevertheless,

68

Theoretical framework and literature review

it suited the Australian prime minister to deflect the comment, generalise it and refer it to Australia, the nation-state being lied to (Murthy 2021). Changing the meaning of words and deflecting them is not an uncommon strategy in the political sphere. Although, it was extraordinary unambiguous language to broadcast publicly between nation-state leaders and directed to a nation-state’s leader on the world stage. In this case, the use and interpretation of the words’ significance, ‘I don’t think, I know’ are evident to most people. Moreover, the assumed meaning or interpretation of words and phrases will affect how the public sphere perceives political leaders on the structural level. For instance, Macron stated his inference of the communication that he knew Morrison was dishonest about the procedure undertaken to cancel the submarine contract with France. Furthermore, interconnections between the hegemonic structural and agency levels are profound. For instance, praising language from political leaders, stakeholders and social entrepreneurs levelled towards citizens belonging to the preferred social, cultural, political and ethnic cohorts enhances social belonging. In contrast, derogative and discriminating language will contribute to alienation and feelings of outsiderness. The outsiders, who do not fit into the stereotypical political, cultural, social, religious or gender binary patterns, might be perceived as standing out from the majority population, albeit factually necessarily displaying noticeable differences. Despite this, they become identified as strangers. Therefore, a perceived dissimilarity attracts displeasure and is regarded as a threat to societal norms. Unfortunately, outsiders are at risk of violence and harassment in the public realm on the individual level during evenings and nights, in everyday life situations, on public transport, in workplaces or social settings, for no real reason except for not adhering to the hegemonic ideology and majority ethnic populace. It is primarily political leaders, social entrepreneurs and social influencers who legitimise and convey societal vocabulary through mass media. These public figures frame the normalness of the official language. For example, as discussed above, the influence of radio and television broadcasters as significant trendsetters and giving normalness to derogative language, e.g., calling the female prime minister (PM 2010–2013) of Australia (Ms Julia Gillard) ‘Ju-liar’ and ‘Ditch the Witch’. Additionally, if words are frequently repeated and publicly associated with social influencers, political parties and individuals, it normalises the language. For instance, politicians and key industry advocators standing in front of offensive signs at political protest rallies, e.g., against the female PM and the Labor Party at the Parliament House, Canberra, Australia (23 March 2011). Even if the opposition leader, politicians and industry representatives were in front of these signs, they might not use the words themselves. Instead, they gave credence to them by participating in the speeches and chanting. The setting could be interpreted as supporting the name-calling and endorsing the slogans. The perceived public endorsement was further enhanced by the protest speeches broadcasted throughout national television networks, news and social media, emphasising the message. For many people, name-callings are offensive, but if a message is

Theoretical framework and literature review 69 recurrently broadcasted, the derogative words in different mediums will legitimise and normalise the phases, including augmenting attitudes of negativism about female leaders. Significantly, repetitions of negative images and derogative vocabulary facilitate its acceptance and normalise the negative words. It also implies that, in this case, female PM, females are incompetent in holding nation-leading positions. Thus, the hegemonic structural level legitimises and normalises the language and attitudes to attack opposing political leaders and outsiders, making it acceptable and legit among like-minded individuals on the agency level to do the same. Consequently, it is not surprising that disparaged language flows to the agency level, becoming acceptable words and phrases and incorporated into everyday language. In addition, individuals’ use of derogative language is done without public or private backlash. Thus, a seamless transition in internalising and normalising derogatory language against people of disagreeable views and opinions, including females, minority genders and ethnic groups. However, the disparaging vocabulary does not necessarily refer to what is said or done; instead, it is about naming who belongs to society, referring to and incorporating attitudes against heritage, being a female, non-binary classified gender, belonging to an ethnic, faith or political minority group, or intersectionality of factors. Furthermore, outsider attitudes can be extended to disagreement about political and religious values that the antagonising individual or organisation detest. The political and social leaders of the society frame the culture of communication. For instance, elected members and staff of federal and state governments would preferably reflect the socio-democratic profile of the populace, but that is not the case for most nation-states. Middle-class males dominate in the most prestigious positions and supporting staff categories. Illustrative is the Australian Federal Government, the House of Representatives (Lower House) has 46 females out of 151 elected members (31% females) and in the Senate (Upper House), 39 females out of 76 elected members (51%) (December 2020). Moreover, in the Australian Federal Parliament, the combined gender distribution for the governing Coalition party in the House of Representatives and the Senate was 23% females in 2021, while for the then opposition Labor Party, it was 47%. Overall, most of the elected parliamentarians are of Anglo-Australian heritage. Consequently, the Parliament of Australia does not reflect the First Nation Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or the multicultural nature of the Australian population, neither in terms of gender nor ethnic diversity or faith. The diversity imbalances are also demonstrated in supporting politically employed staff, with males overrepresented in higher positions, creating a milieu of positive prejudice towards the superiority of white, middle-class male ideology and attitudes (Parliament of Australia 2021). Gender and diversity inequality in the Australian Federal Parliament is discussed in Chapter 6. Harassment and violence are often hidden crimes, but when complaints of discrimination at workplaces are made, the action is fraught with risks to the complainer, albeit not necessarily to the perpetrator. The complainant becomes, perhaps indirectly, a reason for demoting the victim or making the work

70

Theoretical framework and literature review

environment unbearable, thus obliging the complainer to leave the employment position to safeguard their own mental and physical wellbeing. Besides, after an internal investigation of harassment, violence or discrimination, there is no safeguarding that the victim or whistle-blower will retain their career paths within the organisation. Consequently, being quiet and saying yes and kowtowing to people in power are well-practised strategies for promotion and upward career trajectories, aside from meritorious achievements, skills and experiences. Additionally, staff proposing constructive criticism, an opposing opinion or critiques of management decisions and the leadership group are rarely taken seriously and appreciated, even if organisations benefit from diverse viewpoints.

Agency-level violence Like most people, young adults might feel fearful or apprehensive when entering unknown social and cultural public environments, unlike their safe family milieu. Commonly, the private sphere creates a comforting habitus, a “socialised subjectivity”, a supportive social environment and cultural structures scaffolding the life cycle, all assembled in people’s bodies and minds (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:126; Wacquant 2004). Ideally, the family-created habitus is a reassuring and formative environment, although not for all young people. In this milieu, the structures shape a wide variety of behaviours, beliefs, values and thoughts, ‘the practices produced by habitus, as the strategy-generating principle enabling agents to cope with unforeseen and ever-changing situations’ (Bourdieu 1977:72). Hence, a familiar environment where members understand the rules and responsibilities and limitations of their social status position. It is also a milieu where systemic and symbolic violence is integrated to uphold private and public social orders, but their normalness often makes it unrecognised. Thus, to be in the public sphere is to break from a “comfortable” family setting to a situation demanding individual responsibility. The public realm stipulates that individuals take control of their safety and avoid risky situations. Moreover, it also requires young adults to take on adult roles with study, work, finances and living arrangements (Furlong and Cartmel 2007:11). Being independent and part of the public sphere becomes a new life course outside the family’s comfort zone (O’Boyle 2015). Therefore, young adults are required to be responsible for continuously assessing their public environment’s safety. At the same time, they are required to negotiate the risks of violence and harassment in pursuing study, work, entertainment or leisure activities (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Wacquant 2004). Notwithstanding this, to be young is to take risks, challenge traditions, try new things and question personal strengths and abilities, thus balancing challenging boundaries and risk-taking. Likewise, still, be mindful of staying safe in the public realm. Individuals internalise and transfer their society’s social and cultural ideology, family habitus and social status throughout their lives into school and university settings, followed by employment environments. As a result, the university setting

Theoretical framework and literature review 71 is often young adults’ first independent venture into the public domain. They apply and assess the world through the lens gained from the family’s social and cultural habitus, perceived society value system and social status. Consequently, those who identify as having a superior position gained through their family heritage and social status adjust to the university setting accordingly. From this grounding in family social status and societal hierarchy, they start adult independent public life. As the university milieu is one of the early independent settings, it becomes the primary replication of their “socialised subjectivity”. However, it is not necessarily unchallenged and uncontested in the uncharted university environment, as the contact with new social and cultural milieus challenges their family habitus, “socialised subjectivity” and established “durable dispositions”. O’Malley (2010:488) emphasises that resilience is part of the risk and violence discourse in creating a harm minimisation milieu. Hence, young adults are necessitated to assess the security assemblage and calculate the probability of risks, violence and harassment. Furthermore, young adults’ preparedness to manage the risk of violence relates to developing routines and strategies to meet anticipated or imaginable future uncertain settings. Besides, individuals’ resilience is a test of their capabilities to manage everyday life challenges, harassment and traumatic situations, including knowledge capacity of informed engagement and preparedness. [R]esilience implies a systematic, widespread, organizational, structural and personal strengthening of subjective and material arrangements so as to be better able to anticipate and tolerate disturbances in complex worlds without collapse, to withstand shocks, and to rebuild as necessary. (Lentzos and Rose 2009:243) In the present-day public realm, females have become as frequent users as males for work and entertainment. Notwithstanding this, the focus is mainly on females as a target for violence, particularly after dark. While harassment has many facets, it is sexual victimisation, which is the main focus (Australian Human Rights Commission 2018; Brottsförebyggande Rådet 2017; Öberg, Heimer and Lucas 2021; Okenwa-Emgwa and von Strauss 2018; May 2001; Tiby 1991). Although, frequently, awareness of the risk of violence in the public domain or fear of becoming a victim of violence is not necessarily based on prior personal experience but rather on mass media’s emphasis on crime. Even if males are more at risk in public realms, the emphasis is predominantly on offences concerning females, minority genders and ethnic identity cohorts (Kavanaugh 2013; Cook and Reynald 2016). Sexual victimisation includes the broad field of violence and discrimination. For example, it embraces serious violence to minor harassment offences. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021) classifies sexual assault as acts of a sexual nature perpetrated against a person’s will, using physical force, intimidation or coercion, including any attempts to do this. Such acts include rape, attempted

72

Theoretical framework and literature review

rape, aggravated sexual assault, assault with a weapon, indecent assault, penetration by objects or forced sexual activity that does not necessarily end in penetration. In addition, it included attempts to force a person into sexual activity. These acts are criminal offences in most nation-states. However, not all perceived sexual offences are classified as such. For instance, unwanted sexual touching is classified as harassment. Although research about young adults’ experiences of violence and harassment in the public environment has primarily concentrated on sexual victimisation and perception of the risk of being a victim of rape, it is a broader issue, as noted above, violence, harassment and discrimination in the public domain are beyond sexual abuse. It also includes verbal, social, physical and emotional violence, albeit all might interlink with sexual violence and harassment. Overall, research shows that females express more fear, about exposure to crime in the public domain, not necessarily based on personal experience. Despite this fear discourse, official crime statistics do not support this assumption. The reported and registered number of cases and victims is low (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020). Notwithstanding this discrepancy, sexual violence crimes are assessed as having substantial underreporting to the police. A study about community belonging found that minority ethnic females, often isolated from mainstream society, highlighted the fear and intimidation they experienced in the public realm. To escape from a harassing private or public environment, they sought out safe places in the community where they felt welcome. Community sport clubs are considered safe places. Unfortunately, these clubs’ primary unrestricted daily entertainment is gambling on electronic gaming machines. The clubs have a reputation for being patron inclusive, safe and allembracing, including minority ethnic patrons. In this case, the minority ethnic females felt it was one of the few safe places where they experienced being well treated and not judged as outsiders. It was also seen as affordable to spend time at a sport club. An added benefit was that their English language limitations were not questioned or ridiculed (Fabiansson 2010). To have limited non-native language skills or none is a hinder in most activities. However, it did not affect their ability to play on electronic gambling machines, e.g., a silent conversation activity. While these community sport clubs became places safe from family violence and public realm discrimination and harassment, they also became risky. A drawback of spending extensive time in front of these machines is gambling problems and financial hardship. Thus, an already precarious situation is often due to excessive time spent augmenting the impact of the lost money gambled. None of these minority ethnic females would have reported to the police private or public domain discrimination or harassment incidents, thus not showing up in the official crime statistics. Knowledge about their escalating downward spiralling situation would not be unravelled until they were under precarious financial stress and needed welfare support (Fabiansson 2010). A number of national population surveys exploring fear have been critiqued for emphasising the assumption that females, including minority genders and ethnic groups, are irrationally fearful. Simultaneously, it has been assumed that men are

Theoretical framework and literature review 73 less fearful of violence in public spaces. For example, as presented in the recurring British Crime Surveys (BCS) since 1982 (cf. Office for National Statistics 2016), Hollway and Jefferson (2004:12) question BCS’s assumptions about fear of crime. They highlighted that categorising the existence of the ‘fear–risk paradox’ is an unscientifically proven assumption. The postulated “fear–risk paradox” is based on the principle that females’ and older people’s fear of crime is higher than males’ and younger people’s trepidation and risk perception. Hence, a belief in a superior consciousness of fear by females. Notwithstanding this, Hollway and Jefferson (2004) emphasise that young males also feel fear in the public domain, a circumstance missing in the official statistic. A patriarchal power presumption that fear is incompatible with the masculine role (Brottsförebyggande Rådet 2019; Özascilar 2013). Studies focusing on sexual harassment against females in the public domain frequently stress that fear of violence is an identifying factor for avoidance, thus restricting females’ and minority genders and ethnic groups’ engagement with the public sphere (Hilinski 2009; Hirtenlehner and Farrall 2014; cf. Pain 1991; Stanko 1990; Valentine 1989). Hence, the perception of risks outside the home influences fears of violence. Thus, the violence is not necessarily personally experienced. As a result, fear rather than the experience of violence create avoidance of alleged dangerous or risky public places, notwithstanding that these setting also can be frightening for males (Ferraro 1996; Graham et al. 2016; Özascilar 2013). However, fears of risks cannot be generalised to all public places. Instead, it refers to specific places. An added risk factor is the time of the day that makes a public place risky. Thus, safety and risk settings are time sensitive. Pain (1995:590) notes that research has often disregarded the time of the day link between the physical setting with females’ fear. Consequently, females’ level of fear concerning the environment is a factor in explaining and understanding exposure to violence and harassment, e.g., the dangers in private vs public domains. Besides, the need to acknowledge the unique factors that make a public milieu dangerous, such as an isolated and dark setting. For example, a public place can be safe during the day but be a high-risk environment for harassment in the evenings and nights (Fabiansson 2006, 2007, 2010; Collins, Reid and Fabiansson 2011). This sensitiveness of the time of the day relates explicitly to young adults, as they are more out and about through evenings and nights than older people. In addition, there is a misconception that males are not fearful of the public domain, a fact that is repeatedly acknowledged in the agency research (see Chapter 4) (Day, Stump and Carreon 2003; 2003; Pain 2000; Sandberg and Tollefsen 2010:5; Hollway and Jefferson 2004). Correspondingly, even if the place and time of day create different forms of fear, there is an inconsistency between the perception of risk and the official crime statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020). Thus, to reiterate, females are more likely than males to be exposed to violence in the private sphere by a person known or acquainted with them than by an unknown person in the public sphere, while young males are more at risk in the public sphere than in the private. Additionally, young males are more at risk of being physically violated by an

74

Theoretical framework and literature review

unknown person than females. Thus, overall young males are more exposed to violence and harassment by other males than females, and young males are more at risk of being violated and harassed in the public realm than young females (Brottsförebyggande Rådet 2019; Özascilar 2013). Notwithstanding this, the expectancy of females and minority ethnic groups to feel trepidation in the public domain has become a normalising perception. It is also the females’ responsibility to manage any disquiet or fear and avoid places where they might be exposed to violence (Koskela 1999). From this follow, females are expected to express themselves as weak and potential victims because they are not males (Mehta and Bondi 1999). Moreover, research focuses less on young males’ anxiety about the public sphere than on females. Thus, being the case, there is a logical underestimation of males’ public realm fear (Day et al. 2003; Pain 2000; Hollway and Jefferson 2004). Unfortunately, the research concentration on female violence and restricting it to a female issue is missing the seriousness of violence in the public realm. Violence, harassment and discrimination are societal predicaments that cannot be reduced to or restricted to a female issue and a female responsibility. Sandberg and Tollefsen (2010:5) describe research around the nature, layout and features of places exposed to or considered risky settings causing fear. They emphasise that anxiety should also be considered concerning gendered power relations in the public space, e.g., females being less able to defend themselves than males. Thus, the fear discourse is reiterated in gendered practices of everyday life. Likewise, fear of violence in the public sphere can be detrimental to people participating in university education, using public transport and engaging in community activities, especially at night. For example, the 2019 Swedish crime survey found that 28% of the population, all genders (aged 16–84), felt very unsafe or quite unsafe in the public domain after dark; consequently, they avoided going out alone after dark (Brottsförebyggande Rådet 2019:14). Furthermore, the risk of exposure to violence and harassment and the perception of exposure to crimes have become social and physical inhibitors for community activities. However, this fear of the public realm is not necessarily related to large population gatherings as it is also in relation to everyday activities and includes settings such as using public transport, walking to and from work, and social events at pubs and restaurants, where an individual might pass through a physical and social environment that is risky or perceived as a risk area, especially after dark (Lorenc et al. 2012). This risk scenario includes public communication centres and train and bus terminals during peak hours as well as concerning late-night commuting (Gardner, Cui and Coiacetto 2017). In addition, the definition of harassment and blaming the victim can be derived from social and cultural habitus, where older females are more steeped in gender roles than younger females. For example, Deming et al. (2013) found that university participants explained their experiences of sexual violence depending on their social group belonging. In contrast, older participants were more likely to blame themselves for not being more careful and more safety concerned.

Theoretical framework and literature review 75 Public sphere harassment and non-fatal violence are often considered minor incidents where the perpetrator is unknown. Equally, the perception that the victim’s role as a perceived enabler in the crime can influence the willingness to report it to the police. Therefore, the victim might not see it worthwhile to report it to the authorities. Furthermore, the police will have difficulties investigating the incident because of a frequently vague description or lack of detailed characteristics of the perpetrator(s). Likewise, bystanders might not be aware that a crime has been committed. Similarly, the victims’ circumstances can influence their willingness to report the incident due to friends’ or bystanders’ reactions, or being, e.g., intoxicated, without a fixed home address, of minority ethnic heritage, a university student or a professional person blaming themselves (Banyard 2011; Bennett, Banyard and Garnhart 2014; Gaetz, O’Grady and Buccieri 2010:1). Commonly, public sphere violence is only highlighted in the mass media when the violence is extreme or fatal, especially if the victim is a young female. Even if young males are at a higher risk of abuse in the public sphere than females, abuse against males is rarely reported publicly except in aggravating circumstances (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020; Crime Statistic Australia 2018). The low profile of non-fatal public sphere violence does not necessarily indicate that these crimes do not occur. Instead, they are reported less. Contributing reasons are beliefs that the violent event will be treated as trivial and seen as part of the normalisation of societal violence. Moreover, nonreporting could be based on experience or awareness that ‘nothing will come out of a report to the police’. The victim might feel ashamed about being attacked, often a choice by male victims, the stigmatisation of not adhering to the athletic, muscular male stereotype, albeit a significant crime to further explore.

In summary The discourses concerning violence, harassment and discrimination continuously evolve and adjust to present-day society. Although violence and its different forms are global phenomena, they all have structural, systemic and symbolic ideological foundations. Individuals internalise the belief and value frameworks through the social and cultural environment, educational institutions and workplace settings. Symbolic violence is one form of “soft” violence aiming to enhance adherence to societal beliefs and values without overt coercion. The ingrained societal value and belief systems complicate challenging or making a sustainable transformation to address inequality and equity features, discrimination and harassing traditions. The following chapter explores violence, harassment and discrimination discourses in more detail on the structural and agency levels.

References Arendt, H. (1969) ‘Political conflict: Perspectives on revolution’. Journal of International Affairs, 23 (1): 1–35. Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane.

76

Theoretical framework and literature review

Arthur, L. (2009) ‘From performativity to professionalism: Lecturers’ responses to student feedback’. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (4): 441–454. Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] (2020) Four Corners, Inside the Canberra Bubble (9 November). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm7a4vAnGGg, accessed 20 October 2022. Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] (2021) Four Corners, Don't ask, Don't tell (22 April). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-H0f5o0wpI, accessed 20 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2016) Census, 2901.0 – Census of Population and Housing: 2016 Census Dictionary. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2018) 2016 Census Multicultural. https://www.abs .gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/media%20release3, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2020) Recorded crime – victims, Australia, 2019, Cat. no. 45100DO001 and 45100DO003 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/ people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/2019, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2021) Sexual Violence – Victimisation. Statistics about sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse, including characteristics of victimsurvivors, victimisation rates, and police reporting. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/ sexual-violence-victimisation, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Change the Course: National Report on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at Australian Universities. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2021) Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, November 2021. https:// humanrights.gov.au/set-standard-2021, accessed 19 October 2022. Banyard, V.L. (2011) ‘Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention’. Psychology of Violence, 1: 216–229. Bates, E.A. (2019) ‘The whole time was like walking on egg shells: A qualitative examination of men’s experiences of violence and control from female partners’. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 21(1): 13–24. Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press. Beck, U. (2007 [1992]) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Becker, H.S. (1966) Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Bennett, S., Banyard, V.L. and Garnhart, L. (2014) ‘To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention’. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29: 476–496. Benyon, J. (2012) ‘England’s urban disorder: The 2011 riots’. Political Insight, 3 (1): 12–17. Bohns, V.K. and DeVincent, L.A. (2019) ‘Rejecting unwanted romantic advances is more difficult than suitors realize’. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10 (8): 1102–1110. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K. and Stark, P. (2016) ‘Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness’. ScienceOpen Research: 1–11. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Theoretical framework and literature review 77 Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Bredström, A. (2003) ‘Gendered racism and the production of cultural difference: Media representations and identity work among ‘immigrant youth’ in contemporary Sweden’. Nora: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 11 (22): 78–88. Brottsförebyggande Rådet [BRÅ] (2017) Nationella trygghetsundersökningen 2016. Om utsatthet, trygghet och förtroende (Report 2017: 1) (National Crime Survey 2017. Victimization, fear of crime and trust). Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Brottsförebyggande Rådet [BRÅ] (2019) Swedish Crime Survey 2018. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Cathey, L. and Keneally, M. (2020) A Look Back at Trump Comments Perceived by Some as Inciting Violence. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”, Trump tweeted on Floyd protests: 30 May 2020, ABCNews. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump -comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766, accessed 19 October 2022. Collins, R. (2008) Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Collins, J., Reid, C. and Fabiansson, C. (2011) ‘Identities, aspirations and belonging of cosmopolitan youth in Australia’. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies, 3 (3): 92–107. Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cook, A. and Reynald, D. (2016) ‘Guardianship against sexual offenses: Exploring the role of gender in intervention’. International Criminal Justice Review, 26 (2): 98–114. Cooper, C. (2011) ‘Understanding the English ‘riots’ of 2011: Mindless criminality or youth ‘Mekin Histri’ in austerity Britain?’ Youth & Policy, 109: 6–26. Crime Statistics Australia (2018) Homicide Australia, Trends in Homicide, 1980–90 to 2013–14. https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide, accessed 19 October 2022. Day, K., Stump, C. and Carreon, D. (2003) ‘Confrontation and loss of control: Masculinity and men’s fear in public space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 311–322. Deming, M.E., Covan, E.K., Swan, S.C. and Billings, D.L. (2013) ‘Exploring rape myths, gendered norms, group processing, and the social context of rape among college women: A qualitative analysis’. Violence Against Women, 19: 465–485. Dubet, F. (1997) ‘Die Logik der Jugendgewalt. Das Beispiel der franz.sischen Vorst.d te’. In T.V. Trotha (ed.), Soziologie der Gewalt. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft, 37: 220–234. Dubet, F. (2003) ‘Juvenile and urban violence’. In W. Heitmeyer and J. Hagan (eds.), International Handbook of Violence Research. Dordrecht: Springer: 937–952. Durkheim, E. (1995) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated from the French by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: The Free Press. Ewald, F. (1991) ‘Insurance and risk’. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf: 197–210. Fabiansson, C. (2006) ‘Being young in rural settings: Young people’s everyday community affiliations and trepidations’. Rural Society, 16 (1): 47–60. Fabiansson, C. (2007) ‘Young people’s perception of being safe – Globally & locally’. Social Indicators Research Journal, January 80 (1): 31–49.

78

Theoretical framework and literature review

Fabiansson, C. (2010) Pathways to Excessive Gambling. A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits. Farnham, Surrey UK: Ashgate Publishing Group. Fabiansson, C. (2018) ‘Belonging and social identity among young people in Western Sydney, Australia after the Cronulla Riots’. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19 (2): 351–366. Feik, N. (2021) ‘Dig up, prime minister. Morrison is in a hole, and making things worse’. The Politics – The Monthly, 2 November. https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/nick -feik/2021/02/2021/1635826128/dig-prime-minister/, accessed 19 October 2022. Ferraro, K. (1996) ‘Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?’ Social Forces, 75: 667–690. Frost, D. and Phillips, R. (2012) ‘The 2011 summer riots: Learning from history – remembering 81’. Sociological Research Online, 17 (3): 3.2–3.8. Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (2007) Young People and Social Change, New Perspectives. 2nd ed. Berkshire: McGraw Hill Open University Press. Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B. and Buccieri, K. (2010) Surviving Crime and Violence Street Youth and Victimization in Toronto. Street Youth Legal Services, Justice for Children and Youth, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, Justice for Children and Youth, and Homeless Hub Press. Gardner, N., Cui, J. and Coiacetto, E. (2017) ‘Harassment on public transport and its impacts on women’s travel behaviour’. Australian Planner, 54 (1): 8–15. Gerber, G.L. (1991) ‘Gender stereotypes and power: Perceptions of the roles in violent marriages’. Sex Roles, 24 (7–8): 439–458. Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1996) ‘The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 491–512. Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (2000) ‘An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality’. American Psychologist, 56: 109–118. Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (2006) ‘The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men’. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 (3): 519–536. Goodey, J. (1997) ‘Boys don’t cry: Masculinities, fear of crime and fearlessness’. British Journal of Criminology, 37: 401–418. Gracia, E. and Merlo, J. (2016) ‘Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox’. Social Science & Medicine, 157: 27–30. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Abbey, A., Dumas, T.M. and Wells, S. (2016) ‘When women do not want it: Young female bargoers’ experiences with and responses to sexual harassment in social drinking contexts’. Violence against Women, 23 (12): 1419–1441. Heffernan, T. (2021) ‘Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: A literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (1): 144–154. Hilinski, C.M. (2009) ‘Fear of crime among college students: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34: 84–102. Hirtenlehner, H. and Farrall, S. (2014) ‘Is the shadow of sexual assault responsible for women’s higher fear of burglary?’ British Journal of Criminology, 54: 1167–1185. Hobbs, D., O’Brien, K. and Westmarland, L. (2007) ‘Connecting the gendered door: Women, violence and doorwork’. British Journal of Sociology, 58: 21–38. Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2004) Doing Qualitative Research Differently. London: Sage.

Theoretical framework and literature review 79 Kavanaugh, P.R. (2013) ‘The continuum of sexual violence: Women’s accounts of victimization in urban nightlife’. Feminist Criminology, 8 (1): 20–39. Koskela, H. (1999) Fear, Control & Space. Finland: Department of Geography, University of Helsinki. Lapeyronnie, D. (2009) ‘Primitive rebellion in the French Banlieues: On the fall 2005 riots’. In C. Tshimanga, D. Gondola and P.J. Bloom (eds.), Frenchness and the African Diaspora: Identity and Uprising in Contemporary France. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press: 21–46. Lash, S. (1993) ‘Reflexive modernization: The aesthetic dimension’. Theory, Culture and Society, 10: 1–23. Lash, S. (2000) ‘Risk culture’. In B. Adams, U. Beck and J. Van Loon (eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues in Social Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd: 47–62. Lenztos, F. and Rose, N. (2009) ‘Governing insecurity: Contingency planning, protection, resistance’. Economy and Society, 38: 230–254. Lombardi, E. (2009) ‘Varieties of transgender/transsexual lives and their relationship with transphobia’. Journal of Homosexuality, 56 (8): 977–992. Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A. and Renton, A. (2012) ‘Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: Mapping review of theories and causal pathways’. Health Place, 18 (4): 757–765. Lowrey, T. and Snape, J. (2021) ‘Scott Morrison's 'bullets' for protesters comment stuns Australian UN representative’. ABC News, 16 March 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2021-03-16/bullets-women-march-4-justice-scott-morrison/13251804, accessed 19 October 2022. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A. and Hunt, A. (2015) ‘What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching’. Innovative Higher Education, 40 (4): 291–303. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1973 [1848]) ‘Manifesto of the communist party: 62–98’. In D. Fernback (ed.), Karl Marx, Political Writings: The Revolutions of 1848. Harmondsworth: Penguin: 73–74, 75–76: 78, 98. May, D. (2001) ‘The effect of fear of sexual victimization on adolescent fear of crime’. Sociological Spectrum, 21: 141–174. Mehta, A. and Bondi, L. (1999) Embodied discourse; on gender and fear of violence. Gender, Place and Culture, 6: 67–84. Mucchielli, L. (2009) ‘Autumn 2005: A review of the most important riot in the history of French contemporary society’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35 (5): 731–751. Murthy, K. (2021) ‘Macron took aim at Scott Morrison over the submarine fracas – And he did not miss’. The Guardian, 1 November 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/ australia-news/2021/nov/01/macron-took-aim-at-scott-morrison-over-the-submarine -fracas-and-he-did-not-miss, accessed 19 October 2022. Nisbet, R.A. (1996) The Sociological Tradition. London. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Öberg, M., Heimer, G. and Lucas, S. (2021) ‘Lifetime experiences of violence against women and men in Sweden’. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49 (3): 301–308. O’Boyle, N. (2015) ‘The risks of ‘university speak’: Relationship management and identity negotiation by mature students off campus’. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 25(2): 93–111. Office for National Statistics (2016) Crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2015. http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bullet ins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-07-16, accessed 19 October 2022.

80

Theoretical framework and literature review

Okenwa-Emgwa, L. and von Strauss, E. (2018) ‘Higher education as a platform for capacity building to address violence against women and promote gender equality: The Swedish example’. Public Health Review, 39 (31): 1–6. O'Malley, P. (2010) ‘Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism’. Economy and Society, 39 (4): 488–509. Özascilar, M. (2013) ‘Predicting fear of crime: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’. International Review of Victimology, 19: 269–284. Pain, R. (1991) ‘Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analysis of women’s fear of crime’. Progress in Human Geography, 15: 415–431. Pain, R. (2000) ‘Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review’. Progress in Human Geography, 24: 365–387. Parliament of Australian (2021) No.3 – Women in the Senate. https://www.aph.gov.au /About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief03, accessed 19 October 2022. Parrot, A. and Cummings, N. (2006) Forsaken Females: The Global Brutalization of Women. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Pointing, S. (2006) ‘What caused the Cronulla riots?’ Race & Class, 48 (1) July: 85–92. Ray, L. (2018) Violence and Society. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. Ryan, K.M. (2011) ‘The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape’. Sex Roles, 65: 774–782. Sandberg, L. and Tollefsen, A. (2010) ‘Talking about fear of violence in public space: Female and male narratives about threatening situations in Umeå, Sweden’. Social & Cultural Geography, 11 (1): 1–15. Shah, M. and Nair, C. (2012) ‘The changing nature of teaching and unit evaluations in Australian universities’. Quality Assurance in Education, 20 (3): 274–288. Stanko, E. (1990) Everyday Violence. London: Pandora. Sutterlüty, F. (2014) ‘The hidden morale of the 2005 French and 2011 English riots’. Thesis Eleven, 121 (1): 38–56. Sutterlüty, F. (2015) ‘What the situation explains: On riotous violence’. In D. Ziegler, M. Gerster and S. Krämer (eds.), Framing Excessive Violence Discourse and Dynamics. London: Palgrave Macmillan: 59–79. Sydney Morning Herald [SMH] (2012) Transcript of Julia Gillard's Speech. https://www .smh.com.au/politics/federal/transcript-of-julia-gillards-speech-20121010-27c36.html, accessed 20 October 2022. Tiby, E. (1991) ‘Kvinna och rädd? [Being a woman and afraid?]’. In G. Wiklund (ed.), Rädslan för brott [The Fear of Crime]. BRA -rapport 1991:2. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention: 13–26. Turner, R.H. (1994) ‘Race riots past and present: A cultural-collective behavior approach’. Symbolic Interaction, 17 (3): 309–324. United Nations [UN] (2015) ‘Universal declaration of human rights’. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights, accessed 19 October 2022. UN Women (2019) ‘Creating safe public spaces’. Safe Cities Global Initiatives. www .unwomen.org, alternatively, https://unwomen.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FPI -brief-Safe-Cities-and-Safe-Public-Spaces-en.pdf, accessed 19 October 2022. Uttl, B. and Smibert, D. (2017) ‘Student evaluations of teaching: Teaching quantitative courses can be hazardous to one’s career’. Peer Journal, May 9, 5: 1–13. Valencia, E. (2020) ‘Acquiescence, instructor’s gender bias and validity of student evaluation of teaching’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45 (4): 483–495.

Theoretical framework and literature review 81 Valentine, G. (1989) ‘The geography of women’s fear’. Area, 21: 385–390. Vijlbriefa, A., Saharsob, S. and Ghorashid, H. (2020) ‘Transcending the gender binary: Gender non-binary young adults in Amsterdam’. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17 (1): 89–106. Vogel, D.L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S.R., Hammer, J.H. and Hubbard, A. (2011) ‘Boys don’t cry: Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, selfstigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds’. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58 (3): 368–382. von Bredow, W. (2018) ‘The order of violence. Norms and rules of organized violence and the civil-military paradox’. In G. Caforio and M. Nuciari (eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, Ch. 5: 87–100. Wacquant, L. (2004) ‘Habitus’. In J. Beckert and M. Zafirovski (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge: 315–319. Walby, S. (2015) Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walby, S. and Towers, J. (2017) ‘Measuring violence to end violence: Mainstreaming gender’. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1 (1): 11–31. Watts, C. and Zimmermann, C. (2002) ‘Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude’. The Lancet, 359 (9313): 1232–1237. Weber, M. (1964 [1950]) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, and ed., with an introduction by Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1968 [1930]) The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin University Books. Wieviorka, M. (2003) ‘Violence and the subject’. Thesis Eleven, 73 (1): 42–50. Yamawaki, N. (2007) ‘Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and genderrole traditionality’. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22: 406–423. Young, I.M. (1990) ‘Throwing like a girl’. In Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Political Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 27–45. Younge, G. (2011) ‘These riots were political. They were looting, not shoplifting’. The Guardian, 15 August 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/14 /young-british-rioters-political-actions, accessed 19 October 2022.

3

Structural- and agencylevel violence, harassment and discrimination

Introduction Following the earlier chapter, this chapter focuses on Arendt’s (1969) and Bauman’s (1989) discourses about violence on structural and agency levels. For the most part, violence might not be considered a contemporary issue. However, maintaining societal political, cultural and social order is still a powerful governance commodity. Thus, violence is not only a historical phenomenon but a prominent political and social justice instrument in modern and postmodern societies (Ray 2018; Watts and Zimmermann 2002; Walby and Towers 2017). Moreover, violence and its associations have adapted to modern living in the contemporary technology-driven and universally increasingly competitive twenty-first century sphere. Besides, it follows political, religious, cultural and social conceptual transformations spurred by financial and technological innovations over time. Thus, in this section, a further emphasis is on the nature of structural, systemic and symbolic violence. These discourses have undergone noticeable changes in the interpretation and acceptance of violence in present-day society. The notion of embracing harassment and discrimination as tools for achievement has been raised by and associated with, for example, the global financial crisis (GFC) during 2007–2008 (Walby 2015:1) and the neoliberal conservative ideology. The GFC facilitated political and economic policy conversions in adjusting to more conservative neoliberal austerity methods inspired by the Regan–Thatcher-era ideology, thus increasingly, the access to and sparsity of resources, including augmented competitions of marketplaces. This environment creates a foundation for antagonistic and assertive rivalries between nation-states, societies and citizen groups. It fashions an adversary atmosphere that facilitates verbal or unspoken undertones of violence, creating a milieu for escalating aggressive, assertive and forceful implementation in securing resources, a perceived winning strategy for societal and individual survival. Values and attitudes continuously evolve and adjust to new austerity measures to manage the increasingly competitive environment within and between dominating political and economic forces on the structural level. As a result, the societal hegemonic ideology, structural social order beliefs and values filter down to

DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-3

Structural- and agency-level violence 83 the agency level, with population groups, community sectors, genders and minority ethnic groups competing for scarce financial resources.

Structural violence Violence is commonly synonymous with implying a physical image of harm in everyday conversations. However, the concept of violence has a much broader application than just physical. It is in-built into the societal hegemonic ideology and underpinned by social, cultural, mental and faith-based traditions. Violence is administrated through legal frameworks, social norms and overt or covert systemic and symbolic normalisation processes internalised by the majority populace. Galtung (1993:106) defined structural violence as narrating inequality and the limitations citizens face to reach justness in life experience. For example, social structures, e.g., economic, political, legal, religious, cultural heritage, professionalism and social networks, prevent individuals, groups and societies from reaching their full potential (Galtung 1969). Hence, social status and life trajectory depend on the hierarchal power positions of individuals, groups and societies. As structural violence is embedded into generational longstanding hegemonic ideology, it becomes ‘ubiquitous social structures, normalized by stable institutions and regular experience’ (Gilligan 1997:306). Galtung questioned conventional thinking about the concept of violence. He proposes a broadening of the understanding of violence, aiming to enhance people’s ability to identify more clearly how stability and tranquillity can limit insight into the more pervasive nature of violence, including holding people responsible for their actions. This responsibility aspect was later taken up by Beck’s (1999, 2007) discourse about manufactured risks. Galtung emphasised that: ‘Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations’ (Winter 2012:168). Thus, violence prevails because of uncritical acceptance and disregard for equality. It also includes structural and cultural sources of violence. From this follows that Galtung’s (1990:291) cultural violence has a more profound populace connotation than structural violence, as cultural violence embraces, avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or, to put it in more general terms, the impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible. (Galtung 1993:106) Additionally, Galtung refers to cultural violence as those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence –- exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics) – that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence. (Galtung 1990:291)

84

Structural- and agency-level violence

Symbolic violence is assembled into the societal culture through the internalised hegemonic ideology. Thus, in this symbolic violence sphere, the populace’s social and cultural traditions justify or legitimise direct or indirect structural violence. Henceforth, the violence is applied depending on the victims’ power and societal status (Galtung 1990). Moreover, Galtung (1990:291) analyses structural violence through the typology of three components influencing the agency level: personal, structural and cultural violence. These types of violence underpin the context of violence on the structural level. The difference is between violence on the personal or direct (the agency level) and indirect or structural (structural level). The first concept concerns a setting where an actor is involved in the violence, while the second relates to when no actor participates (Galtung 1969:170). Thus, on the structural level, Galtung distinguishes between personal and structural violence in this manner: By making a fundamental distinction between personal and structural violence, it can be seen from two angles. Indeed, this is exactly the same as peace, which is understood as the absence of violence. A more expansive concept of violence leads to a more expansive understanding of peace: Peace defined as the absence of personal violence and the absence of structural violence. These two forms of peace are referred to as negative peace and positive peace. (Galtung 1969:168) Furthermore, structural violence is so ordinary that it has become the populace’s way of understanding the world. As a result, structural violence appears almost invisible. For instance, it normalises disparate access to resources, political power, education, health care and legal standing. Besides, the awareness of structural violence is closely linked to social injustice and the social machinery of oppression (Farmer 2004). Galtung used the Burmese military junta as an example in his 1990s writings. This example of structural violence is as relevant as initially discussed in the present-day Myanmar situation. Then as now, the violence instigating actor(s) and object(s) are readily identifiable. The actor is the military junta. The objects are the victims of torture, rape and restricted right to communication and mass protest. Albeit a technological change from Galtung’s original reflections is the citizens’ capabilities to use electronic devices to communicate and document violence and atrocities. These devices empower protesters, as the communication flow is vastly improved in the twenty-first century compared to the 1990s. Notwithstanding this, the Burmese/Myanmar military junta in the 2020s aims to counteract communication by restricting internet access and coverage. Therefore, the structural violence case, as opposed to personal or direct violence, is indirect in that,

Structural- and agency-level violence 85 there may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances. (Galtung 1990:171) For Galtung, the significance of the term here is “avoidable” versus “unavoidable” violence. Galtung (1969:169, italics in original) explains it as, ‘when the potential is higher than the actual is by definition avoidable, and when it is avoidable, then violence is present’. For instance, a tangible case is a bacterial disease (comparable in present-day society to the COVID-19 virus). In the case of tuberculosis, medical advancements have changed the survival rate for people infected with the disease in the twenty-first century. Consequently, this cannot be classified as violence if a person died from tuberculosis in the eighteenth century. On the contrary, it might have been unavoidable due to a lack of medical resources. Conversely, if a person dies from tuberculosis in present-day society, violence is proven because medical advancements have produced a vaccine that is globally accessible and available. Henceforth, medical resources have been developed to prevent deaths from tuberculosis. As a result, according to Galtung’s discourse, death is avoidable. If the vaccine is not administered, the lack of undertaking the medical procedure is an act of violence because the death could have been avoided. Galtung’s (1969:168) reasoning of the term “avoidable” violence and prevention of death can apply equally to COVID-19 vaccines, e.g., global rights of access to safe vaccines. Initially, the availability of COVID-19 vaccines was limited and not impartially shared globally. Wealthy nation-states had the means and negotiation power to be first to access vaccines, while less wealthy nation-states were second. As a result, deaths in less wealthy nation-states became unavoidable but less so in nation-states where vaccine access was guaranteed to all citizens. The presently developed vaccines have shown approximately 80–90% protection from death if the individual is vaccinated. Thus, vaccinated individuals would principally avoid death if fully vaccinated. As mentioned above, Galtung’s reasoning is further accentuated in Beck’s (1999, 2007) risk society discourse. The risk discourse emphasises that structural violence lacks identifiable people responsible for contemporary manufactured risks (Galtung 1969:170). For example, environmental destruction and the manufacturing and marketing of unhealthy consumer goods are a “black box” for many of the populace (Latour 1992, 2005) because even if death could be avoidable with the correct information and usage instructions, it might not be available. However, when the information becomes obscured and faceless in a fast-moving society and where the responsibility for the dangerous product is nearly impossible to identify, the line between avoidable and unavoidable violence becomes blurred. In contrast, clearly stated restrictions were imposed on citizens’ movements, political congregations and freedom to share dissident political views. It becomes an avoidable strategy to refrain from political sanctions of structural violence. A

86

Structural- and agency-level violence

circumstance that significantly curbs social and cultural equality. Albeit, it might be a risk worth taking in some settings. Besides, structural violence leads to a systemic disadvantage against outsiders, minority gender and ethnic groups. It perpetuates agency constraints and unequal opportunities for accessing high-quality education and prestigious work opportunities, medical care, welfare and justice. In the following section, systemic violence on the structural level is discussed, hence the societal hegemonic structural and systemic violence discourse. Noteworthy is that distinction between systemic violence and symbolic violence is somewhat transient. Acceptance of symbolic violence is ingrained into society’s systemic violence and underpinned by social and cultural norms. Although systemic and symbolic violence is interlinked and interdependent, their influence flows through policies, faith, traditions, attitudes, language and behaviours on all societal levels.

Systemic violence A society’s structural hegemonic ideology is created throughout generations by political, economic, religious, cultural and social values and beliefs. This societal philosophy, attitudes and way of thinking are interlinked between macro-, mesoand micro-society levels. It has progressed throughout society and adjusted to each ear’s political, economic, religious, social and cultural developments. The hegemonic ideology also governs preferred language, expressions and colloquialisms, its unique linguistics, semantics, pronunciations and phrases of words. Moreover, systemic and symbolic violence guides internalised thinking, attitudes, language and behaviours that arise from the structural philosophy and the social norms and traditions. Thus, throughout history, a nation-state’s identity is expressed in its values, beliefs and thoughts framed within societal, political, social and cultural settings. From this perspective, each contemporary period fashions and socialises the populace to adjust to the hegemonic ideology and norms and create its unique societal milieu. Systemic violence, created through the structural level’s values and beliefs, language and attitudes, including acceptance of derogative, sexist and violenceinspired language and behaviour, are conveyed and internalised onto the agency level. Consequently, individual understandings and attitudes reflect society’s hegemonic ideological philosophy. Systemic violence and discrimination refer, for example, to when the formal meritocracy-based qualifications criteria – the gained knowledge, experience and skills – are assessed differently depending on the individual’s gender, cultural and/or social status, faith and political affiliation. Examples are promotions to high-status powerful political and financial positions and academic and professional career pathways favouring native, majority ethnic citizens, including males over females or non-binary genders. Hence, the belief that only like-minded ethnic and gender groups have the qualifications and abilities to undertake leadership roles and powerful structural level tasks. Besides, if minority ethnicity and genders, including the majority of

Structural- and agency-level violence 87 females, are promoted to these positions, it will disrupt the quality trajectory, professional status and traditional staff environment. As a result, a discernment that the eminence of societal management, financial soundness and workforce quality would decline (Cassells and Duncan 2020). Thus, if a white male applicant is stood over for a female, minority ethnic female or male, it lowers the quality of the work and the status of the workforce and disrupts the traditional male work atmosphere. For instance, assessed from a white male perspective, it becomes an issue of loss in expertise, knowledge and workforce quality. Albeit an extremely generalised description, there are still many work environments which are gender and ethnically dominated, prevailing an assumption that skills and leadership abilities are gender and/or ethnically defined, e.g., that nonwhite minority ethnic groups and females are less capable than white majority ethnic males in western societies. Consequently, an individual is perceived as less skilled and suitable for higher leadership appointments, despite having the same or surpassing the merits required for the position. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, invited the geophysicist Dorian Abbot, a white male professor at the University of Chicago, to give a prestigious public lecture. However, the invitation created discords. Prof. Abbot had spoken out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programmes, e.g., against gender parity and minority ethnic diversity. Inevitably, the announcement of the choice of speaker raised protests from opposing scientists and students. The protesters deemed the selection of the speaker insensitive to the current gender and ethnic minority debate at the university. Expressly, the selection disregarded gender and ethnic diversity discussions raging within the university. Prof. Abbot was seen as an infuriating and inappropriate speaker to deliver the public lecture, hence an oppressive choice. Robert van der Hilst, head of the Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences department at MIT, noted, ‘Besides freedom of speech, we have the freedom to pick the speaker who best fits our needs. Words matter and have consequences’ (Powell 2021:1; Sydney Morning Herald 2021). Prof. van der Hilst’s comment highlights the persistence and foundation of beliefs and values reflecting colonisation ideology where white males’ merits and expertise are above all others. Consequently, neglecting to contemplate that females and non-whites could be more skilled, better able to form alternative perspectives and/or present innovative angles, including being superiority qualified to deliver the prestigious public lecture, but overlooked due to gender, social, cultural and ethnic heritage. It is a universal phenomenon that people prefer to work with like-minded colleagues regarding gender, age, political, ethnic and social heritage. However, these non-meritocracy-based criteria are rarely explicitly stated in a position description or even discussed during the selection and interview phase. Notwithstanding this, these criteria unconsciously or consciously influence decisions not to disrupt the workplace atmosphere. Political leaders, stakeholders, social entrepreneurs and mass media organisations all promote workplace diversity in theory, thus

88

Structural- and agency-level violence

influencing, enhancing or on the opposite end, demolishing an applicant’s career trajectory based on minority ethnic status and gender. An example of systemic violence and preferential treatment includes a historical rape allegation in Australia that surfaced at the beginning of 2021. The alleged crime was committed in 1988 by a 17-year-old perpetrator against a 16-yearold victim. The alleged white Anglo-Australian male perpetrator (Mr Christian Porter), who strenuously denies the allegation, occupied Australia’s highest legal position as attorney-general in the Australian Federal Parliament. The alleged accused comes from a privileged background, such as a white male private school education and a politically well-connected family. The alleged female victim is described as a brilliant, well-educated, articulated female with a bright future, a female who belonged to a long-standing supportive group of friends. The rape experience as a 16-year-old female possibly contributed to and/or exaggerated her well-being. The female victim later presented with mental health complications, thus giving her a lesser trustworthy status in recollecting the crime. The victim wrote extensive diary notes throughout her life. Sadly, the victim committed suicide in 2020 before making a formal signed police statement about the alleged rape. Although the police interviewed the victim in the jurisdiction where the alleged rape occurred, the statement was not signed, thus not deemed a “formal” statement, according to the police authority. Notwithstanding, the female victim kept a diary and discussed the rape with friends and the circumstances around the assault shortly after the incident, including returning to the rape experience with friends in later years. Unfortunately, due to the victim’s demise, the police authority did not continue with the investigation, assessment of the alleged crime or if the crime should be assessed in a court of law, despite the victim’s death. Thus, the criminal veracity of the case was not assessed, hence closed. However, this case also demonstrates the difficulties for female victims to be heard and trusted and have current or historical cases tested judicially. Additionally, this case raised public discussions about possibilities for alternative ways to investigate and assess the accuracy of historical assault in a court of law. One example was to set up an impartial inquiry headed by an independent renowned legal authority to assess the veracity of the allegations. This procedure, in Australia, is accepted in workplaces to investigate sexual abuse, bullying and discrimination and to establish a case’s factual circumstances. However, the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Scott Morrison) rejected this pathway to elucidate the factual situation. The convenience of referring to the “rule of law”, as discussed in The Monthly (09 March 2021) about this case: [H]as become the government’s main line of defence on the Porter allegations, but …, inquiries like the one being called for happen in workplace settings all the time without contravening the “rule of law”. The attorney-general himself suggested that his resignation might represent the end of the rule of law in Australia, but could it be that not investigating these allegations is the true attack on those ideals? (Withers 2021:2, italics in original)

Structural- and agency-level violence 89 Furthermore, John and Krygier note that the “rule of law phrase” is a “three-word conversation stopper”. It is ‘a venerable and precious legal and political ideal. It is also notoriously unclear and controversial’ thus a phrase aiming to restrict arbitrariness in how power is exercised. (Johns and Krygier 2021:2) What would be arbitrary would be for a person invested with great power over others, by virtue of the office that they hold, to be able to pick and choose among these investigatory processes, and insulate themselves from some, solely on the basis of the vehemence of their denial, … exactly the kind of arbitrary exercise of power that the rule of law seeks to counter. (Johns and Krygier 2021:3) Thus, as noted by Johns and Krygier (2021), the practice of shielding ‘the AG from questioning, … is an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the federal government’. The example illustrates the significance of political and cultural status and the powerful influence political positions give the occupants, here the alleged perpetrator. Additionally, the case shows structural discrimination and systemic violence against the victim, an individual perceived as having a lower status level due to societal position and gender. Moreover, the advantage of being part of the powerful gender and majority ethnicity, in this instance, a white male of Anglo-Australian heritage, including belonging to a politically affiliated family, having the opportunity to attend a highly regarded private education and obtain a well-regarded university law degree, in addition to occupying the country’s highest judicial and political status position. A powerful political position that governs how the rule of law is applied. Additionally, the privilege to call upon highly regarded experts and extensive financial support networks to manage the legal process. In this case, the victim’s family and friends were seeking answers about the factual circumstances of the alleged rape. To gain closure, and in fairness, the perpetrator takes responsibility for the behaviour if the crime could be proven. This case is only one example of systemic violence supported by the hegemonic structural ideology that male voices are more trustworthy and believable than females. In addition, an individual’s professional and political position, being a white male in western societies and having the presumed backing of networks of influential people occupying powerful societal positions. All these factors influence the perception of guilt and the strength of the denial. In this case, the societal position also prevented robust scrutiny of the accused, while the victim’s gender and perceived state of mind diminished her status. Overall, a female in a less powerful social status and professional position who experienced mental health issues is not perceived as honourable in giving a truthful recollection of a historic assault. This scenario is not an abnormality where gender, ethnic belonging and societal status create social, cultural, financial and political advantages for high-status citizens. Therefore, creating a preferential situation in historical cases, a case with

90

Structural- and agency-level violence

no witnesses and where the words of one side (alleged male perpetrator) are seen as more truthful and accurate than the contrasting side (alleged female victim). The normality of social and cultural traditions, gender perceptions and ethnic inequalities can seem natural and ingrained into social and cultural traditions. Consequently, privileged citizens’ attitudes towards uncomfortable inequality and racism are ignored as “nothing to see or question”. It is only in unique cases where traditions and sensitivities of inequality are challenged. Exceptions are violent cases that become general knowledge and are given mass media coverage. For example, the Australian Federal Parliament’s work environment, where rape and sexual harassment allegations are publicly aired, and male misogynist attitudes are publicly highlighted (Banks 2021). Incidents that some staff and politicians know about but are unknown by the populace, secrecy that protects perpetrators and highlights the victims’ dilemma of reporting, losing the career trajectory and income or keeping quiet. Systemic violence is further discussed in the following section. Gender and ethnicity discrimination A contributing feature of the 2017 #MeToo movement’s focus on sexual assault was encouraging workplaces to develop anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies or update existing ones. In addition, it spurred organisations to develop more transparent procedures to handle workplace violence and discrimination incidents. The measures also highlighted a need to acknowledge the presence of sexual discrimination and social and cultural harassment in workplaces. Nonetheless, the more transparent and updated policies aimed to protect the organisation from lengthy legal disputes and court cases if complaints could be managed satisfactorily for all parties in-house. Thus, the policies should improve the prevention of systemic discrimination within the organisation (Lee, Li and Tsai 2021). Although establishing complaint procedures does not inevitably support the staff or improve the work environment, it might primarily be a well-worth strategy to protect the organisation. Notwithstanding this, the policies are enacted to minimise unequal working conditions and gender inequality, including making the workplace a safe environment. However, unfortunately, the reformers are often the same managers who did not see discrimination and harassment as an issue in their workplace before the #MeToo movement publicly highlighted gender, age and ethnic inequalities within the entertainment industry. Nonetheless, the updated policies, workplace harassment, discrimination and exclusions take diverse forms. Discriminative acts can be complex to complain about and substantiate. For example, a forgetfulness or purposeful delay in responding to emails, returning phone calls or not inviting staff to critical meetings can be difficult to substantiate. Moreover, delaying publicising meeting times, not distributing supporting documentation until shortly before the start time or setting meeting times early or late in the day, outside school and daycare times. This includes sudden or unforeseen work arrangements and overnight

Structural- and agency-level violence 91 travel requirements, often disadvantaging female staff with inflexible family commitments. Although inflexibility or unpredictability of work arrangements disadvantages all staff with caring responsibilities, frequent non-attendance at meetings will also have a bearing on possibilities for promotion. Gendered power is a commonplace discriminating strategy where more importance is given to males, males’ qualifications, voices in meetings, acceptance of males talking over females or not responding to questions put forward by female staff. A further power strategy is to communicate with females without witnesses, restricting communication to primarily verbal exchanges, thus minimising objective substantiation of conversations or complaints. The male gender-based power dominance imposes discriminating strategies and covert barriers for staff groups, e.g., to be selected for committees, thus undermining career trajectories. Collectively, females and ethnic minority staff have less prominent work positions than males, including in university workplaces. Females are also proportionally less likely to have higher academic tenure positions or occupy decision-making professional management levels. A situation where female and minority ethnic university staff experience discrimination indirectly is when the work environment is geared towards preferred staff groups, thus excluding others based on social, cultural or ethical profiles from professional and social networks. Sometimes it’s just so damn subtle. It’s in the gestures, it’s in what’s not said, and it’s when you’re one-on-one with people versus how they are when they’re with other people – the treatment can be night and day with some. There are some people who will say hi to me when they’re with a group of others in the faculty, but one-on-one in a hallway they don’t even look up. (Sian 2019:28) There are numerous techniques to discriminate against people without questioning the strategy or formally scrutinising the procedure, as acceptance of discrimination follows social and cultural traditions. Thus, a person steeped in male dominance might perceive them as more “qualified” to be selected for work positions, committees or promotions. In addition, there are many ways to manipulate the selection of committees, staff promotion, knowledge and skill-based tasks to enhance or decrease staff members’ place within an organisation. Although these actions are not necessarily easy to pinpoint and complain about as they are part of the work culture and traditions. Moreover, the discriminating strategies are normalised, a normalisation that is difficult to critique as it might not be evident to everyone that there is an unfair component. Additionally, it is not necessarily a pertinacious strategy but an ingrained way to constrain and contain a preferred work culture and limit staff disruptions by not giving outsiders undue influence. Moreover, excluding culturally and socially diverse citizens and bilingual minority groups might not necessarily be perceived as discrimination because of traditions and internalised values and beliefs, thus just containing and conforming to the customary milieu. An environment that prioritises sameness and belonging

92

Structural- and agency-level violence

over diversity. A setting that creates safety and comfort for staff to work and socialise with like-minded people. Population uniformity preference is emphasised in Bourdieu’s habitats discourse. The social and cultural environments are accustomed to where like-minded behaviour is conjectured. Sameness is comforting, and engaging with people compatible with heritage, attitudes and behaviour is seamless. Furthermore, it is also one reason minority ethnic groups congregate in specific geographic areas, come together in specific workplaces or trade, as well as make up a large part of the small business cohort due to difficulties in gaining employment or having nonnative qualifications accepted in majority ethnic-dominated professions. Systemic discrimination is often thought to refer to solely race and ethnic heritage. Nevertheless, systemic discrimination is more ubiquitous than limiting it to individual skin colour, heritage and ethnic affiliation. Exposure to discrimination is diverse and not necessarily manifest in physical features or perceived as discriminatory by the perpetrator. Sue, Capodilupo, Torino et al. (2007:273) define systemic discrimination based on race or “racial microaggressions”. Brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of colour. Perpetrators of microaggressions are often unaware that they engage in such communications when they interact with racial/ethnic minorities. (Sue et al. 2007:273) Additionally, Sian (2019:2ff) focuses on institutional racism concerning the British university milieu, an equally globally relevant discussion to other university milieus. Sian highlights five myths in the study of racism within British universities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Universities encourage inclusivity and diversity; Universities invest in racially marked academics; Universities are ‘post-racial’; Universities desire curriculum reform; and Universities are committed to race equality.

Investment in inclusiveness and diversity beyond colonisation ideology and dated curriculums are noble policy strategies, but they are also easily circumvented when employing staff outside the traditional mainstream cohort. For example, it is easier to classify an applicant as unqualified if presenting gained qualifications outside the country’s education system, not from the preferred institute, with the “correct” language pronunciation, sentence structure or “prescribed” standard. Another possibility is that the applicant is missing a course or skill experience early in the education trajectory, an experience or merit that might have been compensated for in later studies. Thus, there are strategies to circumvent and explain that an applicant does not come from the desired meritorious school, university

Structural- and agency-level violence 93 education or skills pathway, hence not “right” for the position. Likewise, to dismiss that the applicant’s social, cultural or faith backgrounds have no bearing on the decision or are devoid of sameness with the existing staff milieu and qualification requirements. Systemic discrimination is not a new phenomenon and has been highlighted by many researchers previously; for instance, in the writing of Neal (1998) in The Making of Equal Opportunities Policies in Universities, and Bhattacharya and Gillen (2016) in Power, Race, and Higher Education: A Cross-Cultural Parallel Narrative. However, there is a difference between how systemic discrimination is presented – directly, bluntly or indirectly. For example, as presented by one of Sian’s (2019:26–27) interviewees: People in HE [Higher Education] like to pose as liberals, as if they’re intelligent people, nice people – but they’re not and that’s the tragedy of it. Racism is much more insidious in HE. Remember what Malcolm X said: ‘I have far more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands even if he is wrong, then the one who comes up like an angel but is nothing but a devil’ that is imprinted on my mind. An impediment to making a systemic discrimination claim is that it is difficult to pinpoint and set a specific issue in context. Without its context, not just verbal and physical exchanges but also the atmosphere and non-verbal gestures and sounds, the discrimination can be seen as trivial and not prejudicing when only focusing on the spoken words. For example, the quote below speaks for many academics and other employees, a situation beyond ethnicity and language skills. The problem with the day-to-day encounters of racism is that it’s difficult to pinpoint them down. I’ve felt that I’ve not been included a number of times, or I am the last person to be consulted on something. And the more powerful or elite those discussions are, the more likely you are not to be included – so you hear about stuff later on. It’s really that feeling of not being part of shaping the place you work. (Sian 2019:28) Information, participation in discussions and who should be elected to committees give employees power. Thus, the exclusion is detrimental to anyone’s career and singularity in the institutional strategies of opinions and management. Information and meeting notes are mainly distributed electronically in the internet age, thus not restricting how many can be included. In Australia, as in other nations with extensive multicultural and minority migrant populations, non-native speaking people’s expressions, pronunciations and/or choice of words often classify the person, if diverting from the “majority pronunciation”, as less intelligent, less qualified and less skilled, thus an outsider. A setting creates an atmosphere where suspiciousness, untrustworthiness and perception of unintelligent comments and attitudes linger around the staff member. Thus, in the selection process about who

94

Structural- and agency-level violence

should be included or excluded from decision-making positions and significant committees, there is a preference for sameness in gender, language and ethnicity. In the western world, the leadership group is overly middle-class white males, an influential group not always aware of gender and ethnic diversity. The significance of derogative behaviour and language is social and ethnic multiplicity below the theoretical level. Thus, from the leadership position, discrimination exists in the outside world, not necessarily in their workplace. Notwithstanding this perception, the employees themselves might experience the workplace differently. University workplaces with a concentration on knowledge creation and open-mindedness are no exceptions. The examples presented in Sian’s (2019) research highlight differences between staff and student experiences. A conclusion drawn by Sian is that it reflects the old colonisation framework, which is the historical basis for British and Australian universities, albeit on opposite geographical continents. The colonisation ambience divides staff and students according to insiders with English heritage and outsiders from a non-English and bilingual heritage. It is slowly challenged but resisted by the privileged masses controlling most higher sections of political and economic resources in any western society. Notwithstanding this situation, reflecting on students’ heritage in an increasingly global education market with many first-generation university students from non-traditional tertiary education populations is timely. In addition, education is seen as a pathway to social and financial upward mobility. Notwithstanding this, present-day university education is primarily delivered by white middle-class men, who often lack experience or understanding of contemporary students’ challenges and life situations. This is further highlighted in the below section discussing agency-level discrimination, harassment and violence among young adults. Besides, the global world is evolving and becoming more diverse. Therefore, it is timely to thought-provoke the male white middle-class dominating perspective. Universities must critically reflect upon their institutional values, codes, and principles, if they are serious about abolishing current patterns of racism and inequality that are swamping the sector. They need to think carefully about the outward facing message that they are presenting not only nationally but also at the global level. The continued perpetuation of insular thought and practice is no longer appealing in a fast changing global landscape. Without the willingness of senior management to take a lead in implementing these changes, the depressing, stagnant context, … will continue to be reproduced to no end. (Sian 2019:179) The struggle to create university settings that demonstrate ethnic and gender equality and diversity where career trajectories are based on merit underpins students’ study environment and creates belonging for all. This idealism, however, has a long road to travel to achieve equality. In its nature, humans struggle to give up social status and power, primarily ingrained or inert power, over generations.

Structural- and agency-level violence 95 Dominance and social status positions are taken for granted founded on heritage, gender and ethnicity. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse to not listen to females, minority gender and ethnic groups; their stories should be told, and they have a human right to be believed. Unfortunately, keeping quiet about systemic and symbolic violence, harassment and discrimination will not change anything. Ignoring violence and hiding uncomfortable truths will benefit no one; it enables further divisions. Structural, systemic and symbolic discrimination are not only ethnic and gender issues. In the present-day global world, discrimination in the form of violence and harassment of physical, sexual, social and cultural nature are present at all societal levels. Hence, an ingrained and integrated part of societies’ fabric, a societal issue and a significant setting to be critically analysed. In the following section, symbolic violence is examined.

Symbolic violence Symbolic violence is a created habitus developed through accepted values and beliefs evolved throughout generations, a dynamic force that adapts to population and societal changes. Moreover, symbolic violence becomes ingrained into the fabric of the macro-, meso- and micro-society, fashioning individuals’ minds, thoughts and behaviour. Thus, symbolic violence becomes the dominant context of social norms that perceives and responds to societal structures and processes underpinned by and through modes of thought. Individuals are the product of this domination, as ‘the “order of things” comes to seem to them natural, self-evident, and legitimate’ (Bourdieu 2005:213–214). [T]he only way to understand this particular form of domination is to move beyond the forced choice between constraint (by forces) and consent (to reasons), between mechanical coercion and voluntary, free, deliberate, even calculated submission. The effect of symbolic domination … is exerted not in the pure logic of knowing consciousnesses but through the schemes of perception, appreciation, and action that are constitutive of habitus and which, below the level of the decisions of consciousness and the controls of the will, set up a cognitive relationship that is profoundly obscure to itself. (Bourdieu 2001a:37) Bourdieu (1998) proposes that nation-states retain all power over the citizens, hence manifesting Weber’s (1958) structural-level power discourse, thus acknowledging the interlink between power and politics. This societal internalised symbolic force holds political power and governance of the nation, particularly the populace, together. Weber’s nation refers more to ‘the idea of a nation’ than geographical borders (Weber 1964). Furthermore, Bourdieu (1998:40) defines the state as ‘the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical and symbolic violence over a definite territory’. Thus, the state is given legitimate rights to impose symbolic violence principles on its citizens, including more overt forms of violence,

96

Structural- and agency-level violence

despite not being legally sanctioned. Subsequently, the proprietors of the political power presume an entrustment of leadership that validates their society’s power structure (Bourdieu 1990b:136–137). For Bourdieu, the foundation of symbolic violence is central to understanding how a society’s hegemonic ideology persuades citizens’ minds and behaviours. Moreover, the aims are to secure that the established social class hierarchy of power and the habitual inequality structure will remain unchanged. They are henceforth being reproduced from one generation to the next (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1990a). Consequently, society’s values and beliefs and societal habitus become a way of life for the majority of the citizens. Hence, an acceptance intertwined with their experienced social and cultural internalisation of societal reasoning, thus enclosed in an atmosphere of normalised social order. However, this acceptance is without questioning the fairness of the structure and the application of symbolic violence. Consequently, an acceptance of societal norms and unreflective subordination of the society’s hegemonic ideology. As a result, acceptance of symbolic violence is not a conscious decision. Instead, societal philosophy values and belief structures are fashioned through a gradual internalisation and acceptance of ideas and assemblies. All reinforced by the society’s political and financial leaders, including the social entrepreneurs and trendsetters, a process that is shaped throughout generations. The prevailing symbolic violence cements the power hierarchy of social and political ideology and status positions. Nonetheless, as symbolic violence is used to direct and regulate citizens’ beliefs and values, subordination or superiority is achieved indirectly and without explicit or implicit acts of force or coercion. Present-day political leaders, stakeholders and social entrepreneurs often make decisions about outsiders and insiders without the populace protesting. Žižek (2008) explains symbolic violence as an objective form, a form that is accepted as factual and beyond questioning its legitimacy. Consequently, objective violence is shrewdly asserted against a background of “normality”. Notwithstanding this, symbolic violence is classified by Žižek as objective, as it also habituates itself as situated alongside the naturality of the setting. Symbolic violence has, through generations, been internalised and sustained through language, traditions and social and cultural norms, all attributes aiming to maintain the current status quo of political and economic power institutions. Symbolic violence is seamlessly enforced through the national language, social and cultural traditions, and emotional discrimination without explicit force. However, even if Bourdieu (1999) associated symbolic violence with language and declared that it is enforced through linguistic expressions, he nevertheless emphasised its naturalisation effect: ‘[t]he very lifestyle of the holders of power contributes to the power that makes it possible because its true conditions of possibility remain unrecognized’ (Bourdieu 1990a:139). The symbolic violence discourse is not merely how the violence and discrimination are communicated or the meanings of the words but equally how the language

Structural- and agency-level violence 97 and words are enunciated. Likewise, significantly, the symbolism they stand for and what they embody. This personification includes ethics in communication, knowledge and understanding of what can and cannot be verbalised. Foucault (1972) argued that the symbolic violence discourse denotes one representation of the world, fashioning power and dominant relationships. A dominance controlled by social and cultural norms as accepted by the majority of society and integrated into the society’s fabric (Recuero 2015:1; Giumetti and Kowalski 2022). For example, the English language and its social class structure can straightforwardly identify an outsider because of the selection of words and phrases, language connotation and pronunciations. Thus, the choice of words and accent classify the individual’s heritage, geographical belonging, ethnicity and social and cultural class status. Furthermore, judicial frameworks are established throughout generations by political, social, cultural and religious values and beliefs to contrive ideological ethical and moral principles on the structural and agency levels. Henceforth, the society’s fabric defines citizens’ social status position within the societal hierarchy fashioned by internalising social and cultural traditions, norms and belief systems, education and work ethics. The internalisation of societal values, gender roles, attitudes towards outsiders and minority ethnic groups, and acceptance of diversity and equality underpin the preferred way of life, creating a normalised living environment. However, structural and agency norms contribute to the acceptable level of societal violence, harassment, derogative, sexist and discriminating language. These factors contribute to the normalisation of entrenched values, beliefs and behaviours facilitated by symbolic violence. Nation-state symbolic violence Consequently, customising acceptance and normalising behaviour and attitudes do not necessarily condone violent language and behaviours but similarly do not unambiguously disagree with their usage. Notably, they are not unequivocally ignored by the dominant and powerful status groups in the public realm, such as political and financial leaders, social entrepreneurs and professional groups. Without explicitly condoning derogatory language by the powerful political and financial leadership, this inherent acceptance of symbolic violence-inspired language filters down to the agency level and becomes integrated into individuals’ attitudes and behaviour. Moreover, symbolic violence can take many forms, not necessarily acknowledged or perceived as violence by the populace. In this context, language is a powerful tool to impose dominance. It is a strategy frequently used by political leaders to emphasise the necessity of policies and restrictions. For example, using language accentuating immediate risks to gain citizens’ cooperation. Thus, creating an atmosphere of immediate risks, danger and fear for the nation-state and, ultimately, the citizens. An illustration is a practice of framing a risk around national security. It is a well-practised tool to guarantee citizen cooperation, including

98

Structural- and agency-level violence

opposition political parties, as national safety benefits and protects the nation and the populace. Therefore, imposed restrictions by political powerholders are easier accepted by the populace as necessary to protect them and the country. In this case, it is difficult to argue against the risk scenario and the decision taken by the governing body. Unfortunately, invoking national security can also be a tactic to classify inconvenient policies, actions or information as a national security issue, including the classification of government documents as confidential, thus outside public knowledge and scrutiny. Additionally, national security classification helps prevent public and mass media scrutiny, including questionable events and information that hardly threaten national security. A classic example of diversion is to create an external nationstate “conflict” to unite the population against an external outsider or use divisive politics within the nation-state to divert attention from controversial issues or information. For instance, within a nation-state, contributing financial support to political allies, masking corruption, e.g., using public money for private use, accepting bribes from interest groups and wealthy constituents or gaining voting favours by distributing financial grants to groups or communities without an open tender process. All aim to discriminate against outsiders and use symbolic violence to legitimise the actions. Nonetheless, the present-day government decides what information to share, publicising selective parts or classifying whole reports as of a national security nature. Furthermore, the definition of a “security breach” is defined by the government of the day. This includes what journalists can divulge (cf. Ackland 2021; Zifcak 2018, 2020). Media reports of journalists’ workplaces and homes being raided by the police in democratic and less democratic societies, including Australia, Russia and Hong Kong. Between 2010 and 2020, on average, 99.5 journalists were killed annually undertaking their work investigating political, economic or social stories (Statista 2021). Governments guard uncomfortable, embarrassing information and keep secrets from public scrutiny that is not necessarily always nation-state security related. Instead, the information can be politically uncomfortable documents. For example, investigating a whistle-blower “national security” leak in Australia resulted in the federal police raiding journalists’ homes and workplaces in 2019. Even if publishing the information was in the public interest, albeit incurring a questionable national security classification. Similar events have been treated comparably, such as alleged nation-states historically committed war crimes, abusive behaviour and rape by political leaders. Thus, the uncomfortable incidents stay hidden behind smokescreens of classifications, national security or information in confidence (cf. Ackland 2021). An Australian example of the government applying symbolic violence is an espionage case in the Australian court system in 2020–2022, a court case proceeding without mass media or public access to the deliberations. The background to the case is that in 2004 high-level negotiations took place between Australia and the newly independent nation-state Timor-Leste. The treaty negotiations concerned the establishment of Timor Sea maritime borders. Significantly, the

Structural- and agency-level violence 99 ownership of the oil- and gas-rich fields between Australia and Timor-Leste was at stake. The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) installed listening devices in the office of the Prime Minister of Timor-Leste, Mr Xanana Gusmão, to obtain information about Timor-Leste’s strategy in the negotiations. The information collection created an undue advantage in the negotiations for Australia. The Australian Foreign Minister (Mr Alexander Downer) allegedly ordered the bugging of the office. An ASIS agent in charge of installing the listening devices and operation later turned whistle-blower and revealed the person’s involvement in the bugging for his lawyer. The whistle-blower and the legal team faced secret trials in Australia over several years (Zifcak 2018, 2020). The classification of the trials as national security or commercial in confidence issues, e.g., secret for public viewing more than 18 years after the event, can be viewed as a strategy to hide the Australian government’s dirty deeds rather than a security risk. Spying and secret surveillance might not be a new or controversial strategy as most nations use it in peace and conflict times. Nonetheless, it is also about violating human rights and moral standing. An illustration, Australia, a wealthy and prosperous western country, tried to undermine one of the world’s poorest countries Timor-Leste, to secure a financial advantage in the negotiations. Morally and ethically, it is unfathomable that an already prosperous and resource-rich country undermines an emerging new nation-state’s financial security and the well-being of its citizens. Moreover, violating the rights and hindering an undeniable poverty-ridden society from establishing a viable industry and rebuilding the nation’s future after gaining freedom from Indonesia (20 May 2002) as well as obstructing a pathway out of destitution for the nation and its citizens. Ackland (2021:5) summarises the actions of Australia in the following way: The Collaery and K cases are unsettling reflections of where Australia is today. A nervous, hyped-up nation, battling its demons with laws that undermine fairness and open process, that bring the justice system into odium, use national security to menace citizens and cover up government deceit, and impose the spectre of prison on journalists who have a nose for the story. From an outside observer’s perspective, it is questionable if the vast array of information classified as national security or confidential and not for public airing would challenge the nation-state’s resources and risk citizens’ lives and overall security. Nonetheless, making information, reports and discussions confidential has become a convenient way to hide uncomfortable structural-level political and economic information from citizens. However, the newly elected Australian Federal Government’s Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus (21 May 2022) ordered the Commonwealth to drop the prosecution of lawyer Bernard Collaery (7 July 2022: cf. Gareth 2022). Four years after the charges of leaking, classified information about Australia’s alleged spying operation in Timor-Leste were submitted for trial.

100

Structural- and agency-level violence

Additionally, it is noteworthy to acknowledge an increasing trend to include non-national security-related scientific research and reports from being publicly available. One strategy is to delay publication of research findings, demand rewrites, selectively publish sections or not make the report public. The secrecy is primarily applied to research findings that are viewed as critical to or put a less favourable picture on government policy, regulations and implementations of legal requirements. For instance, in pubs, clubs and casinos, underage gambling for money is prohibited in Australian States and Territories. However, a state government-funded research project highlighted that gambling for money by underage young people was commonplace in Australian sport clubs (Fabiansson 2010). The conclusions were based on a survey of 754 young people and interviews with youth workers and sport club managers in two Australian states. The government funding bodies deemed the findings not in the public interest to be published, even if gambling, especially early introduction to gambling, is a societal health issue. Notwithstanding the findings showing violation of gambling regulations with the occurrence of gambling for money by underage young people, which was in contravention of the States’ and Territories’ laws, it was deemed that these findings were not in the public interest to be published. The state governments funded research projects exploring young people’s and minority ethnic groups’ gambling exploring the adherence to existing gambling laws or possible re-adjustment of gambling regulations. However, the findings were not for public discussion, despite Australia’s high level of problem gambling (Fabiansson 2010). Furthermore, the example shows the politicising of research findings, as gambling revenue and sport clubs’ community power are significant factors in policy development to restrict gambling. Therefore, gambling restrictions could disadvantage the Australian States’ and Territories’ political leadership and donations. In summary, the difference between systemic and symbolic violence and its discriminative influence on organisations, institutions and the populace is somewhat floating. None of the systemic and symbolic violence is explicitly part of the nation-state’s legal framework. Rather, traditions and customs keep preferential power structures within the insiders’ control. There is also an interlink between structural and agency levels, as decisions made on the structural level have implications for the agency level. Significantly, restrictions on freedom of speech and information transparency, including the definition of national security, will raise questions about power-infused violence. Although, the normalness of systemic and symbolic violence makes it invisible.

Agency-level systemic and symbolic violence In summary, the discourses about violence, harassment and discrimination on the agency level draw on sociological dissertations. Particularly, Marx and Engels (1973), Weber (1964), Ardent (1969, 1970), Bauman (1989), Bourdieu (1977), Galtung (1969, 1990, 1993) and Beck (2007), all highlighting violence

Structural- and agency-level violence 101 as an integral part of societal epochs and still exceedingly present in the modern twenty-first-century society. Research about violence between individuals has focused primarily on family and sexual violence. However, sexual, physical, social, religious and cultural violence, harassment and discrimination are presented in the public realm. Additionally, agency-level abuse and mistreatment prevail on all societal levels. Unfortunately, in domestic or family settings, public domain violence only reaches the public news if the violence is gruesome or deadly, hence commonly hidden crimes. As mentioned, a globally renewed focus on violence in the public realm was the reporting of harassment of young adults in the aftermath of the attacks on females at the Cologne (Germany) New Year celebration in 2015 (Chambers 2016) and the #MeToo movement (established October 2017). These events gained worldwide mass media coverage, thus ensuring that harassment, violence and discrimination incidents have retained their visibility in the public realm. The #MeToo movement aided the understanding and scope of violence in present-day society, particularly that violent and harassing behaviour are not isolated incidents, including often perpetrated without a witness. Furthermore, it highlights the risks females, minority genders and ethnic minority groups face in everyday life. Significantly, the #MeToo movement has become a symbol of gender inequalities and discrimination. Moreover, ethnic discrimination and racism, highlighted by the #BlackLivesMatter movement, achieved global revival with George Floyd’s death. However, not a new movement, as the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter movement’s social media trending started in the US in 2013 in the aftermath of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for shooting the 17-years-old African American Trayvon Martin in 2012 (17 February, Florida). Nevertheless, aside from its earlier existence, in 2020, #BlackLivesMatter gained worldwide recognition. Pivotal to this recognition was the extensive uptake of mobile phones producing videos with sound in real time and the internet facility to release the recordings onto the World Wide Web. As a result, the unfolding of the arrest and subsequent death of Mr Floyd was followed in real time. Notwithstanding the present-day movements, #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter, protests about societal inequalities have a long history. The first wave of feminist movements and female rights organisations originated in the late 1700s. In more contemporary time, it was driven by mainly white middle-class females, such as Mary Wollstonecraft. She was followed by Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf and ethnic diversity females such as bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) and Malala Yousafzai, to mention a few globally recognisable agitators for females’ rights. Nevertheless, numerous females have equally intensively fought for their and others’ human rights, died or been imprisoned, albeit not necessarily gained global recognition. Gains, for example, the right to vote, have been successfully achieved wholly or partly in many nation-states, although not necessarily democratic or unrestricted freedom of political parties to stand for office. Nonetheless, other issues, e.g., access to education, equal pay, universal and affordable

102

Structural- and agency-level violence

childcare, abortion and unbiased career opportunities, are still unfinished discrimination issues. Unfortunately, during global crises such as the recent GFC and current COVID-19 pandemic, the powerless individuals are invariably experiencing the economic downturn most dramatically with increased unemployment or underemployment. Equality movements, gender and/or ethnicity derived, highlight discrimination grounded on human rights inequalities. Social, cultural, political and faithbased movements reflect the societal change as they reflect current discriminative issues. For instance, climate change is a reaction towards global corporations and politicians’ neglect highlighted by a single student protest (Greta Thunberg) morphing into a global protest movement. The protest movement is driven by young students as well as other population cohorts. Another example is the newly established Extinction Rebellion [XR] group in England. XR is a non-violent civil obedience group attracting diverse groups of citizens. They mobilise pop-up protests and mass demonstrations against the violation of the earth and its sustainability. The movement is based on like-minded people connected through social media networks. This loosely connected group mobilise quickly to undertake protests about environmental destruction. Vital for their activities is to gain publicity and share the cover of the protest globally. However, aside from the global coverage and the movement’s aim to emphasise an issue of high significance, their protest is not necessarily leading to substantial or lasting impact or immediate policy changes. To reiterate, Arendt (1969) and Bauman (1989) emphasised that violence is prominent in present-day society (Watts and Zimmermann 2002). Additionally, Walby (2015) highlighted attitude changes following the GFC around violentinfused language, an escalating competition where citizens’ groups and individuals compete against each other. Hence, supporting policies that facilitate an austerity conservative neoliberal ideology. An ideology that was already trending and instigated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. A component of neoliberal politics was a drive to achieve fiscal austerity management, small governments and tightened distribution of resources, an ideology followed in the administration of the GFC fallout. Austerity measures disproportionally affect females and minority ethnic groups in service and hospitality industries with short-term and contract employment. In addition, underpinning political and financial transformations increased inequality and competition around resources. It became a setting where violence, harassment and discrimination festered. Nonetheless, it is also a milieu where innovative power structures, contests and divisions between population groups thrive and community sectors develop new alliances (Walby and Towers 2017; Ray 2018). Traditional western power structures have fashioned gender roles with males in the public domain and females in the private realm, where hegemonic traditions and family habitus retain gender differences. Notwithstanding the increasing female participation ratio in the public realm, at universities and in political and financial professional careers, gender equality has not transformed substantially.

Structural- and agency-level violence 103 Females still occupy less powerful positions and are frequently concentrated in the health, service and hospitality sectors. These sectors, except health, are also most sensitive to economic crises where redundancies are first felt. Subsequently, gender and minority ethnic inequality are increasingly exposed to financial stress and competition for work opportunities. The societal values and beliefs are carried over to choices of university courses. Thus, male students more commonly select university courses of higher status and professional pathways, such as medical and technical sciences and law. At the same time, females are found in arts and social science courses. Furthermore, society’s political, social and cultural ideologies are ingrained into all public institutions, enforced by educational institutions from day care to universities and workplaces. Consequently, the university milieu mirrors society’s hegemonic hierarchical political, cultural and social status structures (Weber 1968, 1964). Citizens reproduce superiors’ or subordinates’ views throughout their lives, underpinned by internalising societal values and belief systems. Thus, to be accepted and belong to a social status class, the individual internalises and takes on the values and beliefs of their “allocated” status position within the societal hierarchy. Thus, a hierarchy is grounded on the individual’s developed social, cultural and economic habitus. As a result, individuals create a unique social identity, adapting to social networks and belongings to societal groupings (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1999). The society’s hierarchical structure is carried over into educational institutions, an environment conducive to people’s perceived social status ranking. People retain their place through family habitus and symbolic violence and take on the role of custodians of society’s beliefs and values. Systemic and symbolic violence discourses are accepted indirectly and without the explicit need for acts of force, coercion or overt violence by powerholders. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992:168) note symbolic violence as a form of complicity, not necessarily understood or recognised by the parties due to habitus creation and internalisation of societal beliefs and values, where the difference between freedom and constraint is floating. Besides, the application of systemic and symbolic violence is an organic process. Individuals, through their family habitus and social and cultural milieu, reinforced by educational institutions and societal structures, form a social status position within society’s hegemonic hierarchy. Consequently, the society’s legal framework underpinned by customary systemic and symbolic violence creates an individual’s social status ranking. Social and cultural habitus created in the family environment is further fashioned by educational institutions that reinforce society’s ideology through traditions and customs. Thus, it creates an environment of progressively internalised thinking and promoting behaviour aligned with society’s ideology. Notwithstanding this generational scenario, exceptions exist where young adults develop contrary values and beliefs from their social class habitus to reflect their uniquely created societal understandings reproducing their lived experiences, habitus and identities. Hence, the “socialised subjectivity” (Bourdieu 1977:72) legitimises their accepted social order and the structures imposed on

104

Structural- and agency-level violence

their life situation (Bourdieu 1988:20–21), albeit not necessarily without adjustments and questioning the social norms. Thus, young adults transfer their family habitus status to university or workplace settings. They grade themselves according to their perceived societal hierarchy. Therefore, those who identify themselves as belonging to a superior or subordinate position represent the values developed throughout their social and cultural environment and correspondingly adjust to the university and work milieu. The public setting replicates their “socialised subjectivity” but is not necessarily static or becomes unchallenged in the new young adult environment (Yule and Grych 2020). An added aspect of violence, harassment or discrimination acts is that these incidents are often seen as insignificant and not necessarily perceived as crimes. Moreover, there are debates about why victims do not report episodes of harassment and violence. One explanation is the perceived futility of reporting nonlife-threatening harassment and violent incidents without clear identification and witnesses willing to support the victim in public hearings. Furthermore, harassment crimes get less priority and disappear among more serious violent crimes. This lack of reporting has implications for the accuracy of the official statistics as these crimes become underreported. Still a commonplace feature, but especially historically, victims of sexual abuse have had difficulties being believed, mainly when the perpetrator is a clergyman or a person of high-ranking societal social and power status. Reporting of these crimes can be 20 or 30 years old before the scope of the crimes is reported to authorities and become officially known. Consequently, these victims suffer throughout their childhood and adult lives before privately or publicly discussing their trauma. Additionally, females commonly risk being blamed for encouraging sexual interaction due to behaviour, dress, being out after dark and/or being intoxicated, and not being believed. An unsubstantiated or even a substantiated complaint increases the risk of losing a work position or missing out on a promotion. The social stigma (Goffman 1963) attached to not managing everyday life’s trepidations, including acknowledging being a victim of harassment or discrimination, is still seen as a weakness of not managing to adjust to societal hegemonic culture and traditions. In addition, females, minority genders and ethnic and faith groups are still perceived as outsiders within high-status professions and relegated to less powerful positions. Thus, an inbuilt disadvantage to report abuse because of the fear of not being believed, being perceived as a troublemaker, reporting a higher-up manager, standing out, questioning management decisions or voicing contradictory opinions. Consequently, it is not surprising that children, young people, females and minority groups prefer to be silent about mistreatment, discrimination or harassment and continue to collaborate with colleagues and engage in teamwork not to risk losing their work position or social status. The following section focuses on university students and student staff’s experiences of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm, at university campuses, travelling to and from campuses, metropolitan centres and attending social or cultural recreational settings.

Structural- and agency-level violence 105

References Ackland, R. (2021) ‘Bernard collaery and witness K’. The Saturday Paper, 12–18 June 2021: 1–5. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2021/06/12/bernard -collaery-and-witness-k/162342000011856#hrd, accessed 19 October 2022. Arendt, H. (1969) ‘Political conflict: Perspectives on revolution’. Journal of International Affairs, 23 (1): 1–35. Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane. Banks, J. (2021) Power Play. Breaking Through Bias, Barriers and Boys’ Clubs. Richmond, VIC: Hardie Grant Books. Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2007 [1992]) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Bhattacharya, K. and Gillen, N.K. (2016) Power, Race, and Higher Education. A CrossCultural Parallel Narrative. Teaching Race and Ethnicity, 5. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990a) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990b) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Trans. Matthew Adamson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1999) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2001 [1998]) Masculine Domination. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2005 [2000]) The Social Structures of the Economy. Trans. Chris Turner. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Cassells, R. and Duncan, A. (2020) Gender equity insights 2020: Delivering the business outcomes, BCEC/WGEA gender equity series, Issue #5, March. https://www.wgea .gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/BCEC%20WGEA%20Gender%20Equity %20Insights%202020%20Delivering%20the%20Business%20Outcomes_WEB_ FINAL.pdf, accessed 19 October 2022. Chambers, M. (2016) ‘Germany was shocked by mass attacks on women in Cologne during New Year’s celebrations’. Insider, 6 January 2016. https://www.businessinsider .com/germany-cologne-new-years-attacks-women-2016-1?r=AU&IR=T, accessed 19 October 2022. Fabiansson, C. (2010) Pathways to Excessive Gambling. A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits. Farnham, Surrey UK: Ashgate Publishing Group. Farmer, P. (2004) ‘An anthropology of structural violence’. Current Anthropology, 45 (3): 305–326. Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

106

Structural- and agency-level violence

Galtung, J. (1969) ‘Violence, peace, and peace research’. Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3): 167–191. Galtung, J. (1990) ‘Cultural violence’. Journal of Peace Research, 27 (3): 291–305. Galtung, J. (1993) ‘Kulturelle Gewalt’. Der Burger im Staat, 43: 106–112. Gareth, E. (2022) ‘Lessons from the Bernard Collaery case’. The Saturday Paper, No. 421, October 15–21. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2022/10/15/ lessons-the-bernard-collaery-case, accessed 16 October 2022. Gilligan, J. (1997) Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. New York: Vintage Books. Giumetti, G.W. and Kowalski, R.M. (2022) ‘Cyberbullying via social media and wellbeing’. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, June Article 101291: 1–8. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johns, F. and Krygier, M. (2021) ‘Power of attorney: The rule of law is not a shield for the powerful’. The Monthly, 9 March. https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/fleur-johns -and-martin-krygier/2021/09/2021/1615254559/power-attorney, accessed 19 October 2022. Latour, B. (1992) ‘Where are the missing masses?’ In W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Changes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 225–258. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory. Oxford: University Press. Lee, Y., Li, J-Y.Q. and Tsai, W-H.S. (2021) ‘The role of strategic internal communication in workplace discrimination: A perspective of racial minority employees’. International Journal of Strategic Communication, January–March, 15 (1): 37–59. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1973 [1848]) ‘Manifesto of the communist party: 62–98’. In D. Fernback (ed.), Karl Marx, Political Writings: The Revolutions of 1848. Harmondsworth: Penguin: 73–74, 75–76: 78, 98. Neal, S. (1998) The Making of Equal Opportunities Policies in Universities. Buckingham: Open University Press. Powell, M. (2021) ‘M.I.T.’s choice of lecturer ignited criticism. So did its decision to cancel’. The New York Times, 20 October 2021. A printed version of the article, 21 Oct., 2021, Section A, Page 1 of the New York ed. headlined: Science, Ideology and Politics Jostle in the Halls of Academia. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot -mit.html, accessed 19 October 2022. Ray, L. (2018) Violence and Society. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. Recuero, R. (2015) ‘Social media and symbolic violence’. Social Media + Society, April– June 2015: 1–3. Sian, K. (2019) Navigating Institutional Racism in British Universities. Serie: Mapping Global Racisms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Statista (2021) Number of Journalists Killed Worldwide from 1995 to 2020. https://www .statista.com/statistics/266229/number-of-journalists-killed-since-1995/, accessed 20 October 2022. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.M.B., Nadal, K.L. and Esquilin, M. (2007) ‘Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice’. American Psychologist, 62 (4): 271–286. Sydney Morning Herald [SMH] (2021) ‘He’s no neo-Nazi’: How a cancelled lecture lit a free-speech firestorm’. The Sydney Morning Herald Digital. https://www.smh.com .au/world/north-america/he-s-no-neo-nazi-how-a-cancelled-lecture-lit-a-free-speech -firestorm-20211022-p59266.html, accessed 19 October 2022.

Structural- and agency-level violence 107 Walby, S. (2015) Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walby, S. and Towers, J. (2017) ‘Measuring violence to end violence: Mainstreaming gender’. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1 (1): 11–31. Watts, C. and Zimmermann, C. (2002) ‘Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude’. The Lancet, 359 (9313): 1232–1237. Weber, M. (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Trans. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1964 [1950]) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, and ed., with an introduction by Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1968 [1930]) The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin University Books. Winter, Y. (2012) ‘Violence and visibility’. New Political Science, 34 (2): 195–202. Withers, R. (2021) ‘The rule of survival. The PM continues to insist upon the “rule of law”’. The Politics – The Monthly Today, 9 March 2021. https://www.themonthly.com .au/today/rachel-withers/2021/09/2021/1615262225/rule-survival, accessed 20 October 2022. Yule, K. and Grych, J. (2020) ‘College students’ perceptions of barriers to bystander intervention’. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35 (15–16): 2971–2992. Zifcak, S. (2018) ‘The story of the shameful Timor prosecution’. Australian Institute of International Affairs, Global Voices, 16 July. http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/ australianoutlook/the-story-of-the-shameful-timor-prosecution/, accessed 20 October 2022. Zifcak, S. (2020) ‘Witness K and Bernard Collaery: An unjust prosecution gets even worse’. Pearls and Irritations, John Menadue, Public Political Journal, 12 October 2020. https://johnmenadue.com/spencer-zifcak-witness-k-and-bernard-collaery-an -unjust-prosecution-gets-even-worse/, accessed 19 October 2022. Žižek, S. (2008) Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York, NY: Picador.

4

Agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination

Introduction This chapter examines the interconnectedness between the structural and agencylevels concerning young adults’ perceptions and experiences of violence in the university milieu. In addition, harassment and discrimination as experienced by minority ethnic and international students. The next chapter examines the First Nation Australian - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people of colour experiences of violence. The following chapter focuses on harassment and discrimination at the structural leadership level, attitudes and experiences by academic staff, corporation leaders and parliamentarians. Thus, the agency research of young adults explores if the societal hegemonic structural level’s political, economic, legal, social and cultural frameworks influence individual values, behaviours and attitudes. This theme of interconnections between structural and agency levels was explored in an earlier comparative research project about nation-states’ hegemonic ideology, beliefs and values concerning the usage of corporal punishment to discipline children and young people. The genesis of the research explored two nation-states’ contrasting hegemonic ideologies and legal frameworks about corporal punishment, Australia and Sweden, and significantly how the different ideologies influenced the acceptance and usage of corporal punishment. In addition, it examined young people’s perceptions, attitudes and experiences of physical discipline, including sexual abuse (Fabiansson 1994). The Australian and Swedish cultural and social ideologies around physical discipline differed from accepting it as a tool to discipline children and young people to non-acceptance. This research was undertaken in the early 1990s when the Australian and Swedish legal systems differed distinctly. Chiefly, the Swedish legal framework stated the significance of children’s welfare and the right to a safe and non-violent upbringing. Physical discipline of children and young people was unacceptable and thus not part of the hegemonic ideology, e.g., physically disciplining children and young people were unlawful. A philosophy judicially supported and overwhelmingly accepted by the Swedish people. Furthermore, its general acceptance was underpinned by social and cultural discourses on how young people should be treated at home. A legally enforced reasoning was already introduced in educational institutions as early as 1958. DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-4

Agency-level violence 109 However, the same philosophy, beliefs and values of discontentment with physical discipline were not reflected in Australia’s legal framework or social and cultural traditions. Sweden’s Children and Parent Code to prohibit all corporal punishment and other humiliating treatment of children: In 1979, Sweden became the first country in the world to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment and other humiliating treatment of children. This pioneering reform is considered to have achieved full prohibition in all settings, including the home, and has fostered a profound change of attitude across Swedish society in relation to violence against children. One key success factor has been the abolition of any legal justification for physical discipline of any kind. (World Future Council 2022; Svensk Författningssamling 1979) Another difference at that time was the ethnic homogeneity and less exposure to international entertainment media through the limited availability of free television channels. Additionally, the Swedes were less proficient in English, thus requiring subtexts on foreign movies. Compared to Australian young people, the Swedes lived in a more sheltered family and entertainment environment than the Australians. Thus, Australian young people had extensive access to English language entertainment media, hence internationally connected. In addition, Australians had access to several commercial television channels. Henceforth, the countries differed in their legal frameworks and access to international entertainment mass media. The Australian sample included 57% females and 43% males, and the Swedish 63% females and 37% males. The demographic cohort was middle-class high school students between 13 and 19 years of age. The high school students still lived with parents or guardians [N = 326] (Fabiansson 1994). The research finding showed that the legal acceptance level of violence differed between the countries, including attitudes to acceptable public and private realm violence, discrimination and harassment. These findings also affected the respondents’ attitudes to and experiences of physical discipline and sexual violence. For example, the most frightening content for the young people shown on television was related to fiction or documentary programs with unexpected, realistic themes or documentaries, mainly showing conflicts and natural disasters. Such mass media content scared 64% of the females and 32% of the males in the Australian cohort. The corresponding figures for Swedish females were 46% and 49% for males. The Australian females were most scared by these programs, followed by the Swedish males, perhaps demonstrating viewing patterns rather than overall differences about being frightened (Fabiansson 1994:153). Other findings were that the Australian young people reported a higher experience than the Swedes concerning physical discipline. The perception of the normalness of parents’ use of physical discipline was noticeably higher for Australians (62%) than for Swedes (41%). Regarding their own experience of physical discipline,

110 Agency-level violence 91% of the Swedes had not experienced physical discipline, while the corresponding percentage for the Australians was 49% (Fabiansson 1994:158–159). Furthermore, the research highlighted differences between Australian and Swedish young people concerning the incidences of sexual abuse; 88% of the Australian females and 63% of the Swedish females thought sexual abuse was very common/common. However, it showed no difference between the males’ knowledge about sexual abuse. Their corresponding percentages were 45% Australian and 44% Swedish, respectively. These findings indicate that the Australian females were more aware of sexual abuse than the Swedish females, while the males showed similar awareness (Fabiansson 1994:164). Moreover, this nation-state comparative research explored individual and friends’ experiences and knowledge about sexual abuse. Seven per cent of Australians and 2% of Swedes reported personal experience of sexual abuse. In addition, 22% of Australians knew about a friend being sexually abused. This is compared to 4% among the Swedes. Finally, 20% of the Australians were aware of sexual abuse, but the victim was not a close friend. The corresponding figure for the Swedes was 16%. Thus, more females had an augmented experience and knowledge about sexual abuse than males. Besides, the Australian had a considerably greater experience of sexual abuse and knowledge about friends and acquaintances that had been sexually abused than the Swedish females. Although for all respondents, their own experiences of sexual abuse showed lower percentages than their perception of the commonality of sexual abuse of young people. In more detail, both countries demonstrated gender-related differences in the experience of sexual abuse. However, the differences in the Swedish sample showed a very weak significance, while for the Australian cohort, gender-related differences were highly significant. Personal experience of sexual abuse was more frequent among females than male respondents. Ten per cent of the Australian females said they had been sexually abused, while 2% of the Swedish females reported the same experience. Four per cent of the Australian males and 3% of the Swedish males reported they had been sexually abused. Only the Swedish females, not the males, knew about a friend who had been sexually abused (8%). These percentages contrast with the Australian cohort, where sexual abuse of a friend was known by 30% of the females and 11% of the males. Hence, knowledge about someone being sexually abused was most common among Australian females (23%), followed by Swedish females (16%), Swedish males (15%) and Australian males (14%) (Fabiansson 1994:165–166). In summary, the research showed that Australian young people were more aware and had more experiences of physical discipline and sexual abuse than their Swedish counterparts. Furthermore, the finding indicates that sexual abuse was of more concern for young females than males. Additionally, the research signified that the hegemonic legal framework of a higher acceptance level of physical discipline of young people and children in Australia had a bearing on their knowledge and experience. Such mindfulness was not demonstrated in the Swedish sample.

Agency-level violence 111 Moreover, in the public setting, it would be unprecedented to witness an act of physical discipline of young people or children in Sweden, while not so in the Australian realm. Thus, the findings show that the structural level hegemonic ideology of legal acceptance of physical discipline is impacting attitudes and values around how corporal punishment is applied in raising children and young people on the agency level. The 1990s research was undertaken in a different society framework than the present-day society, a time of relatively conflict-free atmosphere between and within nation-states. It was also a less technology-influenced society. Notwithstanding this, it gives a good reference point about young people’s knowledge of violence, including that the structural and agency societal levels demonstrate an interconnectedness. Furthermore, the 1990s research cohort was younger than the respondents analysed in this current sample, as the latter cohort has more independent life experiences. They are already well acquainted with violence in the public and private domains. Besides, the earlier research shows that violence, harassment and discrimination ought to be analysed holistically, as the interconnection between the structural and agency levels is a significant factor in understanding violence. The following section discusses the present-day experience of violence, harassment and discrimination among young adults in the public sphere.

Research design The #MeToo movement created private and public debates around the scope of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. News and social mass media conveyed stories about abused artists, entertainers and diverse production staff, which initiated debates, re-evaluation of attitudes and awareness about societal violence and discrimination. The debate extended well outside the entertainment industry into an individual’s mundane life. Moreover, sharing incidents and experiences of harassment became acceptable. The public debate also encouraged people to question the justification for stigmatising and labelling victims as partly responsible for the abuse because of gender, dress code, drunkenness or being out at night. A stigmatisation attitude based on social and cultural traditions that females belong to the private sphere. Moreover, public dialogues emphasised the need for institutions and organisations to introduce or re-evaluate existing discrimination, bullying, harassment and anti-violence policies. Thus, an obligation to update or develop new policies around accepted work culture and public relationships. Hitherto, violence in the public domain is a less discussed offence, as the focus has been on family violence. However, the renewed focus on violence in the public realm does not necessarily go beyond an abstract perception as an issue for others while excluding theirs. Besides, it is still an academic issue and often removed from reality, even though many people accept that violence and discrimination are serious crimes. Notwithstanding the presence of violence, many agree that it should be prevented. Prevention is conveyed through pertinent and sensitive policies covering

112 Agency-level violence various violent and discriminating cases, such as gender equality, fairness and confidential and transparent complaint procedures. However, by default, employers and employees will likely assess their experiences and attitudes to violence from diverse perspectives. Thus, employees might look at it from an individual perspective. In contrast, managers and employers are from an economic and reputational angle. The contradictory perspectives in acknowledging discrimination and harassment are sources of workplace disagreements. Regardless of this renewed, worthwhile attention, the re-evaluation procedure does not necessarily reach beyond a theoretical acknowledgement that discrimination and harassment are present at the workplace or educational institution. Moreover, social and cultural traditions can make it challenging to identify or acknowledge the existence of violence and harassment because of their fixture in most public milieus. Besides, it is customary that procedures around harassment policies and complaints guidelines are updated recurrently, although habitually an exercise to rather protect the organisation against complicated and expensive legal complaints. The agency research is centred around student and student staff experiences of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm, primarily the university milieu at a metropolitan university in Australia. The university population includes local, regional and international students. The researched university supported the project with a seed grant, ethics approval and access to the university’s multicultural student cohort. The internet survey [Qualtrics] was communicated through student emails. In 2017, the university had approximately 20,000 students from six-month to three-year vocational studies and from three- to five-year undergraduate bachelor’s, master’s and PhD degree students. Even if the management of the university supported the research, there was resistance among technical staff to assist in distributing the internet survey through student emails. For example, resisting assistance in informing students and student staff about the research through student emails and the general email facility at the university, a distribution framework considered to have the broadest reach within the university population. Predominantly to make the student and student staff aware of the project, its aim and the significant confidentiality and anonymity status of the research. However, despite its approval, technical support staff were obstructing the facilitation of distributing the survey through the university student and student staff email facility. Thus, undertaking the research became a prolonged process. In the end, it was facilitated with the help of a female director responsible for student communication. Remarkably, the resistance to enabling the administration of the distribution of the survey through student and general staff emails came mostly when male staff were involved in the process. For instance, an IT staff member referred to the survey as comparable to spam emails due to its topic, thus not acceptable to be distributed. Perhaps an attempt to protect against adverse data about abuse by males, as males are most often perpetrators of violence. Nonetheless, it was a misconstruction of the study’s aim, as it is gender-inclusive and focused on attitudes and experiences of harassment and discrimination.

Agency-level violence 113 Despite the disgruntled attitude and the resistance to distributing the survey, students and student staff demonstrated a different aptitude by responding with extensive and detailed examples of discrimination, harassment and violent incidents within the university setting. Thus, a topic of significance to the university cohort. Moreover, it allowed them an opportunity to share their experiences confidentially and anonymously. An internet-based survey will not necessarily give the whole picture of harassment and discrimination in the public realm. Respondents might have personal interests or experiences that are not universal for young university students and young adults in other public settings. The research might attract young adults with experiences of violence in the public domain but also respondents with no personal experience or knowledge about violence as an impediment to engagement in the public realm. In this research, the incidents recounted by the respondents range from “minor” violent incidents to respondents who had experienced frightening incidents as victims or bystanders. Moreover, a convenient cohort does not necessarily represent all young adults or can be generalised to other cohorts, thus a well-documented limitation of an internet survey. For instance, the responses and stories submitted are not verifiable, which opens the possibility of bias towards respondents who have experienced violence and harassment and have a specific interest in the research theme. As a result, these respondents might be more inclined to participate in the research than the overall student cohort. However, even if the respondents might alter gender, age and ethnicity identification, the recounted stories presented in this survey are too detailed and graphic not to have been experienced. Thus, the reliability of the responses and the respondents’ honesty are envisaged to be highly trustworthy. Moreover, the respondents were assured confidentiality and anonymity, contributing to accurate responses. In addition, the research was not connected to their studies. Overwhelmingly, people will convey truthful and honest answers in surveys close to their interests and concerns. Respondents answered with insightfulness, understanding and knowledge about predominantly hidden public realm incidents of violence. Crimes they wanted to be highlighted and discussed in the public domain. Stories they needed to tell, to be heard and listened to without judgemental comments. Furthermore, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s reports in 2017 and 2018, including the 2021 National Student Safety Survey (Heywood et al. 2022), all show comparable outcomes to their agency’s research findings. Sample cohort The research population was university students and student staff in Australia’s second-largest city, Melbourne, but it could equally relate to any university population globally. The researched university has a cohort of overwhelmingly first-generation university students, a considerable proportion of them

114 Agency-level violence from minority ethnic heritage. The internet survey was open to all students and student staff, thus a convenient sample. An advantage of the internet survey technique is that it is inclusive and open to all. Thus, it is a method adjusted to technology-savvy and physically mobile research cohorts. It gives respondents flexibility to respond to the survey at a convenient time. In addition, it is a technology protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents without a face-to-face setting, a significant criterion for researching sensitive topics. Personal information and identifiable criteria were restricted to age, gender and ethnic belonging. The research focused on young adults’ experiences and perceptions of violence in the public domain. It explored violence, harassment and discrimination from the perspective of a cohort of university students and student staff. Harassing and violent behaviours include derogative and discriminatory verbal, physical, sexual, cultural and social acts. For example, verbal harassment narrates offensive and discriminatory language, shouting and demonstrating otherness against someone. Physical violence and harassment refer to unwanted touching, stalking, physical injuries and sexual violence, denoting the range of degrading sexually implied language, behaviour, assault and rape. The concepts of harassment and violence have corresponding meanings and are used from time to time interchangeably in the text. However, harassment was used in the survey, as it gives a broader scope to include both minor and more severe acts of mistreatment. Furthermore, the characterisation of actions such as violence, harassment or discrimination are based on individual interpretation. Their interpretations are based on social, cultural, ethnic and religious habitus and influenced by their preparedness to acknowledge experiences such as discrimination, harassment or violent acts (Council of Europe Convention 2011; Australian Human Rights Commission 2017). Finally, the public sphere refers to places outside an individual’s private residence. The research focuses on young adults. They are a group who are socially active in the public realm, pursuing their education or work, and use public transport in the evenings. The research has a broader focus than the more common focal point of sexual violence. The research questions encompass social, verbal, cultural and physical harassment, discrimination and violence in teaching situations, university campuses, as well as travel to and from the university. Furthermore, the research examines the respondents’ experience attending public events and social entertainment settings in the city centre. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collated to gain a more holistic understanding of violence in the public domain. The questions were structured and open. Each question included an open alternative, where the respondents were asked for clarifications and to give examples. In total, 154 students and student staff responded. The numeric presentations give an overview of the response distribution. At the same time, the extensive and detailed recounted incidents set the incident in context, including the respondents’ reactions and feelings about being abused.

Agency-level violence 115 Socio-demographic sample profile The following section presents an overview of the demographic and socio-economic profile of the research participants. First, the data and comments are examined in relation to genders and age groups, their experiences and perceptions of violence and harassment in the public realm. Secondly, the data is analysed from the perspective of ethnic belonging. Minority ethnicity, Australian IndigenousAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage or people of colour, as they face intersectionality discrimination, thus added settings of violence and exclusion to white Australians of Anglo-Australian heritage. Overall, the demographic and socio-economic profile of the respondents shows only minor significant differences between the gender and the age groups. The sample includes 63% [N = 97] females, 27% [N = 41] males and 10% [N = 16] undisclosed genders, e.g., respondents who do not identify with the binary femalemale gender classification (Figure 4.1). To further explore if there are dissimilarities in perception and experience of discrimination, harassment and violence according to age. The sample is also divided into three arbitrary age groups, 34% born between 1995 and 99 (young), 35% born between 1991 and 94 (adult) and 31% born in 1990 or earlier (mature) (Figure 4.1). The socio-demographic profile of the sample is further explored by country of birth and ethnic belonging. As many as 84% of the females are born in Australia. This is followed by 70% of both the males and the undisclosed gender group who are born in Australia. Regarding age groups, 86% of the adult, 83% of the young

80 67

70 60 50 40

38

40 33

30

41 33

29 19

20 10 0

0 Females Young (18-22 years)

Males Adult (23-26 years)

Figure 4.1 Gender and age distribution in per cent.

Undisclosed Mature (27> years)

116  Agency-level violence and 76% of the mature respondents are born in Australia. Furthermore, 54% of the males, 50% of the undisclosed genders and 36% of the females speak a language other than English, thus signifying a minority ethnic background. Thirty per cent of the students study full-time and do not work for a salary, while 37% of the full-time study students and 24% of the part-time study students work for a salary. Additionally, 9% of the respondents study and work in multiple combinations. Overall, 92% of the female respondents, 88% of the males and 80% of the undisclosed gender group are domestic students, while 7% of the respondents are international students. Concerning living arrangements, 42% of the respondents live at home with their parents, 26% have their own household and 32% in different share household settings. Furthermore, the overall financial situation of the respondents is presented in Figure 4.2. The differences between the groups show a weak significance [*]. Forty-four per cent of the male respondents feel financially comfortable or moderately comfortable, comparable to 38% of the females and a fifth of the undisclosed genders. On the other hand, 60% of the undisclosed genders, 44% of the females and 34% of the males are on the struggling and slightly uncomfortable spectrum of financial well-being. Thus, the females and the undisclosed genders are more likely to indicate that their financial situation is worse than the males. The respondents report only minor differences in financial status between age groups. However, a fifth of the young and adult respondents (22% and 21%, respectively) struggle financially. Additionally, 17% of the mature respondents also belong to this category. Reflecting on their social, mental and physical wellbeing, half of the respondents felt very good/good while a fifth of the students struggled with their general situation (Figure 4.3). Again, males have a lower percentage in the struggling category than females, 13% and 25%, respectively. 70

60

60 50 40 30 20

44

38

44 34

18

22

20

20

10 0 Females

Males

Undisclosed

Comfortable - moderately comfortable Between comfortable - uncomfortable Uncomfortable - strugling

Figure 4.2 Financial status by gender in per cent.

Agency-level violence 117 60

56 49

50

38

40 30 20

46 36

25 19

18 13

10 0 Females Feel very good - good

Males Between good - not good

Undisclosed Struggling

Figure 4.3 Overall well-being by gender in per cent.

The mature and adult respondents are most optimistic about their current situation (56% and 54%, respectively), while the young feel less very good/good (47%). However, the young adults also indicate that they grapple with their overall well-being more than the other age groups. Hence, a quarter of them struggle. Additionally, 17% of the adult and 18% of the mature indicate that they also struggle in their current situation (Figure 4.4). Finally, the respondents’ future aspirations show that 67% of the student and student staff assume they would find an employment position within their preferred profession after graduating. In addition, the gender division figures were 77 % females, 63% males and 70% of the respondents in the undisclosed gender group who assume their education pathway will lead to a preferred profession. Thus, the majority of the respondents feel their education pathways enhance employment prospects within their desired future occupation. In summary, the cohort is restricted to university students and student staff in different stages of their educational trajectory. In addition, nearly half of the respondents had a non-English heritage, albeit most were born in Australia. The following section presents the respondents’ stories about experiences of violence and harassment. However, firstly, the respondents’ definitions and understandings of the meanings of words and concepts concerning violence, harassment and discrimination.

118 Agency-level violence 60 50

56

54 47

40 30

29

29

26

24

18

17

20 10 0 Young Feel very good - good

Adult

Mature

Between good - not good

Struggling

Figure 4.4 Respondents’ assessment of their overall well-being situation by age in per cent.

The meanings and interpretations of words and concepts Even if the concepts of violence, harassment and discrimination commonly refer to agreed actions objectively or as defined in the law, the definitions and meanings in everyday communication give a broad scope for interpretations. Thus, definitions of violence-associated concepts are often given subjective meanings by individuals, and the acts are understood based on the context, including personal involvement. For instance, what constitutes a risk, fear or a safe environment depends on the individual’s social and cultural family environment, created habitus and first-hand experiences of violence. Likewise, the same subjectivity relates to the student and student staff respondents’ understanding of verbal, physical and sexual violence, harassment and discrimination, thus giving guidelines to their understanding of violence. Likewise, the surveyed violence-associated words, interpretations, and connotations are interlinked with the individual’s experiences in the public and private realm and her/his social and cultural habitus. Notwithstanding this, resilience and life experiences also influence interpretations of violent incidents. Thus, actions of violence are not necessarily defined in the same way or individually perceived as such. The respondents were asked to describe their understandings and meanings of keywords and concepts in more detail, thus how they subjectively understood the concepts. Firstly, they were asked to divulge their understanding of the words and concepts, safe and risk. These clarifications aimed to establish a baseline for how the respondents perceived the words’ meanings and what emotions and reactions these words raised with them.

Agency-level violence 119 The respondents gave extensive examples of situations explaining their interpretations of concepts. Therefore, the respondents’ comments and more extended quotes are reprinted as initially written. This is done to acknowledge their state of mind, feelings and way of expressing fear. Thus, their stories and comments are only adjusted concerning misleading spellings or words inserted where clarification is required to avoid misunderstandings or confusion. The additions and changes are within brackets []. However, the quotes’ sentence structure, commas or punctuations are not corrected. The meanings of being safe and risky public realms For many respondents, being safe was associated with the home environment. The security of being at home was commonly described as, ‘Being in a warm and cosy environment surrounded by my friends’ (adult male), or ‘being warm and cosy at home, not feeling threatened, being with people who I am comfortable around’ (adult female). Furthermore, safety outside the home was also narrated in a more holistic setting: To be autonomous and able to go about my daily business without being made to feel uncomfortable or threatened by others. For me, being safe is not having to alter my behaviour in a public place to avoid threatening situations, harassment or violence. (young female) Besides these meanings of being safe, the respondents gave extensive examples of atmospheres, social and physical milieus where they felt safe. For instance, ‘Protection, feeling secured, being accepted as part of the group’ (young female), ‘Public, comfortable, free from harassment and judgement, protected, away from threat or harm’ (young female). Similarly, ‘The environment that I’m in and the people that I accompany myself with’ (young female). Furthermore, they emphasised that being safe is a broader abstraction than being restricted to physical security. For instance, ‘Physical, mental and social well-being, and feeling as if you can trust those around you’ (young female), and ‘Lack of fear, feeling comfortable in an environment’ (adult male). Feeling safe was additionally described as, ‘Having comfort and knowing that nothing can harm me’ (young female) and ‘No fear of being criticised overtly, put down. A place where I can say how I think and feel freely’ (mature undisclosed gender). In a similar vein, ‘[places] without threat of harm, abuse, intimidation, violence, harassment’ (young female). Thus, to be accepted as you are, feel that you belong to places, not just physically and emotionally but also socially. In addition, being around likeminded friends and social networks will protect and make a place safe. Finally, this thoughtful and reflexive comment by an adult male respondent embraces a more all-inclusive perspective of being safe in the public domain, I could hear the words “safe” and “risk”, when I was travelling on airplane. In some other situation[s] I also [was] concern[ed] the attack with “one punch

120 Agency-level violence causing death” from discrimination & aggressive men. In my experience, I have only seen & heard the violence and sexual harassment caused by men. In western societies, I heard the men raped women & men. This kind of incident has occurred in health & education sector. Therefore, I wish more women become doctors rather than the men (adult male). The meanings associated with risk were related to public realms outside individuals’ control or influence. Thus, places where the respondents did not control the milieu which is different from the home environment. The home is a setting where some power and control over the situation exist, albeit influenced by the living arrangements, living with parents, own family, sharing a house or independently. Consequently, managing risks in the public realm demands taking personal responsibility, showing resilience and being risk-averse in the public realm. The respondents pinpointed settings and environments where the risk of violence was inherent and where they might be at risk personally. Thus, a primarily risky place, ‘a potentially harmful situation, either physically or emotionally’ (young female) or expressed as ‘Any chance of harm/feeling of being uncomfortable in a situation’ (adult male). Additionally, including others, ‘Any situation that could be dangerous or cause harm to myself or others’ (young female). However, relying on the individual’s own unaided ability to be risk-averse is not enough, as others’ behaviour should also be considered. Therefore, creating a requirement to be agile in thought and behaviour, flexible in everyday habits and forward-thinking in dealing with unpredictable and volatile situations. Consequently, risks in the public realm require young adults to take responsibility and adjust to the situation to stay safe in public domains. Essentially to be aware of unexpected developments. Respondents recounted situations perceived or developing into harmful incidents. Mainly concerning the physical place and individual behaviour, ‘Being stupid’ (adult male) and ‘Choice, the onus is on me’ (young female). In addition, to be mindful of own behaviour to avoid risky situations, ‘going or doing something that may cause me physical or mental harm’ (adult male). Besides, ‘that means to me that there are certain risks involved in going somewhere or doing an activity’ (young female). Moreover, the notion that managing and keeping control of a situation is limited in the public domain, e.g., ‘problems that are out of my control, that I am either aware or unaware of. Problems which I may or may not have control over’ (young female). Additionally, numerous young adults highlighted the necessity to plan public realm visits, to be prepared and forward thinking, ‘Something that has the potential to hurt me or someone else around me’ (young female). Consequently, the respondents recognised the need to develop foresight and employ social and cultural experiences to identify violent and risky settings. This follows the need to be aware of possible risk scenarios, alert and continuously safety minded. The respondents also named harassment and violence they might encounter at different locations, ‘Danger, sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse’ (young female). Furthermore, the significance of being prepared to avoid

Agency-level violence 121 risky situations, ‘Hypervigilance, calculated risk, contingencies’ (young female) and the reality, ‘I need to take care of myself’ (mature undisclosed gender). These reflections relate to individual experiences in risky settings, e.g., a young female being psychologically and/or physically injured and an adult male reflecting on experiences of ‘violence and sexual harassment’. For these respondents, it could not be assumed that the public domain would be a safe place. The attitudes narrated in the responses were that it is, on the first hand, up to the individual to be aware of possible risks in that environment. Secondly, they need to draw from experience and apply foresight to spot the prelude to emerging troubling hotspots. Thus, the public realm is both a safe and risky place, a duality also noted by other researchers (Fabiansson 2006, 2015; List 2017). In addition, the respondents recounted a number of situations where the risks of exposure to violence and harassment were prominent. For example, they highlighted incidents around same-sex relationships and the need not just to protect oneself but also their friends. Thus, the individual can have double roles, being a victim and bystander, hence the need to take an altruistic approach to safeguard all. However, this situation does not exclude that taking on an individualistic safety assessment should be disregarded. Furthermore, as noted by for instance Kavanaugh (2013), Pain (1991) and Özascilar (2013), it is necessary to make distinctions between settings, audiences and single or groups of friends at the venues and significantly to differentiate between day and nighttime when assessing if a place is safe or unsafe. However, it is not suggesting that young adults overall are more “at risk” of actual physical, sexual or emotional harm in the city at night. However, there is a perception that it is a milieu where physical violence by males occurs (Winlow and Hall 2006). Notwithstanding this, the city at night is an emotionally evocative space. A public realm is perceived as interconnected with figuratively and literally darkness and danger. These beliefs influence how the city is perceived after dark, albeit not necessarily factually more dangerous than daytime (Fileborn 2016; Fabiansson (2007). Additionally, safety is a relative concept as it is often only a reality if something is happening, e.g., a dark alleyway at night comes to signify danger (Brands and Schwanen 2014:74). Although, as stressed by Winter (2012), violence is not inevitably visible during the daytime but is present with a different audience at night. Thus, a setting cannot be generalised as always safe or risky. Besides, violence could be everywhere and indiscernible in some environments at first glance. However, the respondents noted the significance of being mindful of the distinction between day and night scenarios. Furthermore, gender and ethnic heritage are added factors creating risk scenarios. I think much of my mind is occupied with the SSM (Same Sex Marriage) plebiscite. As a queer woman, much of my ideas of safety and risk currently revolve around homophobia and the hateful promotion of the no campaign. While I have tried to not let that be the focus of my answer, I feel that it does need to be mentioned (young female).

122 Agency-level violence The perceptions of violence, harassment and discrimination are individual. Hence, it is vital to acknowledge the diversity in the respondents’ social and cultural habitus, including subjective experiences in how violence, harassment and discrimination incidents are perceived. This young female commented: I think people have different perceptions of what they consider to be acceptable levels of risk for themselves and the extent to which they are willing to expose others to these risks for their own personal gain or benefit. It should also be acknowledged that the framework for the research was violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. Hence the association and definitions of the words meaning are within this framework, as articulated by the mature undisclosed gender respondent: What I think of, when thinking of “safe” and “risk” depends upon the context in which I’m asked. As this survey is on harassment, my thoughts are bound to this context. For example, sometimes I associate risk’ with growth and development. In the context of this survey, however, I think about things like walking home from university at night. Furthermore, a young female highlighted how she responded to the questions based on the research context: ‘My understanding of risk in this context is influenced by the topic of the survey so obviously does not, for example, include the adventurous/discovery side to risk’. Moreover, there are numerous other risks and safety settings outside the scope of this research, risks that influence people’s everyday life in the public realm. Examples include sport and recreational risks, such as physical contact in sport and edgework activities (Lyng 1990, 2004, 2005). However, the risks people encounter in mundane life activities are often disregarded as dangerous, including daily commuting to and from university or work environments. Reflections around verbal, social, physical and sexual violence The following considerations demonstrate the breadth of violence and harassment incidents in present-day society, and the respondents’ experiences of verbal, social, physical and sexual violence and harassment are narrated below. First, examples of verbal abuse: I experience this very often in my job, Once I worried about it but now I think about how sad the world is when we treat each other without respect. The verbal harassment I suffer is usually when people don’t receive a service that they think they are entitled to (young female). Additionally, this reflection from a young female about how verbal harassment and derogatory words can be experienced, how the receiver can feel trapped

Agency-level violence 123 within a conversation of, ‘insults, offensive language/name calling, being talked “at” and not allowed to leave the conversation (i.e., forced into unwanted/uncomfortable conversation)’. Another remark is from an adult male: ‘Irrationally yelling and/or verbal dehumanization aimed at any person in a position of deference or opposition’ (adult male). Finally, a young female noted, ‘Name calling, unwanted comments, put downs, slurs etc. both verbal and written’. These comments are unacceptable in the present-day work environment, albeit allowed to fester where gender equality and discrimination policies are not enforced or lacking. A further emphasis on discriminatory language is this reflection: ‘Swearing, Slut Shaming, degrading language, ongoing unwanted contact’ (mature undisclosed gender) and ‘Unwanted or unsolicited verbal comments, abuse or threats that target another person or group. It may involve the intent to harm, or lack of respect for the other person or group’ (young female). These narratives voice the hurt verbal harassment inflicts, often not understood by the perpetrator as some derogatory words and phrases have become normalised, as highlighted by these respondents: Open criticism. Verbal abuse – demands, rude language, enforcing ideals onto me, not being open to hear[ing] my point of view. Disrespecting me by asserting dominance through force or rudeness, that I may permit because I think the person is overall good (mature undisclosed gender). Where competing physically for superiority in a particular environment is not an option, some people go for a verbal attack to place themselves above the pack. In essence, doing battle with words. This can also be as minor as spreading rumours or verbal bullying (adult male). Even if verbal harassment and derogatory comments can be perceived as less severe, they can have long-term well-being and mental harm implications throughout an individual’s life. Unfortunately, there is not the same awareness of emotional, social and cultural harassment and discrimination as physical violence because they do not leave visible marks on the victim. The following comments reflect physical violence and harassment. While sexual abuse is often seen through the gender spectrum, physical violence is an issue for both males and females, as highlighted in these comments: ‘Getting beaten by someone stronger than myself. I also think about getting beaten even if I’ve told the other person to stop’ (adult male). Additionally, ‘Unwanted physical touching, whether violent or otherwise. Lack of regard or respect for another person’s personal space, safety or comfort’ (young female). As the following comment highlights, the experience of being a victim of violence can have lifelong implications, ‘When I was a kid many years ago I was bullied, thumped ... threatened so I think about that’ (adult male). However, physical violence and harassment do not need to be “physical” to be felt as such: ‘People showing facial expressions of hatred in a threatening manner

124 Agency-level violence towards me’ (young female). Finally, this comment by a young female concerning unwanted touching, a violation of her private space: I have also suffered this in my work on a few occasions, I always see this as a violation of my privacy, that someone would think it ok to touch me in a violent manner. Social harassment is also often dismissed for being of incidental seriousness because no identifiable “damages” or marks show that violence, harassment or discrimination have been perpetrated. It is also based on a subjective definition of harassment behaviour and is not necessarily commonly defined as a violation. Notwithstanding, it is discriminative and insensitive about social and cultural traditions and acceptance of otherness. Thus, the experience of social harassment can be detrimental to engagement in the public realm. For example, ‘A group repeatedly telling me how I should think and not allowing my own thought to be expressed’ (adult male). In the same vein with overlapping social discrimination and harassment, ‘Being isolated or made feel insignificant or unimportant by someone or a group of people’. New technology and social media facilitate the possibilities of bullying. For example, through the sites Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Kik or YouTube. Significantly, social media make it possible to anonymously and in a non-faceto-face setting troll and bully others: ‘being harassed online, stalked on social media’s, unwanted contacted through email’ (young female). In addition, a mature undisclosed gender recounted: ‘Facebook. In particular, the VU law student page Law Chat. Some people like [names deleted] write comments directed at one person and openly put them down’. The influence of social media in shaming people was commented on several times, for instance, ‘somebody writing on social media something against or over me that is false’ (adult male). Also, ‘belittling somebody with the intent to make them feel “little” or “worthless”’ (adult male) (see Giumetti and Kowalski 2022; Recuero 2015). Furthermore, the respondents highlighted the dangers of using social media to circulate negative posts in tutorial settings without reflecting on the broader consequences for the post receiver. The writer might be unaware of social and cultural norms or feel free to make discriminatory remarks often without facing any repercussions. Henceforth, normalising discriminative words and phrases within social status stratifications underpin people’s belonging and habitual behaviour. An environment where created habitus, hegemonic societal ideology and social and cultural discrimination have become accepted. Reflections iterated by the respondents about their experiences of social harassment, any form of unwanted/annoying contact – verbal, physical, or through media such as internet. I guess social harassment could be non-direct in the sense that one can talk badly about someone else causing them to be alienated/ isolated from others (young female);

Agency-level violence 125 bullying, emotional abuse, manipulation, someone using relationships to abuse another by embarrassing/ humiliating/ belittling them in a social setting. Someone abusing another by holding the majority and casting the abused into a minority (mature undisclosed gender). Furthermore, social harassment can be interconnected with gender attitudes, as noted in this comment, ‘Group of people bullying/intimidating others to accept/ believe something (e.g., same-sex supporters trying to force others to go their way)’ (adult male). I don’t think about this for myself, but then I am older. I have a sister in a same sex relationship, socially she struggles [with this] (not always), that get me upset, again I think what gives people the right to judge others (mature female). Intimidation to those who do not conform to your views. Recently (and commonly) seen among left-wing, anti-trump groups in America and Australia. I would even go so far as to say transgenderism is a form of social harassment against … children for instance (adult male). Lastly, the situation where a young female is recounting discrimination and harassment in a tutorial setting: ‘I think about my class believing the lying/gossiping words of a classmate towards me’. An experience that does not enhance the learning environment and harassment-free university studies. Sexual violence, harassment and discrimination have a higher research profile than other forms of violence. Sexual violence is often synonymous with violence against females and minority gender groups. Moreover, sexual violence or harassment is frequently mentioned in the context of sexual assaults and rape. Unfortunately, this narrow definition of public realm violence does not explain society’s scope and widespread acts of harassment and discrimination. Contrary, the already recounted incidents undisputedly highlight that the young adults’ experiences of verbal, social and physical harassment go beyond a narrow definition of sexual violence. Numerous examples of sexual harassment were voiced in the survey, ‘being forced into something that you have said no to, but were either drugged or forced without any consent’ (young female), ‘catcalling, touching in private areas, exploiting someone’s images, vulgar comments’ (young female) and ‘Being touched in an inappropriate way. Being spoken to in an inappropriate and derogatory way. Being prayed on by someone in a more powerful position’ (young female). However, sexual violence is not necessarily explicit but implied. For instance, this comment: ‘suggestive body actions, messaging and other sexual forms of unwanted contact excluding physical’ (mature undisclosed gender) and ‘Inappropriate language/name calling, unsolicited touching, invading personal space to make someone uncomfortable/threatened’ (young female).

126 Agency-level violence Objectification, leering, making sexual noises or sexually explicit comments, touching, groping, grabbing, “accidental” physical contact, sexualised language, sexual requests/suggestions/ demands, intrusive physical contact, invading personal space, claiming/asserting physical intimacy (young female). Additionally, in a teaching setting where sexual harassment was attempted, ‘In Melbourne pathology, I saw a supervisor attempted to grab a female breast’ (adult male). Many of these actions can be subtle and jokingly presented, and bystanders might not be aware of the harassment incident, albeit also reflecting an acceptance culture of sexual innuendos. The following incident demonstrates not just sexual violence but also unequal power structures. This young female was sexually abused, and she had no power to get the situation rectified or taken seriously to initiate an official complaint: When I worked at a bar and male patrons believed they could act out sex acts behind me and proceed to try and touch me in a sexual way and there were no repercussions from people around me (fellow patrons). I was discouraged [by] my employer at the time to complain directly to the company that had hired the space as the incident occurred as part of a work function. I was not valued enough as a person by my employer to call out the behaviour as it could have had repercussions for the perps [owners] company choosing to come back again [returning business] (young female). Other forms of harassment can be problematic to separate from accidental contact and unwanted touching as there are different social and cultural traditions in a multicultural society. For instance, ‘groping, grabbing, stroking, “accidental” touch (e.g. brushing up against someone), asserting hugs or kisses. Lack of consent, assumed consent’ (young female). A further example is ‘hugs, hands on shoulders, kisses on cheeks without asking, touching the booty as you walk past’ (mature undisclosed gender), and another incident, ‘I think about sitting and talking to a stranger in a tram and he touched my lap’ (young female). All occasions can be seen as minor, but not for the individual receiving the unwanted attention. Conflicting social and cultural traditions create misunderstanding and hurt due to a lack of knowledge of social and cultural conventions or respecting the victim’s privacy. This includes that the perpetrator assumes a right to impose their manner of behaving and is presumptuously perceiving others will be of the same mindset. As simple as not wanting to shake someone's hand or do that hug/kiss-greeting, or on a date/social engagement when someone puts their arm around you without asking first; anything that is not consensual that violates one's personal space (young female).

Agency-level violence 127 Public transport where there have been multiple occasions over the years of someone (I don’t know [personally]) touching me because they think they can get away with it. Again, there are no consequences even if I do make a scene. Nobody ever stepped in. People allow it to happen (young female). Furthermore, the respondents acknowledged a stigma attached to exposing violence and harassment in the public domain. Thus, voicing objections to harassment would adversely reflect on the victim’s abilities to manage everyday trepidations, thus presenting a flawed social and cultural character, thus not having the ability to seek recourse or protest. For example, concerning university studies and assessment tasks, ‘Potential detriment to something, e.g., reputation, study impact/ chance of losing marks by saying something [to] someone who marks work seems inappropriate’ (mature undisclosed gender). As noted, social media is a facilitator for bullying, and shaming can easily be communicated to a broad audience. For instance, ‘we get attacked on social media regularly through negative, rude &/or degrading responses to post made, [it is] a highly “public” space, often in your own home’ (young female). The anonymity of these posts is where the perpetrator is not known or he/she has a higher social status or belongs to a more popular or influential peer group than the victim. Thus, the harassment will not necessarily reflect negatively on the abuser. Another factor is the subjectivity in interpreting the derogatory comments, which will be assessed according to social and cultural habitus. Notwithstanding this, the posts create a stigma attached to the victim, who cannot react or, if complaining, risk the abuse escalating, as noted by this young female, ‘The time I was sexually harassed, disgusted, ashamed, embarrassed’. Henceforth, the respondents acknowledged that violence, harassment and discrimination are assessed differently depending on the perspective of the perpetrator and victim, for example, individual independence, resilience, age and experience in managing adversity. In this remark, it is highlighted that the gender of the perpetrator and victim are judged contrarily, as noted in this comment by a mature undisclosed gender. Thus, the different value systems are applied if the female is the perpetrator and the male the victim, albeit less frequently than in the reverse order. Inappropriate sexual remarks or contact. Personally, I haven't observed sexual harassment towards women, but I have noticed a lot of situations that men have been put through that if the genders were reversed, it would be seen as sexual harassment (mature undisclosed gender). These verbal, social, physical and sexual violation incidents demonstrate the broad scope of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. In addition, the young adults recounted violent situations emphasising the impact of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public sphere on the individual and their societal well-being.

128  Agency-level violence Moreover, these crimes are often hidden and seen as mere trivialities or part of societal hegemony, e.g., normalised behaviour, notwithstanding this, a manifestation that these crimes are not worth recognising in present-day society. This assumption misses the point that harassing and discriminating crimes and incidents can profoundly impact victims’ well-being and societal engagement. The following section discusses agency-level violence, harassment and discrimination.

Safety in the public realm Feeling safe in the public realm is imperative to be comfortable to venture out and reach a sense of societal belonging. Although feeling safe is a wide-ranging concept influenced by controlled and uncontrolled circumstances in the public realm, albeit violent incidents are unpredictable. However, feeling safe gives an overall benchmark of the respondent’s sensitivity to being in the public domain. The findings show that overall, 71% mainly felt safe or very safe in the public sphere, while 29% did not. In more detail, 29% of the undisclosed genders and 18% of the females described their situation as mostly risky. These percentages should be compared to only 3% of males within this category (Figure 4.5). For 17% of the females, 14% of the undisclosed gender group and 10% of the males, the public environment was neither safe nor risky. Additionally, 51% of females reported that they felt mostly safe, followed by 35% of the males and 43% of the undisclosed gender group. As many as 52% of the males felt very safe in the public milieu. However, the corresponding percentages for females and the undisclosed gender group were

60

52

51 50

43

40

35 29

30 20 10

18

17 10

14

14

14

3

0 Mostly risky

Neither safe nor risky Females

Mostly safe

Males

Very safe

Undisclosed

Figure 4.5 The overall feeling of safety in the public realm by gender in per cent.

Agency-level violence 129 only 14%. Consequently, 86% of the female respondents and the undisclosed genders did not feel entirely safe in the public sphere. On the other hand, compared to the females and undisclosed group percentages, only 48% of the males did not feel safe in the public realm in every respect. Thus, to be very safe in the public realm was more a male prerogative than for the females and undisclosed gender groups. This finding corroborates traditional gender divisions with the public space as the domain of males with a stereotypical framing of males as strong and brave, thus able to survive in the public realm. On the other hand, contrary to males, females are perceived as weak and easily frightened. Thus, for their own benefit confined to the private sphere. Safety in the public domain is also related to resilience, social and cultural habitus, earlier experiences and familiarity with the public space. Therefore, assuming that the mature respondents have developed a more resilient attitude and confidence to venture out and feel safe in the public environment than the younger age groups (Figure 4.6). Following this assumption, the findings show that the young respondents felt least safe in their public realm (24%). The corresponding percentage for the adult and mature respondents were 11% and 8%, respectively. Fifty-three per cent of the adults felt mostly safe, followed by the mature respondents with 52%. Besides, the young respondents had the lowest percentage within the category, feeling mostly safe (39%) in the public realm. On the other hand, the mature respondents had the highest percentage in the very safe category (32%), followed by 22% of young and 18% of adult respondents who felt very safe in the public domain. Following this, the mature age respondents had the highest percentage in the categories mostly and very safe, in total 84%, compared with 61% of the young and 71% of the adult respondents. The percentages emphasise that the mature and adult respondents’ have experienced independent living, gained life experiences 60

53 52

50 39

40 30 20 10

32 24 11

15

22

18

8

18

8

0 Mostly risky

Neither safe nor risky Young

Mostly safe

Adult

Very safe

Mature

Figure 4.6 The overall perception of feeling safe by age in the public realm in per cent.

130 Agency-level violence and developed resilience skills to gain confidence in the public realm. As a result, they are more attuned to possible risks in the public environment and confident in averting harm, skills they have sharpened through accumulated knowledge. Hence, the results show that to contend with the public domain, life experiences, independence and familiarity with the public realm frame perceptions of being safe in the public domain. Risks and safety as influenced by time of the day Risks of violence, harassment and discrimination in physical environments are not necessarily consistent. There is a difference between the public realm during daytime versus nighttime. The need to apply different defence and precaution strategies are contingent on the time of the day and setting, influencing the requirement for risk scenarios preparedness. Besides, the level of safety awareness the individual needs to prepare for varies, e.g., being alone or in a group of friends. Public events are more or less distinctive where violence or harassment is due to specific circumstances. Thus, people continuously assess the risks of violence in public places throughout the visit. Consequently, citizens judge a place as safe or unsafe depending on whether it is daytime, nighttime, with a group of friends and the nature of the gathering. This need for continuous assessment and preparedness to face evolving risk scenarios has become integral to young adults’ outings at local and non-local venues. Overall, 53% of the respondents always or most of the time had concerns about visiting particular venues after dark, and 33% sometimes were uneasy about some settings. In comparison, 13% were not bothered about the time of the day when visiting their preferred locations (Figure 4.7). Regarding gender groups, the undisclosed genders were the most disquiet group about risky locations when visiting venues after dark, with 69%, followed by the females with 57%. The corresponding percentage for males was 39%. While 9% of the females and 15% of the undisclosed gender group were not concerned about the time of the day when visiting places. The corresponding male percentage was 26%, not bothered about the day-night scenario. Notwithstanding this, most respondents would not visit parks, bus or train stations, use public transport late at night, walk through dark laneways or sparingly lit places after dark alone. Safety in metropolitan milieus Safety concerns might be less of an issue in the local community and the neighbourly environment because of familiarity with the milieu and its citizens. However, notwithstanding this familiarity-induced safety, the perception of the risk of violence and harassment changed when the respondents’ ventured into unfamiliar environments. Altogether, 20% of the respondents always thought about their safety when visiting the metropolitan city centre during the day. This percentage increased to 27% in the evening or night (Figure 4.8).

Agency-level violence 131 80

69

70 57

60 50 40

39

34

35 26

30 20

16

9

10

15

0 Females

Males

Undisclosed

Always - mostly avoiding dark places Sometimes avoiding dark places No, does not matter day or night

Figure 4.7 Being safe in the public realm day and after dark by gender (the respondents could give more than one response). 80

73

70 60

54

40

55

52

50

49

45 39

39 39 28

30

22

27

23

20 7

10 0

27 18

3

0

Day

Night

Day

Night

Day

Night

Females

Females

Males

Males

Undisclosed

Undisclosed

Always - mostly concerned about safety Never concerned about safety Sometimes concerned about safety

Figure 4.8 Concerned about safety in the metropolitan centre during the day and night by gender in per cent.

The undisclosed genders and the females reported feeling more anxious about visiting the city centre than the males. However, the undisclosed genders presented the highest percentages, 55% and 73%, respectively, in the categories, always or most of the time being concerned about safety during the day and night. The

132 Agency-level violence females follow this group in the categories, always or most of the time being concerned about safety during the day (39%) and night (52%). The corresponding percentages for males were 22% and 28%, respectively. Even if all respondents had trepidations about visiting the metropolitan centre at nighttime, the undisclosed genders were most anxious about being in the metropolitan centre after dark. These findings highlight a noteworthy difference between the gender groups concerning the time of the day. Overall, the females and the undisclosed genders are more concerned about their safety than the males, both daytime and nighttime. Undeniably, the undisclosed gender group is small. Nevertheless, the percentages highlight their vulnerability and risk of harassment and discrimination, emphasising the group’s concerns about their safety. This accentuates the notion that they are not accepted and fit into the dominating societal hegemonic ideology of the binary female–male divide. As a result, they are frequently made to feel like outsiders. The number of respondents who never thought about their safety during the day was the highest among the males (39%). Nonetheless, regarding attending venues after dark, the percentage of males decreased to 23% (Figure 4.8). In addition, only 7% of the females and 18% of the undisclosed genders were unconcerned about safety in the metropolitan centre throughout the daytime, but notwithstanding this feeling of daytime safety, the young adults’ perception of feeling safe changed noticeably after dark. None of the undisclosed genders and only 3% of the females did not have safety concerns during nighttime visits (Figure 4.8). However, even if risks of violence and harassment were constantly on the respondents’ minds at social gatherings, they were not averse to meeting up with friends in pubs, cafés or music events. Nevertheless, they undertook safety measures and primarily attended with friends. Thus, aside from an overall increased fear of the public realm after dark, especially among the undisclosed genders, 60% always or mostly avoided perceived risky places after dark (Figure 4.9). The corresponding percentage for females is higher than for males, 43% and 25%, respectively, who mostly avoid socialising with friends after dark. Only 8% of the females responded that they had no safety trepidations in visiting public places when socialising with friends after dark. Ten per cent of the undisclosed genders, while 17% of the males responded that the venues’ safety was not on their mind when socialising with friends. An added 49% of the females were sometimes concerned about their safety, thus trying to avoid perceived risky settings to meet up with friends. The corresponding percentage for males was 58%. Thirty per cent of the undisclosed gender group voiced the same sentiments. Thus, the results show that most respondents assessed a place’s level of safety before attending the venue with friends (Figure 4.9). Respondents’ comments about risks in the city milieu Violence is an integral and critical part of contemporary society underpinning the fabric of social order in all societies and eras (Ardent 1969, 1970; Bauman 1989), still a powerful governing tool in present-day society to manage the populace.

Agency-level violence  133 70

50

60

58

60 43

49

40

30

25

30

17

20

10

8

10 0 Females

Males

Undisclosed

Always - mostly avoiding socialising with friends after dark Sometimes avoiding socialise with friends after dark Never avoiding socialise with friends after dark

Figure 4.9 Safety as an issue when socialising with friends in the city by gender in per cent.

Acts of violence, harassment and discrimination are executed in the private and public realms. Violence is displayed openly as a deterrent, or covertly, primarily when the perpetrator lacks legitimate power to act or enforce power over others (Galtung 1990). Fear of violence in the public domain was a recurrent theme in the respondents’ comments about experiences of harassment in central metropolitan areas. For example, the accounts of these young females emphasise their risk awareness: ‘I’m very aware of my surroundings and am always alert’, ‘I pay attention to everything around me’, and ‘I take actions to ensure places I attend are appropriate and I often have someone with me’. These comments reflect that a visit to the metropolitan centre is thought about and what places to visit. Hence, the young adults were aptly aware of possible risk scenarios, including showing selectiveness about the settings they perceived safe to visit. The research highlights the scope of awareness strategies and underscores that the females and the undisclosed genders were constantly observing and mindful of their surroundings. Furthermore, they actively applied strategies to avoid being harassed and exposed to violence. Moreover, this selectiveness and consciousness underpinned their public realm outings by avoiding previously identified risky environments. For example, a young female summed up the veracity of the challenges lurking in the public milieu, ‘I would assume that most women have safety on their mind when in public, even if they are not conscious of it’. Additionally, an adult male voiced a similar sentiment, ‘I believe most people are like minded and conscious of others’; thus, risk awareness becomes

134 Agency-level violence necessary and requires planning processes that include all minority ethnic and gender groups. These observations emphasise that safety in the public sphere was not taken for granted. The respondents were attentive to their surroundings and the need to be responsible for their safety. Thus, they undertook risk avoidance strategies and exerted heightened awareness of public settings and the time of the day, including continual assessment of a place’s safety status. The respondent reflections are supported by the research of Fabiansson (2007), Hirtenlehner and Farrall (2014) and Graham et al. (2016). Moreover, Özascilar (2013) concludes that violence and fear of crime do not necessarily need to be based on individual experiences. However, being a bystander and having heard about incidents from close friends or acquaintances becomes an inducement to fear the public domain. Mass media also has a role in reporting incidents, classifying them as lingering dangers or oneoff occurrences (Figure 4.5). Although, the fear is exacerbated by the perceived amplification of dangers lingering at nighttime. The fear of harassment and violence in the public sphere invoked some respondents to undertake such amplified safety concerns that they avoided leaving their homes after dark. Hence, they shunned participating in social, cultural and community events or university sessions if required to walk or travel after dark in the public realm. This fear of the public sphere was emphasised if they were required to commute alone (Figure 4.7). Though again, it was the young females who were most safety aware. Even if a quarter of the young females and more than a fifth of the respondents in the undisclosed gender group thought the public environment was habitually risky, most respondents felt very or mostly safe. Nonetheless, feeling safe required them to avoid considered risky places, particularly after dark. Thus, they had internalised the symbolic violence identifier inbuilt in physical and social public realms, which necessitated caution, planning and attunes to danger signs and accompanying friends (Bourdieu 2001a; von Holdt 2012; Fabiansson 2007). A strategy predominantly applied by females and minority ethnic groups. Melbourne, Australia, was exposed to two terrorist classified incidents in the public realm, one before the research and one after. In 2017, the city centre was exposed to an incident, the Bourke Street massacre (20 January). A vehicle driver drove erratically and ended up ploughing into a section of the crowded Bourke Street footpath. Six people were killed and 27 injured. Another incident occurred a year later when a well-known café owner was stabbed to death (9 November 2018). The mass media coverage of the 2017 tragedy and the emotions it raised among citizens were commented on in the research. For example, asking questions relating to how safe the respondents felt about going into the city centre during the day and night (Figure 4.8). A comment from an adult male concerning the Bourke Street massacre: ‘In Melbourne City, I [am] concern [about] … terrorist attacking; such [as] drive the car to kill many people in Bourke Street’. Notwithstanding the above-recounted incidents, overall, the city was perceived safe by the majority. However, the respondents overwhelmingly highlighted the

Agency-level violence 135 need to be safety aware and prepared for violence and harassment. They especially noted the prerequisite of taking individual responsibility and being risk aware. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to assume a citizen can live in and have control over their entire public realm. Thus, due to this fear of violence, public outings with friends or a solo away-from-home trip had become well-planned events. An outing organised on a whim and spontaneously was not an option endorsed by many of the respondents. Besides, an outing required planning and researching the place’s safety, a situation also noted in O’Boyle’s (2015) research. Young females commented: ‘I don’t go at all if I think I’m at risk and I am sensibly able going with reliable friends’, and ‘I take my safety into account when making plans’. An added recount is this comment from a young female about an elaborate safety regime: I’m with my friends, there’s security cameras around, I tell my family and friends where I am, I use a tracking device on mum[‘s] phone to inform my family and friends about my whereabouts. These reflections symbolise an internalised behavioural requirement to always be risk-averse in the public realm. Thus, it has become normalised in presentday society to assess the possibility that violence could materialise at any time. Furthermore, the respondents stressed the need to carefully judge the public settings’s safety level before patronising any venue or public gathering (Figure 4.6). For instance, an undisclosed young gender respondent noted the significance of identifying dangerous settings and remarking, ‘Early morning in West Footscray, all the ice heads are coming down and can be very aggressive’. Additionally, as noted in the research, feeling unsafe is not only a young female affliction. Equally, it includes undisclosed genders and minority ethnic groups, including males. Thus, males were not untouched by concerns about safety and risks in the public domain. For example, this account from an adult male shows how worried he is about personal safety: Due to my anxiety I am a very [risk] aware person, I take note of my surroundings and don’t do things I feel uncomfortable doing or I avoid places that have the potential for risky behaviour you never know. Sometimes I am at uni during the day and its fine and other times I am at uni during the evening and I am concerned. Another adult male comment shows awareness about differences in minority and majority ethnic belonging. Hence, the benefits of belonging to the majority ethnic group, e.g., in Australia, Anglo-Australian white male: ‘I am a white, physically fit male’, consequently, outside the target risk group for harassment. This reflection is further emphasised by a remark from a mature male, ‘Because I am always alert of my surroundings and I can defend myself if I need to’. Moreover, a young female was convinced she could manage her safety by taking precautions to manage any situation. She was confident about her capacity

136 Agency-level violence to apply self-defence in a critical situation, ‘I keep to myself, I carry [the] means of defence on me and I have my phone at the ready’. This quote highlights the commonality and familiar scene in the public space where people walk with their phones openly in their hands, thus a tool to call someone in an emergency. Still, a mature female observed the presence of ethnic bias in society as a risk factor: ‘Mostly risky, because it appears as if I am a target as a foreigner (I think)’. These remarks are also noted by Day et al. (2003) and Pain (2000) regarding belonging to a minority ethnic group as an added risk factor in addition to being young, female, undisclosed gender, including being a male belonging to a minority ethnic group (further discussed in section Minority ethnic young adults’ experiences of violence versus Anglo-Australians). Notwithstanding controllable factors in the public realm, some are not. For example, a person’s presentation is a factor in exposure to violence and harassment. Such as being a petite female or having looks that might identify sexual orientation, ‘There are multiple things about me that make me more susceptible to harassment, e.g., female, queer’ (young undisclosed gender). Another example is, ‘I’m very queer and look different’ (mature undisclosed gender). Thus, the risk of diverting from the binary gender stereotype increases the risk of harassment. Focusing on violence solely as a female and undisclosed gender issue is not supported by the agency’s research findings. Most of the males were as safety concerned as other gender groups. For instance, comments by adult males concerning the composition of the event’s audience and safety measures present at the venue, ‘I’m with other people and feel secure’, ‘I make assumptions on the crowd which would attend’, and ‘I’d like to have a good time and enjoy myself and if a venue isn’t safe then that definitely influences my decision to attend’. These voices highlight concerns about violence and their own safety. Nonetheless, equally significant is friends’ safety. Thus, an altruistic approach to prevent exposure to violence. A male respondent noted that achieving safety was a trepidation task to keep everyone in the group of friends safe: Too many people are willing to start a fight or argument when they have consumed alcohol. The place needs to be safe for my female friends and a place for them to be comfortable. One punch stories are becoming more prevalent (adults male). The following comment recounts a young female’s reflection on the elaborate security planning she undertakes to be safe. It demonstrates her apprehension and how vulnerable she feels: I am always aware of others when using public transport and when in large crowds as that is when I feel that people choose to act inappropriately. I also try and make sure my belongings are safe. In the same modus of reasoning, in safety philosophy and the planning involved to be secure in the public sphere, an adult female commented: ‘I try [to] be mindful

Agency-level violence 137 about my belongings and avoid situations where other people might act inappropriately towards me’. Gardner et al. (2017) corroborate these reflections in research concerning the significance for females to feel safe taking public transport and visiting diverse public settings. Predominantly, the respondents agree that the evenings were fraught with a higher risk of violence than daytime in the public realm. The respondents’ reflections on evening shopping in the metropolitan centre ranged from a minority not concerned to some avoiding visiting the city during evenings. The following remark attests to the need for constant alertness to surrounding environments: ‘Always aware of my surroundings. Call it dynamic risk assessment constantly going on in the background’ (adult male). Likewise, an adult of undisclosed gender highlighted the need to be observant about different scenarios and what challenges one could face in the public sphere. In particular, how a person’s behaviour and actions need to be readjusted continuously depending on the time of the day and social and cultural settings. What places I visit at what time depends on my mode of transport. I'm generally quite comfortable riding an electric bicycle around at night in places I would never travel alone by foot at night. It also depends on whether I have company or not - I am more comfortable walking around at night with my partner in places I am very uncomfortable walking alone. At the same time, I generally avoid being in public places unless I have a specific purpose and reason for being in public, as the dominant culture is abusive generally. Having a specific destination and purpose keeps my mind focus[s]ed. Unless my mind is focus[s]ed on what I need to do or where I need to go, I experience abuse in public places. Moreover, the respondents commented about safety when socialising in pubs or music venues (Figure 4.9), highlighting the risks of harassment and violence when entertaining with friends in public bars, pubs and restaurants. A setting concerning all the respondents, but primarily the females and undisclosed genders. The young females highlighted the significance of being aware of their surroundings, vigilant about their safety and ensuring they can be safe before attending a venue. Notwithstanding this, it is a broader issue as several male respondents acknowledged concerns about attending risky settings. The public sphere of violence, harassment and what makes it safe has been examined by many researchers, e.g., the Australian Human Rights Commission (2018), May (2001), Fabiansson (2010), Kavanaugh (2013) and Cook and Reynald (2016). Findings often contradict the official statistics, which reflect only a minor proportion of all public realm incidents. Violent crimes committed in the public realm have low reporting rates, except in circumstances of extreme violence or death (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015a, 2015b, 2020). Few of the narrated incidents in this student and student staff research would be reported to the authorises, university complaints unit or police. For instance, the recounted incidents by these young females highlight the commonality in

138 Agency-level violence non-reporting issues, mainly because they are minor, no tangible harm can be proved, or the perpetrator identifiable. In addition, the non-reporting also underpins young adults’ extensive responsibility to stay safe. These remarks reflect young adults’ mindset about being out in the public environment and their wellbeing concerns. ‘You have to be cautious all the time and think of your safety or if the place is an appropriate event for yourself’, and, ‘if I feel as though that environment is safe for me I will go’. A safe setting is not necessarily based on if a crime has been committed or not. It is the perception that a crime might be happening. You never know who is around, and what could happen. A place where it has some form of security, and is located in a good and safe area and is well lit at night. (young female) Resilience is grounded in and refined by created habitus, previous events and life course experiences, as discussed by Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), Wacquant (2004), O’Malley (2010), Lentzos and Rose (2009) and Beck (2007). Their discourses embrace individual perceptions of violence, harassment, discrimination, society risk events and safety. From these perspectives, the respondents’ encounters and reflections influence how their advanced planning strategies are applied and the approaches perceived necessary to undertake before attending a venue or venturing into the public sphere. Their detailed planning shows awareness of violence and harassment in the public realm. Notwithstanding this, they were often unwilling to be restricted by fear of violence and harassment in participating in the public realm. The respondents demonstrate their habitus-created resilience ability to control the surrounding environment as decidedly as possible. A young female’s remarks illustrate this: Anything can happen but that doesn’t mean we should allow “what if” situations to stop us from living our lives. I just mean we have to be cautious and smart about our decisions to do or no[t] do something or go somewhere. Another example of how the respondents have developed resilience as established in gender identity and physical ability is, ‘I am street smart and trust that I can evade most things that come my way’ (adult male). A young female stressed the advantages of having private transport and belonging to the mainstream Australian population with Anglo-Australian majority heritage, ‘My travel to and from [my] vehicle is minimal, I try [to] stay in busy places. I am also privileged by being white and perceived as able-bodied’. As the young adults recounted, risk and safety are not mutually exclusive. There is a trade-off between safe and social satisfaction, which is different from not being risk averse. For example, the enjoyment of meeting up with friends overrides the risk of harassment in some instances. An adult female commented, ‘I’ll never not go somewhere, but my level of awareness might differ depending on where we are’, while another adult female summarised her strategy:

Agency-level violence 139 I don’t think I have ever declined an invitation to social[ize] with friends or attend a particular event because of a feeling of danger at the venue. I definitely have preferences for certain venues over others but would still go if I wanted to see the particular band or the particular friends. Similar sentiments are and have been discussed in various settings, including Hilinski (2009), Hirtenlehner and Farrall (2014), Ferraro (1996), Graham et al. (2016), Özascilar (2013), Pain (1995, 2000), Fabiansson (2007, 2010, 2015), Collins, Reid and Fabiansson (2011), Koskela (1999), Mehta and Bondi (1999), Day et al. (2003), Sandberg and Tollefsen (2010) and Gardner et al. (2017). The negotiation between being safe and risk-averseness is thus dependent on the individual, setting, place, time and circle of friends at the event. The fear of the unpredictability of being exposed to violence is a factor that influences young adults’ engagement with the public realm. A young female highlighted the unknown nature of any situation, ‘You never know what might happen in the circumstance, no matter how safe it may look, a fight might ensue, a drink may get spiked, or someone could get hurt’. Nonetheless, vigorous precautions may not be enough. A mature-aged undisclosed gender respondent emphasised, ‘we steer clear of bars full of older men or young boys. If there were all girl bars that’s where I’d be’. Furthermore, management of avoidance strategies against violence and harassment are not only related to the nature of the event but also to dress code and transport mode: Safety affects the choice of the shoes and clothes I wear, whether I drive in, whether I catch public transport, whether I feel safe enough to have an alcoholic beverage. I won’t wear high heels if I feel I might be subjected to a dangerous situation (of which I try and minimise risk). (adult female) In other situations where place and setting have a bearing on socialising, ‘the demographics of people attending can sway whether I attend. For example, footy grand finale at a pub – expect catcalling, inappropriate comments and looks, loud, macho men drinking’ (adult female). Additionally, a mature male was cautious about attending venues because of the unknown factor, noting, ‘if I haven’t been there before I may choose not to go’, which is a somewhat limiting attitude to public social and cultural engagement, as there is always a first. Moreover, planning and awareness of the place were also essential for this adult male, who made sure well in advance that the place was considered safe. I need to have a good understanding of my surroundings and the basic details of how we get there and how we get home. If things aren’t going well, I like to have a backup plan. (adult male)

140 Agency-level violence Planning and making sure the places are safe to visit and meet up with friends was a feature for all genders and ethnic groups, ‘usually socialising with mixed groups of women/queers/trans people - need to feel safe from sexual and homo-/ trans-phobic violence or harassment. Certain kinds of “crowds” make this more likely’ (mature female). Nonetheless, it is necessary not to see danger everywhere, as observed by two mature females, ‘I don’t often pre-empt danger. If I think about safety, it is because I am in a situation that requires me to’, and ‘I trust my instincts and experience’. Thus, resilience and earlier experiences are employed to assess new settings for possible danger. Furthermore, a young undisclosed gender acknowledged the need to be self-sufficient in protecting yourself, ‘I am sure that I can protect myself well’. Self-sufficiency might be acceptable in most cases, but as noted by a mature undisclosed gender, ‘This society, and social situations in this society, are based in an abusive culture. I generally feel unsafe. People broadly behave abusively without realising so’. These observations emphasise the sustainability of historic hegemonic ideology and present-day systemic violence as governing tools in Australian society (Heywood et al. 2022; Australian Human Rights Commission 2017, 2018; Bourdieu 2001b). Furthermore, the unreliability of expecting public support in a risky situation and self-sufficiency was reflected when choosing a place and considering ethnic belonging, ‘No particular reason [of safety concern], perhaps it’s because I am comfortable in Melbourne. It may [might] be different if I was in another country’ (mature female). These comments emphasise that young adults are focused on being safe from violence and harassment and prepared to face unexpected incidents. The strategies they applied to ensure they could socialise with friends without being exposed to harassment and violence had become normalised, habitual and an essential part of socialising. Thus, socialisation with friends requires careful planning, vigilantes of emerging risks and assessment of precautions to meet conceivable violenceinduced scenarios. In addition, the respondents’ reflections demonstrated the significance of friendships. The crucial significance is maintaining the safety of all group members. Moreover, the remarks showed that preparing for visiting venues was a habitual safety examination. Places were avoided because of the risk that some patrons could be inclined to harass and use violence against other patrons. In summary, protecting oneself is about self-preservation, resilience, safety awareness and gaining knowledge about the venue and the audience. For instance, a young female highlighted the critical ability to protect oneself, ‘I work as a first aider, and as such it is my job to be looking at key safety features of any event any t[ime]’. On the other hand, young males noted that ‘me and my friends will protect each other and those around us’, and ‘I am usually in a group setting’. However, being male and being perceived as strong and self-sufficient is not necessarily enough to prevent harm.

Agency-level violence 141 There was a mutual understanding among the respondents that they needed to take protective measures to protect themselves, e.g., take responsibility for their and friends’ safety to stay safe. Consequently, they must take proactive procedures to secure a non-violent setting. Furthermore, many respondents emphasised the significance of belonging to a group of friends and being observant throughout the event, including taking precautions for eventual risks as a necessity in the public realm. Thus, the human rights declaration of the right to be safe in the public sphere was not to be taken as a definite guarantee. The young adults needed to apply their own safeguard measures, show self-awareness and display individual responsibility. Besides, public settings were not assessed as violent or not violent, as any place could easily change from one to the other without warnings. Therefore, the young adults did not take the reputation of venues for granted. The agency research cohort is students and student staff visiting university campuses several times a week. These settings are discussed in the following section.

Violence, harassment and discrimination on university campuses, teaching settings and stalking experiences Introduction This section focuses on experiences and perceptions of harassment, discrimination and violence on university campuses and within university teaching settings. Thus, to reiterate, the research university is situated in a cosmopolitan urban environment, with campuses in the lower socio-economic western suburbs and the city centre, attracting students from surrounding suburbs and regional areas, migrants, refugees and a smaller number of international students. The age profile of the students ranges from high school leavers to matureage students. The respondents attend the university campuses numerous times each week to participate in lectures and tutorials, study in the library, work commitments or socialise on the campuses. Their attendance is spread throughout the weekdays and evenings based on their study schedule. Furthermore, the library has extended opening hours, including opening times on Saturdays. The university teaching environment and the campuses can, from the outside, be considered a risk-free environment with security personnel on-site 24/7. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 present an overview of the respondents’ experiences of violence and harassment on university campuses and in teaching settings. The focus is on three settings:, violence, harassment and stalking incidents at the university campuses; teaching settings; and commuting to and from the university. The findings show that the females and the undisclosed genders stand out as having more frequent experiences of harassment than the males within the university milieu (Figure 4.10). A quarter of the females, about a fifth of the undisclosed genders, but only 7% of the males have experienced harassment on campuses. In

142 Agency-level violence 35

33 29

30 25

25

24

20

25

19

17

15 10

10

7

5 0 Female

Males

Campus

Teaching

Undisclosed Harassment/Stalking

Figure 4.10 Experiences of violence and harassment by gender in per cent. 30

26

25 20 15

15

19

17 14

19

17 13 10

10 5 0 Young Campus

Adult Teaching

Mature Harassment/Stalking

Figure 4.11 Experiences of violence and harassment by age in per cent.

the teaching setting, 29% of the females, 25% of the undisclosed genders and 17% of the males had experienced harassment. Thus, 33% of the female respondents reported exposure to harassment and stalking on campuses and travelling to and from the university. Twenty-five per cent of the undisclosed genders and only 10% of males had similar experiences.

Agency-level violence  143 Regarding age groups, the young students recounted the most incidents of harassment and stalking (26%). This group was followed by the adults in the teaching situation, harassment and stalking, both 19% (Figure 4.11). Finally, the mature respondents reported their highest percentage of acts of harassment in teaching settings (17%). The following sections analyse the nature of the violence, harassment, discrimination and stalking incidents, including the respondents’ experiences on university campuses. Violence and discrimination on university campuses The students and student staff respondents were asked if safety was on their minds when attending university campuses or if it was a non-issue (Figure 4.12). Overall, one-third of the respondents did not consider their safety during daytime visits. However, this belief in their safety changed during the evening, with just 14% never thinking about safety. Consequently, less than half of the respondents who felt safe during the day felt the same during the evening. Twenty-one per cent of the respondents always or most of the time thought about their safety during daytime visits, compared to 45% when attending evening sessions at the university campuses. The respondents’ assessment of the risk of violence, harassment or stalking while attending university campuses follows gender lines. The females and the undisclosed genders were most concerned about their safety on university campuses. Twenty-eight per cent of the females and 49% of the males never thought about their safety during daytime university visits. However, only 18% of the 50

46

45

45 41

40 35

33

30 25 20 15

21 14

10 5 0

Never think about safety

Sometimes think about safety Day

Always/most times think about safety

Evening

Figure 4.12 Safety concerns on university campuses in per cent.

144 Agency-level violence undisclosed gender group were not concerned about their safety during the day (Figure 4.13). The differences between females and males were minor in the category of always or most of the time being safety aware during daytime. Within this category, 21% of the females and 17% of the males were concerned about their safety when attending university campuses. In comparison, the undisclosed gender group had a much higher percentage in this category: 36%. The perceptions and attitudes on campus safety changed when the respondents were asked about safety awareness at evening teaching sessions (Figure 4.13). The number of students who never thought about safety on university campuses during the day decreased during the evenings. Only nine per cent of the females, 29% of the males and none of the respondents in the undisclosed gender group ever thought about their safety in the evening when visiting university campuses. Thus, 91% of the females and 71% of the males had safety concerns when visiting university campuses in the evenings. In addition, all respondents (100%) in the undisclosed gender group had safety trepidations when attending university campuses during the evenings. As presented in Figure 4.13, all percentages of risk awareness increased for all genders during evening times. Fifty-four per cent of the undisclosed gender group, followed by the females with 53% and the males with 25%, thought about risks always or most of the time during evening campus attendance. These findings show that the perceived risks of attending university campuses changed between daytime and evening. Moreover, it demonstrates a gender divide in the perception of risks of violence. Furthermore, the perceived risks of violence and harassment on university campuses substantially increased the

60 49

50

46

46 36

34 29

28

25 21

20

18

17 9

10 0

46

38

40 30

54

53

52

0 Day

Evening Females

Day

Evening Males

Day

Evening Undisclosed

Never think about safty Sometimes think about safty Always/most times think about safty

Figure 4.13 Safety concerns at university campuses by gender in per cent.

Agency-level violence 145 males’ perception of risk in the evenings. Likewise, it is noteworthy to emphasise the change from day to evening (cf. Fabiansson 2007; Collins et al. 2011; Sandberg and Tollefsen 2010; Brottsförebyggande Rådet 2019; Özascilar 2013). Thus, a manifest transformation in awareness of violence and harassment on university campuses occurred for all students and student staff. Hence, an outcome highlighting the significance of the time of the day in analysing violence and harassment. This astuteness in assessing the possible risk of violence also influenced how they negotiated their study attendance when visiting the university campuses. Consequently, the respondents’ interpretation of university campuses as always safe or places free of risks to study or work were not generally shared, having these fears of violence despite the 24/7 security presence on all campuses. Students’ reflections about violence on university campuses The percentages showed that the respondents emphasised their apprehensions about attending university campuses, particularly during evening commitments [Figures 4.12-4.13]. For example, students commented that they tried to avoid attending university campuses and teaching sessions after dark, unambiguously, when there was an anticipation that there would be few people on the campuses: ‘At night and on holidays, when its quiet’ (young undisclosed genders). Furthermore, the students developed different strategies to avoid being at the university at perceived risky times. The selectiveness in visiting the university also meant that they tried to attend teaching sessions when they felt it was safe, e.g., daytime sessions. During the research period, the university introduced extended library opening hours to cater to students and student staff whose working hours and family commitments did not fit with the earlier restricted daytime and early evening opening times. This change in opening hours altered the belief of being safe on university campuses. A young male stated: Especially with the extended library hours. The lighting at St Albans campus is very badly maintained and I make a conscious decision when I am there to try and park as close to the library as I possibly can. The only time I feel unsafe on campus is at night. A female student took an alternative position and noted that she was not thinking about safety as she would like to think that the campuses were safe. However, an adult female student voiced a more fatalistic approach to violence and safety on the university’s campuses: Very rarely [thinking about risks and harassment]. If something were to happen however, I personally don’t see how it could be prevented at that moment. I mean that although a person may be caught, there doesn’t appear to be immediate safety measures around campus. I have never seen security guards on campus.

146 Agency-level violence As noted above, the university has 24/7 security surveillance on the campuses. However, notwithstanding their presence, it was not necessarily visible to the students and student staff. Additionally, it was not seen as a force to be reckoned with if something happened.

Harassment and discrimination in teaching settings University campuses are more or less openly accessible spaces during extended daytime and late into nighttime hours to cater to teaching sessions and study requirements, including work responsibilities. However, the research shows that young adults did not perceive university campuses as safe and violence-free environments. This was particularly the situation for females, minority genders and ethnic groups, including for a proportion of male students. Students and student staff purposely tried to schedule their campus visits to coincide with perceived safe periods. Although selective campus attendance to avoid the risk of violence is not entirely up to individual prerogatives because study and work commitments follow set timetables. In addition, the teaching schedule is fixed before each semester. It thus regulates attendance and student staff’s requirements to be present on university campuses for teaching sessions, workshops or seminars, including library studies, to fulfil their course obligations. Thus, alterations need to be negotiated individually, albeit not necessarily successfully, due to the availability of teaching staff and seat capacity of teaching rooms. Furthermore, university campuses commonly cater to alternative activities to engage students and create social and cultural networks, including student support services. In addition, university campuses provide diverse sport activities, from elite sport training to more leisurely exercises. Consequently, students and student staff would be on the university grounds numerous times throughout the week. Violence and harassment were reported between students and lecturers/tutors and between students. Moreover, students are in a position of dependence within the teaching setting, which can raise conflicts of perceived unfair treatment and discrimination, including harassment and derogatory language, between students, student staff and academic staff. Although, in principle, the whole student cohort would be on an equal status level in the university environment. However, the student’s family habitus, gender, as well as their habitual social and cultural environments influence perceived social status, entitlements and power in public settings. Student lecturer/tutor harassment and discrimination Students are in a dependent predicament in the teaching setting, an environment where disagreements about assessment tasks and marking can proliferate. However, this research shows that it is also an environment conducive to increased harassment and discrimination between students and academic teaching staff. The respondents recounted incidences where they had experienced harassment or unfair treatment by academics. The students reported both face-to-face

Agency-level violence 147 harassment and email communications. The incidences recounted by the students ranged from feeling uncomfortable in a face-to-face setting to formal complaints, firstly to their teaching staff about unfair treatment and, if unsatisfied, followed by formal complaints to the university. Overall, harassment in the teaching situation was reported by 29% of the females, 25% of the undisclosed genders and 17% of the males. Consequently, to be violated, harassed or discriminated against in the teaching situation was more prevalently reported by the females and the undisclosed genders than the males (see Figure 4.10). For example, students described being yelled at and not taken seriously by teaching staff. A teacher yelled at me in the basement for seeing a librarian for my referencing. He said I was supposed to come to him first. He said I was a poor student and walked away. I obtained my first pass in the exam two weeks later which I contested with the entire faculty for 6 months and did not get a remark. Now going through ombudsman to get a remark. I am 100% sure my mark was linked to his conduct. (mature undisclosed gender) Just one class. Heavily picked on and not taken seriously by my professor because he believes he never saw me in his classes when, in actuality, I was in all his classes and had been in court taking notes for usage in assignments he allocated to us. D*ck move if you ask me considering I was a first year doing a third-year unit. (adult male) These recounted events demonstrate that the students undoubtedly understood their rights and judged they had been discriminated against, thus voicing their complaints and protesting against what they considered unfair treatment. For instance, the case when a mature undisclosed gender student felt marked down because of seeking help outside the class setting from a librarian. The student sought help to avoid being marked down on incorrect referencing, a critical skill in essay writing. The teaching staff implied that it was cheating to seek outside help, notwithstanding it was an initiative by the student to enhance their referencing skills. Likewise, another student proposed unfair treatment because the lecturer did not recognise the student’s attendance in the tutorial sessions. Attendance in teaching sessions is habitually checked at the researched university, albeit not always diligently. Equally, students are often particular in having their attendance noted in education-related meetings to avoid penalties for non-attendance. Courses can have student numbers well over a hundred enrolled. Hence, students who are quiet are often forgotten and not “seen” in large lecture or class settings. Therefore, they are not perceived as actively participating in discussions and engaging in the subjects presented. The examples show that the students felt discriminated against by the lecturers because of their quietness in the class and seeking external support outside the teaching session.

148 Agency-level violence Notwithstanding the perceived discrimination from the student’s perspective, the cases are not necessarily about factual circumstances. It is about how the students felt the academic staff treated them. Marking bias can be complicated to unravel, e.g., what can be “proven”, including interpretations that are not necessarily entirely objective. Moreover, the procedure to gain a remark can result in a higher, lower or no change in mark for the student. In this case, the university complaint procedure to gain a remark on the assessment task did not materialise. Thus, for the student, it was unfair treatment and unjust marking. Verbal discrimination, words and phrases are of particular concern for students with English as a second or third language, ‘verbally [abused] because the tutor picks on me often because of my pronunciation’ (young female). Receiving degrading comments about language proficiency is very sensitive for non-English students. Here the individual feels inferior, an emotion that undermines their study abilities, including active participation in the teaching setting. Additionally, it causes these students to feel disrespected and perceived as unintelligent. For example, a young undisclosed gender student recounted these feelings, ‘Yes, my make-up teacher was horrible. [S]he verbally abused us every day, every minute. She should not be teaching! [S]he consistently shames her students and talks down to them. What an awful bully!’ Moreover, an adult male student recounted, ‘Verbal abuse and intimidation’, and a young female remarked: ‘A lecturer was quite rude and inappropriate towards some of us students’. Furthermore, the students gave in-depth accounts of being confronted with verbal harassment and degrading language by teaching staff. In the western education environment, the teaching academics are mainly from the majority social and cultural ancestry of the nation-state. Consequently, by tradition, they might be somewhat ignorant or unaware of minority ethnic students’ social and cultural milieus and habitus in language usage and physical contact. Nonetheless, students from minority ethnic origins, as well as the majority populace, fashion their own habitually influenced language, pronunciations and understandings that impact their interpretations of words and phrases. Thus, create a subjective ethnocentric language framework where meanings of words, phrases and intonations are construed based on the non-English students’ heritage. For example, the non-English native students might pronounce words with an unfamiliar accent compared to the local Anglo-Australians’ pronunciations and use of customised phrases. Consequently, the students less fluent in English were made to feel undervalued and uncomfortable in the teaching setting, particularly if they were not understood due to the choice of words, phrases or pronunciations. Furthermore, the language difficulties created an environment where non-English native students feared participating in class discussions. Henceforth, the assumed safe and inclusive educational environment becomes perceived to discriminate against non-native English-speaking students and discourages active attendance and engagement in lectures and tutorial sessions. Another issue concerning discrimination and harassment in teaching settings is interlinked with generational social status stratification. The circumstance that

Agency-level violence 149 students’ socio-economic, gender and minority ethnic profiles, guide the university courses and career preferences they pursue. Preferences emanate from social and cultural customs and family traditions, reflecting hegemonic social status stratification, gender and ethnic equality ideology. Moreover, students selecting a course pathway outside the traditional male/ female trajectory can experience harassment and discrimination from fellow students, including academic teaching staff. A gender- and social status-aligned course preference based on social and cultural traditionalism maintains established inequalities, e.g., young adults choosing gender, social status and/or ethnic heritage accepted “allocated” or customarily accepted professional pathways. For example, courses leading to the medical, financial, engineering or academic professions are still male-dominated career pathways. In contrast, nursing, health and hospitality are overwhelmingly female-dominated professions. Thus, an environment where gender ideology and customary thinking follows traditional stereotypical career conduits and where non-traditional professional paths are treated as exceptions. Thus, being an outsider increases the risk of harassment and discrimination, which might make some students avoid pursuing their preferred university courses, such as females choosing to study medicine, dentistry or law and for male students, nursing and teaching courses. Moreover, minority ethnic domestic and international students from Africa, the Middle East or Asia are more likely to choose business, technology or engineering courses rather than nursing and teaching degrees. In this example, a female student undertaking a male-dominated course within engineering, thus a pathway dominated by male students. The young female student commented that her treatment was not directly about being harassed. Instead, it was about feeling as if not belonging in the course and the student environment. In a study scene with 99% single-gender members and no overall acceptance of females as equal members within working groups: ‘Not harassed exactly but in studying a field traditionally reserved for men I do occasionally feel a victim of inherent sexism’ (young female student). The comment reflects covert symbolic harassment and, for the student, a feeling of being an outsider. A feeling more often felt than easily pinpointed directly to a specific event. It is rather a feeling of not being an entirely accepted member of the study group, not for the reason of lack of ability but because of their gender. Another setting where students felt uncomfortable was being alone with a lecturer. In this situation, some of the respondents felt vulnerable and frightened. It was a situation they perceived as harassing and intimidating because of their limited possibility to “escape” or refuse to agree to meetings with the lecturers. Underpinning these feelings are the stress and anxiety to succeed in their studies. Thus, it is unwise to refuse to attend a meeting as it might be at their disadvantage study-wise. Moreover, such a situation reinforces the unequal power positions between lecturer and student. For example, this young undisclosed gender student felt harassed and intimidated because of such a meeting, ‘Threatened, stalked, shut in a

150 Agency-level violence room by a lecturer. This [the incident] is being investigated now’. It is noteworthy to recognise that the lecturer might not realise the student’s feelings of anxiety but see it as a commonplace one-to-one discussion to support the student’s studies. However, the example reiterates power differences and disagreement in interpretations. Furthermore, this young male student’s comment about verbal harassment in the teaching setting demonstrates conflicting interpretations of acceptable language. He recounted that the academic staff was using inappropriate and sexist language: ‘The lecturer was stating sexist comments and [I] was told by him to not bother reporting it as people try [it] every year. [The university] Does nothing’. Likewise, a young female student felt that she was not acknowledged and heard by the lecturer because of her gender: ‘In the social form [forum] where [the] teacher does not value what you have to say or ignore you numerous times’. These examples highlight the use of sexually derogatory language in teaching settings, as well as the situation where students are treated differently due to gender and social status. Henceforth, the male voice is given more status than the female, while minority genders or ethnic voices are frequently disregarded because of language and pronunciation difficulties. An example is this situation where a young male student recounted sexist attitudes by a lecturer: only one teacher at my law school makes sexist comments about women, which are blatantly not related to what he should be teaching, I would complain but this to [he is too] popular with the higher ups. In this instance, the student acknowledges status differences and the futility of complaining. An added factor is that the complaint might have or is perceived to cause repercussions affecting the student’s study trajectory, as recounted by the experiences of young females complaining about being bullied or harassed by academic staff. These young females felt the lecturer and tutor did not take any action to support them: ‘I was bullied and the tutor did nothing’, and ‘Verbally abused via email for reporting another student to the lecturer. [The] Tutor harassed me via email and told me my behaviour was disgusting among other words’. Additionally, a young female was ‘verbally and socially harassed by a tutor via email and then in class [I] was made to feel extremely uncomfortable’. Following these examples, another two examples of harassment from teaching staff recount harassment in the same vein. The first quote is by a young undisclosed gender, and the second by a young female student: Yes a teacher thought he was being funny by calling me stupid and then raising his hand and making and gesture as if to slap my face but to me it was demeaning and veiled violence. I complained and it took THREE MONTHS for the make-up unit manager [coordinator] to take my complaint seriously. Still I am unsatisfied by the response received. Once my course is finished I am going to commence a bloody shit fight. I have had you people!

Agency-level violence 151 Verbal bullying from PhD supervisor left me feeling vulnerable and uncomfortable similar to workplace bullying in approach during one on one or small meetings with both supervisors. Secondary supervisor does not speak up to stop it either. In a multicultural and diverse society like Australia and other nation-states, social and cultural norms concerning intimate contact can create conflicts due to cautious acceptance of altered social and cultural traditions. Likewise, the increasing international migration, international study and student exchange followed by a progressively ethnically diverse employment market is an environment where disagreements can convene. One such illustration is customs about personal physical contact. It varies between cultures, from no physical interaction between genders to hugs and kisses extended to acquaintances. Thus, accepting physical interaction between students and teaching staff can be unpleasant for the student, even if it was not the lecturer’s intention to offend. Instead, the physical touching was aimed as an encouraging gesture. Nonetheless, students can feel uncomfortable about physical contact with teaching staff. For example, it was felt inappropriate by this mature-aged female student: ‘teacher put his hands on my shoulders, it doesn’t seem like much, but I don’t like being touched by people I don’t know’. Furthermore, in teaching situations, students are encouraged to exchange contact details. Unfortunately, not all students feel comfortable giving out personal information. It can be considered an invasion of privacy; ‘lecturers and tutors encourage us to be connected with other students via social media and sometimes this feels like an invasion of privacy and social space’ (young female student). A young undisclosed gender student notes the consequence of sharing information, ‘I have been stalked/harassed online through private Facebook messages [that] by someone who claims to be a fellow student’. Additionally, incidents of religious and physical-based harassment were also reported. For example, a young female recounted, ‘girl yelled at me for not wearing a headscarf and I’m now scared to go to class and usually miss it even though my attendance is required’. Australia is a multi-ethnic society with infinite diversity in dress codes. Some follow traditional dress within their ethnic group and privately but not in the public realm. For instance, this student preferred not to dress traditionally but was shamed for not adhering to the custom of wearing a headscarf; hence she felt culturally pressured to follow her ethnicity and faith identity dress code also in the public realm. On the same theme, an adult male student reflected on the treatment of students with disabilities and situations when they were laughed at, ‘Student with [a] disability, who[m] other students don’t understand, is laughed at’. Notwithstanding the students’ recounted harassment and discriminative treatment, it can be difficult for teaching staff to distinguish harassment perpetrated among students. In addition, academic staff, often from the majority ethnic cohort, are not necessarily trained or educated to recognise discrimination and harassment incidences contingent on their social and cultural subjectivity. Therefore,

152 Agency-level violence their assessment can differ from the students’, albeit not a justification. As a result, academic staff might not know how to handle harassment and discrimination incidents when it happens or recognise an incident as violating the student. Furthermore, there can be a fine line between social teasing between friends and socially and culturally inappropriate comments and harassment. For instance, a young female student highlighted that she was harassed and was not given any help from the academic staff, ‘the tutor did nothing’. Another young female noted, ‘I have a fear of being in the same class as the harasser but not every teacher takes that seriously enough to move me to another class’. Consequently, if a student voices concern, the lecturer does not necessarily know the reason, background story or understand the seriousness of the harassment. It all depends on the perspective the lecturer perceives, from a middle-class white male perspective or a broader multicultural understanding. Additionally, it can be difficult for a student to communicate with seemingly unsympathetic teaching staff and discuss the sensitive nature of the harassment. Therefore, an uncomfortable setting or an unwillingness to name the harasser, as identifying the abuser, could escalate the harassment. Furthermore, the possibility of public knowledge about harassment creates an uncomfortable situation for the victim. For some, the complaint is making the situation more unbearable. Additionally, even if a complaint is made anonymously, it is still possible that the harassment and grievance become public knowledge and expose the victim, thus escalating the harassment. Notwithstanding this, inaction by academic staff is not an excuse for festering violence, harassment or discrimination in the teaching setting. Instead, it highlights the need to embrace social and culturally appropriate training and education for all staff. For example, a strategy is to arrange annual workshop sessions inclusive of all students focusing on diverse social and cultural awareness strategies, showing respectful behaviour, and how to embody responsibility towards each other. Finally, even if universities implement strategies including complaint procedures to expose and prevent harassment and discrimination, there is a long way to address the underpinning causes of social and cultural violence, including shaming the complainer or whistle-blower. Students as perpetrators and victims of violence Harassment and violent actions do not discriminate. Everyone can be a perpetrator, knowingly or unknowingly, and everybody can become a victim as violence, harassment and discriminative behaviour are present in all social and cultural society strata. Thus, the university environment is no exception. Moreover, it is not only that violence and discriminative behaviours create conflicts between different power levels, but it also engenders harassment among fellow students. As discussed, the research findings underscore harassment as a recurrent problem for students. The students recounted ample incidents of student-to-student harassment in the teaching settings and on campuses. The array of incidents reported by students ranges from an intrusion of private physical space to feeling excluded from the student cohort. For example,

Agency-level violence 153 for males taking the liberty to touch females without their consent, ‘A young male student felt that it was acceptable to put his arm around me as a way of coercing me into seeing things his way’ (young female). This action shows disregard for personal space, social and cultural insensitivity and a manifestation of male power and privileged social status. In the same manner, is the invasion of personal space: ‘guys at my uni think it’s okay to hug a girl while saying bye or have touched me without thinking twice’ (young female), ‘He kissed and hugged me’ (young female), notwithstanding that these incidents can be viewed as minor intrusions and culturally accepted by some people. Nonetheless, generalising such behaviours is unacceptable for diverse genders and minority ethnic groups, as not everyone is comfortable being touched and having their private space infringed on without consent. A comparable situation is when an adult male student recounted his experience violating personal space and discriminating language. A student encroaches on my personal, physical space at the back of a lab whilst facing me. Inappropriate behaviour. He sounded stereotypically gay (I am male). Another incident [the same adult male], called “boy” by a student during a lab who had an attitude. Thus, it is not only because of conflicting understanding and disregarding gender and ethnic belonging. It is also about disrespectful behaviour and a demonstration of an unwillingness to acknowledge the diversity of social and cultural traditions. However, a lack of understanding of multiplicity in customs can unwittingly lead to a realm of harassment. Likewise, it can amplify a perception that hegemonic power and social status positions based on the majority ethnic social values and beliefs should have preference over alternative traditions and conventional interactions. The twenty-first-century university student cohort is changing from the traditional predominate young school leavers to an increasing number of mature-aged university students. Henceforth, creating a new educational landscape for students and academic staff where education and training are revisited throughout people’s adult lives. Consequently, it is an evolving setting in which diverse age groups are required to adjust and learn to study and work together. For instance, mature-aged students recounted that harassment and discrimination in teaching settings contributed to new conflicts between mature and young student cohorts. Some mature-aged students felt excluded and discriminated against: ‘Some of the younger students went out of their way to make me feel unwelcome at the uni for what reasons – I would have no idea’ (mature male). In addition, a female student noted without divulging specifics, ‘I’m a mature age student so that comes with different issues’. Besides age-related harassment, to feel excluded more generally and not included in the student group environment was voiced by these young female students: ‘social exclusion and sometimes even sniggering – disgusting behaviour from others really’ and ‘Socially bullied by another student’.

154 Agency-level violence Group assignments can be a foundation for long-term friendships, as well as create tension, harassment, exclusion and feelings of being belittled. The allocation into assignment workgroups is commonly arranged arbitrarily and often based on where in the room a student sits when the workgroup is routinely organised, thus frequently a random selection process. It can be challenging for students unhappy with their working group to openly ask for a change of assignment group in a session. Although a workgroup allocation can be short-lived, lasting a few weeks, it can also continue for a semester, depending on the nature of the course. A cooperative and tolerant group environment can be rewarding as well as challenging if the group is not working well together. On the other hand, it can be an environment where discriminatory and harassing behaviours towards some students transpire. For example, the story below is about yearlong and prolonged harassment of a student by fellow students. The young female student depicts exposure to harassment over an extended period in a tutorial teaching setting and the public realm. I was exposed to repeated sarcastic comments that I felt like being bullied and harassed. It started [with] by 5 Students (… [Australian]). That is 1 male and 4 females at different times. The first harassment was by a female […] in my Second year second semester due to misunderstandings of my perspectives in tutorials. The second was by a male peer during third year first semester who labelled me using a term that was insulting and a lie because he did not know the details of my personal life. The third and fourth were triggered by the second harassment by two female peers during second semester lecture and tutorials and the gossips/lies that circulated about me. In the end, the gossip/ lies ended before the semester ended because they found out that there was no evidence. However, I also received unwanted stares in public places like supermarkets, mall[s], public transport[s] etc. This young female endured harassment for a prolonged time. If the student sought help from staff or complained is unclear. The harassment only ended when the harassers acknowledged that the untruths they had proclaimed were unsubstantiated. The protracted harassment made the student miserable for most of her university studies and made it difficult for her to take full advantage of the offered university education. The recounted harassment incident highlights the devastating impact of harassment actions on the victim’s well-being and the limited possibilities to correct misinformation circulation in and outside the teaching setting. Another case kept alive for a perpetuated time is the harassment of an adult male student. Harassment that he endured a whole semester and prevented him from engaging in discussions and contributing with his perspectives where silence was preferred over risking verbal abuse: in the subject cultural issues in psychology, there was significant verbal violence against anyone who spoke who was not pro homosexual and considered

Agency-level violence 155 all white people as racist. I did not say a word as I was too scared at what the others received. For pretty much the whole semester. Furthermore, this young female student recounted verbal abuse by a fellow student in a teaching session, thus feeling exposed and violated in public because of a contradictory opinion: only verbally harassed by student-colleagues who disagree with my stated perspective and argue they are right and I [am] are wrong; but, in a fairly aggressive, higher-volume than necessary, approach, that is somewhat rude and threatening. In addition, discrimination and harassment are not only gendered, age or ethnicity selective. For instance, violent acts can equally be directed at students undertaking an assignment project that challenges a preferred societal status quo, ‘A student called me names whilst I was doing the YES campaign [marriage equality] for my social action class’ (adult male student). The research participants also recounted incidents where the boundaries between private and public socially and culturally accepted behaviour were disregarded, e.g., a ‘male student felt it was acceptable to play a pornographic YouTube clip in a class’ (young female). On the one hand, it can be assumed that the male student lacked an understanding of social and cultural expectations and how to behave in educational settings. On the other hand, his motive might be to make females, including males, uncomfortable in the tutorial group by demonstrating male misogyny against females. Nonetheless, there is a fine line between harassment and a poorly presented remark. For example, a mature female respondent reflected on comments that the speaker might not have intended as vindictiveness: ‘I have seen people overreact to comments that were made without malice’. This is a complicated scenario. A comment perceived as insensitive might not be intended based on his/her social and cultural habitus. However, people unfamiliar with the social or cultural setting or colloquial language in which the comment was made are highly likely to interpret the remark differently. Jokes and ironic comments are very socially and culturally localised, hence can easily be misunderstood, particularly by nonnative residents. Additionally, harassment incidents occur not only between academic staff and students but also among students. Furthermore, it is also directed towards academics and student staff. For example, a stalking incident affecting teaching staff where a student showed unwanted attention: ‘I was teaching tutorials and I had a student get too attached and follow me around for a while’ (female teaching staff). Female student staff also recounted cases where they were sexually violated. This occurred in their role as staff, not as students, working at the university. They were exposed to degrading language, dismissive attitudes and ‘inappropriate sexist talk at work, bullying based on sexism’.

156 Agency-level violence Witnessing violence and harassment as a bystander The students experienced harassment in the teaching setting and on the campuses. They also acknowledged that harassment was not restricted to academic staff versus students but between students. Harassment directed to fellow students was noted most by the undisclosed gender group (25%), followed by the males (18%) and the females (15%). Moreover, the undisclosed gender group also had the highest percentage of seeing a fellow student being harassed. Additionally, this group reported the highest percentage of being harassed proportionally. Consequently, their awareness of harassment might be linked to the fact that they are a targeted group for harassment, discrimination and violence, thus being more alert to these situations. Even if the undisclosed gender cohort is small in the research sample, it highlights that minority genders and ethnic groups are increasingly exposed to violence and harassment. As many as 42% of the respondents disclosed minority ethnic heritage status, indicating that belonging to minority ethnic and gender groups signifies increased exposure to violence and harassment in the public realm. Notwithstanding this, it was surprising that the female group recorded the lowest awareness or recognition percentage of harassment, violence and discrimination of all categories, even if this group, notably the young females, reported violence and harassment most frequently against themselves in this research. Female students of different ages were witnesses to teaching staff picking on students. For instance, harassment was directed against personal appearance, language pronunciations, comments and viewpoints in discussion settings and ridiculing their chosen degrees: ‘Some years ago the lecturer was atrocious throwing assignments back at people in [the] class and hovering over them whilst they worked’ (young female). Furthermore, a student recounted, ‘Verbal harassment in response to students. Provoked but unnecessary to resolve situations (esp. when it involves swearing)’ (mature female). Both female and male students reported arguments, disagreements and fighting in and outside the teaching situation: ‘Sexual assault in transit from Uni. Verbal abuse between classmates’ (young female). Another young female student recounted, ‘swearing, yelling, mocking, ganging up, bullying’. Moreover, a young female student commented on repeated harassment: ‘Student yelled at and insulted another student. All 3 times involved the same people’. Thus, students witnessed fellow students being harassed by other students, denoting it was a relatively common occurrence in the public domain. The nature of the harassment included sexual, racial and discriminatory jokes. They observed, ‘overhearing inappropriate comments made by male students about female students’ physique’ (young female). Additionally, males make advances on female students. Behaviour that was overwhelmingly not reciprocated, ‘guys would keep asking a girl personal question when it was obvious, she did not want to talk to them’ (young female). Furthermore, invading the perceived private space as noted by an adult male, ‘a young student (female) was [not] happy when a guy sat next to her … she asked

Agency-level violence 157 him to move away but he didn’t. She moved and he followed her … it was very awkward’. Furthermore, a mature undisclosed gender student observed, ‘Creepy people hitting on students inappropriately’. Likewise, a male student recounted a harassment event where fellow students intervened: ‘A few students joined forces to bully another student in class till a few of us other students intervened’. In addition, bystanders acknowledged aspects of public humiliation. For example, a young female’s action against a male student created a witty effect, except for the receiver of the rejection: ‘She rejected him really meanly in front of everyone it was so funny so he stopped’ (young female). Harassment among students outside the direct teaching setting Overall, as noted above, the male responders were least harassed in the teaching setting (17%) or on campuses (7%) among all the research participants (Figure 4.10). However, a substantial percentage of the females (29%) and the undisclosed genders (25%) had experienced harassment and violence in the teaching setting. In addition, the females reported the highest percentage of stalking incidents (33%) in the public realm, followed by the undisclosed genders (25%). This is compared to only 10% of the males experiencing stalking (Figure 4.10). Additionally, overall harassment and violence exposure concerning age groups at the university campuses, in the teaching setting and stalking showed that 15% of the young respondents, 14% of the adults and 13% of the mature recounted such incidents (Figure 4.11). All groups recounted a slightly higher percentage in the teaching settings (young 17%, adult 19%, mature 17%, respectively). The young respondents reported the highest percentage of stalking incidents, with 26%, followed by the adult (19%) and the mature respondents (10%) (Figure 4.11). The females responded that they had encountered several occasions of harassment or been followed by unknown people at the university. It was notably young females who recounted this form of harassment. For example, a young female narrated: a man was following me, so I began to walk faster and he then did the same, so I started to run and he began running after me. Thankfully I had my mum waiting on the road in the car, so I ran and jumped straight in and locked the doors. Another young female describes an incident noting that university campuses are not always a safe environment to avoid being stalked: I have been followed from the library to my car. Followed to the train station and on the bus. I have hidden in the ladies’ toilets before and they would still be waiting by the time I would come out. Unwanted requests for personal information are also a form of harassment and invasion of privacy that is recurring and recounted by these young females. For

158 Agency-level violence example, ‘Male student asking me out after I asked him to leave me alone several times. This happened over the course of a month’, and, ‘a guy came up to me, and said his friends said I wouldn’t give him my number and continued to harass me until I would agree to give it to him’. Finally, ‘Unknown person claiming to be a [university] lecturer trying to get in the shared Postgraduate office and demanding [me] to let him in’. These incidents show how some males use their perceived power over females to demand information and access restricted areas. These examples emphasise that the campuses were not considered harassmentfree, as recounted by particularly young female students. Supporting these incidents were their extensive details of incidents where they had been followed, insulted, sworn at, yelled at and leered at, on campuses and in communal eating areas. Additionally, students commonly congregated outside the campuses, waiting for the bus or socialising, thus a crowded environment to pass through leaving the campuses. Females leaving the campuses were intermittently met with males’ wolf-whistling or receivers of disparaging comments. Hence, the females felt harassed by the unwanted comments on their appearances in a setting that was difficult to avoid. These verbal harassment actions and non-physical encounters made the victims feel degraded and treated as commodities based on physical appearance. Walking past the males sitting outside the campuses, waiting for the bus to the train station, created such unease that some students became too scared to attend university campuses and teaching sessions. As mentioned, students attending late teaching sessions became frightened to leave the campuses, especially after dark. It created apprehension and dread among students, and many tried to avoid late teaching sessions. Although, not always achievable to only get daytime teaching schedules or for students to influence their course or subject schedule. Examples of reflections on their fearfulness are, ‘I felt so unsafe walking around at night once that I asked a student walking the same way if we could walk together’, and ‘Stalker [followed me] home which led to almost being sexually harassed for no reason’ (young female). Not quite harassment, but I was uncomfortable, a student thought I was someone else and spoke to me, after finding out that I wasn’t who[m] he thought I was, he went away, but continued to stare at me for some time (young female). The recounted incidents can be viewed from an outside perspective as minor, but they were not for the students recounting the incidents in detail. The experiences of harassment, violence and discriminatory attitudes in the teaching setting, on campuses and stalking events made all three gender groups uncomfortable, predominantly if they also belonged to minority genders and ethnic students, a circumstance discussed in the following section.

Minority ethnic young adults’ experiences of violence versus Anglo-Australians The agency research shows that the university settings, university campuses and the teaching milieus are especially concerning for distinct groups, such as the

Agency-level violence 159 females, undisclosed genders and the minority ethnic cohort. Additionally, the results uncover that the incidents and risks experienced by the females and undisclosed genders were more extensive than by males. Hitherto, the agency findings have been analysed from the gender and age perspective. This analysis has increased the understanding of the scope of violence against these groups. However, these groups are not homogeneous in being exposed to harassment and discrimination. Another significant criterion that has been alluded to influencing being a victim of violence or discrimination in the public realm is belonging to a minority ethnic group versus being part of the majority ethnic populace. Henceforth, this section analyses violence, harassment and discrimination experienced by university students and student staff with a minority ethnic heritage. Unfortunately, the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people cohort was too few to be separated. However, their plight in discrimination, harassment and violence is discussed in the following chapter, ‘First Nation peoples and people of colour’. The classification of minority ethnic heritage in public realms is often based on outward facial features or skin colour, not necessarily on ethnic heritage, native language, faith or social and cultural traditions. Thus, a simplistic categorisation of people as having insider or outsider status, including a generalisation of them as a homogeneous group in society’s beliefs, cultural and social values based on their otherness from the majority populace. Minority ethnic Australians are mainly from three cohorts, young adults undertaking tertiary education, children migrating with parents and those born in the country to minority ethnic parents. Thus, many Australian ethnic minorities are educated within the Australian educational system, compulsory or tertiary, and have gained residency or citizen status. Likewise, they have grown up within the majority societal social, cultural and political ideology and often internalised the dominating hegemonic beliefs and value systems. They have internalised the Australian values and beliefs framing the society, the social, cultural and educational ethos in the same way as the Anglo-Australian population over generations. Consequently, an abundance of them identifies themselves as belonging to Australian society and feel they are Australians. However, regrettably, they are not necessarily always perceived as such by Anglo-Australian citizens, despite having permanent residency, citizenship and/or being born in Australia and part of communities and the workforce, including overwhelmingly having adopted Australian societal hegemonic ideology. This section explores minority ethnic young adults’ involvement and exposure to violent incidents. Thus, exploring if minority ethnic respondents are more fearful of the Australian public realm than the majority ethnic Anglo-Australian citizens. As discussed in the socio-demographic profile, most participants in the research were born in Australia and are Australian citizens. Notwithstanding this, they are classified as non-Australian because of their non-white and non-English language and cultural heritage.

160 Agency-level violence The sample composition of the agency research, to reiterate, 79% of the research respondents are Australian born, while 21% were born overseas. Fiftyeight per cent of the respondents speak only Australian English. Forty-two per cent (N = 62) of the respondents are bilingual, and of the overseas born, 90% of them are bilingual. In more detail, 28% of the respondents born in Australia speak another language than English at home. Hence, they are at least bilingual. Furthermore, over half of the minority ethnic respondents were born in Australia (54%) or came to Australia as infants or young children (46%). These respondents have at least one of their parents born overseas. Moreover, 46% of the minority ethnic respondents are born in Australia, and 42% of them speak another language than English. In contrast, only 4% of the born overseas do not speak another language than Australian English at home. The gender distribution in the entire sample, the overseas born represent 11% females, males 8% and 2% undisclosed genders. Thus, the minority ethnic respondents are treated as one group, as the gender groups are overall small. The purpose is to highlight their experience and perception of risks, safety, discrimination, violence or harassment in the public realm compared to Australian-born mono-lingual respondents. Overwhelmingly, as mentioned, the ethnic minority respondents have citizenship or permanent residency in Australia. Moreover, they are fluent in the Australian English language, especially if they have gone through the Australian education system. Nonetheless, their birthplace, in Australia or outside, habitually, minority ethnic families continue to practice their country-of-origin language, social and cultural traditions. The two criteria collated in the research to ascertain minority ethnic identities were country of birth and bilingual language skills. However, these variables overlap, with bilingual respondents (42%) covering a larger group than the birth country (20%). Accordingly, the bilingual proficiency category is more representative than the born outside Australia variable. Henceforth the bilingual variable is used in the following analysis. Furthermore, as the variables overlap with respondents being both bilingual and/or born overseas, the bilingual variable gives additional insight into and a more accurate understanding of the implications of belonging to a minority ethnic group, including their perception of violence, harassment and discrimination and about risks in the public realm. Firstly, an overview to understand the similarities and differences between the born overseas and bilingual cohort’s demographic profile, as well as the minority ethnic group’s perception of risks in the public domain compared to the Australian majority ethnic cohort. Besides, it has been postulated that an individual’s minority ethnic heritage increases exposure to violence, harassment and discrimination. Notwithstanding this, in more detail, whether or not respondents differ in their experience of violence based on being born overseas or having bilingual qualifications. Are they born overseas and/or bilingual respondents more exposed to violence and discrimination in the Australian setting than the majority of ethnic Anglo-Australians? Do ethnic minority respondents perceive

Agency-level violence  161 the Australian public realm as riskier than the Anglo-Australians and Australianborn respondents? The minority ethnic respondents born overseas have come to Australia as migrants, refugees, young students or young families who later settled in Australia after finalising their education. The interconnection with the birth country is often vital for the first and second generations. However, it might be less pronounced further down the generations’ trajectory as the language skills weaken with the disappearance of older generations. Nevertheless, the birth faith, language and social and cultural traditions are significant linkages and comforting connections supporting migrants and their children settling in a new country. Consequently, their parents’ cultural heritage, social traditions and language are kept alive within the family environment. Figure 4.14 shows the gender and age profiles of the respondents born overseas, bilingual students and student staff. As noted previously, numerically and in per cent, the bilingual cohort (N = 62, 42%) includes a more significant number of respondents than the born overseas group (N=31, 21%). The males and the undisclosed genders have the highest frequency of bilingual respondents (54% and 50%, respectively). The female group consists of 36% bilingual respondents. Thus, the percentages show only minor differences in age structure, except that the mature respondents have a higher percentage of those born overseas than the other age groups (24%) (Figure 4.14). An explanation for this is that migration often comes in waves underpinned by war, social and cultural conflicts and famine that influences the increase or decrease in new groups of migrants. The research literature emphasises that diversity and minority ethnic factors can increase tolerance in the public domain and prevent exposure to violence and harassment in the public domain, albeit also amplify conflicts. Thus, this is not a unified pattern as some minority ethnic groups are easier accepted than others by the majority populace. For instance, similarities in presentation, culture and religion enhance acceptance. Besides, Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014) noted that innumerable factors define people as insiders 60

54

50

50

42

40

30

30 20

41

38

36 30

24 17

17

14

10 0

Female

Male

Undisclosed Born overseas

Young

Adult

Mature

Bilingual

Figure 4.14 Respondents born overseas and bilingual by gender and age group in per cent.

162 Agency-level violence versus outsiders. Therefore, perceived threats against outsiders and prejudice in accepting diversity will have various sources and be deciphered depending on the individual’s personal and societal position, including the societal hegemonic ideology around immigration and diversity in social, cultural and religious traditions. The acceptance level of migrants also depends on the society’s economic soundness and the labour market’s strength. Significantly, if there is a requirement for low- or high-skilled migrant employees, Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014:227) propose a model that ‘predicts that an influx of lowskilled immigrants will increase the supply of low-skilled labour, lowering wages (or employment) for low-skilled natives while raising wages for highskilled natives’. On the other hand, an ‘influx of high-skilled immigration will have the opposite effect, as it will make low-skilled labour relatively scarce’. According to this model, the acceptance of migrants depends on where the native workforce is placed on the high-skilled professional or unskilled employee ladder. Consequently, people have different sensitivities to the influx of migrants, often based on non-material self-interests, including fearing the unknown. An added influence involves issues around personal future employment prospects, current educational and economic status or social situation (Hainmueller and Hopkins 2014). Laurence, Schmid and Hewstoned (2019:412) stressed in their research of ethnic diversity in England that: a key mechanism behind the decreasing cohesion with higher diversity appears to be antipathy towards ethnic out-groups among some residents (in particular perceived – threat). However, critically, diversity itself does not appear to foment these attitudes; instead, they are driven by other forces in society (such as social/economic inequalities), in turn, determining when diversity undermines individuals’ cohesion. Thus, it is not ethnic diversity in itself but rather the perception of its influence in creating attitudes for or against migrants, e.g., competitions around life chances. More precisely, societal socio-demographic and socio-economic transformations are driving significant antipathy factors. For instance, independent of the migrant factor, social-economic inequalities determine when diversity undermines citizens’ cohesion. Ford and Goodwin (2010) propose that individuals in lower socio-economic positions and environments tend to feel that ethnic minorities threaten their economic and societal status, which underpins prejudicial attitudes. Besides, the perception is that low-income groups are competing for unskilled work positions with minority ethnic groups. However, this perception of present-day migrants taking employment positions from the native citizens is often a misconception because the migrants are often highly qualified but have difficulties securing work positions within their

Agency-level violence 163 profession. Therefore, necessitating to take unskilled positions, positions that few native applicants would consider suitable for them. Thus, it is not solely about citizens fostering social cohesion and collaboration over ethnic divides. The urban environment can be built with this in mind to enhance community belonging strategies (Rishbeth, Ganji and Vodicka (2018) and create multi-ethnic rather than monoethnic suburbs, e.g., to avoid low socio-economic “ghetto” suburbs (Lapeyronnie 2009; Turner1994). Diversity and threat were not part of the bilingual cohorts’ perception of the urban environment in this research. The results, on the contrary, show that the unilingual Australian-born group was more risk-aware, violent and harassment anxious than the bilingual group. Again, though, there are plausible explanations for the dissimilarity between the groups. One reason could be that the minority ethnic group has gained increased resilience toward adversity, abuse and coping mechanisms because of the pre-migration experiences and a family environment dealing with traumas that are not comparable with Australian public realm conditions. Furthermore, migrants face overwhelming emotional stress and challenges settling in a foreign society with diverse family structures and social, cultural and religious traditions, often experiencing multilevel confusing social norms and ambiguous demands. Henceforth, risks, violence and discrimination issues in the public domain are other concerns to work through (O'Malley 2010). Moreover, depending on the original home country’s social and cultural differences to the immigrating country. There becomes a point where settlement to a new country requires adjustments, self-reliance and re-evaluation of traditions and cultural systems to smooth the path to belongingness and adjustment to study and work practices. Hence, the need to gain social and cultural knowledge and understanding of the new society, for instance, to become accustomed to the society’s belief systems and work ethics. Besides, there might be self-dignity in not acknowledging being a target of harassment, bullying or social and cultural societal exclusions, thus not standing out as different from native citizens in the adopted society. As mentioned, migration often comes in waves underpinned by war, political, social and cultural conflicts and famine. Thus, cultural and ethnic clusters are often geographically concentrated, which gives the newly arrived comfort in having support from earlier waves of migrants. Furthermore, these geographical clusters create protection and safety where racial discrimination is only recognised when venturing into mainstream society (Fabiansson 2018). Besides, in the agency research, these perceptions and the differences between the bilingual and unilingual groups are marginal. Moreover, the majority of bilingual students were born in Australia. They have attended the Australian school system, thus being immersed in the Australian dominating ideology, culture and traditions alongside their native culture. They are and consider themselves Australians, whether permanent residents or citizens.

164  Agency-level violence They are Australians, except perceived differently by some sections of the white Anglo-Australian populace (Fabiansson 2018). Another highlighted issue is whether the born overseas and bilingual respondents perceive the public realm as risky as the cohort born in Australia (Figure 4.15). The findings show that the minority ethnic groups are less concerned about risks in the public domain than the Anglo-Australian respondents. This result might be seen as contradictory. However, assume the respondents and/or their parents are born overseas and have experienced war, refugee camps, religious, cultural and social conflicts, deprivation and natural disasters, including the stress and upheaval of moving to foreign countries. From this perspective, Australia is seen as a very safe country. Henceforth, Australia’s public realm might be considered a safer place than their earlier experiences. At the same time, the AngloAustralian respondents have less experience with alternative social and cultural milieus or societal upheavals threatening their life chances. Seventy-six per cent of the overseas-born respondents assessed the public realm as very safe or mostly safe compared to 60% of the Australians. Seventyone per cent of the bilingual respondents and 66% of the unilingual respondents made the same assessment. Furthermore, 24% of the Australian born, compared to only 3% of the born overseas respondents, thought the public domain was very or mostly risky. The corresponding percentages for bilingual respondents and unilingual Australians showed less gap between them in this category of very or mostly risky public environments (16% and 10%, respectively, Figure 4.15). Ethnic minorities’ experiences of violence on university campuses and in the public realm Even if the bilingual respondents perceived Australia as an overall safe society on the structural level, this did not necessarily transfer to trust in individual safety 76

80 70

60

60

71

66

50 40 30 20

24

21

16

10

16 18

3

19 10

0 Australia Very/mostly risky

Overseas

Unilingual

Neither safe nor risky

Bilingual Very/mostly safe

Figure 4.15 The overall feeling of safety in the public realm by birthplace and bilingualism in per cent.

Agency-level violence 165 in the public realm. Throughout the research, the bilingual respondents voiced numerous incidents that had frightened them. Besides, aside from these feelings of safety and a secure public realm, the bilingual respondents remarked that they were exceedingly safety aware, actively protected themselves and attentively scrutinised their surroundings. A number of the harassment and discriminatory incidents they experienced have previously been partly analysed above, from the perspectives of the genders and age groups. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to highlight the significance of the harassment context in which the violence is perpetrated. Furthermore, the bilingual cohorts’ exposure to harassment and discrimination is unlike the AngloAustralians. For instance, bilingual proficiency and minority ethnic heritage augment the seriousness of violence the bilingual cohort faces in the public realm, thus exposing otherness outside the majority ethnic sphere. This otherness can invoke discrimination incidents. For example, actions of public realm vigilance: ‘I am attentive to discomfortable [uncomfortable] situations and try to avoid them’, and ‘I keep to myself, I carry (a) means of defence on me and I have my phone at the ready’. Additionally, ‘I am aware of my safety and try to avoid situations which could be unsafe’, and ‘I pay attention to my surroundings’. These remarks show that even if the public domain is considered safe, it is essential for this cohort to be unequivocally attuned to possible risk scenarios. Notwithstanding the structural safety sense, personal safety befalls themselves to take individual responsibility to circumvent risky settings. Thus, a necessary adeptness to maintain personal responsibility for own protection while simultaneously acknowledging that the Australian society is overwhelmingly safe. Notwithstanding the minor differences between bilingual and unilingual respondents in their perception of risk in the public domain, there are significant dissimilarities in their experience of violence and harassment in teaching settings, on campuses and in stalking experiences. Figure 4.16 shows incidents of violence and harassment in the teaching setting, on campuses and experiences of being stalked. Regarding the teaching setting, the bilingual group reports more harassment incidents than the unilingual group. While in the other categories, harassment on campuses and stalking, the unilingual group presents more incidents of violence and harassment experiences than the bilingual group. The findings especially highlight discrimination in the teaching setting for bilingual students, primarily concerning language proficiency and/or social and political viewpoints. However, this also refers to alternative attitudes around social and cultural habitus, including gender interactions, for instance, male students hugging and kissing female students without consent. Thus, 25% of the unilingual Australians had experienced harassment in the teaching setting compared to 37% of the bilingual student cohort (Figure 4.16). Consequently, it empathises with the risk of exposure to harassment and discrimination for students and student staff and negative attitudes because of belongingness to a minority ethnic group. Particularly bilingual students lacking English language skills come to light in class discussions.

166  Agency-level violence 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

37 30 25

22

23

15

Harassment in teaching setting

Harassment at campuses Bilingual

Stalking harassment

Unilingual

Figure 4.16 Harassment in teaching settings, on campuses and stalked by bilingual proficiency in per cent.

However, this is not the case for harassment on campuses, where 15% of bilingual students and 22% of unilingual students and student staff experience harassment. In the category of stalking, the percentages are similar, with higher reporting percentages for the unilingual than the bilingual (30% and 23%, respectively). The university teaching and campus activities run from 8.00 o’clock in the morning and late into the evening. Students and student staff attend teaching sessions, the library, work commitments or other campus functions throughout the day and evening. The highest campus traffic of people is during the daytime, thus less risk of exposure to harassment due to fellow students moving in groups. Nevertheless, risk awareness changed again and was perceived differently in the evenings (Figure 4.13). As a result, some respondents refused to attend the campuses and teaching sessions during the evenings. Bilingual respondents gave examples of incidents they had experienced on university campuses. For example, in this incident of coercion, ‘a guy came up to me, and said his friends said I wouldn’t give him my number and continued to harass me until I would agree to give it to him’. Moreover, some respondents reported several incidents of harassment: ‘Yes, I have been harassed 4 times at VU Campus. Mostly from unwanted stares of hatred’. Likewise, exposure to culturally and socially inappropriate behaviour, ‘He kissed and hugged me’. The Anglo-Australian students and student staff were more likely to highlight that they were unaware of security facilities at university campuses. Equally, Anglo-Australian students questioned if the security staff would be of any help in a harassment incident. Contrasting this assessment by the Anglo-Australian students and student staff about the significance of the university’s 24/7 security presence on campuses, the bilingual respondents presented a more nuanced assessment. They did not widely support the viewpoint that campus security was unimportant.

Agency-level violence 167 In the public realm, the respondents remarked that they make sure they are together with friends or carefully select places they visit outside their home environment: ‘I rarely go places where I have to worry about others’. Additional comments: ‘Because I take actions to ensure places I attend are appropriate and I often have someone with me’, and ‘I either go to familiar places or go to new places with friends’. Finally, ‘I am usually with my kids and avoid unsafe areas’. Before accepting an outing, the statements highlight planning and security assessments to avoid unwanted harassing or discriminatory behaviour. Thus, showing less spontaneity in visiting unknown venues or unfamiliar places. Although it was emphasised that Australia, including the metropolitan city, are safe or has insignificantly dangerous places compared to some overseas locations, ‘it is very safe in Australia/Melbourne’, and ‘Most places are safe [here]’. Overall, the bilingual cohort stressed that Australian people follow the laws, the police are everywhere, and the university security system assures people’s safety. Nevertheless, this high regard for an orderly society and the existence of a university security facility was not necessarily seen as adequate or could be relied upon to prevent harassment. Therefore, the bilingual respondents noted the necessity for personal vigilance. Taking personal responsibility to protect themselves and stay safe was equally important. Nonetheless, Australian-born respondents more often questioned if it is possible to assume that the security staff could prevent harassment on campuses. They also questioned the security staff’s responsibility to intervene. Thus, principally, a personal responsibility ultimately to stay safe. Individual safety is also interlinked with travel options to and from the university, whether utilising public or private transport options. As noted from the previously recounted incidents, bilingual respondents were particularly concerned about the mode of transport. Thus, to feel safe and in control of risk management, ‘I have my own mode of transport to and from so that is what makes me feel somewhat safer’, and ‘I know my way around and always have backup plans’. Moreover, pre-existing anxiety and fears of the public domain created heightened alertness for this respondent: my anxiety makes me think of all the possible scenarios so I have a plan if X, Y or Z happens’; ‘Due to my anxiety I am a very [risk] aware person, I take note of my surroundings and don't do things I feel uncomfortable doing or I avoid places that have the potential for risky behaviour. Notwithstanding the perceived safe public realm, safety measures and alertness were always present in people’s minds: ‘I consider where I am &/or have to be at all times; although, even in the “perceived safer areas”, I realise life will always have risk/s involved’. Additionally, the time of the day influences the use of the public domain: ‘I [am] generally only out in public during the day’. These safety precautions exemplify how bilingual minority ethnic respondents prepared to travel securely in public and, consequently, avoided attending evening university sessions.

168 Agency-level violence However, a respondent demonstrated a more fatalistic belief that not everything can be controlled and safety concerns are not necessarily to restrict or prevent people from living their lives: Anything can happen but that doesn’t mean we should allow “what if” situations to stop us from living our lives. I just mean we have to be cautious and smart about our decisions to do or (no) [not] do something or go somewhere. Twenty-three per cent of bilingual and 30% of unilingual respondents (Figure 4.16) reported stalking. This form of harassment can be seen as minor incidents such as being followed a short distance by an unknown person, starred at or feeling uncomfortable that a person chooses to sit next to them on public transport, predominantly when there are other accessible seats. Thus, it can be a frightening and uncomfortable travel experience even if no noticeable harassment occurs. Likewise, travel by public transport and walking to and from the railway station to the university campuses were perceived as harassment-prone events, which fuelled the perception that it was a risky commute, especially after dark. For example, as these incidents highlight, ‘a guy near Footscray station once followed me and was convinced that he knew me when he did not’. Besides, evenings and dark areas create different fears, ‘in the dark area in front of Footscray city college, on my way to Footscray campus’, and on my way to uni, he followed me from Southern Cross on a train to Footscray, where I had to quickly jump off a tram at the last minute so that he could not follow me. The bilingual respondents gave numerous examples recounting being followed by unknown people in the public realm. Specifically, at times they were venturing out without supporting friends. These examples demonstrate how scared they were at being in that setting. I was followed by someone after parking my car on a side street. He had his hands down his pants. He was touching himself and followed me down the street. I called the police. I did not know or speak to the man in any way. In 2 separate incidents, 2 men pulled up their cars while I was exercising and when I was waiting for the bus to go home. On two other separate incidents, when I was walking home late from Uni, a car speed [sped] by and toot their horn which frightened me because the street was empty. On another incident while walking to the supermarket in my neighbourhood, a car I am not familiar with the driver slowed by and waved out at me as if he knew me. I was so scared. As previously mentioned, a female bilingual student was exposed to lengthy harassment, including being stared at, which unsettled her profoundly, ‘Mostly

Agency-level violence 169 from unwanted stares of hatred due to (gossip/lies spread from tutorial discussions)’. Another student voiced the same sentiments about how uncomfortable she was with people staring at her, ‘received unwanted stares in public places like supermarkets, mall, public transports’. These are incidents that might not unsettle everyone. However, reactions to violence are personal. Therefore, the setting and incident should be understood from a victim’s subjective perspective. This includes viewing the episode from the viewpoint of the bilingual students’ minority ethnic status, earlier experiences and the circumstance as to why the setting made them feel vulnerable if previous trauma and experiences they have encountered are relived. These incidents have been highlighted in previous sections but viewed from diverse social and cultural perspectives in this section. The examples illustrate that bilingual minority ethnic belonging creates additional settings of harassment on the individual level and emphasises the need for safety concerns, despite perceiving the structural societal level overall safe. Ethnic minorities’ experiences of harassment and discrimination in the teaching setting To reiterate, 25% of the unilingual had experienced harassment in the teaching setting compared to 37% of the bilingual student cohort (Figure 4.16). Thus, the risk of exposure to violence, harassment and discrimination increased for bilingual minority ethnic students and student staff. Even if these incidents have already been discussed, it is pertinent that they are also analysed from a bilingual minority ethnic perspective. Significantly, sexist language is offensive and foreign in teaching settings for all, but predominantly for bilingual students from less secular societies. For example, as recounted by bilingual students in the teaching setting, ‘The lecture was stating sexist comments and [I] was told by him to not bother reporting it as people try every year. [It] does nothing’. Furthermore, cases linked to language proficiency or adhering to the preferred pronunciation, ‘verbally because the tutor picks on me often because of my pronunciation’, and ‘In the social form [forum] where [a] teacher do[es] not value what you have to say or ignore you numerous times’. Unfortunately, inadequate language proficiency from a native English-speaking individual’s perspective is often linked to a perception that inarticulate non-native English-speaking students are also less intelligent and capable of engaging with the study subject. Consequently, bilingual students highlighted feelings of exclusion amplified by their bilingual minority ethnic belonging, ‘again social exclusion and sometimes even sniggering - disgusting behaviour from others really’. In this quote, the harassment refers to settings where the abuse is between students, ‘Socially bullied by another student, and similarly, I have a fear of being in the same class as the harasser but not every teacher takes that seriously enough to move me to another class’. In this instance, the student feared being in the same class as the harasser, but it did not necessarily warrant action or understanding by the student’s teaching staff. Albeit situations of harassment are interpreted from subjective perspectives

170 Agency-level violence influenced by and/or exacerbated by contrasting understandings of social and cultural traditions, thus revealing diversity in interpretations and perceived seriousness. This is illustrated in the comment about experiencing discrimination and harassing behaviour by a fellow student: A student encroaches on my personal, physical space at the back of a lab whilst facing me. Inappropriate behaviour. He sounded stereotypically gay (I am male). Another incident, called “boy” by a student during a lab who had an attitude. Additionally, this recount further highlights the feeling of being invisible, belittled and discriminated against because of bilingual ethnic belonging and being seen as quiet and not engaging in discussions: Just one class. Heavily picked on and not taken seriously by my professor because he believe[ed] he never saw me in his classes when, in actuality, I was in all his classes and had been in court taking notes for usage in assignments he allocated to us. D*ck move if you ask me considering I was a first year doing a third year unit. Internet technology and social media help students to keep in contact with fellow students and academic staff. It has also allowed them to work on group assignments remotely. However, as remarked by this bilingual student, another aspect highlights the conflict in social and cultural expectations: ‘lecturers and tutors encourage us to be connected with other students via social media and sometimes this feels like an invasion of privacy and social space’. In the same vein showing disrespect for the minority ethnic populace’s social and cultural traditions, applying customs that are seen as offensive, ‘guys at my uni think it’s okay to hug a girl while saying bye, or have touched me without thinking twice’. As noted, discrimination and harassment are not restricted only to academic staff versus students but also between students. For instance, a student recounted a considerable extended experience of being harassed by fellow students. This harassment incident was grounded on unfounded misunderstandings regarding the choice of words, views and perspectives in tutorial discussions, ‘In the end, the gossip/ lies ended before the semester ended because they found out that there was no evidence’. Other examples of student-to-student harassment are these comments not necessarily based on the student’s ethnic belonging, but about opinions not accepted as valid or acknowledged in mainstream settings, thus emphasising otherness: in the subject cultural issues in psychology, there was significant verbal violence against anyone who spoke who was not pro homosexual and considered all white people as racist. I did not say a word as I was too scared at what the others received. For pretty much the whole semester. only verbally harassed by student-colleagues who disagree with my stated perspective and argue they are right and I (are) [am] wrong, but, in a fairly

Agency-level violence 171 aggressive, higher-volume than necessary, approach, that is somewhat rude and threatening. These presented incidents recounted by respondents highlight the exposure to violence, especially harassment and discrimination in teaching settings. It is easy to dismiss these incidents as minor harassment and discrimination episodes and part of ordinary life interactions. However, the disrespectful comments and attitudes have harmed the receivers and exuberated their otherness from mainstream Australian beliefs and values. Furthermore, it has affected their educational trajectories and beliefs that the university milieu is safe for all, independent of gender, bilingual ethnic belonging, faith, cultural and social heritage. Thus, it imposes a feeling of not being accepted and safe in the teaching setting. Unfortunately, this situation also flows onto university campuses for some students. In the next section, the trustworthiness of the agency-level research findings is further assessed through the perspective of comparative research about international students, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people of colour’s experiences of violence, harassment and discrimination. International students’ harassment quandary Harassment and discrimination have been discussed from the perspective of gender, age and bilingual minority ethnic ancestry at the agency level. The following section discusses structural, systemic and symbolic violence and discrimination in a setting where harassment and coercion are enforced or instigated by nation-states. Actions of violence and discrimination do not transpire in isolation. Instead, they have an intersectional interconnectedness. The intersectionality discourse postulates that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social and cultural positions, such as genders, ethnicity, heritage and/or socio-economic status. Thus, violence cannot be understood without considering how it interconnects with social, cultural and socio-economic factors, including the nation-state’s hegemonic ideology. For instance, international students will face compounding intersectionality with multi-faced discrimination factors, notably if ethnic heritage and language skills differ from the country where the education is undertaken. Thus, intersectionality discrimination creates a setting where international students must skilfully negotiate behaviour and communication as outsiders regarding ethnic presentation and language (Bowleg 2012; Collins 1995; Hancock 2007). An added significant circumstance facing international students compared to local is unfamiliarity with the local community, lack of local knowledge and available support networks, how to seek help and customary protective behaviours, including risky settings (Sable et al. 2006; Forbes-Mewett, McCulloch and Nyland 2015). Moreover, international students are affected by imposed restrictions to manage their living situation and studies, including passing assessments

172 Agency-level violence and completing the course within the set scholarship timeframe. Notwithstanding these challenges, studying abroad is often seen as a trajectory to a bright professional future for young adults. Such as the benefits of engaging with a diverse cohort of students, social and cultural traditions and possibilities to enhance their language skills. As the agency research has shown, belonging to a minority ethnic cohort, including international students, is an increasing factor in exposure to discrimination and harassment in the teaching setting. Furthermore, international students are also more at risk in the public realm if classified as outsiders from the majority native population. Nonetheless, harassment is not necessarily restricted to only the university milieu as coercion can also be in the form of surveillance from their native nationstate. For instance, representatives from the home country actively discourage local friendships and involvement in political or social debates, particularly if the activity highlights critical human rights abuses in the student’s native country. As an example of international students’ quandary, international Chinese students’ situation in Australia is discussed and how they manage surveillance exerted by their home country. This is not to assume that control of international student activities is monitored only by the Chinese government and its affiliated organisations, as many nation-states are concerned about students’ engagement in critical political, cultural and human rights activities when overseas. However, in Australia, Chinese international students are one of the largest cohorts of international students, representing an ideologically distinct society. Chinese students’ measured comments in university teaching settings give insight into how they are aware of their position as representing their country. Thus, it is not unusual that international Chinese students are reluctant to voluntarily share private political or societal views or even contribute to discussions about perceived controversial issues. One reason is that a student cannot be confident that their individual opinions will be kept internal to the teaching environment and not filtered through to Chinese representatives in their native country. This scenario is also applicable to students from Tibet. Moreover, the harassment of independent thinkers can be subtle and indirect, not necessarily apparent to people unfamiliar with covert and coercive tactics of perceived subversive students. These harassment threats are intermittent actions carried out by consulate affiliations, student support organisations and fellow students. The aim is to restrain students from voicing critical social and political public comments, engaging with Australian and other international students or participating in protest actions against the regime of their native country. Research undertaken by the international organisation Human Rights Watch (2021) gives an enlightening insight into Chinese university students’ experiences of studying and living abroad. However, to reiterate, notwithstanding the focus on China, it is too simplistic to imply that this is the only nation-state that uses threats of harassment and violence to prevent critical views from being voiced by international students and activists studying or working outside their home country.

Agency-level violence 173 The international Human Rights Watch surveyed Chinese students studying in Australia. The findings show that students recounted fear of reprisal from the Chinese government if they engaged in activities or voiced critical sentiments against the regime. Besides, the harassing and discriminatory actions extend well beyond the students themselves. The researchers were able to verify that threats of violence had been made not just to the international students but also towards university friends, work colleagues, relatives and family members living in their home country, China. Accordingly, nation-states’ embassies and consulates, business centres and education affiliations facilitate information gathering by inviting their fellow national students to national celebrations, courses and activities. These arrangements aim to support the students studying abroad. It is a subtle way of assembling knowledge about their studies and social, cultural and political activities. Moreover, the practice highlights the extent of control and enforced authority by native countries over their citizens. They are perceived as caring and supportive actions but also function as social control. The harassment methods include warnings, withdrawal of scholarships and other support if the students engage in perceived critical activities. However, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that nation-state scholarships aid many international students’ studies. Hence, they are reluctant to antagonise the financial providers. Besides, surveillance of Chinese natives living abroad is not only restricted to international students but also includes residents who have migrated. Therefore, their political activities, social and cultural networks and organisational engagement are monitored. The existence of surveillance was known to most students, and they were mindful of their roles as representing China. Therefore, engagements in social and political organisations were carefully considered or avoided if not sanctioned by the home country. It was acceptable if the students felt their fear of harassment was manageable and without personal and/or financial risk for themselves. However, it was a different story about how they felt about their families still residing in their home country. Their families risked losing benefits or receiving threats. The threats could take many forms, from warnings and withdrawal of resources to imprisonment if the student’s transgression was deemed severe. Consequently, the students needed to navigate anticipated harassment threats against themselves or their families if any critique or political activities were outside the countries’ hegemonic political and social ideology. Furthermore, as noted in the comment, the main fear of harassment and violence was not in relation to themselves but against their families, who might have gone to great lengths to help finance their overseas living expenses. Likewise, the international students’ knowledge about the possible repercussions of their activities might keep them vigilant in assessing their behaviour and activities, exacerbated by unawareness of who could be reporting on them. In summary: Students said the fear of fellow students reporting on them to the Chinese consulate or embassy and the potential impact on loved ones in China led to

174 Agency-level violence stress, anxiety, and affected their daily activities. Fear that what they did in Australia could result in Chinese authorities punishing or interrogating their parents back home weighed heavily on the minds of every pro-democracy student interviewed. It was a constant concern that had to be evaluated before decisions were made of what to say, what they could attend, and even with whom they were friends. (Human Rights Watch 2021:2) The remarks emphasise their fear and risk of harassment for themselves and family members in the home country. Consequently, a situation that influences every aspect of international students’ lives in Australia or any other nation-state attracting Chinese students. Significantly, the fear of harassment extends beyond the individual student’s studies to their engagement in discussions, conveying views in the teaching setting and publicly voicing ideas. In addition, to how they behave in their private life, the nature of friendships, privately or publicly, and engagement in Australian or other nation-states’ social and cultural organisations and activities. As a result, the interviewed students extensively felt that the surveillance undertaken by fellow students or officials of their lives in Australia hampered participation in university educational and social activities, limiting their ability to establish sustainable friendships with fellow Australian or other international students (Human Rights Watch 2021). The Human Rights Watch (2021) recounts three verified cases of threats against university students’ families back home in mainland China. Situations where the Chinese police authority visited the students’ parents. While the verified number seems low, the fact that it occurred is enough to keep thousands of students in Australia and other nation-states on edge and fearful of what is reported because the students’ activities transgress preferred Chinese societal ideology, particularly the socio-political views voiced by the international students. Besides, it can be assumed that not all cases are necessarily reported or acknowledged to avoid further police visits or incurring discrimination. Zhang Xiuying (pseudonym) commented: My worst fear is my parents being visited by the police. I don’t really care about myself. I know how bad the police in China treat the people. My mum is in the middle, my dad is hardcore pro-Beijing. My parents are concerned with what I have done here. As long as they don’t get a call from the police. I think they worry about that. I use a fake name [while studying in Australia] at their request. (Human Rights Watch 2021:84) As noted above, the students’ fear of violence and harassment in Australia, including fear of their families being harassed by the Chinese authorities, is detrimental to their well-being and studies. The research findings are not new revelations and might not be an issue for all Chinese students. Notwithstanding this, it is assumed universities are aware of international students’ circumstances, albeit they are not

Agency-level violence 175 publicly alluding to it. In many countries, international students have become a significant income source for universities, thus an inclination not to disturb the flow of international students from China. Furthermore, it was voiced in the Human Rights Watch research that students who have a profoundly rooted fear of Chinese authorities have an ardent desire for universities to develop policies and strategies to ensure that international students are supported and safe in Australia. Additionally, requesting to be aided and protected by the university if they report experiencing harassment and experiences of violence. The perceived lack of support from Australian universities was a recurrent theme among the students’ responses. The international Chinese students requested that their circumstances be publicly declared and openly supported by universities, including having strategies in place to protect them. Furthermore, the students request that educational institutions publicly condemn the practice. Such a strategy, it was suggested, would help students who had experienced harassment and intimidation or were forced to engage in self-censorship. Li Wei (pseudonym) summarised it accordingly: If the uni was willing to stand up and offer protection and are willing to produce a safe environment, I guarantee more students will speak out. It’s the free and open environment and if the Australian uni fails to provide such an environment, then there is no point for me to come here! I should just stay in China. I can’t criticize CCP [Chinese Communist Party] there or here. (Human Rights Watch 2021:88) In summary, the international Human Rights Watch (2021) research highlighted the plight of Chinese students studying in Australia. As noted, the surveillance of Chinese students is not only an Australian issue, as it is a circumstance that goes beyond Australian borders to other nation-states attracting international students. Furthermore, the students’ fear of harassment and violence for themselves and their families is verified as profound and occurring. These experiences have a detrimental impact on individual students’ well-being and their possibility to engage in open social, cultural and political debate in the nation-state they have chosen as international students. Nonetheless, harassment goes both ways, violence and discrimination from foreign nation-states or native citizens. For example, Australians of Chinese descent have reported increased racist attacks and discrimination after the spread of COVID-19 outside China. A virus that is presumed to have originated and spread globally from China. Thus, creating an impression that some nationalities are responsible for its spread around the globe. This perception is assumed to have underpinned increased racism and discrimination faced by people of Asian descent in Australia but also in the US. Discrimination showing an upsurge since 2020. The Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia, reports (March 2021) that about 20% of the Chinese Australians say they have been physically threatened or attacked in 2020, with most blaming tensions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

176 Agency-level violence Additionally, the Lowy Institute noted that approximately one in three Chinese community members reported facing verbal abuse or discriminatory treatment in 2020 (Lowy Institute in Sydney 2021). However, the perceived responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic is not restricted to only the agency level. It has been implied in comments by nation-states leaders, such as calling it the Chinese virus. Trump emphasised that it was not racist: ‘It’s not racist at all. No, it’s not at all. It’s from China. That’s why. It comes from China. I want to be accurate’ (March 18, italics in original, Viala-Gaudefroy and Lindaman 2020). Moreover, a perception repeated by other conservative nation-states. It is alleged that this view contributed to political and trade hostilities between Australia and China. Nevertheless, Chinese students and Australian-Chinese citizens are not the only groups that risk discrimination, harassment and violence in studies and work, a risk scenario affecting their safety and community engagement. As discussed in the next chapter, First Nation People, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and females of colour emphasise that harassment and discrimination are an integral part of their everyday life.

References Arendt, H. (1969) Political Conflict: Perspectives on Revolution. Journal of International Affairs, 23(1):1–35. Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2015a) Cat no 45100DO001 2014 recorded crime – Victims, Australia, 2014, Table 10. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2015b) Cat no 45100DO003 2014 recorded crime – Victims Australia 2014, Table 1. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2020) Recorded crime – Victims, Australia, 2019, Cat. no. 45100DO001 and 45100DO003 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/ people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/2019, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Change the Course: National Report on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at Australian Universities. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press. Beck, U. (2007 [1992]) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, P. (2001a [1998]) Masculine Domination. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2001b) ‘The forms of capital’. In M. Granovetter and R. Swedberg (eds.), The Sociology of Economic Life, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Bowleg, L. (2012) ‘The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality – An important theoretical framework for public health’. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (7): 1267–1273.

Agency-level violence 177 Brands, J. and Schwanen, T. (2014) ‘Experiencing and governing safety in the nighttime economy: Nurturing the state of being carefree’. Emotion, Space and Society, 11: 67–78. Brottsförebyggande Rådet [BRÅ] (2019) Swedish Crime Survey 2018. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Collins, P.H. (1995) ‘Symposium: On west and fenstermaker’s “doing difference”. Gender & Society, 9 (4): 491–494. Collins, J., Reid, C. and Fabiansson, C. (2011) ‘Identities, aspirations and belonging of cosmopolitan youth in Australia’. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies, 3 (3): 92–107. Cook, A. and Reynald, D. (2016) ‘Guardianship against sexual offenses: Exploring the role of gender in intervention’. International Criminal Justice Review, 26 (2): 98–114. Council of Europe Convention (2011) Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. CETS No. 210. Istanbul Convention, Article 3, The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted the convention on 7 April l2011. https://rm.coe.int/168008482e, accessed 11 January 2023. Day, K., Stump, C. and Carreon, D. (2003) ‘Confrontation and loss of control: Masculinity and men’s fear in public space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 311–322. Fabiansson, C. (1994) Cultural Violence Reflected in Social Behaviour. A Study of Everyday Life of Young People in Australia and Sweden. University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia, PhD thesis (unpublished). Fabiansson, C. (2006) Being Young in Rural Settings: Young people’s everyday community affiliations and trepidations. Rural Society, 16(1): 47–60. Fabiansson, C. (2007) ‘Young people’s perception of being safe – Globally & locally’. Social Indicators Research Journal, January 80 (1): 31–49. Fabiansson, C. (2010) Pathways to Excessive Gambling. A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits. Farnham, Surrey UK: Ashgate Publishing Group. Fabiansson, C. (2015) Risky Behaviour: Managing Risk and Resilience among Tertiary Students. Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty Research Network (ESA) Mid-term conference Risk, Uncertainty and Transition University of Stuttgart, Germany, 8–10 April 2015 (unpublished). Fabiansson, C. (2018) ‘Belonging and social identity among young people in Western Sydney, Australia after the Cronulla Riots’. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19 (2): 351–366. Ferraro, K. (1996) ‘Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?’ Social Forces, 75: 667–690. Fileborn, B. (2016) ‘Doing gender, doing safety? Young adults’ production of safety on a night out’. Gender, Place & Culture, 23 (8): 1107–1120. Forbes-Mewett, H., McCulloch, J. and Nyland, C. (2015) International Students and Crime. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ford, R. and Goodwin, M.J. (2010) ‘Angry white men: Individual and contextual predictors of support for the British National Party’. Political Studies, 58 (1): 1–25. Galtung, J. (1990) ‘Cultural Violence.’ Journal of Peace Research, 27 (3): 291–305. Gardner, N., Cui, J. and Coiacetto, E. (2017) ‘Harassment on public transport and its impacts on women’s travel behaviour’. Australian Planner, 54 (1): 8–15. Giumetti, G.W. and Kowalski, R.M. (2022) ‘Cyberbullying via social media and wellbeing’. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, June, Article101291:1–8. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Abbey, A., Dumas, T.M. and Wells, S. (2016) ‘When women do not want it: Young female bargoers’ experiences with and responses to sexual harassment in social drinking contexts’. Violence against Women, 23 (12): 1419–1441.

178 Agency-level violence Hainmueller, J. and Hopkins, D.J. (2014) ‘Public attitudes toward immigration’. Annual Review of Political Science, 17: 225–249. Hancock, A.-M. (2007) ‘When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm’. Perspectives on Politics, 5 (1): 63–79. Heywood, W., Myers, P., Powell, A., Meikle, G. and Nguyen, D. (2022) National Student Safety Survey: Report on the Prevalence of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault among University Students in 2021. Melbourne: The Social Research Centre. Hilinski, C.M. (2009) ‘Fear of crime among college students: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34: 84–102. Hirtenlehner, H. and Farrall, S. (2014) Is the shadow of sexual assault responsible for women’s higher fear of burglary? British Journal of Criminology, 54: 1167–1185. Human Rights Watch (2021) They Don’t Understand the Fear We Have. How China’s Long Reach of Repression Undermines Academic Freedom at Australia’s Universities. United States of America: Human Rights Watch. Kavanaugh, P.R. (2013) ‘The continuum of sexual violence: Women’s accounts of victimization in urban nightlife’. Feminist Criminology, 8 (1): 20–39. Koskela, H. (1999) Fear, Control & Space. Finland: University of Helsinki. Lapeyronnie, D. (2009) ‘Primitive rebellion in the French Banlieues: On the fall 2005 riots’. in C. Tshimanga, D. Gondola and P.J. Bloom (eds.), Frenchness and the African Diaspora: Identity and Uprising in Contemporary France. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press: 21–46. Laurence, J., Schmid, K. and Hewstoned, M. (2019) ‘Ethnic diversity, ethnic threat, and social cohesion: (re)-evaluating the role of perceived out-group threat and prejudice in the relationship between community ethnic diversity and intra-community cohesion’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45 (3): 395–418. Lenztos, F. and Rose, N. (2009) ‘Governing insecurity: Contingency planning, protection, resistance’. Economy and Society, 38: 230–254. List, K. (2017) ‘Gender-Based Violence Against Female Students in European University Settings’. International Annals Criminology, 55: 172–188. Lowy Institute (2021) Being Chinese in Australia: Public Opinion in Chinese Communities. https://charts.lowyinstitute.org/features/chinese-communities (March), accessed 20 October 2022. Lyng, S. (1990) ‘Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking’. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (4): 851–886. Lyng, S. (2004) ‘Crime, edgework and corporeal transaction’. Theoretical Criminology, 8 (3): 359–375. Lyng, S. (ed.) (2005) Edgework: The Sociology of Risk Taking. New York: Routledge. May, D. (2001) ‘The effect of fear of sexual victimization on adolescent fear of crime’. Sociological Spectrum, 21: 141–174. Mehta, A. and Bondi, L. (1999) ‘Embodied discourse; on gender and fear of violence’. Gender, Place and Culture, 6: 67–84. O’Boyle, N. (2015) ‘The risks of ‘university speak’: Relationship management and identity negotiation by mature students off campus’. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 25(2): 93–111. O'Malley, P. (2010) ‘Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism’. Economy and Society, 39 (4): 488–509. Özascilar, M. (2013) ‘Predicting fear of crime: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’. International Review of Victimology, 19: 269–284.

Agency-level violence 179 Pain, R. (1991) ‘Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analysis of women’s fear of crime’. Progress in Human Geography, 15: 415–431. Pain, R. (1995) ‘Elderly women and fear of violent crime – The least likely victims – A reconsideration of the extent and nature of risk’. British Journal of Criminology, 35: 584–598. Pain, R. (2000) ‘Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review’. Progress in Human Geography, 24: 365–387. Recuero, R. (2015) ‘Social media and symbolic violence’. Social Media + Society, April– June 2015: 1–3. Rishbeth, C., Ganji, F. and Vodicka, G. (2018) ‘Ethnographic understandings of ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to inform urban design practice’. Local Environment, 23 (1): 36–53. Sable, M., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. and Gallagher, S. (2006) ‘Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students’. Journal of American College Health, 55: 157–162. Sandberg, L. and Tollefsen, A. (2010) ‘Talking about fear of violence in public space: Female and male narratives about threatening situations in Umeå, Sweden’. Social & Cultural Geography, 11 (1): 1–15. Svensk Författningssamling [SFS] (1979) Lag om ändring i föräldrabalken [Law on Changes to the Parental Code] no. 122, accessible in Svensk Författningssamling, // lccn.loc.gov/40033946. Turner, R.H. (1994) ‘Race riots past and present: A cultural-collective behavior approach’. Symbolic Interaction, 17 (3): 309–324. Viala-Gaudefroy, J. and Lindaman, D. (2020) ‘Donald Trump’s ‘Chinese virus’: The politics of naming’. The Conversation, 22 April. https://theconversation.com/donald -trumps-chinese-virus-the-politics-of-naming-136796, accessed 15 September 2022. von Holdt, K. (2012) ‘The violence of order, orders of violence: Between Fanon and Bourdieu’. Current Sociology, 61 (2): 112–131. Wacquant, L. (2004) ‘Habitus’. In J. Beckert and M. Zafirovski (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge: 315–319. Winlow, S. and Hall, S. (2006) Violent Night: Urban Leisure and Contemporary Culture. Oxford: Berg. Winter, Y. (2012) ‘Violence and visibility’. New Political Science 34 (2): 195–202. World Future Council (2022) Sweden’s Children’s and Parent Code. https://www .futurepolicy.org/rightsofchildren/swedens-children-and-parent-code-to-prohibit -all-corporal-punishment-and-other-humiliating-treatment-of-children, accessed 20 October 2022.

5

First Nation peoples and people of colour

First Nation peoples’ experiences of violence Violent and discriminative attitudes and behaviours are felt differently depending on the victim’s gender, age and/or ethnic belonging. An added factor concerning public realm violence is the significant difference between belonging to the societal majority populace rather than to a minority ethnic group, not necessarily based on citizenship or being native to the country, but on inherent physical attributes and cultural and social traditions. Notwithstanding today’s global multiculturalism, few nation-states are ethnically homogeneous if they have experienced foreign colonisation. Over centuries, native ethnic heritage has commonly been absorbed into the colonisers’ political, financial, judicial, social and cultural hegemonic ideology, thus overriding the colonised native populations’ governance and way of living. The native population has, in many circumstances given less social status than the coloniser. For instance, the US, Canada and Australia are all multicultural and multilingual societies with established centuries-old First Nation custodians who presided over well-functioning law-abiding societies, diverse in culture and languages. All of them were skilled in diverse languages or dialects before white settlement. The same goes for the African and Asian colonised nation-states. Even if the dominant language in Australia and the US is English or in Canada, French and English, global migration has made these countries exceedingly multilingual. For example, Native American Indians or Indigenous Americans include residents with ancestry from North, Central or South America, as well as Alaska. African American is a collective term for people emanating directly from West and Central Africa or indirectly from South America and the Caribbean (United States Census Bureau 2022). In Canada, the Inuit, Metis, First Nation peoples and recent migrants make up over 250 ethnic origins or ancestries (Statistics Canada 2019). Australia’s population embraces more than 270 different ancestries, and over 300 separately identified languages are spoken presently. Overall, 21% of Australians speak a language other than English at home. After the English language, the most common languages spoken at home are Mandarin, Arabic, Vietnamese and Cantonese (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-5

First Nation peoples and people of colour 181 Native peoples have an infinity of interconnection and belonging to their ancestors’ land, stories in their language, cultural practices and spirituality, as succinctly expressed in a letter ‘to all peoples of the earth’ (31 August 1989). The rivers, fish, and forest call out for help, but the government does not know how to listen. It says that we will die of hunger if it shuts down the mining. Surely we will die of hunger if the mining doesn’t stop. But if it does stop, we will plant macaxeira [sweet manioc], bananas, roots, taioba [taro], papaya, sugarcane, pupunha [peach palm], and no one will die of hunger from lack of things to eat (signed by the Amazon Indigenous Yanomami leader Davi Kopenawa). (Ação pela Cidania 1990, cited in Graham 2003:181) Similarly, for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the interconnection between health and well-being, cultural practices and spirituality and belonging to the country are fundamental survival necessities. First Nation Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ experiences of violence To focus on the Australian situation, albeit associated with the US and Canadian developments from First Nation-dominated societies to multicultural societies. After white settlement in 1788 and until the mid-twentieth century, the Australian population was, except for the Native Nations Australians, more or less perceived as primarily of British or Anglo-Celtic ancestry, hence the dominating ties with Britain and Ireland. The society’s British-controlled governance and judicial system were scarcely affected by early immigration from China, India or the Philippines. Henceforth, it was not until the first half of the twentieth century that the Australian complex demographic textures contrasted with the preceding white Australian-British/Celtic population’s homogeneity. The 2016 Census shows that 34% of the Australian population had both parents born overseas, and another 11% had one of the parents born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018). However, in the 2021 Census, an increase in overseas-born Australians is shown, with the proportion of Australian residents born overseas (first generation, 29.3%) or having a parent born overseas (second generation, 22.2%) increasing to 51.5%. Moreover, 48.5% of the Australian population are third- or beyond-generation Australian born (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022). At the beginning of the last decades of the twentieth century, the immigration growth was primarily of Asian descent, e.g., from China, Vietnam, Hong Kong and the Philippines, as well as notable immigration of refugees from the Balkans. Over many decades, the diverse profile of the immigration populace has altered the Australian social and cultural landscape, imbuing Australia with a cosmopolitanism it lacked in the mid-twentieth century.

182

First Nation peoples and people of colour

Meanwhile, the First Nation peoples have continuously decreased since white settlement due to diseases and restricted life chances, including enforced removal from their lands and way of life, as in other colonised countries. In addition, violent evictions caused the death of entire tribes. Notwithstanding this, the number of people identifying as First Nation Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples has lately increased from 2.5% (548,368) of the Australian population in 2011 to 2.8% (649,171) in 2016, and in Census 2021, it increased to 3.2% (812,728) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018). There are three criteria to claim Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry. All criteria must be met to gain Australian government-accepted Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage classification. These are: (1) being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; (2) identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person; and (3) being accepted as such by the community in which you live or formerly lived (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2022). The population increase can be viewed as the First Nation Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples increasingly publicly claiming their rightful heritage. However, Australia and countless colonising societies have a complicated relationship with the original inhabitants of their nation-states. For example, the mainstream Australian populace’s understanding of the notion of being Aboriginal has a missing link between its interconnection and lack of bridging knowledge between Aborigines and Anglo-Australians, as explained by Langton (1994:99). The densest relationship is not between actual people, but between white Australians and the symbols created by their predecessors. Australians do not know and relate to Aboriginal people. They relate to stories told by former colonists. Films, video and television are powerful media: it is from these that most Australians ‘know’ about Aboriginal people. Nonetheless, interpretations are rarely objective. They are coloured by the writer’s social and cultural habitus, hegemonic ideology and knowledge as an insider or outsider, including the aim of the analysis. For instance, circumstances outside the mundane mainstream society are often perceived as a problem to be rectified by the majority populace. However, as noted by Watego (2021:55) concerning the First Nation people, ‘“[T]he Aboriginal problem” is always solved via the demise of “the Aborigine” and/or its culture’. Thus, questioning who belongs in society. Nevertheless, Ahmed (2017) noted a benefit in experiencing the outsider perspective and reflections of mainstream normalness. [T]hose of us who arrive in an academy that was not shaped by or for us bring knowledges, as well as worlds, that otherwise would not be here … how we learn about worlds when they do not accommodate us. Think of the kinds of experiences you have when you are not expected to be here. These experiences are a resource to generate knowledge. (Ahmed 2017:9–10)

First Nation peoples and people of colour 183 The nation-state’s hegemonic ideology frames the society, and the dominating population’s ethnicity and social and cultural identities structure the society. Thus, the Anglo-Australian and Anglo-Celtic ancestry majority define the Australian nation-state. Despite this, the Australian immigration history and the First Nation population groups, the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the country’s traditional owners, cared for the land for thousands of years before white settlement, although they have been placed in the shadow. To reiterate, the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples arrived about 65,000 to 80,000 years ago. The British colonisation of Australia started in January 1788, followed by early migrants from non-Anglo-Australian heritage, Chinese, Japanese and Melanesian (Pacific Islands) people. These population groups were accepted into the country, although not necessarily as equal citizens. Instead, they were accepted as a workforce, working on the Australian sugar plantations and goldfields. Thus, they were convenient migrants because of their unique ability to manage Australia’s arduous and hot working conditions (Jupp 2002). As mentioned, Australia's colonial history is scattered with violent episodes and massacres, as well as structural, systemic and symbolic discrimination against non-white population groups. For example, extreme violence was applied against the hundreds of different First Nation Aboriginal tribes, forcing them from their land and livelihood, characterised by systemic removal and occupation of the land and the introduction of British laws, traditions and farming practices. As a consequence of concern for depleting British-Celtic ancestry domination due to increased immigration from non-European migrants, especially Chinese immigrants, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was introduced, commonly referred to as the White Australia policy. It aimed to prevent people from societies outside the European language nation-states from entering Australia. The act practically excluded all “coloured” people. The White Australia policy was not a single government directive but a combination of acts with a common goal, to establish and contain a society based on the British judicial system, social and cultural traditions and a populace of white British heritage, preferably Englishspeaking migrants. The underpinning acts for the White Australia policy were the Immigration Restriction Act, Pacific Island Labourers Act and the Post and Telegraph Act, all passed in 1901. These acts formed the initial legislative foundation for the policy (Ang 2003; Jupp 2002). Nonetheless, the acts did not include the concepts “white” or “race” but equally excluded non-white people from settling in Australia. The combined policies underpinning the White Australia policies had bipartisan support. The policies were gradually dismantled with the Migration Act in 1958 and significantly modified in 1966 (Ang 2003; Jupp 2002). Nonetheless, the remnant of Anglo-Australian colonial dogma and white policy remain in present-day society’s beliefs, values and thinking. It is embedded within the current hegemonic structural, systemic and symbolic ideology and internalised at the agency level, where violence and discrimination against

184

First Nation peoples and people of colour

minority ethnic citizens continue to be acceptable and normalised (Taylor and Habibis 2020). Besides, even if Australia promotes itself as a multicultural, tolerant and accepting society of diversity in the twenty-first century, the value and belief systems still influence people’s perception of rightful power and social status. For instance, colonial beliefs of white males’ supremacy underpin an “acceptance”, tolerance and practice of violence, harassment and discrimination among likeminded (Kamp, Dunn, Paradies and Blair 2018; Ang 2003). First Nation people, females, minority genders and minority ethnic populaces are openly or covertly exposed to structural and symbolic discrimination, unequal power-sharing and inequality in the private and public realms. Thus, the unequal or lack of females and people of non-white heritage representation in political, financial and educational leadership roles is still present in the twenty-first century. Succinctly, structural government policy, resources and distributions overwhelmingly favour white males in many instances. Likewise, the beliefs of male supremacy are immersed in the Australian hegemonic ideology (see the section, Interconnectedness between structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values). As a result, citizens of the Australian First Nation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ ancestry are allocated less social, cultural, political and economic trustworthiness and societal status than the majority Anglo-Australian population. Thus, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have experienced violence and discrimination throughout white settlements, historically having no legal status (Tedeschi 2017; Maddison 2011). This includes historical massacres of entire tribes and present-day discrimination (Allam and Evershed 2019). In addition, they are exposed to structural, systemic and symbolic discriminative treatment in the public realm. An example of more recent research about violence, harassment and discrimination experiences in the public realm is the Mayi Kuwayu national longitudinal study. The research gives a more current insight into Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ health and well-being, all factors interconnected with socioeconomic status and living conditions (Thurber, Colonna, Jones, Gee et al. 2021). The research does not focus directly on violence and discrimination, but wellbeing and health are closely interconnected with an individual’s overall societal belonging and life chances. The study is based on 8,108 responses collated between 2018 and 2020. The findings show that 58% of the respondents experienced at least one incident of discrimination. Noteworthy is that the examples of the most common types of discrimination presented in the study are also reflected in the students’ and student staff’s experiences in the agency study, particularly for females and minority ethnic groups. For example, the notion that they should “not be seen or heard”, and likewise, ‘people [are] acting as if the participant was not smart or treating them with less respect than other people, with 4 in 10 participants experiencing these at least “a little bit”’ (Thurber et al. 2021:12). Another example of discriminative experiences in the public domain, perceived as normalness of violence they faced.

First Nation peoples and people of colour 185 Being unfairly bothered by the police was the least commonly reported experience, but still reported by 1 in 6 respondents; this is far from inconsequential given that unfair treatment by police is an extreme form of interpersonal discrimination, with potential substantial implications for life opportunities. (Thurber et al. 2021:12) Furthermore, the researchers found that young Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples reported more current discrimination cases than older First Nation peoples. In comparison, older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples commented that they had a longstanding experience of discrimination. Besides, discrimination and violent incidents were longstanding integral parts of their everyday lives, hence normalised, habitual features of their interaction with mainstream society. Although Australian citizens broadly see themselves as tolerant and accepting of ethnic diversity, there is an underlying uneasiness against Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and multiculturalism. For example, the perception of First Nation peoples as not trustworthy and law-abiding citizens. Thus, they are scrutinised more than others in clothes and food shopping centres because of an assumption that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples might steal merchandise. Furthermore, even if white people shoplift at the same rate as non-white people, there is a lingering assumption that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are more prone to stealing, thus, untrustworthy citizens. A discriminative generalisation that First Nation peoples are not law-abiding. However, the same generalisation is not applied to AngloAustralians. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ have an “outsider” status classifying them as less honourable. An example where social status and heritage intersect and otherness is demonstrated against First Nation peoples and less fortunate people is the perception that welfare recipients lack the financial knowledge to manage welfare payments. A postulation that people receiving welfare payments waste their money on alcohol and gambling rather than life-sustaining items such as food and accommodation. Unfortunately, the focus is on the effect of an individual’s need for a welfare payment, not its cause, the social and cultural factors creating financial distress, e.g., the lack of suitable employment, housing or health support. Henceforth, in Australia, the introduction of a Cashless Debit Card. A card to distribute welfare payments that restrict the cardholder from buying alcohol, gambling or getting cash in hand. The Cashless Debit Card channels payments to vulnerable population groups considered “irresponsible” in managing their welfare payments, irrespective of the receivers’ having an unblemished record of not using their welfare payments on these “prohibited” items. Hence, applying a generalised approach to welfare payments, notwithstanding individual capability to manage their financial situation and independence (Department of Social Services 2021). The same perspective is reflected in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the prison system, particularly young people. For

186

First Nation peoples and people of colour

instance, in September 2019, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoner population represented 28% of the total adult prisoners, despite only accounting for 2% of the general adult population or 3% (3.2%) of the total population in 2021 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022). The judicial system discriminates against First Nation youth and young people from low socio-economic environments. For example, 49% of the young people under supervision by the prison system (sentenced or on remand), on an average day in 2020–21, were of Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry of all young people in detention. Albeit young Indigenous Australians make up only 5.8% of the Australian population aged 10–17 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] 2021). One conclusion is that young Australian Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders are more likely to serve prison sentences than young white people. Furthermore, they are more likely to end up in prison for minor offences than young offenders in the majority population, e.g., a minor offence, such as stealing a food item of nominal value because of hunger. The same intersectionality issue trend is that young Indigenous Australians living in low socioeconomic areas are more likely to be under judicial supervision. On an average day in 2020, 35% were under judicial supervision, compared to 6.4% of young people from the highest socio-economic areas (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2022). Females of colour’s experiences of violence Another Australian study highlighting violence, harassment and ethnic-based discrimination is the Women of Colour Australia (WoCA, 2021) survey. WoCA focuses on aiding females of colour, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander females, through education and community support initiatives. The findings are based on 543 responses from coloured females, including 7% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents. Sixty per cent of the respondents had experienced workplace discrimination. Forty-three per cent of the respondents questioned if being a woman of colour was valued in the workplace. No, there are very few people of colour in the senior levels ... and few women – so it is more a novelty – there is systemic racism, but the organisation doesn’t recognise this and refer[s] to “merit” as the sole criteria for their choices. (Women of Colour Australia 2021:14) Furthermore, 57% noted that being a woman of colour created added workplace challenges. Moreover, 42% felt their identity as a woman of colour was not recognised and valued in the workplace. There is no acknowledgement of my lived experiences of racism in the workplace. I mustered the courage once to let a manager know about an incident

First Nation peoples and people of colour 187 and she said ... well, I wasn’t there ... and continued the meeting as if nothing had happened. We have never spoken about it [again]. (Women of Colour Australia 2021:14) The respondents acknowledged the existence of sexual harassment, bullying and age discrimination: ‘My being Aboriginal and gender, also as an older woman now I sense that aspect is relevant’ (Women of Colour Australia 2021:18). Furthermore, several respondents recounted cultural barriers, for example, ‘Lack of sensitivity and respect towards Asian heritage and culture. Ignorance and not wanting to know more about other cultures. The perception of white supremacy’ (Women of Colour Australia 2021:19). Likewise, the following quotes highlight the colonial mentality still lingering in Australia (Women of Colour Australia 2021:19): White men and women in leadership roles and their unconscious bias. The colonial mentality which they don’t see or recognise. Why is [isn’t] there a woman of colour movement? There should be a movement that talks about white fragility and colonial culture led by white people. The general acceptance and endorsement of behaviours and values associated with Caucasian/Anglo-Saxon cultures mean that you are always on the sideline unless you too embrace BBQs, Beer, Beaches, and Rugby. In the summary of the Women of Colour Australia (2021:24), research is highlighted issues that have relevance for the future in Australia but can also be applied to many other societies. The researchers stress that racism and sexism have been largely ignored and not seen as an issue by the mainstream society, ‘being ignored and discounted and added in as a diversity tick box by white feminist movement’. Furthermore, ‘the weak form of the neoliberal corporate impetus of conflating diversity inclusion with anti-racism and intersectionality’. A further summary comment about people of colour needing to justify their existence and be treated differently from white co-workers. Justifying their work all the time. Being punished but the white person does the same [and] they get away with it. Not being offered the opportunity to grow. People go for coffee, and they leave you behind, they just cannot connect with you. (Women of Colour Australia 2021:24) Notwithstanding this, the research outcome highlights that progress has been made by accepting females in professional positions, but equity strategies have not gone far enough. Moreover, the inequality is even more significant for females of colour and minority ethnic belonging. Australian organisations are still struggling with gender diversity, the push towards gender diversity has allowed for women to enter into professional

188

First Nation peoples and people of colour roles; however, there is still a gap in terms of providing them with a nurturing environment to grow their careers. Many Australian organisations are still male dominated at the executive levels and in certain industries ... it is a huge challenge for women to have a voice. You can only imagine the challenges faced by women of colour/minority in such organisations. (Women of Colour Australia 2021:24)

Internationalisation of violence and discrimination The presented findings are supported by similar research on university students. For example, young adults’ situation within the European university setting and confirmed in this study is that certain aspects of gender-based violence against students are common: reporting levels are very low, the student’s year of study is relevant (higher victimization rate in the first or second year), perpetrators are most likely to be (fellow male) students, and women often are unsure whether what happened was a crime or was serious enough to report. (List 2017:173) The European university research included cohorts of German, British, Italian, Spanish and Polish students. List (2017:175) found that sexual harassment was experienced by 51% of females throughout their life, and 61% of students reported at least one incident of sexual harassment during their university time. Significantly society’s social and cultural ideology and students’ socio-economic status influence the reporting level of sexual harassment. Indicating that nationstates with more traditional gender role ideology report fewer incidents, while secular societies have a higher reporting rate. The same reporting trends were presented in the European Commission (2021) report as well as the Council of Europe Convention (2011) research about abuse against females. The Nordic countries had a higher reporting trend than southern European nation-states. These results can be seen as contradictory in that highly educated, independent females with good knowledge about their rights reported sexual harassment more frequently than in other European nations. This does not necessarily indicate that they are more exposed to harassment and violence than others. However, they might be more prepared to report sexual violence and harassment, thus akin to the notion of gender equality (Walby and Towers 2017). List (2017:184) concludes that ‘there are no general indications that young women are more at risk of sexual assault due to their status as students than are women of a similar age in the wider community’. Consequently, being a young adult, especially a female, is a risk factor in being a target for sexual harassment and violence independently of educational or work status. Finally, fear of harassment is emphasised by societal response and support and by significantly ‘inadequate institutional responses, the perpetrator receiving no punishment, and their potential disclosure account not being believed’ (List

First Nation peoples and people of colour 189 2017:184). Therefore, insufficient support from educational institutions and societal organisations reinforces the young adults’ fear of violence and harassment in the public sphere. However, since the #MeToo movement, most workplaces have introduced policies against discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying. Nonetheless, as this respondent acknowledged, ‘Like almost all policies in academia, they sound good but have a little match to reality when implemented’ (Women of Colour Australia 2021:20), thus emphasising and recognising the wide gap between theory and reality in many workplaces. Nevertheless, to implement the anti-discrimination and harassment policies, the first step is to accept the existence of a problem of violence in the public realm. An example of a first step was in 2021 when the South Australian University Vice-Chancellor apologised to victims who were sexually harassed or assaulted at the university, promising to “do better” in future. The apology comes after an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption investigation finding in 2020 about how sexual assault, sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviour at the university have been handled (KPMG 2021). The continuing existence of violence, harassment and discrimination against academics is further emphasised in the National Student Safety Survey report (Heywood et al. 2022). Thus, violence, harassment and discrimination exist in all societal environments. Likewise, perpetrators and victims are present in all societal settings – at structural as well as agency levels. The interlinking between the structural and agency level are discussed in the following chapter.

References Ahmed, S. (2017) Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press. Allam, L. and Evershed, N. (2019) ‘The killing times: The massacres of aboriginal people Australia must confront’. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar /04/the-killing-times-the-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-australia-must-confront, accessed 19 October 2022. Ang, I. (2003) ‘From white Australia to fortress Australia: The anxious nation in the new century’. In J. Laksiri, D. Walker and J. Gothard (eds.), Legacies of White Australia: Race, Culture and Nation. Crawley, WA: UWA Press. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2018) 2016 Census Multicultural. https://www.abs .gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/media%20release3, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] (2022) Census 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au /statistics/people/people-and-communities/snapshot-australia/2021#population, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS] (2022) Proof of Aboriginality https://aiatsis.gov.au/proof-aboriginality, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] (2021) Youth detention population in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government, Cat. no. JUV 135. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] (2022) Youth justice in Australia 2020– 21. Australian Government, Canberra, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/ youth-justice-in-australia-2020-21/contents/summary, accessed 1 July 2022.

190

First Nation peoples and people of colour

Department of Social Services (2021) Family and Children. Australian Government. https:// www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-programs-services-welfare-reform-cashless -debit-card/cashless-debit-card-frequently-asked-questions, accessed 20 October 2022. European Commission (2021) She Figures 2021. Gender in Research and Innovation Statistics and Indicators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Graham, L.R. (2003) ‘How should an Indian speak? Amazonian Indians and the symbolic politics of language in the global public sphere’. Ch 6:181-228. In K.B. Warren and J.E. Jackson (eds.), Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America. University of Texas Press, ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral .proquest.com/lib/vu/detail.action?docID=3443785, accessed 20 October 2022. Heywood, W., Myers, P., Powell, A., Meikle, G. and Nguyen, D. (2022) National Student Safety Survey: Report on the Prevalence of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault among University Students in 2021. Melbourne: The Social Research Centre. Jupp, J. (2002) The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. 2nd ed. Oakleigh, Victoria: Cambridge University Press. Kamp, A., Dunn, K., Paradies, Y. and Blair, K. (2018) ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s attitudes towards Australian multiculturalism, cultural diversity, “race” and racism, 2015–16’. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2018 (2): 50–70. KPMG [Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler] (2021) Towards a Safer and More Inclusive Culture. University of Adelaide ICAC Response. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/ transforming-culture/ua/media/30/towards-a-safer-and-more-inclusive-culture_final -report.pdf, accessed 20 October 2022. Langton, M. (1994) ‘Aboriginal art and film: The politics of representation’. Race & Class, 35 (4): 89–106. List, K. (2017) ‘Gender-based violence against female students in European University settings’. International Annals Criminology, 55: 172–188. Maddison, S. (2011) Beyond White Guilt. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Statistics Canada (2019) Ethnic and Cultural Origins of Canadians: Portrait of a Rich Heritage. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266229/number-of-journalists-killed -since-1995/, accessed 5 October 2022. Taylor, P.S. and Habibis, D. (2020) ‘Widening the gap: White ignorance, race relations and the consequences for Aboriginal people in Australia’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, Wiley Online Library: 354–371. Tedeschi, M. (2017) Murder at Myall Creek- the Trail that Defined a Nation. Sydney, AUS: Simon & Schuster. Thurber, K.A., Colonna, E., Jones, R., Gee, G.C. Priest, N., Cohen, R., Williams, D.R., Thandrayen, J., Calma, T., Lovett, R. and the Mayi Kuwayu Study Team (2021) ‘Prevalence of everyday discrimination and relation with wellbeing among aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults in Australia’. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (6577): 1–18. United States Census Bureau (2022) Demographic Population Data. https://www.census .gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically -diverse-than-2010.html, accessed 6 October 2022. Walby, S. and Towers, J. (2017) Measuring violence to end violence: Mainstreaming gender. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1 (1): 11–31. Watego, C. (2021) Another Day in the Colony. St Lucia: University of Queensland. Women of Colour Australia [WoCA] (2021) Women of Colour Australia Workplace Survey Report 2021. Prepared in partnership with C. Archer, Murdoch University. https://womenofcolour.org.au/, accessed 20 October 2022.

6

Interconnectedness between structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Introduction As discussed above, Arendt (1969, 1970), Bauman (1989) and Beck (2007) stressed, among others, and as shown by the discussion of structural and agency research, that crimes of violence, harassment and discrimination have never abated throughout societal eras. On the contrary, it is very much a feature of present-day society. Customary and habitual violence have adjusted to each epoch’s milieu, hegemonic ideologies, political and economic systems, technological inventions and social and cultural trends fashioning social norms in the private and public realms. Another contributing factor to the fear of violence in contemporary society is the augmentation of individualisation. Smaller households and social and cultural networks contribute to individualism and limit engagement in community cohesion events and grassroots social control of violent behaviour and attitudes. Notwithstanding these circumstances, unchanged is the perception that harassment and discrimination incidents are crimes of less noteworthiness. However, there is an exception for extreme acts of violence, especially against children and young people. Notably, even if violent actions are primarily focused on females, minority genders and minority ethnic groups, it is a crime that affects all genders and social and cultural groups. Moreover, independently of how violence in public and private realms is perceived as customary misdemeanours or classified as criminal offences, their presence affects people’s belief in genuine safety in the public sphere. Nonetheless, the official crime statistics do not corroborate the incidents of violence in the public domain reported by extensive research by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2018, 2021b), Heywood et al. (2022) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021), all noting underreporting. This situation also applies to the underreporting of male abuse victims, mainly due to the masculinity stereotype of male individuals. They are identified as independent, self-sufficient and strong. Thus, acknowledging abuse is seen as a weakness. It is different for a female victim who is perceived as weak, emotional and dependent. Hence, acceptable to report the offence (Bourdieu 2001a; Day, Stump and Carreon 2003; Bates 2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-6

192

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Moreover, society leaders, power and status-rewarded citizens might underpin the belief that harassment offences are trivial and not significant societal issues. Therefore, the acts can be relegated to individual misfortunes or the personal failings of the victim. This view should be understood from the perspective that it is a crime that, to a lesser degree, affects people in leadership positions who traditionally are males and a natural part of the public realm’s political and financial elite. In contrast, despite the increasing number in higher education and the paid workforce, females are still perceived as primarily belonging to the private realm. From this perspective, females entering the public domain are “trespassing”, competing and challenging traditional patriarchal hegemonic societal hierarchy positions. The augmentation of the number of females in the workforce increases competition with males for societal positions, including a contest for political and financial leadership roles, which conservative traditionalists do not always welcome. In this setting, systemic and symbolic discriminative social and cultural norms and customs can fester. Likewise, classifying violence, harassment and discrimination as minor individual problems misconstrue their normalness. Instead, they should be perceived as pervasive societal problems that require a holistic course of action. It also requires a societal approach to take responsibility for the commonness of violence and discrimination. For that reason, violent incidents in the public realm should not be judged as inconvenient complications and reduced to trivialities affecting females, minority genders and/or minority ethnic citizens, as no societal sector or institution is free from violence. Instead, violence grows in milieus of disparate access to resources, competition about life chances, unequal power structures and gender inequalities. Such inequality settings embrace competing for dominance within religious, social and cultural hegemonic ideology. Violence, harassment and discrimination need a foundation to be established, for instance, facilitated by unequal access to politically and financially powerful and influential leadership roles or trendsetters to motivate followers on structural and agency levels. Moreover, it is not necessarily individuals who coincidentally underpin violent and discriminative actions or attitudes. It is rather a desire to manage a situation that threatens their preferred status quo and hierarchical position in the public realm. In addition, this societal hegemonic ideology, its values, attitudes and behaviours filter down and inspire the populace’s behaviour and perceptions about hierarchical status positions. Furthermore, hegemonic structural frameworks are endorsed extensively through communication by political leaders and social entrepreneurs and enabled by mass media broadcasters. Besides, the normalisation and sustainability of violence and harassment throughout history are emphasised by generations’ internalising the sanctioned values and beliefs. Likewise, behaviours and attitudes are reinforced by childrearing pedagogy, educational instructions and workplace culture (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). For example, internet technology has vastly increased communication opportunities and how to convey information. The extensive means of succinct electronic communication through, e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp,

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 193 WeChat, TikTok or emails override lengthy written letters. A benefit is their global reach, but the drawbacks are opportunities to distribute private messages or intimidating pictures and videos unintentionally or intentionally, including the difficulties for victims to permanently remove the discriminating communication or degrading photographs. The use of Twitter to broadcast opinions became more widely established and sharpened with the election of President Trump in the USA’s 2016 presidential election. Henceforth, it transformed and challenged traditional diplomacy and communication within and between nation-states. Former President Trump was an avid Twitter user who often disregarded traditional discreet diplomacy and conventions of how a representative from a nation-state governing body was expected to conduct their communications. Moreover, the presidency of Trump altered the nature of the diplomatic atmosphere on the global stage. Long-term international and national relationships where old alliances and collegiality were treasured became revalued, especially between the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the USA. At times, the tone of the messages became undiplomatic, insensitive or tactless, including the use of derogatory language and disrespectful comments about political opponents. Domestically against females who complained about alleged sexual abuse and harassment (Levine and El-Faizy 2019). Furthermore, unverified or incorrect information, “fake news”, was allowed to spread falsehoods, misinformation and rumours within and beyond nation-states. The inconvenient facts became fake news, and uncomfortable facts became lies. Meritorious political, financial, policy development, democratic election processes and international diplomacy qualifications were side-lined for social media popularity. President Trump’s new order of practised communication and governance did not start with him, but he gave it a public platform (cf. Obama 2020). Trumpism flowed around the globe and became popular with conservative political leaders. Facts became a commodity; inconvenient information became false facts, and incorrect facts became true if fitting the preferred narrative. Thus, the binary “factual facts vs false facts” become a beneficial and convenient way of treating information. This might be insignificant, but spreading falsehood between and within nation-states has implications for civic discord. For example, false narratives about election outcomes, underpinning courses to social and cultural conflicts or minimising the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, social media has become a convenient medium to communicate widely, spreading factual or incorrect information. Likewise, fact-checking news has become more complex due to its sheer volume, instantaneous global broadcasting ability and, at times, concealed communicators or information sources. The danger of broadcasting false or untested scientific discourses and promoting alternative facts, untruths or half-truths in political communication is fraught with risks. For example, to confuse and create mistrust and division among citizens, especially against inconveniently vocal females and non-citizens, the perceived outsiders. Henceforth, creating an atmosphere of normalisation where

194

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

scientific-based facts can not necessarily be trusted, instead only selected facts to be trusted if communicated by the ideologically preferred voices. One example of the necessity to convey factual information is when there is a risk to people’s health. Conversely, promoting alternative or unscientific facts can endanger people’s lives, primarily relying on social media for their main news information and guidance. At least two primary contrasting divisions in beliefs about the COVID virus can be identified, including subgroupings. One medical and science-informed camp takes the virus seriously and promotes vaccination, face masks and isolation if infected. Another group consists of a loose group of predominately conservative parliamentarians and people commonly against vaccinations due to ideology or faith, questioning the medical science, benefits of vaccinations and/or government regulations. This diverse group often promote it as a “little flu”. Thus, nothing to be concerned about being infected. If the pandemic had not been severe and caused deaths, this might not be an issue, but unfortunately, this is not the case. However, a most confusing falsehood is the widely promoted discourse among Trump supporters that the 2020 American presidential election was stolen from the Republican Party. A popularised presumption was that the republican votes were incorrectly counted, as they were counted as democratic or not counted at all. Notwithstanding that, there will always be some votes in any election that can be questioned. It is, however, ambiguous how it will only benefit one party, in this case, the Democrat Party. Besides, a statistical probability assumption would be a 50/50 split in voter fraud or mislaid votes. The structural and agency levels are not operating as parallel universes because they are interconnected. They are interconnected by adhering to commonality in the use of language. For instance, communication that conveys derogatory language, disrespectful words and phrases and attitudes of intolerance against outsiders relates both to the structural and the agency level. The normalness of verbal and written language is reflected in communications by political, economic, religious and cultural influencers. Therefore, socially infused conversations by society leaders, social entrepreneurs and broadcasters, as well as conveyed in mass media, affect the agency-level populace’s attitudes and behaviours. However, this structural and agency interlinking does not indicate that a single event on the structural level can be directly associated with a specific behaviour or action on the agency level. Instead, it is the overall change in the atmosphere where derogatory language and discriminatory behaviours have become accepted or unquestioned, hence normalised (Walby 2015; Lash 1993, 2000). These habitual adaptations of contemporary violence, harassment and discrimination ideology, values and beliefs enable the normalisation of intolerance, devaluing of diversity and otherness. Henceforth, an adaptation of values and attitudes grounded on societal ideology, an environment that creates definitions of acceptable and unacceptable language, discrimination and violence. As discussed, violent and discriminatory acts do not emerge in isolation on the agency level. It needs context, influencers and encouragement to be embraced and normalised. Interconnecting societal trends flow upwards and downwards

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 195 between structural and agency levels. Still, individuals are more likely to accept a hegemonic ideology and moral principles if promoted by preferred political and social entrepreneurs and/or religious leaders that are in tune with perceived beliefs and values. Thus, it emphasises the significance of structural leaders’ and mass media’s roles in influencing and aligning with individuals’ family habitus and social and cultural milieu. Hence, social and news media convey the values, beliefs and attitudes around the accepted language used by political leaders, social entrepreneurs, persuasive people and trendsetters. Therefore, widely repeated words, phrases, attitudes and behaviours on the structural level contribute to creating a framework for citizens to adjust their language, behaviours and actions accordingly to signify their social status position. As a result, behaviour and language become normalised in communications over time because of their commonality. Notwithstanding this, the change in attitudes and values is contingent on the communicators’ power and social status in society, albeit easily contested by new trends. The agency research findings within the university milieu show that violence, harassment and discrimination prerequisites are assessed within a structural context. Perpetrators of violence are not innovators of harassment, as it is underpinned and internalised through family values and beliefs. Moreover, attitudes will subsequently become influenced by society leaders, trendsetters, news and entertainment media. Additionally, individuals’ acceptance or non-acceptance of violent-infused attitudes and behaviours is reinforced by their created habitus, social and cultural environments, as well as their belonging within the societal status and power hierarchy (Bourdieu 1984, 1999; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; O’Boyle 2015; Banks 2021; Bhattacharya and Gillen 2016). In many global settings, the cognisance still exists that white males are the most suitable and knowledgeable society leaders. This acknowledgement of a deep-rooted tradition has its grounding in the European colonist era’s mindset. Thus, the colonial heritage and political, social and cultural creeds are enduring remnants in present-day beliefs and values and are still a keystone in western societal ideology. As mentioned, the structural and agency research discussed here does not just reflect Australian circumstances and manifestations of social, cultural, political and financial power frameworks. These mindsets around power, leadership and social order, enforced by internalised accepted violence, are global phenomena reflecting habitually accepted societal values and hegemonic political ideology (Walby and Towers 2017). Moreover, the hegemonic political ideology adjusts somewhat with the era’s governing power. Notwithstanding this, the founding beliefs and value structures developed throughout generations slowly change social, cultural and religious traditions. The current neoliberal conservative and right-wing political ideologies are sustained and given a renewed platform of traditional family values, enhancing a patriarchal framework in the private and public domains. This marks a change from the inroads made by feminism and policy around equality and ethnic diversity. A force enabling these advancements in gender equality is increased competition around life resources. Nonetheless, covert discrimination has always existed

196

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

on every societal level and materialised through increasing intolerance against outsiders, females and minority genders, including religious and ethnic minority groups. A changing belief system is silently accepted as part of the societal fabric of the neoliberal ideology and motivated by a necessity for future prosperity. Despite the current inadequacy in gender equality progress, the overall change in gender relations has, throughout generations, moved closer to parity. Thus, the traditional western gender divisions have slowly made some inroads into equality in contemporary society on the agency level. For example, females have gained access to higher education and achieved competitive professional skills (HolonIQ 2021; Catalyst 2021, see below). Likewise, females are increasingly competing with males in high-profile leadership positions, although still primarily responsible for childrearing and household work. Thus, it continues to be a conflict-prone private domain setting for families with young children. Moreover, as reflected in the agency results, violence, harassment and discrimination are not restricted to sexual violence, albeit it is often the main research focus. As highlighted by many researchers, agency-level violence should also embrace verbal, social, cultural and physical harassment (Lorenc et al. 2012; Gardner et al. 2017; Sandberg and Tollefsen 2010). As noted, violence and harassment in the university setting have many facets. Although the incidents are frequently not thought worthwhile to report to the institution’s complaints sector or the police. This is despite the profound ramifications these acts have on victims’ well-being and how the experience can alter their engagement with the public realm. Furthermore, persistent incidents of exposure to violence, harassment or discrimination can create lifelong debilitating trauma for the victim. Kavanaugh (2013) stresses that acts of violence and harassment should not be reduced to an individual’s problem and responsibility. On the contrary, violence in the public realm is a significant societal problem. A problem that cannot be demoted or referred to as trivial female or minority group matters. Furthermore, the agency research highlighted that violence and harassment are extensive societal issues requiring an integrated approach. Additionally, it has been emphasised that young female students, undisclosed genders and minority ethnic groups experienced more harassment, violence and discrimination incidents than male students, especially in teaching settings. Although reiterated several times, Arendt (1970) and Bauman (1989) underscored that harassment and violence in the public realm are not new crimes but are a vital part of all societies in enforcing social norms and the society’s hegemonic ideology. Notwithstanding this, the incidents in Germany in 2015 and other countries, including the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatters movements, have given victims of harassment and violence a new voice. An outcome of the movements is that it has become acceptable to talk about being a victim of violence and harassment in the public realm. Furthermore, the recounted cases of harassment in the presented university student and student staff research demonstrate a renewed openness and acknowledgement that harassment impacts people’s well-being and ability to feel safe in the public environment. This acknowledgement is a positive step towards recognising the existence of

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 197 violence in the public realm, besides a reason for an urgent need to develop and implement policies rejecting violence, discrimination and harassing behaviour. Moreover, discrimination is markedly detrimental for minority ethnic groups and all gender constellations, not adhering to the stereotypical social and cultural gender and majority ethnic roles. Thus, the renewed focus has predominantly given victims a platform to be heard and believed and given the courage to seek acknowledgement of the harm experienced. As underlined above, violence, harassment and discrimination are global issues. Although the presented agency research and a considerable number of structural-level examples are Australian focused, the discoveries are equally relevant to most societies. Violence, harassment and discrimination are part of present-day societies and can be found on every societal level. A presumption is that it is also necessary to maintain societal order from a hegemonic structural perspective. Henceforth, it is difficult to fathom that any society can be excluded or free of violence on the structural or agency levels. The following section discusses the interconnection between acceptance of violence and societal inequalities on the structural and agency levels.

Interconnection between structural and agency societal levels The primary data sources and discussions centre on the Australian public realm, social class system and multicultural populations; however, as emphasised throughout the discussions, violence, harassment and discrimination are global phenomena. Additionally, dismissing violent actions as female issues or trivial in any setting means passing through life with rose-coloured glasses, noise-cancelling headphones and employing an uncritical mind. Henceforth, a refusal to see or understand that females, minority genders and ethnic groups are frequently perceived and assessed differently from the majority ethnic population and, significantly, as distinct from western society middle- or high social-class white males. Furthermore, professional or individual power privileges in the Anglo-Celtic social class hierarchy might reinforce blindness around customary discrimination, harassment and violent incidents. As a result, the incidents have become normalised and belong to everyday life. In addition, social status privilege, power entitlement and narrow professional and social networks underpinned by systemic and symbolic discrimination restrict membership to the elite group. This is especially true if unrestricted access risks privileges and challenges their hegemonic political and monetary interests. Significantly, no one would like to relinquish power positions, entitlements and social status voluntarily. The dominating society’s hegemonic ideology creates a homogeneous atmosphere of justified political, cultural and social values and beliefs. Likewise, a hegemonic ideology is internalised throughout generations of discriminative structural, systemic and symbolic social norms that limit the populace’s likelihood to acknowledge inequalities and equity disparities. Consequently, the hierarchical traditions have become part of everyday living conditions and, as a result, normalised. As a consequence of the normalisation process, acceptance of

198

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

violence, harassment and discrimination create a societal framework embracing the structural as well as the agency levels. Besides, normalising discrimination against perceived outsiders becomes customary through habitual, social and culturally inclusive and/or exclusive strategies. Thus, hegemonic beliefs and values are ceaselessly embedded throughout the populace’s generational socialisation processes. Consequently, the internalised discriminatory behaviours and attitudes become natural elements of society’s fabric and habitually become unnoticed. For example, a society’s structural policy, systemic and symbolic norms and traditions exclude or impose barriers making it challenging for females, minority genders and ethnic groups to access distinguished educational institutions. The “blockage” of these trajectories is a precursor to power-induced employment pathways and higher accolades of leadership positions within the prestigious academic, political and financial sectors, e.g., the patriarchal tradition was that females only needed the education to manage the household while males as breadwinners required skill-based education. In contrast, education has often been promoted as an antidote to social class discrimination and a way to gain upward mobility into the middle class and above through prominent professional positions. However, upward mobility through educational merits is a certainty for some, while, for others, the aspiration becomes unfulfilled. For instance, the percentage of females and minority ethnic university students graduating with a higher degree does not correspond with their future share in the managerial or higher financial, legal, political, private or government employment markets (see below). Subsequently, the hegemonically framed governance, financial and political leadership groups cultivate social, cultural and religious inducements or restrictions. As a result, the dominating societal leaders, the elite group, influence appointments based on preferred majority ethnic belonging, educational pathways, including cultural/social and professional networks, albeit not necessarily meritorious qualifications from less preferred tertiary institutions or applicants’ ancestry, despite being well qualified for the position. Henceforth, mainstream hegemonic ideology on the structural level is imposed or regulated and underpinned by systemic and symbolic social and cultural norms and conventions. This setting creates an environment where it can exclude citizens perceived to be outside the preferred political, social and hegemonic societal ideology without interference or protest. Consequently, the exclusion becomes normalised. As a result, citizens of diverse faith and cultural, social and ethnic traditions face hidden barriers to gaining employment and promotion. This situation is difficult to argue against due to its normalisation. Furthermore, citizens who are perceived as not fitting into the preferred societal ideology are thus classified as outsiders and have limited abilities in their quest for equal treatment and equality in life opportunities (Sian 2019; Sugarman et al. 2018; Lee, Li and Tsai 2021; Thurber et al. 2021). Mindfully and by tradition or unwittingly, political and financial leaders, social entrepreneurs and trendsetters exclude minority groups through warranted convention and classify them as unsuitable. The rationale for the classification is

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 199 the requirement to maintain a status quo system, thus encouraging acceptance of hegemonic attitudes and conventions. Furthermore, societal beliefs and values are underpinned by and conveyed by aligned mass media, thus permeating an atmosphere of the rightfulness of hegemonic values and beliefs. Henceforth, such sanctioned discriminative attitudes imply that minority genders and ethnic groups are nonconforming to the social and cultural societal ideology. They disrupt normalness, thus, are less utilitarian citizens. In addition, these majority internalised beliefs underpin social order and, thus strengthened by largely covert systemic and symbolic discrimination. It is an environment open to perceived uncontroversial violence, harassment and discriminating strategies, thus establishing social and cultural traditions to maintain a societal hierarchy and status quo. The discussions and analysis throughout the writings are framed around Arendt’s and Bauman’s violence discourses and Beck’s contemporary non-naturebased risks scenarios. These discourses are primarily situated on the societal level. They emphasise that legitimate violence, in contrast to illegitimate, rules the society and is used to enforce social norms, laws and regulations, a framework mainly accepted by the populace. Moreover, the political and financial leadership cohort enforces and implements legitimate overt or covert forms of power through the chiefly accepted legal frameworks and social norms. As the result of the prolonged adjustment, the legitimate rules, social norms and customs developed through generations are integrated and normalised into the society’s political, economic, religious, social and cultural symbolic and systemic substructures. Furthermore, new risk settings are continuously appearing with changing technological development. For example, school bullying in person has morphed into anonymous internet bullying. Social media, for example, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Tumblr or Snapchat, makes it possible to anonymously troll people perceived as disagreeable and hide behind a wall of anonymity. A wall of anonymity, which is difficult to penetrate for ordinary citizens. Thus, this anonymity shield in social media has become an avenue for trolling and defaming individuals whose public or personal views or presentation is outside prevailing political, cultural, social or faith mainstream ideals or the perpetrator. Artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies allow authorities to classify, profile, restrict or enhance people’s movements without direct human oversight. For instance, decide remotely through facial, eye or fingerprint who should be allowed to access a building or workplace. These programs can also function as automated technologies to assess welfare recipients’ stipulated payment or service needs. An Australian example is the Service Australia (Centrelink) automated assessment of welfare payment and recovery scheme, “Robodebt”, which aimed to calculate if correct support payments had been paid to welfare recipients, currently or historically. The significant issue with this programme was that it was entirely computer-driven without human intervention. In addition, the Robodebt scheme was based on the assumption that overpayment was frequently done. Thus, it was perceived economically prudent to claw back the alleged overpayment by equalising fortnightly income based on the annual income benchmark.

200

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Nevertheless, a significant flaw with the programme was that the algorithmic software automatically reclaimed presumed overpaid welfare payments. The Robodebt scheme primarily targeted society’s most vulnerable citizens (Braithwaite 2020). Furthermore, welfare clients contesting the claim needed to present documentation of income and payments, in some cases going back many years, to prove the assessment was incorrect. Keeping financial records over several years is impossible for most people, including contesting the claims in court. Notwithstanding that such a programme can be prudent sometimes, the lack of human control is not. In this example, the algorism calculation did not include average yearly income but earnings based on one month’s income, which could be a high or low-income month. A fundamental flaw of the programme was that the programme did not incorporate an assessment of whether or not the selected month was reflecting a regular monthly income representative throughout the year or a one-off payment. These algorism calculations would not be a problem if the welfare recipient received the same amount each month. However, this is hardly the standard for people restricted to short and casual working contracts. Nonetheless, a mitigating circumstance for using the algorism and the outcome of the calculations would be if it had included human control assessment, any abnormality in fortnightly payments could presumably have been flagged and prevented from overpayment notices being sent to the welfare recipient. The “Robodebt” programme created distress and anxiety among welfare recipients. The demand for verifying their earnings through paper trails spanning years was impossible for many of them. Thus, challenging for clients to prove the skewness of the algorism calculations against them. Although the system was legally challenged and judged illegal, but not before some people’s distress led them to suicide (Braithwaite 2020).

Societal acceptance of structural violence and harassment Even if harassment and violence in the public sphere are frequently seen as minor crimes, a modified perception emerged with the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements underpinned by mass media associated with the entertainment industry. For example, the mass media coverage of an influential film producer’s abuse of primarily emerging female actors set violence within the entertainment industry in public view. Even if the publicity was initially focused on the abuse of females, discrimination claims progressed to other institutions and professions. The scrutiny of workplaces, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and complaint structures, such as securing the whistle-blowers’ confidentiality and well-being, were instigated. Initially, the focus was momentarily on sexual harassment of females, but it was soon acknowledged that sexual violence and discrimination are beyond a female issue. It is relevant to all citizens and public settings where unequal power positions are allowed to rule. Consequently, it should be recognised that it is a

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 201 societal issue and cannot be degraded or limited to a female, minority gender or ethnic accidental predicament or victim-blaming. Mass media has enhanced and contested the public debate about public sphere violence. It has conveyed and emphasised incidents of violence and harassment or ignored them when not in the aligned interest group’s favour. For example, if the perpetrator has a high-status profile within the political, faith, social, cultural or financial establishment. Notwithstanding this, present-day violence is also framed within the current hegemonic societal setting, and it reflects supporters and opponents, defending or reeling against social and cultural traditions. Even if equality and social class structures and privileges are continuously reassessed in presentday society in this setting, it is a slow process. Discernment of historical violence, discrimination and social class divisions as just part of the era’s customary everyday way of life, the manner in which governments were executing their power and social order. However, we might not see violence and discrimination incidences as evident in our current society. The lack of recognition is grounded on the sensitivity that the twenty-first-century society is a more humane, civilised and fairer place for all citizens than historical societies. An assumption is that violence does not reside in democratic societies where the ruling government governs in the populace’s best interest without covert or overt violence-infused power. Nevertheless, violent entwined power is still immensely present within present-day societies’ political, social and cultural fabric, albeit enacted in less bloody forms than historical public hangings and executions. Unfortunately, this perception of a less violent era is not factually correct. Remnants of public display of power, including public torture and executions as deterrence against civil disobedience, are still occurring. For instance, recently, in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which first appeared in 2013, and 2014, attempted to impose a strict Sunni Islamic faith system of governance. Van Schaack (2020) and Ahram (2019) unveil how they enforced their hegemonic ideology by using extreme power against opponents. Another presentday example is the Russian war against Ukraine, where non-military facilities are bombed, and alleged war crimes against the civilian population are investigated. This is a reminder that excessive violence is still used to enforce disproportionate power in contemporary times nationally and between nation-states. Thus, it is not inconceivable that nation-states might resort to extreme violence to restore their power position or alleged historical power. Political leaders, social entrepreneurs and trendsetters commonly communicate through mass media. As a result, they broadcast and frame hegemonic ideology, culture and social identity for public rumination, thus setting the foundation for preferential agency-level attitudes and behaviours. Hence, normalising some forms of violence, harassment and discrimination, verbal, social, sexual and/or physically disrespectful treatment of others. Nevertheless, attitudes and behaviours are mainly directed towards the less powerful citizens, e.g., females, minority ethnic and gender groups challenging the hegemonic ideology’s status quo.

202

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Governance by political and societal leaders is assumed to represent moral and ethical values, an assumption of presenting responsible behaviour and being role models for their constituents, hence a reason for being elected to a public position. Consequently, the presumption is that social and cultural customs should be adhered to where political leaders, financial entrepreneurs and society representatives should behave as model law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, a presumption that they should strive to present themselves as moral and ethical upstanding citizens. Including performing their duties and public roles to the benefit of the populace. A presumption that is perhaps a utopian stereotype in present-day society. Challenging this “faultless model” in present-day society with public presentations continuously scrutinised with the help of the internet and mobile phone technology is arduous. Any slip-ups might be publicly noticed and broadcasted throughout social mass media. Before the evolution of internet technology and mobile phones, it was easier to control mass media communication and separate public and private issues. Mass media might also have followed a more conservative ethical code to separate public and private presentations. However, modern technology gives every citizen a tool to record incidents. Therefore, creating a grey area between acceptable or unacceptable private or semi-public behaviour. Henceforth, an interconnection that will make it likely that any misstep will find its way into the public domain and be given widespread coverage. Likewise, with the 24/7 news cycle, recorded news becomes redundant quickly but will still leave electronic records of incidents. Moreover, electronic records are harder to destroy; thus, any indiscretion can be revisited later. Discrimination and harassment within governance and public institutions In governance, political leaders ideally should reflect the diversity of citizens in genders, ethnic diversity, social, cultural and religious beliefs and values. Elected politicians and government political staff are assumed to some degree to be representative of their constituents, thus mirroring the socio-demographic profile of the populace. Ideally, if comprehensively representing the populace, they should include a 50% female and male split, including representing the native population, e.g., in Australia, First Nation Australians – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – and a proportional percentage of citizens from minority ethnic heritage, minority genders, professionals and community groups. However, political representation in nation-states’ parliament hardly emulates the citizens’ composition. For example, in Australia, it was first in 1962 that Australian First Nation Aborigines – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – were even given voting rights (The National Museum Australia 2021). Equally, it was first with the 1967 referendum that the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were given equal citizenship as the Anglo-Australians. Thus, for the first time, they were fully included in the 1971 Census results (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004; Australians Together 2021, cf. Tedeschi 2017, re. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ legal status).

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 203 Still, however, in the 2020s, the socio-demographic imbalance is entrenched among elected parliamentarians, government staff and corporate leaders. For example, Australia was one of the first countries after New Zealand to give most white females the right to vote and stand for the Parliament in 1902. Notwithstanding this, it was not until 1943 that two female candidates were elected to the Commonwealth Parliament. Ms Enid Lyons to the House of Representatives and Ms Dorothy Tangney to the Senate (Parliament of Australia 2022a; Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians 2022). The Australian population over 18 years of age is approximately split at 50%, females and males. In comparison, in 2001, 26.1% (59/226) of parliamentarians were females. The number of female members of the two major parties was 20 (30.8%), and 16 (23.5%) parliamentarians in the House of Representatives and 11 (39.0%) and 8 (25.9%) in the Senate elected for Labor Party and the Liberal Party, respectively. The National Party had no female representation (Parliament of Australia 2022a). However, since 2001 the female representation in the House of Parliament has increased (Table 6.1). Notwithstanding this increase in female representation in the Federal Parliament, gender representation is still skewed against females and towards Anglo-Australian males. Thus, the gender disparity remains in 2022, albeit an improvement from previous parliaments with 44.5% females, chiefly due to newly elected independent members without party affiliation (Parliament of Australia 2022a, 2022b; Parliamentary Library 2022). Finally, the total representation of First Nation Australians shows an improvement in representation (cf. Evershed, Liu and Livse 2016; Parliament of Australia 2022a, 2022b; Parliamentary Library 2022). For example, in the 47th Federal Parliament, 4.9% of the parliamentarians identify as having a First Nation Australian background, increasing from 2.6% in the 46th Parliament. Compared to the 46th Parliament (2019-2022), the 47th Australian Parliament (2022>) has made only minor inroads into increased gender, education and minority ethnic equality. In addition, the First Nation indigenous representation has slightly increased. In addition, the overall female representation in the House of Table 6.1 Female representation in Australian Federal Parliament in per cent (Parliament of Australia 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Parliamentary Library 2022). Australian Federal Parliament

45th – 2016

46th – 2019

47th – 2022

House of Representatives [N =151] Labour Party Liberal Party National Party

44.2 21.4 15.0

47.8 24.4 25.0

53.5 27.3 23.8

Senate [N = 76] Labour Party Liberal Party National Party

40.6 20.0 6.7

41.9 21.3 12.5

47.4 21.4 12.5

Australian Federal Parliament N = 227] Total female representation 32.3

36.6

44.5

204

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Representatives has increased for the major parties, with the Liberal parliamentarians increasing from 24% to 27%. The corresponding figures for the Labor parliamentarians are an increase from 48% to 54%. Thus, a higher total and an increase compared to the female representation in the conservative parties (Table 6.1). However, gender equity and minority ethnic heritage are still not representatives of the microcosm of Australian multicultural society. An international comparison, based on respective natation-states reporting of female parliamentarians in the Lower House of Representatives or Single Houses parliaments in 2022 (01 September), shows that out of the 193 countries, Rwanda (61%) and Cuba (53%) are at the top of the gender equality ranking. Following them in percentages are, for example, New Zealand (49%) and Iceland (48%), Sweden and Finland 46%, Australia 38%, France 37%, Italy 36% and the UK 35%. The US has 28% female parliamentarians. Unfortunately, still, the majority of nation-states have an underrepresentation of female parliamentarians below 50% (Inter-Parliamentary Union Open Data 2021). These figures highlight the gender discrepancy in parliamentarians’ representativeness of the society’s population structure. Therefore, globally the parliaments, with few exceptions, do not mirror their society’s socio-demographic age, gender, education or ethnic heritage structures. Consequently, minority ethnic or diverse language parliamentarians are not representing their citizens’ uniqueness. Notwithstanding this, the parliamentarians make significant policy and legal decisions about females and minority groups’ existence that impact their everyday lives without having a strong voice in the decisions. Likewise, other professions demonstrate gender and ethnic skewness, for instance, the academic profession. Albeit there are different classification systems and qualifications for each level of an academic position, thus not easily comparable. However, the United Nations International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is one classification framework standardising and facilitating comparisons of academic positions for European data (European Commission 2021:179). Based on this classification, the European Union members record an average female academic representation between 47% and 26% at the European level (EU-28). However, there were considerable differences between higher and lower academic positions. For example, at the European level (European Commission 2021:183, 179), females stand for an average of: • • • •

47% of grade D (postgraduate students not yet holding a PhD); 47% of grade C staff (the first grade/post for a newly qualified PhD graduate); 40% of grade B staff (academics in position below the top position); and 26% in top academic leadership roles (highest academic position, equivalent to full Professorship).

Additionally, the research showed that in every field of Research and Development, females represented no more than approximately one-third of grade A staff

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 205 (Professorship) at the European level in 2018. In comparison, females in the United States in 2018 (Catalyst 2021) held: • • • • •

50% of all tenure-track positions; 39% of tenured positions; 53% of Assistant Professor positions; 46 % of Associate Professor positions; and 34% of Professor positions.

In 2018–2019, females in India (Catalyst 2021) held the following: • • •

43% of Lecturer/Assistant Professor faculty positions; 37% of Reader or Associate Professor faculty positions; and 27% of Professor or equivalent faculty positions.

In Australia, females occupy (Catalyst 2021): • • • •

54% of lower-level Lecturer faculty positions; 55% of Lecturer faculty positions; 47% of Senior Lecturer faculty positions; and 34% of faculty positions above Senior Lecturer.

Thus, female positions were again concentrated in the lower academic ranks. Corresponding female statistics for Japan show that 52% of full-time junior college teachers in 2018 were females, with only 25% full-time university teachers. Finally, in Canada, in 2018-2019, females made up only 28% of Professors, 44% of Associate Professors and 50% of Assistant Professors. Additionally, females in Canada occupied 50% of positions below Assistant Professor. These figures show that the 50/50 gender division was not upheld at higherranking levels of the academic profession for any of the mentioned countries (Catalyst 2021). Another academic staff group is females of colour. The research shows that they are more likely to hold lower-ranking academic positions than white females and males in the USA. For example, females achieving Professors’ positions of Asian heritage account for only 2.8%, African Americans 1.6% and Hispanic and Latino Americans 2.1% in the USA. The corresponding percentages for Associate Professors are 4.8%, 3% and 2.6%, respectively (Catalyst 2021). The US population comprises 60.1% white, Hispanic and Latino 18.5%, Black - African American 12.2%, Asian 5.6%, 3.6% Indigenous and other minority groups. Hence the academic staff’ profile is not representative of the US population, as females overall and females of colour are underrepresented groups in higher academic positions (United States Census 2021). Altogether, these percentages show similar trends with an underrepresentation of females and people of colour in all precincts occupying parliamentarian and higher academic positions. This underrepresentation should be seen from

206

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

the perspective that the female student cohort is above the 50% female and male divide. For instance, in the USA, 60% of students are females. While in Australia, the corresponding percentage of females enrolled in university-level degrees is 58%. The academic unequal gender distribution is mirrored in the underrepresentation of females in world universities’ top positions, including University Presidents or Vice Chancellors. According to the World University Rankings, only a fifth of University President or Vice-Chancellor leadership positions are occupied by females within the world’s leading universities (Times Higher Education 2022 [THE]). About 21% (N = 44) of the top 200 universities in the latest 2021 ranking have a female leader, up from 19% (N = 39) in 2020 and 17% (N = 34) in 2018. Furthermore, a quarter (24%) of universities in the top one hundred have a female leader as University President or Vice-Chancellor compared to 17% in the 100–200 band. These percentages demonstrate slow progress towards gaining gender equality and a promotion trajectory for female academics within the academic profession (HolonIQ 2021). Additionally, the gender skewness has implications for what is presented in the taught curriculum, the ideas and values communicated and by whom it is conveyed, henceforth, occupied by a female or a male academic, majority ethnic or minority ethnic heritage. This gender discrepancy is also shown in the financial and corporate professions, with only 7% of the 2020 Fortune 500 being led by a female CEO. Finally, the same pattern highlighted within universities is replicated with professional gender discrimination towards females as heads of nation-states, only achieving 10% at best. Thus, currently, of the 193 UN Member States, only 20 nation-states are led by females (HolonIQ 2021). Even if the #MeToo and the broader feminism movements have opened the way for female representation, there have not been noticeable changes in attitudes and concrete steps to change male power dominance in nation-state leadership. The nation-states’ governing bodies are the most powerful institutions. Consequently, they have the highest supremacy to influence and frame entire societal systems. Therefore, this new emphasis on and acceptance of an omnipotent leadership system with dominating power-entitled males on the structural-level flows over into institutions, workplaces and agency levels. Consequently, it sets a framework for accepting and normalising political and financial power structures. As discussed in the following section, in settings where leadership power does not acquire the preferred outcome, normalising violence, harassment and discrimination become a tool. Thus, signifying the powerholders desired values, attitudes and behaviours towards the citizens. Harassment and discrimination within the Australian Commonwealth Parliament As highlighted above, nation-states’ parliaments, such as the Australian Federal Parliament, are considered the most powerful, influential and prestigious workplaces, the governing power centre of nation-states. Thus, gaining employment

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 207 in such a prominent workplace is an attractive and sought-after position for politically inclined young adults and candidates seeking a future within politics. However, a drawback is that due to the competitive selection process, it is problematic for aspiring politically appointed employees, elected parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians staff to complain about workplace conditions without risking their careers or employment. Besides, their career prospects will not benefit from voicing complaints internally or publicly (cf. Figure 1.2: The ecosystem of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces for an overview of the workplace, Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:13). The Australian Federal Parliament is an Anglo-Australian male-dominated workplace with the majority of the senior and most influential positions occupied by males. Thus, females, minority genders and ethnic groups complaining about workplace conditions, harassment, intensive workload, long working hours and pressure to perform at the highest level or suggesting changes can be career-ending. Additionally, the ruthless process to secure a position further underscores the low reporting rate of harassment and discrimination in the House of Parliament. Other factors include the lack of confidential complaints structures and Code of Ethics procedures. Despite that, anti-harassment and anti-discriminatory policies are overwhelmingly developed and implemented to some degree within public and private companies, institutions, organisations and other societal workplaces. Furthermore, many workplaces review their policies annually and/or partly initiate new scrutiny of their policies following the #MeToo movement’s high-profile cases. Nevertheless, the #MeToo movement did not fully penetrate or create an urge for the Australian Federal Parliament to implement anti-discrimination and antiharassment policies, e.g., a Code of Ethics, or establish an independent authority to handle complaints confidentially. Henceforth, the normalisation of workplace harassment and sexual abuse was not contested publicly until an alleged rape case became public (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b). Unfortunately, this was not the first case, as discrimination and harassment of staff and parliamentarians are presumed to have a long history in the workplace (Banks 2021; Crabb and Tisdell 2021). Notwithstanding the historical lack of action against harassment and discrimination in the House of Parliament, a change ensued by awarding Ms Grace Tame’s 2021 Australian of the Year honour. Ms Tame gave a forceful voice to victims of sexual abuse and helped victims gain the confidence to report abuse publicly and confront the abusers. Keeping quiet about harassment and sexual violence is a survival workplace strategy. For example, to avoid being called “weak”, “not up to the job”, “emotional” and “useless”, to mention a few disrespectful phrases experienced by females in the Australian House of Parliament (Banks 2021). Consequently, females and other minority groups habitually choose not to complain or report abuse to keep their career trajectories alive and avoid escalating the abuse. In the investigative programme, Ms Represented (Crabb and Tisdell 2021) interviewed staff and former parliamentarians about sexism in the House of

208

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Parliament. The programme highlighted that if a female responded or acknowledged that she was offended or hurt by colleagues or staff comments, she was considered unsuitable for her occupied position. The slur was made by male parliamentarians and senior male staff, including female staff in senior leadership positions. Foreseeably, overwhelmingly females, minority genders and ethnic staff or female parliamentarians are deemed unfit. Moreover, in this setting, it seems that the females lack the only significant qualification for governance positions, to be male and belong to the Anglo-Australian populace (Banks 2021; Crabb and Tisdell 2021). The derogatory comments are chiefly directed at female staff and parliamentarians. As females, male colleagues and/or supervisors perceive them as unfit or unqualified to manage the parliamentarian work environment. This is despite the accuracy of the complaint, unjustified comments or baseless slander. Hence the setting that evoked the derogative comments becomes irrelevant. Besides, a normalness in singling out female staff or female parliamentarians for performing below acceptable arbitrary set work standards and criteria, an assessment hardly applied equally between genders. Using derogatory comments, such as “weak” or “not up to the job”, patronising attitudes are not restricted to one societal level, as they can encompass whichever public and private realms are grounded on unequal power positions. Nonetheless, political leaders and key stakeholders have a role in signifying attitudes and behaviours that adhere to gender equality and acceptance of ethnic diversity on the structural level. Using discriminating strategies, harassing behaviour or derogative language by powerful and influential political leaders facilitates or normalises corresponding discriminatory behaviours, attitudes and values among citizens on the agency level. Harassment, sexual violence and discrimination against females, First Nation people – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – and minority ethnic parliamentarians might not be news to those who have served and are serving in a role in the Australian House of Parliament or any other nation-state parliaments. Notwithstanding this, a notable change in the broader society was underpinned by the #MeToo movement and Ms Tame’s and Ms Higgins’s assertive communication about power structures and inequality (see below). These young female voices have augmented the Australian public debate, where some female staff and parliamentarians have started to publicly voice and call out misbehaviour, including criminal sexual assaults. However, unfortunately, regrettably, predominantly first after they have left their positions and not until they have gained support, privately or publicly, to speak openly about being abused (Banks 2021). The time between the alleged harassment and submitting a complaint can be extensive, assumed to be, on average, 12.5 years, thus mitigating chances for an internal reshaping of gender roles and power structures in the workplace. A recent example of delayed reporting covers a female political staffer’s report of sexual assault in the Australian Federal Parliament. The incident allegedly happened in 2019 (23 March). However, it was not made public until 2021 (15 February). The female staffer (Ms Brittany Higgins) kept it quiet because of the risk of losing her hard-fought position in the House of Parliament.

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 209 Ms Higgins’s silence should be understood from the perspective of attitudes within the House of Parliament about sexual abuse and staff safety. For instance, when the alleged rape became public, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, whose office she worked within, commented ‘in front of her staff in her office’ that the alleged rape victim, Brittany Higgins, was a ‘lying cow’. Allegedly not referring to the alleged sexual assault but about not receiving internal support from supervisors. The minister later apologised for the comments and regretted they were made public, which was not her intention: ‘I also want to retract it and unreservedly apologise to Brittany Higgins, acknowledge the hurt, and distress it caused to her’ (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2021b). Notwithstanding this regret, the comments reflect discriminatory sentiments and attitudes in the workplace, including the difficulties of gaining support and help to deal with the trauma without being further shunned. The alleged rape incident was later reported to the authorities for investigation, and a legal process was instigated against the alleged perpetrator, a fellow staffer, Mr Bruce Lehrmann. However, the first trial was aborted after a juror was found to have engaged in misconduct. A second trial was scheduled for 2023 but was also aborted. The prosecution dropped the charges (02/12/2022) because of serious concerns about the alleged victim’s mental wellbeing and the augmented risks the victim would likely endure with a new trial. Ms Banks recounts in her book, Power Play. Breaking Through Bias, Barriers and Boys’ Clubs, her time as a female parliamentarian. She describes the harassment, bullying and sexual abuse she encountered in the Liberal Party and later as an independent parliamentarian and how the abuse contributed to her leaving Parliament (Banks 2021). In addition, Ms Banks details how she experienced backgrounding menaces to disparage her voice in parliamentarian businesses. Including gaslighting methods to unsettle her, e.g., manipulating her mentally and emotionally to undermine her interpretation of facts and sound reasoning. Gaslighting is also a tactic to manipulate the situation the individual is in and turn it against her/his cognition and emotions. Fundamentally, it aims to question the individual as a person. According to Ms Banks, this tactic was used by the prime minister’s office to create the perception that Ms Banks had suffered an emotional breakdown. Added to this are examples of verbal harassment of female parliamentarians, also noted by Banks, who was called ‘a “rich bitch”, “bully”, “nasty”, “crazy corporate”, a woman who needed to be controlled’. Furthermore, Banks refers to the episode when a colleague ‘put his hand just above my knee and edged slowly and deliberately to my inner thigh and then further up my leg - “astoundingly brazen” act’. This incident is alleged to have happened in a room full of Liberal/National parliamentarians waiting to vote in a late-night sitting (Tingle 2021). Banks acknowledges in the interview with Tingle that many females in the Parliament have experienced more abuse than she had, ‘but what disturbed me about that was, here I was, a 50 something corporate lawyer, member of parliament and that move was made on me’. This comment reflects the dangers and risks of abuse staff face, independent of their professional or societal positions, thus, emphasising that no one is risk-free from abuse. Here, against a businessperson,

210 Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values lawyer and a female parliamentarian whose qualifications and experiences surpass many male colleagues (Banks 2021). Ms Banks acknowledged that there comes a time when the insensitivity of the abuse makes it not worth continuing in the position, even for a sought-after position as an elected parliamentarian and an aspired career trajectory for years to come. The leadership spill within the Australian governing conservative-liberal party in 2018 (24 August) escalated the harassment against her, thus making her party membership untenable. It became a catalyst for Banks not to contest the next election (18 May 2019). She informed the new PM, Scott Morrison, about her decision to leave Parliament. She recounts that the decision not to contest the upcoming election became a catalyst for intensified harassment and derogative verbal abuse. She became a detested outsider, not beneficial for the party, and consequently, the abuse within the party forced her to sit as an independent until the next election. Banks describes the prime minister, now former, as a ‘menacing controlling wallpaper’ (Banks 2021). Investigative research presented in Ms Represented (Crabb and Tisdell 2021) highlighted gender deafness and the disregard for female MPs’ voices, including the gossip mills in the Australian House of Parliament. A high-pressure work environment with abundant free alcohol and intense competition among politicians and staff. For example, the first Australian female prime minister, Ms Julia Gillard (20102013), was persistently exposed to derogative verbal abuse in the Australian House of Parliament and outside by conservative broadcasters and political and financial communicators. It was broadly reported in mainstream mass media, thus augmenting disparaging attitudes and degrading females capabilities in occupying leadership positions. As a result, it contributed to normalising the negative attitudes towards females in general, especially in leading political positions. Following the relentless campaign against the PM by conservative-leaning mass media at that time and as mentioned above, it included referring to the PM as “JuLiar” and “ditch the witch” One example of the ample number of derogatory comments directed towards the PM was in a speech at the Sydney University Liberal Club dinner by Alan Jones, a conservative radio broadcaster. [E]very person in the caucus of the Labor party knows that Julia Gillard is a liar … The old man [Gillard’s father] recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think that he had a daughter who told lies every time she stood for [sic] parliament … They’ve been brainwashed by the media to “Oh … back off, she’s a woman, go easy”. (Rourke 2012) After extensive public vilification and verbal abuse, Gillard responded with a memorable speech about misogynist behaviour and attitudes in the Australian Federal Parliament (9 October 2012). Unfortunately, although the speech was widely broadcasted worldwide, it was not initially raising the same reaction from political mass media and reporters within Australia as outside. Hence a telling

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 211 reflection of attitudes in Australia to gender equality and respect for females in authoritative leadership positions. Nonetheless, it is a Catch-22 situation; females are both disdained whether they call out misogynist behaviour or not. It is not only the actual discriminative and harmful environments that generate intense stress and anxiety, but it is also about long-term high personal cost to individuals’ health, well-being and work performance. Thus, a compelling reason for females to reject leadership positions. However, this can also be seen as a strategy by males to exclude females from leadership trajectories. A former Liberal parliamentarian Ms Sharman Stone defines the double bind confronting female politicians: A woman who aspires to political leadership must be deft, retaining some non-threatening feminine attributes for some purposes, while demonstrating male virtues in the party room and on the chamber floor. She should not shed tears, except at a time of extreme (and therefore rare) national or personal tragedy. She should give as good as she gets when abused in parliamentary debate, as former prime minister Julia Gillard understood. She should convincingly perform her domination of her party colleagues and demonstrate her ability to humiliate the opposition in the media every day … She knows the costs of calling out misogynist behaviour, inequitable worklife balance and time wasted on dysfunctional parliamentary processes. She is aware that embracing victimhood is disempowering and inviting contempt. She is regularly reminded in the party room that ‘disunity is death’, and playing in the team is all. (Ghazarian and Lee-Ko 2021, italics in original) After lengthy verbal harassment, PM Gillard responded to the opposition leader MP Tony Abbott in her misogyny speech, ‘I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not … Not now, not ever’. At that time, the conservative deputy opposition leader MP Julie Bishop, sitting on the opposite side of the chamber, accused the then PM Gillard of cynically playing the “gender card”. Bishop’s comment is telling about attitudes against opposing females (Crabb and Tisdell 2021). She was a woman who became the Prime Minister of Australia. She was no shrinking violet. She was no victim of a glass ceiling. She reached the highest position in public life, and she was complaining about sexism. Ms Bishop did not identify herself as a feminist while in office. She was the sole female minister in the Coalition cabinet (2013-2015). Notwithstanding this, Bishop postulated that the low representation of females in the Coalition Party (Liberal/National Parties combined) should not, according to her, be rectified by

212

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

female quotas. Consequently she continued to support the male-dominated party line in Parliament, females should follow her strategy to rise through the Coalition Party ranks on their achievements and merits. In contrast, the Labor Party has adopted quotas. As a result, it has achieved parity of female representation in the House of Representatives and nearly parity in the Senate compared to the Coalition Party, with, on average less than a quarter of female parliamentarians (Table 6.1). Within this gender-unequal environment, many parliamentarians feel it is only after leaving the Parliament and the party confinement that it is possible to voice divergent policy views and acknowledge sexual abuse and harassment. Thus, it was not until Bishop left the Parliament that she acknowledged that adopting equal gender representation in the conservative party would mitigate the sexism levelled towards females in federal politics (Ghazarian and Lee-Ko 2021). Noteworthy is that verbal abuse and discrimination are not only perpetrated by males against females. Harassment and abuse are also used among females. Henceforward the “sisterhood ideology” might be more of an illusion than a reality in competitive milieus. Playing the “gender card” is seen as prejudiced. It implies that females have not achieved their positions based on meritorious qualifications, experiences and skills but reached their position because of their gender. When PM Julia Gillard left office, she reflected on the role of gender in her treatment in the media and Federal Parliament: ‘It doesn’t explain everything. It doesn’t explain nothing. It explains some things, and it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey’ (Ghazarian and Lee-Ko 2021, italics in original). Hence, an inert societal issue to obliterate violence, harassment and discrimination grounded on the patriarchal hegemonic ideology and power structure, thus, acknowledging the need for reassessing ingrained values and belief systems. The well-published alleged rape of the young female staffer (Ms Brittany Higgins) and extensive lobbying and complaints by female parliamentarians and staff, including Ms Tame’s high vocal profile as a sexual abuse victim, contributed significantly to the investigation of the working conditions in the House of Parliament. The 2021 Australian Human Rights Commission’s investigation of the working conditions at the Australian Federal Parliament is set out in the report, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces (Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] 2021b). The report highlights disturbing violence, harassment and discrimination incidents in multilevel and diverse staff positions at the House of Parliament. The report is based on 935 survey responses, 490 interviews, 302 submissions and 11 focus groups. In total, 1,056 females, 522 males and 145 undisclosed genders participated in the investigation. An overview of the investigation found that 77% of people working in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament Workplaces (CPWs) and the Members of Parliament Staff (MOP(S)) have either experienced, witnessed or heard about bullying, sexual harassment and/or actual or attempted sexual assault. Thirty-seven per cent of staff during the research period in CPWs have personally experienced bullying in the workplace. Of these, 42% are females

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 213 and 32% are males. One summary recount of the workplace environment is this comment from a former staff member. And I do remember the very first time I walked in there ... we got into the Member’s Hall and we stood directly sort of under the flagpole and sort of looked up. You can look up through the glass ceiling and the flagpole is there. And it was like ... I work in Parliament House. You know, I actually teared up. I remember tearing up … It was just a pride to be able to work there because to me, that’s the ultimate place of public service. And can I tell you, when I left there … I would never, ever set foot in the place again. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:38) The most likely staff or parliamentarians to commit one bullying event were females (61%) followed by males (35%), while for multiple bullying incidents, the percentages were 76% for females and 68% for males. Noteworthy is the findings that verbal harassment is not just a male matter but includes all genders, thus significantly about power inequality. The more senior women in that office systematically bullied me and one of the other women to the point where we were both in tears. Frequently, like at least every week, the advice was go and cry in the toilet so that nobody can see you, because that’s what it’s like up here. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:114) There is a difference in perception between verbal bullying and sexual harassment, albeit both can have long-term health implications for the victim. Sixty-five per cent of the most recent bullying events occurred in the House of Parliament or the Parliamentary precincts. Concerning bullying cases, 78% of the incidents included one perpetrator more senior than the victim. As many as 33% of staff or parliamentarians in CPWs had personally experienced sexual harassment, 40% of the females and 26% of the males. The investigation found that 81% of the sexual harassers were males and 18% were females. Furthermore, 26% of people sexually harassed in CPWs by a single harasser were harassed by a parliamentarian, and 54% of the most recent sexual harassment incidents occurred at the workplace in the House of Parliament or the Parliamentary precincts (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:85). In more detail, 82% of staff or parliamentarians who had experienced bullying in CPWs, also recounted that colleagues had encountered the same behaviour. Additionally, 60% of those who had experienced sexual harassment in CPWs said their co-workers also had experienced similar behaviours. Furthermore, 60% of the staff or parliamentarians who had experienced bullying in CPWs said that the same perpetrator had bullied others. Additionally, 28% of respondents who had experienced sexual harassment in CPWs also noted that the harasser harassed

214

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

other people (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:109). Thus, the harassing behaviour was not a one-off behaviour by the perpetrator. Overall, the official reporting rate of abuse was low, with 11% reporting sexual harassment and 32% giving accounts of bullying. However, over half (55%) of the staff or parliamentarians who had experienced bullying did not report it. Furthermore, few respondents contributing to the investigation thought reporting abuse positively influenced their working conditions or career trajectory. Although the reporting percentage for sexual harassment victims to the investigators was 40%, it was four times more than the official reported percentage (11%) (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:108-109, Figure 4.2). A reflection from a participant. [P]ower is a very important dynamic that plays out and I think in a lot of ways … the whole system, especially within government, is just actually built on power; that’s the whole mentality and that’s what everyone is striving for, more power. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:83) The risk factors contributing to discrimination, violence and harassment of work colleagues are diverse. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission(2021b) identified several risk factors, such as a lack of gender and ethnic diversity among parliamentarians and staff, a sense of entitlement by some staff or parliamentarians and an entitlement reinforced by access to resources, power and networks. In addition, the investigation highlighted a lack of demographic diversity among staff and parliamentarians in seniority and decision-making roles, largely excluding females, First Nations Aboriginal peoples, LGBTIQ+ people, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and people with disabilities. Furthermore, the House of Parliament employs staff, but also the parliamentarians employ staff, through a somewhat opaque procedure, such as support staff politically or non-politically appointed, family, friends or previous work colleagues taking on distinct roles to assist and aid the elected parliamentarian. However, to have reached a leadership or management role, it is not given that the individual will have gained skills and experiences or be equipped with the appropriate education to manage staff effectively or identify an unhealthy work environment. Likewise, the high-pressure setting and anxiety about making career-ending mistakes create a working environment immersed in a culture of winning at all costs. The House of Parliament’s work atmosphere enforces an intense loyalty and connection to the affiliated political party, including the staff aiding the parliamentarian. It is a realm prone to trivialise or excuse bullying and sexual harassment. Thus, making excuses and normalising sexual and other forms of harassment as part of the everyday work environment. Consequently, when parliamentarians employ their political staff, their future employment depends entirely on the politician. It is a setting that discourages the appointee from reporting harassment or

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 215 acknowledging being a target for discrimination, including voicing concerns about unhealthy working conditions. All with the purpose of being a loyal staff member to the parliamentarian, supporting the political party’s policies and avoiding being identified as a “problem” for the party. Keeping quiet is a survival strategy to avoid career repercussions (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:81), hence the silence. Consequently, the culture of working hard, playing hard and alleviating stress through alcohol consumption creates an atmosphere prone to sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination, including derogatory language and gossip. Furthermore, easy access to alcohol and unregulated drinking culture, combined with an ample supply, is a setting where drinking during work hours is normalised and accepted, an issue, particularly for parliamentarians and MOP(S) Act employees. Another factor contributing to a stressful work environment is the nature of the House of Parliament’s unpredictable daily work requirements. Overall, it is difficult for individual staff to influence their working hours, as new tasks can require urgent attention and extend the working hours well into the night. Moreover, most parliamentarians’ workplaces are split between sitting times in parliaments and their electorates throughout the country. This dual setting often creates conflicting and stressful working conditions through exclusion and staff isolation, geographical remoteness in electorate offices or being away from family and support networks during sitting periods. A further factor in the work environment is the lack of transparent and merit-based recruitment strategies, as employment is influenced by or based on social and cultural affiliations, professional networks and/or political membership, not necessarily grounded on merit, skill and/or experience (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:82). All these factors have a bearing on inequality creating a setting for violence and discrimination in the workplace. The Australian Human Rights Commission inquiry highlighted gender inequality in the House of Parliament, with the dominance of male parliamentarians (Table 6.1) and staff. It is a man’s world and you are reminded of it every day thanks to the looks up and down you get, to the representation in the parliamentary chambers, to the preferential treatment politicians give senior male journalists. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:14) The quote highlights the advantage of a natural male-to-male preferential bond. In this professional/friendship relationship, a setting where male journalists are both given scoops and are assumed to protect male parliamentarians from unfavourable mass media. Thus, the inequality in power positions facilitates favours and hiding of misuse of power that enhances or limits staff’s employment and career trajectories. It is a driver for acceptance of misconduct and fear of those who hold power, creating a sense of entitlement by the senior powerholders. Although this milieu creates a remarkably complex work environment in most governing bodies, workplaces with sought-after employment, rare public insight and fraught

216

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

complaint procedures, ‘it’s a culture which is all about power though, doesn’t mean it has to be a culture which is about abuse of power’. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:14) Notwithstanding this, the focus on power works on all levels, as it is not only about senior staff and parliamentarians. It is also an issue for non-parliamentarians, as emphasised by some parliamentarians. They are not immune from bullying from staff. A high-profile parliamentarian can become a target for media leaks from disgruntled staff or as a threat hanging over them. Thus, harassment goes both ways. A chief of staff who experienced harassment from junior staff noted this relationship: The more junior employees in the office would personally attack her … undermine her direction, undermine her leadership. They go to other offices behind her back and sort of slander her abilities and intelligence and that kind of thing and make it almost impossible for her to get her job done so that they would then have to be the ‘go to’ people elevating their own kind of status. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:84) The Australian Human Rights Commission (2021b:14) noted that risk factors that create discriminating and harassing work environments are not helped by unclear and inconsistent work policies, regulations and a lack of uniform introduction and training about the work environment. For instance, in a fast-paced work environment with unrelenting demands, ‘you lose perspective on what is appropriate, what your rights are and the way in which you deserve to be treated’. The work environment in any governing institution is hectic. Hence, the social and cultural conditions of work reflect this setting. Many of the staff are young people who have intensively competed to gain their position, a work setting that is creating incentives to play hard as one of the team. Besides this scenery, it creates an environment of risk factors such as bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault, ‘[B]ecause it’s so high pressure […] if something goes wrong, people’s reactions are quite unreasonable. Lots of shouting and yelling for just unnecessary reasons’ (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:14). Noteworthy is that gender and power inequality are significant factors in discrimination, as the dominating gender fashions the milieu. The male dominance in senior roles in governing workplaces fashion an environment of preferential treatment of like-minded males (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:85). Additionally, Australian Human Rights Commission (2021b) reported that the social conditions of work in CPWs were a direct and contributing factor to the unhealthy working environment characterised as a “playing hard” culture that responded to the all-consuming nature of the work. Abusive behaviour was condoned to “let off steam”, including, as mentioned above, the consumption of alcohol as a coping mechanism or a conduit for socialising with colleagues, even leading to unsafe drinking habits.

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 217 The Australian Human Rights Commission’s (2021b) investigation gives a significant and thought-provoking insight into the workplace culture in the Australian House of Parliament, albeit unlikely to be unique for any nation-state governing institution. Notwithstanding this, dismissing the findings as an exceptional and distinctive workplace is easy. However, a comparative investigation at the New South Wales State Parliament exposes similar sexual violence, harassment and discrimination (Broderick 2022). The New South Wales (NSW) Parliament investigation is based on a survey of 447 people (27.7% of all NSW Parliamentary staff), 109 confidential one-on-one interviews, 7 confidential group listening sessions and 58 confidential written submissions (55 from individuals and three from organisations) (Broderick 2022:4). It is a mistake to excuse sexual violence and discrimination in governing bodies because the staff and parliamentarians work under challenging conditions. It was demonstrated in the Federal and the State investigations that their exceptionality is a misconstrued viewpoint, ‘We concluded that while Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are unique, they are not exceptional’ (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:8), thus abuse should be exposed and prevented. However, there are always parliamentarians and staff groups unaffected by violence and discrimination, mainly due to gender and power positions. Nonetheless, diverse groups have other experiences, as noted in both investigations (Broderick 2022:5; Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:14). The findings of the NSW inquiry acknowledged that bullying was systemic and multi-directional across the Parliament, with few structural or cultural protection mechanisms available to prevent it. Thus, sexual harassment and everyday sexism were frequent. Its highest target groups were women, people who identified as younger people (24–35 years old), minority genders and ethnic groups, including First Nation Australians and Torres Strait Islander people who had experienced sexual assault. Some of the views that get expressed in the Parliament, it’s like going back 50 years. As a woman it doesn’t make me feel very good but for other groups – like gay or trans people – it’s very upsetting and isolating. (Broderick 2022:28, italics in original) Even if the rest of the society has increased its acceptance and tolerance of minority genders and ethnic minorities, some parliamentarians, staff and in sections of the populace have moved slower. This perception, as also noted in the Commonwealth AHRC investigation (2021b), that unequal power distributions between parliamentarians and the staff contributed to harassment and discriminating attitudes and behaviours. An added contributing discrimination factor is the underrepresentation of female staff and parliamentarians. There is a huge power imbalance in Parliament. It is so hierarchical. Members are at the top and they are not accountable for their behaviour at all. Staff are at the bottom and have few, if any, rights. (Broderick 2022:22, italics in original)

218

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Furthermore, the reasons for violence and discriminations in the NSW Parliament are very similar to those presented in the Federal Parliament (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b). Likewise, trust in the benefit of reporting violence and discrimination contributed to the low reporting rate. The thing is there is no-one to report [the bullying] to. I can’t go to DPS [Department of Parliamentary Services]as there is no way they would investigate [Parliamentarian] and make them accountable for their actions. The system works to protect the Member. (Broderick 2022:21, italics in original) As mentioned above, to be elected as a parliamentarian is because of political ideology and community support. The elected member is not required to have staff management or leadership qualifications. This lack of leadership experience is detrimental to the work environment and staff well-being. I think MPs want to do the right thing by their community, but they aren’t managers and there’s no management training. There’s no process on how to manage a team of people, so there’s no consistency in the treatment of staff. There are a lot of nice people, but they have massive egos and no duty of care towards staff. It is a really strange environment where everyone feels like these are the most important jobs in the world, but it’s like a bubble and people lose perspective, so the priority is always the politics and the work, and never staff wellbeing. (Broderick 2022:19, italics in original) I feel like I have to give up a part of myself, give up a part of my values to be part of Parliament. [The parties] these days are like a cult. You have to agree with everything or die trying. This mob mentality doesn’t get us anywhere. (Broderick 2022:24, italics in original) Even if the non-politically appointed staff gained their position because of their qualifications and skills, the overriding work focus becomes to adjust to political aims, e.g., to be re-elected, not necessary for the benefit of the community. Similarly, as discussed in relation to the Federal Parliament, the staff were enthusiastic and had worked hard to gain their positions, thus unwilling to disrupt their career trajectory: ‘I loved the job, I found it really meaningful … but you have to weigh up how much of the toxic elements are worth it’ (Broderick 2022:26, italics in original). Moreover, Broderick (2022:5) summarises the reasons for the violence and discrimination in the NSW Parliament: [T]he underrepresentation of women and diverse cohorts in formal decisionmaking roles; the unequal distribution of accountability and inconsistent behavioural expectations; and the highly pressured and political nature of the working environment. Other factors – such as long working hours, staffing

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 219 conditions of engagement that render staff on tenuous contractual arrangements, and access to and consumption of alcohol in NSW Parliamentary workplaces – compound these drivers. In the same vein, the AHRC Commonwealth investigation voice the significance of the Federal Parliament to uphold equality in gender and minority ethnic diversity, sexual tolerance and a work environment for all. Thus, the Commonwealth and the NSW Parliament investigations should be a wake-up call for how work relations should be conducted. This aim is an important one, because it is only by reflecting the whole of Australian society, and living up to community expectations, that Parliament can perform its function in a representative democracy: making good decisions that will positively impact Australian society. The recommendations are designed to make the Australian Parliament the sort of workplace and institution in which Australians can be rightly proud. (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021b:9) These findings about violence and discrimination in the Australian Commonwealth and state parliaments also correspond with the young adults’ experiences of violence and harassment within the university milieu. The academic staff is often perceived as the ultimate powerholders. This follows the lack of staff and management diversity and the preference for sustaining the hegemonic societal power structure. Thus, in this setting, discrimination and harassment against females, minority genders and minority ethnic groups are not due to merit or experiences but to a lack of knowledge and reflection about powerful hegemonic heterogeneous cultural and social traditions that are devoid of initiating changing status quo. In summary, discrimination and violence are often hidden power tools, but when complaints of discrimination at workplaces are made, the action is fraught with risks to the complainer. For example, the complaint might lead indirectly to a demotion or the working environment could become unfriendly with covert bullying, thus made unbearable for the complainant. Moreover, an internal investigation of harassment, violence or discrimination might not safeguard that the victim or whistle-blower will retain their career trajectory within the organisation. As a result, they may inadvertently oblige the complainer to leave the employment position to safeguard their mental and physical well-being. This setting is a factor in governing bodies, public or private organisations and institutions. Consequently, being quiet, saying yes and kowtowing to people in power or protection by belonging to influential social networks are well-practised strategies for promotion and upward career trajectories, aside from meritorious achievements, skills and experiences. A significant factor that is a fundamental requirement for most people is to retain paid employment to sustain reasonable living standards. Unfortunately, contrary opinions and questions about work tasks or complaining about abusive colleagues do not enhance an individual’s employment prospects.

220

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Societal acceptance of agency violence and harassment Throughout the book, examples of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public sphere have been discussed, including examining preventative actions or the absence of precautionary measures. It has been emphasised that contributing factors to violence in present-day society are, for example, the increased competition for societal power positions, political and financial power and gender inequality, employment security and sustainability of life chances and resources. Moreover, it has pointed to fractures between socio-economic structural and agency divisions, where white males are still the supreme power and wealth proprietor in the western world. Nevertheless, it is not only hegemonic ideology and traditional social and cultural disunity but also accumulative humankind behaviours and actions that influence humanity’s sustainability and amplify environmental risks. As a result, structural risks have reached crucial urgencies, such as climate change and air and soil pollution affecting food production, including agency-level consumption (Fabiansson and Fabiansson 2016). Among other factors, climate change is a significant overarching risk threatening people’s livelihoods and the surrounding environment. Contributing circumstances are employment and sustainability of local and global food production and safety, including protected living milieus (Beck 1999, 2007). In addition, competition around resources, wealth creation and secure employment underpin socio-economic and demographic division between citizens and those with excessive resources from those with scarce funds. This creates an environment for economic migration to resource-rich nation-states. An immigration flow cultivates and underpins disunity and can be a source of discrimination and violence between “natives” and new arrivals. In contemporary society, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) from mid-2007 to early 2009 shook governments and citizens concerning the economic viability of global financial structures and the interconnectedness between nation-states. In addition, the present-day COVID-19 pandemic and its rapid spread have given rise to thoughts about the appropriateness of modern technology, government secrecy, individualism and secure living conditions. As a result, geographical borders have become irrelevant barriers to financial crises, pandemics, as well as environmental disasters. The inequality trajectory and the reassessment of power structures with the current western nation-states’ dominating neoliberal capitalist political systems serve only some sections of the society and are thus not populace inclusive. However, as history has shown, an economic crisis does not necessarily harm the highest societal strata’s most influential financial and political sectors. For example, 1% of the wealthiest citizens have done well out of the last GFC crisis (cf Godfrey and Williamson 2020; Čadil, Beránek and Kovář 2021). Furthermore, the GFC crisis increased the concentration of power and wealth, thus augmenting the global gap between the haves and have-nots. The publicising of high-profile harassment and sexual abuse cases within the entertainment industry opened the door for people in general to voice experiences

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 221 of harassment, discrimination and violence as a contemporary societal issue in the public realm. Notwithstanding this, except for legally defined violent crimes, the definitions of violence, harassment and discrimination are unique to an individual’s habitus, social and cultural environment, including previous experiences. Preparedness to include minor intrusions of personal space as interpretations of violence as emphasised by strong female voices, it becomes more challenging for institutions and society leaders to dismiss harassment and discrimination as trivial matters. The perception and experience of harassment should also be put in an individual’s life cycle perspective. Customs, social structures, gender equality and the society’s level of multicultural experiences will all have a bearing on individuals’ understanding and acceptance of societal violence. Consequently, a notable generational attitude change shined through in the young adults’ attitudes about acceptable behaviour. Notably, the young respondents voiced their displeasure and fear of abusive treatment more frequently than the mature respondents in the agency research. Furthermore, the young respondents were prepared to call out the harassment of the perpetrator and complain to academic staff or the university management. Additionally, they stated their rejection of being harassed or discriminated against and staying quiet. The same inclination could be seen in the findings from the research of First Nation Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people of colour. This indicates that a trend has started with young adults not accepting being a victim of violence, harassment or discrimination, including a rejection of treating these crimes as trivial and hidden offences. However, it is vital to note that life experiences and independent living are other features that influence how an individual defines violence. Nevertheless, different insights into risks in public environments, as well as resilience against harassment and violence, impact individuals’ awareness of risks and how they affect their everyday lives. For example, Beck (2007) examined life courses in modern society with present-day unknown outcomes and unforeseeable risk scenarios. O’Malley’s (2010) resilience discourse emphasises preparedness for uncharted events. Settings where earlier experiences and social and cultural traditions frame interpretation of violation of human rights, demanding preparedness for changes, reflective thinking and flexibility in developing resilience to face new violence and risk scenarios, thus qualities increasingly essential in the present-day individualist sphere. The closing chapter presents concluding comments about violence, harassment and discrimination in the public domain.

References Ahram, A.I. (2019) ‘Sexual violence, competitive state building, and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’. Journal of Intervention and State Building, 13 (2): 180–196. Arendt, H. (1969) ‘Political conflict: Perspectives on revolution’. Journal of International Affairs, 23 (1): 1–35.

222

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) (2021) News. https://www.abc.net.au/news /2021-03-12/linda-reynolds-retracts-lying-cow-comment-brittany-higgins/13242902, accessed 20 October 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) The 1967 Aborigines Referendum. 1301.0 Yearbook Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2021) Sexual Violence – Victimisation. Statistics about sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse, including characteristics of victimsurvivors, victimisation rates, and police reporting. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/ sexual-violence-victimisation, accessed 19 October 2022. Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2021) Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, November 2021. https:// humanrights.gov.au/set-standard-2021, accessed 19 October 2022. Australians Together (2021) The 1967 Referendum. https://australianstogether.org.au/ about-us/, accessed 31 May 2021. Banks, J. (2021) Power Play. Breaking Through Bias, Barriers and Boys’ Clubs. Richmond, VIC: Hardie Grant Books. Bates, E.A. (2019) ‘The whole time was like walking on egg shells: A qualitative examination of men’s experiences of violence and control from female partners’. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 21(1): 13–24. Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2007 [1992]) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Bhattacharya, K. and Gillen, N.K. (2016) Power, Race, and Higher Education. A CrossCultural Parallel Narrative. Teaching Race and Ethnicity, 5. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1999) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2001) ‘The forms of capital’. In M. Granovetter and R. Swedberg (eds.), The Sociology of Economic Life, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Braithwaite, V. (2020) ‘Beyond the bubble that is Robodebt: How governments that lose integrity threaten democracy’. Australian Journal of Social, 55 (3): 242–259. Broderick, E. (2022) Leading for Change Independent Review of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliamentary Workplaces 2022. Sydney: Elisabeth Broderick Co. Čadil, J., Beránek, M. and Kovář, V. (2021) ‘Likely winners and losers in upcoming COVID19 economic crisis – Lessons learned from the GFC’. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13 (4): 575–587. Catalyst (2021) Women in Academia. Workplaces that work for women. https://www .catalyst.org/research/women-in-academia/, accessed 20 October 2022. Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP) (2022) Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Australia Region. https://cwpaustralia.com, accessed 20 October 2022.

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values 223 Crabb, A. and Tisdell, S. (2021) ‘Ms represented. Podcast series ABC-Australian broadcasting corporation’. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/ms-represented/, accessed 20 October 2022. Day, K., Stump, C. and Carreon, D. (2003) ‘Confrontation and loss of control: Masculinity and men’s fear in public space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 311–322. European Commission (2021) She Figures 2021. Gender in Research and Innovation Statistics and Indicators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Evershed, N., Liu, R. and Livsey, A. (2016) Are You Reflected in the New Parliament? 31 August 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive /2016/aug/31/are-you-reflected-in-the-new-parliament-diversity-survey-of-australian -politics, accessed 20 October 2022. Fabiansson, C. and Fabiansson, S. (2016) Food and the Risk Society: The Power of Risks Perception. London: Routledge. Gardner, N., Cui, J. and Coiacetto, E. (2017) ‘Harassment on public transport and its impacts on women’s travel behaviour’. Australian Planner, 54 (1): 8–15. Ghazarian, Z. and Lee-Ko, K. (2021) ‘He said, she said: Shining a light on gender and political leadership in Australia’. Monash Lens, Politics and Society, republished 21 June 2021. https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2021/06/21/1383340/he-said -she-said-shining-a-light-on-gender-and-political-leadership-in-australia, accessed 20 October 2022. Godfrey, J. and Williamson, A. (2020) ‘The impact of recessions on fundraising: A systematic review of the literature’. Third Sector Review, 26 (1): 6–33. Heywood, W., Myers, P., Powell, A., Meikle, G. and Nguyen, D. (2022) National Student Safety Survey: Report on the Prevalence of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault among University Students in 2021. Melbourne: The Social Research Centre. HolonIQ (2021) Women CEOs & Leaders. The Global State of Play. https://www.holoniq .com/notes/women-ceos-leaders.-the-global-state-of-play.-2021/, accessed 20 October 2022. Inter-Parliamentary Union Open Data (2021) Monthly Ranking of Women in National Parliaments. Ranking as of 1st June 2021. https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking?month =6&year=2021, accessed 20 October 2021. Kavanaugh, P.R. (2013) ‘The continuum of sexual violence: Women’s accounts of victimization in urban nightlife’. Feminist Criminology, 8 (1): 20–39. Lash, S. (1993) ‘Reflexive modernization: The aesthetic dimension’. Theory, Culture and Society, 10: 1–23. Lash, S. (2000) ‘Risk culture’. In B. Adams, U. Beck and J. Van Loon (eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues in Social Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd: 47–62. Lee, Y., Li, J-Y.Q. and Tsai, W-H.S. (2021) The Role of Strategic Internal Communication in Workplace Discrimination: A Perspective of Racial Minority Employees. International Journal of Strategic Communication, January-March, 15(1): 37–59. Levine, B. and El-Faizy, M. (2019) All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator. New York City: Hachette Books. Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A. and Renton, A. (2012) ‘Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: Mapping review of theories and causal pathways’. Health Place, 18 (4): 757–765. Obama, B. (2020) A Promised Land. Viking Penguin: Random House. O’Boyle, N. (2015) ‘The risks of ‘university speak’: Relationship management and identity negotiation by mature students off campus’. International Studies in Sociology of Education: 1–19.

224

Structural and agency levels’ beliefs and values

O’Malley, P. (2010) Resilient subjects: uncertainty, warfare and liberalism. Economy and Society, 39(4): 488–509. Parliament of Australia (2022a) Representation of Women in Australian Parliaments. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary _Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Womeninparliament#_Toc318895802, accessed 20 October 2022. Parliament of Australia (2022b) Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia. https://handbook.aph.gov.au/, accessed 20 October 2022. Parliamentary Library (2022) Gender Composition of Australian Parliaments by Party: A Quick Guide. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/3681701/ upload_binary/3681701.pdf, accessed 20 October 2022. Rourke, A. (2012) ‘Alan Jones apologises for latest Julia Gillard tirade’. Guardian, 1 October 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/01/alan-jones-apology -julia-gillard, accessed 19 October 2022. Sandberg, L. and Tollefsen, A. (2010) ‘Talking about fear of violence in public space: Female and male narratives about threatening situations in Umeå, Sweden’. Social & Cultural Geography, 11 (1): 1–15. Sian, K. (2019) Navigating Institutional Racism in British Universities. Serie: Mapping Global Racisms. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Sugarman, D.B., Nation, M., Yuan, N.P., Kuperminc, G.P., Ayoub, L.H., and Hamby, S. (2018) Hate and Violence: Addressing Discrimination Based on Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity. Psychology of Violence, 8(6): 649–656. Tedeschi, M. (2017) Murder at Myall Creek- the Trail that Defined a Nation. Sydney, AUS: Simon & Schuster. The National Museum Australia (2021) Indigenous Australians’ Right to Vote. https:// www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote, accessed 20 October 2022. Times Higher Education (2022) World Reputation Rankings 2022, https://www.timeshi ghereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2022/reputation-ranking, accessed 13 January 2023. Tingle, L. (2021) ‘Liberal MP Julia Banks speaks on the toxic culture at Parliament House’. ABC 7.30 Report, 5 July 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/liberal-mp-julia -banks-speaks-on-the-toxic-culture/13432590; accessed 20 October 2022. Thurber, K.A., Colonna, E., Jones, R., Gee, G.C. et al. (2021) Prevalence of Everyday Discrimination and Relation with Wellbeing among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adults in Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 6577: 1–18. United States Census (2021) Quick facts United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts /fact/table/US/PST045219, accessed 20 October 2022. Van Schaack, B. (2020) Imagining Justice for Syria. Oxford Scholarship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walby, S. (2015) Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walby, S. and Towers, J. (2017) Measuring violence to end violence: Mainstreaming gender. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1 (1): 11–31.

7

Concluding comments

Throughout the book, discourses and examples of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm have been analysed. In addition, several chapters have explored interlinking connections between society’s hegemonic structural ideology, values and beliefs and agency-level attitudes and behaviours. Thus, an emphasis on violence, harassment and discrimination should be analysed from a holistic societal perspective. Furthermore, there is a flow-on effect in attitudes and values between the structural and agency levels because the levels are closely interconnected. Nothing is developed in a vacuum. The same relates to violence in society. The internalisation, acceptance and normalising of structural-level violence and its interlinking with the populace’s attitudes and behaviours in accepting discrimination and harassment as an everyday phenomenon have their foundation in the society’s hegemonic ideology developed over generations. The public realm is less researched than the private domain. However, in many ways, violent and discriminating attitudes mirror each other in causes and expressions of violence. Significantly, in the public realm, hegemonic political and financial power, social status and gender divisions are cultivated through generations and developed into accepted societal frameworks, thus creating a normalising environment. Although the enforcement of hegemonic creeds and the populace’s compliance and tolerance, as well as acceptance of social order, are underpinned with internalised normalisation through time-honoured social, cultural and faith traditions. Moreover, societal norms are sustained by wide-ranging agreement of the hegemonic values and beliefs, albeit reinforced by systemic and symbolic overt or covert violence-infused power. Notwithstanding, violence is assumed to be applied when other methods do not achieve the preferred compliance. Nonetheless, in this book, it has not been the intention to propose an easily identified direct link between the structural and agency levels concerning specific incidents. Instead, the analysis is about the societal ambience where acceptance of violence is normalised in the public sphere. Accordingly, the presented discourses, examples and analysis have intended to highlight that the values, beliefs, behaviours, language and attitudes presented at the hegemonic ideology-framed structural level have a proneness to filter down to the agency level. Nevertheless, this does not dispel an opposite tendency by political leaders, social entrepreneurs DOI: 10.4324/9781003385813-7

226

Concluding comments

and trendsetters to adopt attitudes and values, including trendy words and phrases developed by grassroots groups, as new fashionable movements constantly influence language, values and attitudes. Either way, downward and upward influences facilitate an atmosphere of normalisation of novel sentiments about what can be classified as violence, harassment, discrimination or derogatory language. Arendt’s (1970) discourse about violence and power is situated on the structural level but likewise applicable to the agency level. Thus, recapturing Arendt’s thoughts about violence and how violence and power are interdependent while accentuating how violence destroys power. [P]olitically speaking, it is insufficient to say that power and violence are not the same. Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. … to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it (1970:56) … Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power. (Arendt 1970:53) Following Arendt’s discourse on the interlinking and interconnectedness of relationships between power and violence, Beck (2006:57) postulates that ‘violence consists of the means and procedures of physical coercion whose ultimate consequence is aimed at life itself’. Furthermore, as stressed by Arendt and interpreted by Beck, power is different from violence, as power ‘emerges from the sum of the consent accorded to actions and decisions’ (Beck 2006:57, italics in original). Consequently, accepted power is expressed as non-violence or an unnecessary element as the attitudes and behaviours are integrated into the customary societal hegemonic ideology. In contrast, power outside this framework is objectionable, e.g., enforcing unaccepted actions or regulations onto the populace through violence. Moreover, Beck depicts the existence of accepted power as “unquestionability”: ‘there is a positive correlation between the taken-for grantedness of power, the forgetting of power and the dimensions of power’ (Beck 2006:57, italics in original). A proclamation as to why “unquestionability power” does not initiate citizen protests, as the usage of the societal and professional exercise of power is normalised and accepted. However, it generates protests when the power is substituted by injudicious or unconstitutional use of violence. A deductible assumption is that individuals use violence to enforce their egocentrism outside their legitimate power, e.g., those who violate, harass or discriminate against others to gain private and public advancement without judicial or customary sanctions. Furthermore, Bauman (Bauman 2016; Bauman and Tester 2001) stresses that two significant values associated with violence are inseparable from human life, security and freedom. Security relates to feeling safe, while freedom guarantees individuals’ ability to self-assert and reach their potential in private and public life without the threat of violence. Moreover, Bauman emphasises that security will

Concluding comments

227

not exist without freedom. Freedom without security eases pathways to slavery; likewise, freedom without security creates a chaotic society. Nonetheless, Bauman also stresses that there is no guarantee of permanent security in the public domain, even if security debacles can be predictable. However, they are not necessarily foreseeable, as ‘there are always breaches, carelessness, incompetence, omissions’ that will not prevent violence, threats or chaotic situations (Bauman and Bordoni 2014:180). In addition, Bauman and Bordoni highlight the implications of shifting the preference between security and freedom. In the last hundred years, the balance has shifted away from Freud’s “too little freedom in exchange for more security”. Now the pendulum moves, in full swing, in the opposite direction. Our common fears, anxieties and nightmares followed suit. Not the Orwellian vision of the jackboot trampling on human face torments us, but that of the trapeze act practised without a safety net … Fear of inadequacy replaced the old horror of conformity. We fear more being left alone than being forced. (Blackshaw 2005:2) Similarly, the discourse of security and “avoidable violence” are themes in Galtung’s writings (1969, 1990). Avoidable violence is a significant postulate that emphasises those actions of violence, harassment or discrimination causing mental, social, cultural and physical harm or death when these outcomes could have been avoidable, besides the acceptance and acknowledgement of harm by violence, which is avoidable if applied with the proper foresight. Thus, it is unfortunate that avoidable violence causes are not actively prevented where available procedures to minimise or obliterate violence exist in the public realm. For instance, when equal access is not forthcoming with technological and medical innovations, including protecting individual’s human rights and safe living conditions. Furthermore, equality in distributing and utilising resources, technical knowledge or life-sustaining medical treatments is available or accessible for all citizens. Galtung’s avoidable violence discourse is a principle continuously challenged through accessibility and financial constraints. Henceforth, avoidable structural violence requires the inclusion of broad societal protection mechanisms with particular consideration of its impact on diverse population groups. Thus, a need to redesign the overwhelmingly present-day ruling patriarchal hegemonic ideology. To incorporate social and cultural values and beliefs that fashion an ideology of equality and anti-violence. Notwithstanding equality principles, local and global sharing of technology and resources to enhance generalised fairness in the distribution of resources are likely to be contested by the more powerful players, those having extensive resources and professional and social networks to satisfy their well-being. The primary research and examples are derived from Australian precincts, but violence, harassment and discrimination are borderless phenomena. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s investigation of young adults’ experience of violence in the university setting, as well as other studies, has

228

Concluding comments

universal application. Notably, violent and discriminating attitudes and behaviours are on many people’s minds, independent of their geographical or societal setting. Consequently, a perception that venturing into the public realm is risky and risk awareness is required to be a constant feature for females, gender-diverse individuals and minority ethnic groups. This was highlighted in the university research and, among others, by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2021b), Australian Human Rights Commission (2018), Broderick (2022) and List (2017). The research and findings emphasise the need to be cognizant of risks, be safety aware and accentuate the need for continuous preparation to defend oneself against harassment and violence in the public realm. The risk awareness and the unremitting necessity for safety preparedness include extensive forward thinking and planning before venturing outside the private sphere. The Australian university student research shows that young females were more likely to live at home where their habitus and socialised subjectivity were not yet challenged. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) accentuate that the family’s social and cultural milieu are dominating features of young adults’ values and attitudes to risks and safety (Wacquant 2004; Bourdieu 1977). The students and student staff experienced the public realm from the perspective of a hopefully secure, private sphere. However, as acknowledged in the findings, there were differences in the interpretation of harassment. The older respondents were less likely to list minor incidents as harassment and acknowledged that an act does not necessarily aim to harass. However, it might rather be clumsy or poorly worded or acted. Additionally, the minority ethnic respondents felt less threatened in the public realm than the Anglo-Australians. This outcome should be seen from the perspective that some of them or their parents have come from regions of conflict in wartorn countries, where the threat of violence are much more acute. Nonetheless, the migration procedure and settlement in foreign countries are challenging, demanding patience and exceptional resilience. From this perspective, the Australian public realm is safe, albeit other factors are also at play here, such as support networks and individual experiences in the new home country. The responses might also reflect an unwillingness to or refraining from publicly critiquing the adopted country. Notwithstanding this, this group reported more harassment in the university teaching setting than the majority ethnic cohort. The presented agency research findings demonstrate that it is essential to acknowledge violence and harassment as significant crimes in present-day society, to acknowledge it as a societal problem, not an individual issue or to blame the victim for exposure to violence. To confront violence, harassment and discrimination requires an aptitude for change, including educating people, making people aware and calling out prejudice, patronising, sexist, derogatory language and bullying behaviour. Moreover, creating an awareness that it is not only sexual and physical violence that produces long-term health implications, but it is equally through language, the use of derogatory or racist words and phrases that cause long-lasting hurt. Likewise, discriminatory comments will affect fellow citizens’ well-being, flippant or not.

Concluding comments

229

Throughout the agency research, the respondents gave extensive examples of harassment and violence they had experienced, their fear of the public sphere, the need to be safety aware and, above all, to show resilience (O’Malley 2010; Fabiansson 2015). Consequently, the findings show that belonging to a minority ethnic group, be it female or of an undisclosed gender association, augments the risk exposure. Hence, in these scenarios, the requirement to constantly be risk aware, as discussed by, for example, Hobbs, O’Brien and Westmarland (2007), Bredström (2003), Hirtenlehner and Farrall (2014), Graham et al. (2016) and Özascilar (2013). Furthermore, researchers in the subject field have highlighted the significance of analysing diverse milieus where young females and minority ethnic females are at risk of exposure to violence, harassment and discrimination, as the setting, risk and fear are interconnected elements in the public realm. As emphasised in the agency research, the young adults planned their activities when visiting campuses. They continuously assessed possible risk scenarios at each setting and time of the visit, including restricting their evening attendance at the campuses. Another concern was the requirement to take public transport after dark, a perceived risky time for harassment. Furthermore, they consciously tried to schedule their teaching sessions to perceived low-risk periods, thus the preference for daytime sessions. Consequently, students missed teaching sessions and social time on campuses if they perceived the time as unsafe to attend. This risk awareness prevented some of them from attending campuses and made them anxious and afraid of missing teaching sessions. A circumstance they thought could affect their exam marks and, ultimately, success with their studies. Moreover, the students and student staff also emphasised that teaching staff did not always acknowledge that absence from evening teaching sessions because of fear of violence was a valid excuse for not participating in the sessions. The students and student staff gave examples ranging from unwanted glaring to emotional, physical and sexual abuse in the public realm. Many did not experience a carefree university environment free of anxiety and risks. For instance, being humiliated in teaching settings, bullied by fellow students, privacy violated and stalked on their way to and from the campuses. An illustration is a male student highlighting inappropriate sexist language by academic staff and another male student showing fellow students a pornographic video in the teaching setting. There are apparent similarities between the examples and experiences recounted by the students and student staff and the narrated incidents by parliamentarians and staff in the House of Parliament and the New South Wales parliament, as illustrated in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report (2021b) and the Broderick (2022) report. These findings emphasise that the risk of violence, harassment and discrimination are behaviours and actions on all societal levels, and anyone can become a victim. Consequently, it emphasises the normalisation of violence, harassment and discrimination in the public realm. Irrespective of whether the victim is a parliamentarian, Australian Federal or NSW Parliament staff, university student or student staff, these incidences are confronting for all in the public realm. Moreover, it shows that social and cultural insensitivity and inappropriate language, attitudes and behaviours in public

230

Concluding comments

environments are not restricted to one setting or population group. The presented findings highlight the normalisation of violence in diverse sections of present-day society. Likewise, it substantiates that those who are perpetrators of violence can be found on all societal levels. Furthermore, the presented research has shown that violence and harassment are rarely called out when an incident occurs. Besides, violence, derogatory language and discriminatory actions are considered normalised expressions, where social and cultural expectations of harassment, discrimination and violence-free public realms in educational and other public milieus have become issues founded on utopian desires. Finally, the agency and parliamentarian research, for example, acknowledges that the respondents dared to recount their experiences of violence, harassment and discrimination, including the strategies they planned and the measures they undertook to be safe. As a result, risk awareness in the public environment was normalised and required resilience to be managed, as complaining could be fraught with risks. The most exposed participants in the research were young females, individuals of undisclosed gender and members of minority ethnic groups. The question is if these cohorts are more exposed or more sensitive to harassment than older or mainstream respondents, or is the present-day society more violent and intolerant than the society of earlier generations? Additionally, has the #MeToo movement made it more acceptable to call out violence in present-day society and/or is it a new normal driven by young adults? In contrast, a number of the minority ethnic respondents felt less threatened in the Australian setting than the Anglo-Australians in the public realm. Is this a shared or exceptional perception? In summary, the research and discussions emphasise the significance of taking violence, harassment and discrimination crimes seriously and applying a holistic and integrated approach to safeguarding all people’s well-being. Violence, harassment and discrimination are societal issues that should not be perceived as intractable or onerous nuisances or too abstract to decipher. Nonetheless, reducing violence in society needs a hegemonic structural acknowledgement and authentic fact-based strategies for social and cultural change of beliefs and values. A change in attitudes starts with teaching children to respect each other, reinforcing conflict resolution techniques, procedures and strategies that encourage resilience in preparedness to call out mistreatment and the right to be heard and taken seriously. Consequently, there is a need for sustainable lifelong enlightenment procedures, including tangible education models initiated in the home milieus and continuing throughout a child’s trajectory within education systems. Moreover, it is a requirement to holistically incorporate hegemonic ideology, social norms and practical anti-violence procedures and to educate the populace thoroughly through a continuous lifelong process. Violence, harassment and discrimination are not female, non-binary gender or minority ethnic issues. They are societal tragedies.

Concluding comments

231

References Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London: Allen Lane. Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Sydney, NSW: Australian Human Rights Commission. Australian Human Rights Commission (2021) Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, November 2021. https:// humanrights.gov.au/set-standard-2021, accessed 19 October 2022. Bauman, Z. (2016) ‘Behind the world’s ‘crisis of humanity’. Al Jazeera, July 23, interview. Bauman, Z. and Bordoni, C. (2014) State of Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. and Tester, K. (2001) Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2006) Power in the Global Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Blackshaw, T. (2005) Zygmunt Bauman. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Bredström, A. (2003) ‘Gendered racism and the production of cultural difference: Media representations and identity work among ‘immigrant youth’ in contemporary Sweden’. Nora: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 11 (22): 78–88. Broderick, E. (2022) Leading for Change Independent Review of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliamentary Workplaces 2022. Sydney: Elisabeth Broderick Co. Fabiansson, C. (2015) Risky Behaviour: Managing Risk and Resilience among Tertiary Students. Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty Research Network 22 (ESA) Mid-term conference Risk, Uncertainty and Transition University of Stuttgart, Germany, 8–10 April 2015 (unpublished). Galtung, J. (1969) ‘Violence, peace, and peace research’. Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3): 167–191. Galtung, J. (1990) ‘Cultural violence’. Journal of Peace Research, 27 (3): 291–305. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Abbey, A., Dumas, T.M. and Wells, S. (2016) ‘When women do not want it: Young female bargoers’ experiences with and responses to sexual harassment in social drinking contexts’. Violence against Women, 23 (12): 1419–1441. Hirtenlehner, H. and Farrall, S. (2014) ‘Is the shadow of sexual assault responsible for women’s higher fear of burglary?’ British Journal of Criminology, 54: 1167–1185. Hobbs, D., O’Brien, K. and Westmarland, L. (2007) ‘Connecting the gendered door: Women, violence and doorwork’. British Journal of Sociology, 58: 21–38. List, K. (2017) ‘Gender-based violence against female students in European University settings’. International Annals Criminology 55: 172–188. O’Malley, P. (2010) ‘Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism’. Economy and Society, 39 (4): 488–509. Özascilar, M. (2013) ‘Predicting fear of crime: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’. International Review of Victimology, 19: 269–284. Wacquant, L. (2004) ‘Habitus’. In J. Beckert and M. Zafirovski (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge: 315–319.

Index

Ackland, R. 98–99 affirmative action 87 agency-individual level 3, 30; see also micro level agency level 1, 3–5, 19, 23, 25, 29, 32, 51, 59, 68, 75, 82, 97, 100, 108, 111, 184, 189, 192, 194–195, 197–198, 206, 225 agency violence 30, 51, 220; see also violence Ahmed, S. 182 Ahram, A.I. 201 Allam, L. 184 alternative: attitudes 165; facts 9, 193; perspectives 87; traditions 153; ways 7, 88 Ang, I. 16, 183–184 Anglo-Australians 8, 55, 148, 160–161, 165, 182, 185, 202, 228, 230 Arendt, H. 2–3, 5–6, 24–26, 37, 48, 65, 82, 102, 191, 196, 199, 226 Arthur, L. 61 Atkinson, W. 40 austerity measures 82, 102 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 51, 209 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 18, 33, 66, 71–73, 75, 137, 180–182, 186, 191, 202 Australian Federal Parliament 4, 69, 88, 90, 203, 206–208, 210, 212 Australian Government 29, 99, 182, 208 Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) 16, 30, 32, 50, 71, 113–114, 137, 140, 191, 207, 212–219, 227–229 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) 182 Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 20

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 186 Australians Together 2021 202 Australian White Policy 16, 182–183 avoidable violence 85, 227; see also unavoidable violence Banks, J. 90, 195, 207–210 Banyard, V.L. 75 Bates, E.A. 53, 63, 191 Baudrillard, J. 9, 18 Bauman, Z. 2, 5–6, 9, 37, 48, 82, 100, 102, 132, 191, 196, 199, 226–227 Beck, U. 2–3, 5, 28, 33–34, 36–37, 39, 40, 64, 83, 85, 100, 138, 191, 199, 220–221, 226 Becker, H.S. 3, 8, 21, 28–30, 50, 55–56 benevolent sexism 64; see also hostile sexism; violence Bennett, S. 75 Bennett, T. 14, 18 Benyon, J. 57 Bhattacharya, K. 93, 195 black box 85 #BlackLivesMatter 101, 196, 200; Black Lives Matter 53, 55–56 Blackshaw, T. 227 Bohns, V.K. 53 Boring, A. 61 Bourdieu, P. 2, 6, 8, 21–22, 41, 52, 66, 70, 92, 95–96, 100, 103–104, 134, 140, 191–192, 195, 228 Bowleg, L. 171 Braithwaite, V. 200 Brands, J. 121 Bredström, A. 62–63, 229 British Capital Punishment Amendment Act of 1868 18 Broderick, E. 217–218, 228–229

234

Index

Brottsförebyggande Rådet (BRÅ) 71, 73–74, 145 Buci-Glucksmann, C. 15 bullying 29, 64–65, 88, 90, 111, 123–125, 127, 151, 155–156, 163, 187, 189, 199, 209, 212–214, 216–219, 228; anti-bullying 20 Burmese 84; Myanmar 66, 84 bystander 7, 32, 58, 75, 113, 126, 157 Čadil, J. 220 Cashless Debit Card 185 Cassells, R. 87 Catalyst 196, 205 Cathey, L. 55 Chadha, K. 38–39 Chambers, M. 101 childrearing pedagogy 192 Chornobyl 37 civil disobedience 201 coercion 15, 22–24, 31, 52, 71, 75, 95–96, 103, 166, 171–172, 226 Collins, J. 73, 139 Collins, P.H. 171 Collins, R. 56 colonial dogma 183 Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP) 203 community belonging 3, 72, 163; see also meso level Connell, R.W. 62 Consent 12–13, 15, 22, 95, 125–126, 153, 165, 226 Cook, A. 71, 137 Cooper, C. 55 Council of Europe Convention 30–31, 114, 188 covert power-violence 5, 18, 23, 83, 91, 133, 149, 172, 184, 195, 199, 201, 219, 225; see also overt power-violence; violence COVID-19 9, 26–28, 36, 38–39, 48, 85, 102, 175–176, 193, 220 Crabb, A. 207–208, 210–211 Crime Statistics Australia 75 Cronulla riots 8, 55, 65–66 cultural violence 31, 50, 83–84, 101, 152; see also violence Cummings, K.M. 35 Curran, D. 40–41 D’Andrea, F. 11 Day, K. 73, 191

daytime 121, 130, 132, 137, 143–146, 158, 166, 229 de Certeau, M. 11 Deming, M.E. 74 Department of Social Services 185 derogatory 92, 125; language 1–3, 5–6, 16, 19, 29, 31, 50, 54, 57–58, 68–69, 86, 94, 97, 114, 122–123, 127, 146, 150, 193–194, 208, 210, 215, 226, 228, 230; see also sexual violence; violence discriminating strategies 91, 199, 208 discrimination 16, 23–24; age 187; agency level 94; anti-discrimination 20, 90, 189, 200, 207; covert 195; cultural 124; emotional 96; ethnic-racial 53, 101, 163, 186; gender-sexual 29, 64, 90, 206; interpersonal 185; intersectionality 115, 171; language 60; normalising 198; social 124; social class 198; structural 89; symbolic 17, 21, 22, 58–59, 64, 95, 183, 199; systemic 21, 29–30, 59, 90, 92–93; verbal 148; workplace 186, 215; see also violence diversity 41, 58–59, 92; demographic 214; ethnic-multicultural 4, 6, 49, 50, 60, 63, 69, 87, 94, 101, 162, 185, 195, 202, 208, 214, 219; gender 21, 97, 187; language 60–61; religious 55; workplace 10, 23, 87, 219 domination 11, 15, 22, 25, 48, 62, 95, 183, 211; see also power Douglas, M. 17 Dubet, F. 56 Durkheim, E. 3, 33, 53 economic-financial power 13, 21, 26, 96, 195, 206, 220, 225 Elden, S. 24 electronic 84, 93, 202; communication 192; electronic gaming 72; surveillance 37 elite class-group 1–2, 12–13, 20, 198; see also ruling class Elliott, A. 40 Engels, F. 10, 23, 26, 39, 57, 100 ethical 26, 29–30, 91, 97, 202; beliefs 29 ethnic discrimination 3, 51, 53–54, 101 ethnic minorities 55, 92, 159, 162, 164, 169, 217 European Commission 188, 204 European Union 32, 193, 204 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 32

Index Evershed, N. 203 Ewald, F. 34, 64 Extinction Rebellion 66, 102 Fabiansson, C. 8, 31, 33–34, 36, 50, 55, 63, 66, 72, 73, 100, 108–110, 121, 134, 137, 139, 145, 163–164, 220, 229 Fabiansson, S. 33–34, 36, 220 Facebook 38, 124, 151, 192, 199; see also social media face recognition 38 faith 3, 5, 8–9, 19–20, 26, 29, 41, 54, 58, 69, 83, 86, 96, 104, 151, 159, 161, 171, 194, 198–199, 201, 225 family-domestic violence 6, 18–20, 33, 72, 111 family environment 103, 118, 161, 163 Farmer, P. 84 fear 2, 6–9, 16–20, 28, 33, 41, 47, 58, 66, 71–74, 97, 104, 118–119, 132–135, 138–139, 145, 148, 152, 162, 167–169, 173–175, 188–189, 191, 215, 221, 227, 229; fearful 70, 72–73, 158–159, 174; fearless 62 Feik, N. 67 Ferraro, K. 73, 139 Fileborn, B. 121 First Nation Peoples 4, 16, 159, 176, 180, 182, 184–185 Forbes-Mewett, H. 171 Ford, R. 162 Foucault, M. 3, 18, 24, 26, 30, 97 Four Corners 51 Frost, D. 55 Furlong, A. 70 Gaetz, S. 75 Galtung, J. 3, 5, 83–85, 100, 133, 227 Gámez-Guadix, M. 38 Gardner, N. 74, 137, 139, 196 Gareth, E. 99 generational 10, 29, 41, 83, 103, 147, 198, 221; intergenerational 57; multigenerational 27 Gerber, G.L. 63 Ghazarian, Z. 211–212 Gilligan, J. 83 Giumetti, G.W. 97, 124 Glick, P. 63–64 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) 5, 48, 82, 220 Godfrey, J. 220 Goffman, E. 3, 104 Goodey, J. 62

235

Gracia, E. 63 Graham, K. 62, 73, 134, 139, 229 Graham, L.R. 181 Gramsci, A. 3, 13–15 Habibis, D. 184 habitus 2, 8–9, 15, 17, 22–23, 30–31, 41, 47–48, 52, 63, 66, 67, 70–71, 74, 95–96, 102–104, 114, 118, 122, 124, 127, 129, 138, 146, 148, 155, 165, 182, 195, 221, 228 Hainmueller, J. 161–162 Hancock, A-M. 121 harassment 16, 24, 74; age 153; antiharassment 20, 200, 207; cultural 90, 123; experience 16, 133, 141–142, 149, 158, 165–166; fear 134, 173–175, 188; habitual 47; online 39; physical 114, 125, 151, 196; risk of harassment 8, 51, 64, 73, 132, 136–138, 149, 174; sexual 30–32, 39, 50, 73, 90, 121, 125–127, 187–189, 200, 212–214, 216–217; social 30, 50, 124–125; symbolic 149; verbal 31, 122–123, 148, 150, 156, 158, 209, 211; victim 38, 101, 104, 112; workplace 90, 207; see also violence Heffernan, T. 62 Hegemony 4, 12–15, 28, 128 heteronormative sexual script 53 Heywood, A. 13–14, 23 Heywood, W. 113, 140, 189, 191 hidden crimes 69, 101 Hilinski, C.M. 73, 139 Hirschman, A.O. 13 Hirtenlehner, H. 62, 73, 134, 139, 229 Hobbs, D. 63, 229 holistic 32, 114, 119, 192, 225, 230 Hollway, W. 73–74 HolonIQ 196, 206 hostile sexism 64; see also benevolent sexism House of Parliament 55, 58, 203, 207–210, 212–215, 217, 229 House of Representatives 58, 69, 203–204, 212 Human Rights Declaration 49, 141 Human Rights Watch 172–175 illegitimate 23–26, 199; power 24, 26; powerholders 65; status 24; see also legitimate power individualism 4, 10, 33, 38, 191, 220 individual level 30, 50, 68, 169

236

Index

industrialisation 10, 13, 34 insiders 5, 8, 47, 52, 55–56, 59–60, 62, 94, 96, 100, 161; see also outsider institutional racism 92 interconnectedness 3–4, 51, 108, 111, 171, 220, 226 internalisation 12, 14, 19, 22, 52, 60, 96–97, 103, 225; see also socialisation International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 204 internet 19, 27, 84; bullying-violence 38, 199; internet technology 93, 101, 112–113, 124, 170, 192, 202 Inter-Parliamentary Union Open Data 204 intersectionality 16, 32, 41, 60, 63, 69, 115, 171, 186–187 Jacobs, J. 7, 11 Janowitz, M. 23 Johns, F. 89 judicial 9, 16, 18, 21, 23–26, 30, 32, 48, 88–89, 97, 108, 162, 180–181, 183, 186, 226 Jupp, J. 16, 183 Kamp, A. 184 Kavanaugh, P.R. 50–51, 71, 121, 137, 196 Kern, L. 7 key powerholders 1, 29 Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) 189 Koskela, H. 74, 139 Langton, M. 182 language diversity 60–61 Lapeyronnie, D. 57, 163 Lash, S. 66, 194 Latour, B. 85 Laurence, J. 162 Lee, Y. 90, 198, 211–212 Lefebvre, H. 11 legitimate power 23; see also illegitimate power Lenztos, F. 71, 138 Levine, B. 193 LGBTIQ+ 31, 50, 214 Lim, H. 37 List, K. 121, 188, 228 Lombardi, E. 50 Lorenc, T. 74, 196 Lowrey, T. 55 Lowy Institute 175–176 Lyng, S. 122

MacNell, L. 61 macro-level 1–2, 6, 86, 95; see also meso level; micro level; structural level Maddison, S.184 manufactured risks 2, 33–34, 83, 85; manufactured uncertainties 36; see also natural disasters marginalisation 57 Marx, K. 10, 13, 23, 26, 39, 57, 100 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US (M.I.T.) 87 May, D. 53, 71, 99, 137, 210 McMylor, P. 40 Mehta, A. 74, 139 meso level 2, 6, 21, 28, 86, 95; see also community belonging; meso level; micro level #MeToo Movement 3, 20, 51, 90, 101, 111, 189, 207–208, 230 Michels, R. 12–13 micro level 6, 28, 86; see also agency level; individual level; meso level Mills, C.W. 25 misogyny 58, 155, 211 mobile phones 7, 19, 37–38 54, 64, 101, 202; technology 202 Mosca, G. 12–13, 15 Mouffe, C. 15 Mucchielli, L. 56 Murthy, K. 68 Mythen, G. 40 name calling 31, 68, 123, 125 natural disasters 2, 34, 109, 164 natural man 34, 40; see also social man Neal, S. 93 neoliberal 34, 48, 57–58, 82, 102, 187, 195–196, 220 nighttime 121, 130, 132, 134, 146; see also daytime Nisbet, R.A. 53 normalisation 2, 5, 18–19, 33, 47–48, 52, 75, 83, 91, 97, 192–194, 197–198, 207, 225–226, 229–230 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 193 Obama, B. 193 Öberg M. 71 O’Boyle, N. 70, 195 Office for National Statistics 73 Okenwa-Emgwa, L. 71 O’Malley, P. 71, 138, 163, 229

Index otherness 16, 114, 124, 159, 165, 170–171, 185, 194 Our World Data 27–28 outsider 3, 5, 8, 41, 47, 50, 52, 55–56, 59–60, 62–63, 65, 68–69, 72, 86, 91, 94, 96–98, 104, 132, 161–162, 171–172, 193–194, 196, 198; see also insiders overt power-violence 5, 18, 23, 52, 75, 83, 95, 103, 199, 201, 225; see also covert power-violence; violence OxyContin 35 Özascilar, M. 62, 73–74, 121, 134, 139, 145, 229 Pain, R. 73–74, 121, 136, 139 Pareto, V. 12–13 Parliamentary Library 203 Passeron, J. 2, 52, 66, 103, 192, 195 perpetrator 6, 20, 32, 65, 69, 75, 88–90, 92, 104, 123, 126–127, 133, 138, 152, 188, 199, 201, 209, 213–214, 221 personal space 123, 125–126, 153, 221 Pew Research Center 39 physical discipline 108–111; corporal punishment 108–109, 111 physical violence 4, 11, 114, 120–121, 123, 228 Piche, J. 18 Pointing, S. 66 police 24, 26, 53, 56, 72, 75, 88, 98, 137, 167–168, 174, 185, 196 police brutality-violence 18, 53–54 political representation 202 Posner, G. 35 Powell, M. 87 power 23–25; illegitimate 24; legitimate 23 powerholders 1, 24, 29, 103, 206, 215, 219; illegitimate 65; political 98 protectionist individualism 38 public transport 4, 7–8, 18, 27, 29, 31–32, 51, 68, 74, 114, 127, 130, 136–137, 139, 154, 168, 229 rape 31, 55, 71–72, 84, 88–90, 98, 114, 125, 207, 209, 212 Ray, L. 48, 82, 102 Recuero, R. 97, 124 reflexive 119; modernity 36; modernization 36–37, 39; society 40 resilience 8, 71, 118, 120, 127, 129–130, 138, 140, 163, 221, 228–230 Rishbeth, C. 163 risk assessment 36, 137

237

risk discourse 33–34, 36, 39, 85; dynamic risk assessment 137; manufactured risks 2, 33–34, 83, 85; natural disasters 2, 34, 109, 164; risk of violence 68, 71, 120, 130, 137, 143, 145, 146, 229; risk scenario 36, 39, 74, 98, 176; risk society 3, 33–34, 36–37, 40, 85; risk taking 70 Robodebt 199–200 Rourke, A. 210 Rousseau, J-J. 34, 40 ruling class 12–13, 41; see also elite class-group Ryan, K.M. 53 Sable, M. 171 Safe Cities Free of Violence against Women and Girls (SVAWG) 49 sameness 91–94 sanction: discriminative 199; illegal 173; internalised 56, 192, 226; legal 23, 96; political 85 Sandberg, L. 73–74, 139, 145, 196 Scott, A. 40 Scott, J. 40 security cameras 37, 135 Sennett, R. 10–11 sexist language 58, 150, 169, 229; see also derogatory, language sexual orientation 16, 29–30, 136 sexual violence 31–32, 49–50, 53, 63, 72, 74, 101, 109, 114, 118, 122, 125–126, 188, 196, 200, 207–208, 217; see also violence Shah, M. 61 Sian, K. 91–94, 198 Simmel, G. 10–11 Snaychuk, L.A. 38 social class 3, 9–10, 12–14, 17, 21, 26–27, 39–41, 52, 63, 65, 96–97, 103, 197–198, 201; see also elite class-group social entrepreneurs 1–2, 19, 28–30, 50, 54, 58, 65, 67–68, 87, 96–97, 192, 194–195, 198, 201, 225; social influencers 66, 68 socialisation 140, 198; see also internalisation socialised subjectivity 52, 70–71, 103–104, 228 social man 34, 40; see also natural man social media 9, 19, 38, 54, 65, 67–68, 101–102, 124, 127, 151, 170, 193–194, 199; see also Facebook

238

Index

social networks 19, 30, 33, 40, 83, 91, 103, 119, 197, 219, 227 social norms 12, 17, 23, 48, 57, 63, 83, 86, 95, 104, 163, 191, 196–197, 199, 230 social order 5–6, 47–48, 52–53, 57, 82, 96, 103, 132, 195, 199, 201, 225 stalking 16, 31, 39, 114, 141–143, 155, 157–158, 165–166, 168 Stanko, E. 73 Statista 9 Statistics Canada 181 structural level 1–2, 4–6, 12, 16, 19, 24–25, 28–30, 33–34, 48, 50, 52, 58–59, 62–63, 68–69, 82–84, 86, 95, 99–100, 108, 111, 164, 194, 195, 197–198, 206, 208, 225–226 structural violence 3, 6, 9, 83–86, 227; see also discrimination; violence Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) 61 Student Evaluation of Unit (SEU) 61 substance abuse 19 Sue, D.W. 92 Sugarman, D.B. 31, 198 Supreme Court 51 Sutterlüty, F. 53–55, 57 Svensk Författningssamling (SFS) 109 Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) 58, 87 Taylor, P.S. 184 Tedeschi, M. 184, 202 terror 8, 25–26; terrorism 24, 54 Thomas, P. 12, 51 Thurber, K.A. 184–185, 198 Tiby, E. 71 Times Higher Education (THE) 206 Tingle, L. 209 Tisdell, S. 207–208, 210–211 Tollefsen, A. 73–74, 139, 145, 196 Towers, J. 48, 82, 102, 188, 195 trolling 29, 65, 199 Turner, R.H. 54, 56 unavoidable violence 3, 85; see also avoidable violence United Nations 49, 204 United Nations Commission for the Status of Women (CSW57) 49 United Nations International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 204 United States Census 205 United States Census Bureau 180 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 49

University of the People 22 unscientific facts 194 unwanted touching 16, 31, 114, 124, 126 UN Women 50 US Capitol 8, 54 Uttl, B. 61 Valencia, E. 61 Valentine, G. 73 Van Schaack, B. 201 verbal abuse-violence 120, 122, 123, 148, 154–156, 170, 176, 210, 212; see also violence Viala-Gaudefroy, J. 176 victim blaming 52, 201 Vijlbriefa, A. 50 violence 15, 24; accepted 6, 197; agency 3, 30, 51, 58, 196; anti-violence 111, 227, 230; avoidable 85, 227; cultural 31, 50, 83, 101, 152; exposure 4, 72, 74, 113, 117–118, 136, 139, 156, 160–161, 171, 175, 184, 228, 230; family 6, 18–20, 33, 73–74, 111; fear 6, 8–9, 16, 28, 73–74, 133, 135, 138, 145, 174, 228–229; legallegitimate 25, 28, 48, 199; normalising 2, 7, 19, 184, 206, 229–230; physical 4, 31, 114, 121, 123, 228; risk 64, 68, 70–71, 120, 130, 132, 137, 143–146, 229; sexual 31–32, 49–50, 53, 63, 72, 74, 101, 109, 114, 122, 125–126, 140, 188, 196, 200, 206, 208, 217; societal-national 16, 18, 75, 111, 143, 221; structural 3–4, 9, 83–86, 225; symbolic 1–3, 5, 12, 21–23, 30, 52–53, 59, 70, 75, 82, 84, 95–96, 100, 103, 134, 171; systemic 21, 86, 88–90, 140; unavoidable 4, 85; verbal 3, 15, 64, 170; victim 17, 20, 63, 123, 152, 159, 196 violence infused power 201, 225 Vogel, D.L. 63 von Bredow, W. 48 von Holdt, K. 22, 134 Wacquant, L. 2, 52, 70, 103, 138, 228 Walby, S. 3, 6, 18, 48, 82, 102, 188, 194–195 Watego, C. 182 Watts, C. 48, 82, 102 Weber, M. 10, 25, 52, 95, 100, 103 Wieviorka, M. 31, 50 Williams, A. 12, 14–15 Winlow, S. 121 Winter, Y. 83, 121

Index Withers, R. 88 Wolbers, H. 38 Women of Colour Australia (WoCA) 186 World Future Council 109 Yamawaki, N. 63 Young, I.M. 62

Younge, G. 57 Yule, K. 104 Zifcak, S. 98–99 Zimmermann, C. 48, 82, 102 Žižek, S. 96 Zuboff, S. 38

239