Lo que vivimos pero callamos

In considering preventative and protective factors, it is important to keep in mind the micro-factors discussed above that can influence race-based prejudice and behaviour; in some sense, the best protection against race-based exclusivism can be described as the absence of these risk or influencing factors. This underscores the importance of certain personality traits, such as empathy (Todd et al., 2012), open-mindedness or anti-authoritarian attitudes (Perry et al., 2014), as well as the presence or absence of perceptions of threat. Ceballos and Yakushko (2014: 191), for example, argue their data showed that ’while threat had a strong effect on contributing to unfavourable attitudes toward immigrants, its absence had at least an equal counter-effect’.

Against this background, scholarship continues to struggle to find consensus on the question of what protects against or prevents the development, expression or enactment of racist attitudes. Three preventative/protective mechanisms are commonly cited across the literature, however. First, education and accurate information about ethnic, racial or religious ‘others’ can, under certain conditions, help prevent prejudice and stereotyping. Second, positive intergroup interactions, sometimes known as the ‘contact hypothesis’, can also function – under certain conditions – as a protective factor (e.g. Peucker, 2011; Pedersen et al., 2011). While the review largely confirms these two cornerstones of anti-racism, its findings also suggest that little progress has been made in advancing the discussion on effective protective factors against racism. Third, there is broad agreement on the need for the recalibration of policies in the area of multiculturalism and education.

As noted above, a number of studies have highlighted the association between higher levels of formal education and lower levels of prejudice. Some studies suggest that while formal education itself does not protect against racism or prejudiced attitudes (Dhont and Hodson, 2014) education

32

can serve as a proxy for other protective factors, such as increased opportunities for intergroup interaction or higher levels of knowledge about and familiarity with minority groups. Michael (2013) argues that lack of knowledge and understanding of religious and cultural difference provokes fear, mistrust, suspicion and even outright hostility, while familiarity can enhance mutual respect, empathy and social cohesion. Similarly, in the Victorian context, Lentini et al. (2011: 428) found that, ‘consistent with international research … those holding the most positive opinions of Muslims were those who had first-hand knowledge of Islam, Muslims and their cultures’.

The vast majority of articles dealing with protective factors discuss the importance of positive

intergroup contacts as the main approach to promote mutual respect and prevent or reduce intolerance and anti-minority prejudice (Ceballos and Yakushko, 2014; Bee and Pachi, 2014; Ho, 2011; Halafoff, 2011; Pica-Smith and Poynton, 2014; Shaw, 2012; Thomas and Henri, 2011; Sanderson and Thomas, 2014; Legewie, 2013; Tadmor et al., 2012; Jung, 2012; Leitner, 2012; Peucker, 2011; Rutter, 2015; Cantle, 2012). It is commonly argued that personal intergroup contact, interaction and friendship helps reduce lack of awareness and information, stereotypical attitudes, perceptions of threat and, ultimately, racist prejudice. Previous research has highlighted the complexity of such prejudice-reducing effects and has extensively examined the conditions under which intergroup contacts are likely to have positive effects on the reduction of prejudice (for a meta-study see, Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). However, only some of the identified studies in this review reference this well-established framework of preconditions (Peucker, 2011; Pedersen et al., 2011). A detailed elaboration of essential or facilitating conditions for reducing prejudice, described by Pettigrew (1998: 80) as ‘friendship potential’ (for example, more than superficial contact, cooperation, equal status), is largely absent. Thomas and Henri (2011: 87), however, conclude that it is essential to focus on ‘direct meaningful contact amongst young people of different ethnic and social backgrounds within carefully planned and controlled programmes of work, so addressing the key principles of “contact theory’’’.

Effective intergroup interaction, dialogue and exchange can take place in various ‘transversal spaces’ (Rutter, 2015: 255) or ‘micropublics’ (Ho, 2011), from schools and the workplace to public parks and the streets in the neighbourhood. Some articles focus on specific civil society initiatives, such as interfaith dialogue, and their capacity to reduce racism among participants (for an example in the Victorian context see, Halafoff, 2011), but very few refer beyond institutional or civic settings to everyday life opportunities in the neighbourhood to interact with cultural others and build friendships (Leitner, 2012; Harris, 2012) The majority highlight the important role that the education system and, more specifically, schools have to play as facilitating institutional sites (e.g. Sanderson and Thomas, 2014; Ho, 2011; Bee and Pachi, 2014).

In the Australian context, Ho (2011) explores intergroup encounters in schools. She posits that ‘school communities that reflect Australia’s cultural diversity are ideal sites for the regular and continual cross-cultural exchange that characterises

micropublics [of cross-cultural encounter]’; this makes them ‘ideal sites for fostering a respect for the presence of Others, which can coexist with tension and conflict’ (2011: 603). Ho’s argument is distinctive in her critique of what she calls the ‘prevailing “harmony’” model’. She argues that in multicultural Australia ‘recognition of the other’s legitimate presence in a shared social space’ is a ‘more realistic social goal’ than a conflict-averse ‘compulsory regime of exchange and harmony’ (Ho, 2011: 614) – and those schools with diverse student and teacher communities are well- positioned to promote this kind of mutual respect. Intergroup contact and interaction as a key protective factor against racism has some fundamental limitations, as a number of articles point out. A general caveat is the self-selectiveness of civil society programs that seek to facilities intergroup dialogue (e.g. interfaith initiatives) because they tend to reach only those who are already open-minded and less prone to racist views. A recent NSW study showed that Anglo-Australian participants from the Outer Western Sydney region (which has a relatively low level of cultural diversity) ‘express a fear of “others” due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, but also a reticence to gain a greater understanding of other cultures, specifically in regards to religious practices/beliefs’

33