issue 1 09 - APS Member Groups - Australian Psychological Society

Muslim, Racism and Media11legitimating prejudice and discriminationagainst particular minority groups (ADBNSW,2003; Duncan, 2007; Poynting & Morgan,2007; Poynting, Noble, Tabar & Collins, 2004)often resulting in what Poynting et al. (2004)describe as moral panics about ‘ethnic others’.The overwhelming force of racialisation ofmedia and public discourse makes resistance tocommon sense explanations difficult. Racistideologies become naturalised within societyand begin to be seen as simple ‘commonsense’ (ADBNSW, 2003; Fulton, 2005). VanDijk (1992) identified several patterns in mediadiscourses, which allow for the perpetuation ofracism. These include negative representationof the ‘other’, denial, mitigation, reversal, andnaturalising inequality and blaming the victim.These patterns parallel the functioning of bothnew racism (Hopkins et al., 1997) andeveryday racism (Essed, 2002).Vilification of Muslims in the AustraliancontextSince September 11 2001, Muslimminorities have experienced intensive otheringin western countries, particularly thoseassociated with the US led ‘war on terror’involving the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq(Dunn, 2004; Gale, 2006; Kuhn, 2006; Noble,2005; Poynting & Mason, 2006; Poynting &Mason, 2007). An abundance of researchattests to the fact that the many diverse Muslimcommunities of Australia have become thefocus of intense negativity regarding asupposed link to terrorism (e.g., Aly, 2007;Dunn, 2004; Gale, 2006; Human Rights andEqual Opportunity Commission [HREOC],2004; Kuhn, 2006; Noble, 2005; Saniotis,2004; Sivanandan, 2006). HREOC (2004)launched a study in March 2003, followingSeptember 11 attacks and the Bali bombings of2002, exploring Muslim and Arab Australiansperceptions of racial vilification. Responses byMuslim Australians suggested that there hadbeen an intensification of existing, ongoingand everyday forms and patterns ofvilification, which had continued since the1990s and before (Poynting & Mason, 2006).Responses suggested that incidence ofdiscrimination and vilification peaked andwaned, corresponding with various localregional, national and international crisesincluding, the Bali bombings in October 2002and the war in Iraq in 2003, but authorsemphasised that it was always present(HREOC, 2004).The main themes implicit in thevilification experienced by Muslim Australianswere identified in the HREOC (2004) research.They were that Australian Arabs and Muslimsare seen to share responsibility for terrorism orare potential terrorists, that there is no place inAustralia for Arabs or Muslims, and finallythere was an underlying expectation that newmigrants to Australia should assimilate anddiscard their foreign dress codes, languages andcultural practices (HREOC, 2004; Poynting &Mason, 2006). Importantly, responsesemphasised not only the significance of blatantacts of hostility, but also more normal everydayforms of discrimination, such as unwarrantedpolice attention and suspicion, unfriendliness aswell as biased media representation.Noble (2005) argues that forms of socialincivility, like the harsher experiences ofvilification, amount to the affective regulationof social belonging and participation. Socialincivility for Noble refers to everydaybehaviours of others that are felt to be rude orinsulting, even as their significance isdismissed. Corresponding with Essed’s (1991)notion of everyday racism this might include“name calling, jokes in bad taste, bad manners,provocative and offensive gestures or even justa sense of social distance or unfriendliness or anexcessive focus on someone’sethnicity” (Noble, 2005, p. 110).The affective regulation of differenceamounts to an active process of othering andexclusion, and this exclusion does not simplyinvolve economic and political deprivation, butentails social and cultural dimensions, such asnotions of agency and power (Noble, 2005).Our ability to be comfortable in public settingsrests on our ability to be acknowledged asThe Australian Community Psychologist Volume 21 No 1 June 2009