The intolerance of difference

In a recent post, I argued there was one proven way (borne from research) that dealt with bullying, but it was not easy to do. You had to deal with all 4 sides of bullying behaviour: the bully, the victim, the bully’s acolytes and the majority who carry on with their lives.

I’d now like to step back and discuss what causes bullying behaviour in the first place. What explains persistent and aggressive behaviour against a weaker group by another larger, stronger group?

It’s intolerance of difference, pure and simple.

Bullies play on the herd mentality, that bond that makes people stick together in a group of sameness. This group pours scorn and blame on a smaller group ‘that looks different’. Perhaps these victims dress different, pray different, eat different, speak different, act different. Some things, or many things, are different about them. And it’s this intrinsic ‘different-ness’ that becomes the reason to pick on them.

We are naturally scared of things we don’t understand. It’s an understandable, human response. Ever since our cave-dwelling days, we have been wired to distrust anyone that comes into our area that is not from our tribe. Safer to assume they will attack us, take our food, our jobs, destroy our neighbourhoods. You tended to live longer that way. Survival of the fittest.

Whether it’s the red-haired chubby 9 year old being picked on by taller, slimmer jocks, or whether it’s Hanson’s ‘Asian invasion’ of the late 90s (or her ‘Muslim invasion’ of the mid 2010s), what is common to all this behaviour is a majority privileged group putting down a smaller ‘different’ group, and blaming them for all their own ills.

What is also common is a complete falsehood with the facts. Asians did not invade Australia, nor are we being swamped by Muslims (less than 2% of the population). And anyway, what is actually wrong with having a nice variety of people and cultures on our country? What a boring, staid place it would be if it were all the same. How insular and sad that country would be. We’d all be missing out on some amazing experiences, many of which we take for granted today, that only came about through immigration and ties between countries (such as open trade).

Of course the two-faced nature of the ‘anti immigration’ debate is that those proposing it are indeed immigrants themselves, in their own generation or not many generations before. They should be more honest in their arguments (but of course they are not) by declaring: ‘I got here first, I like it, and I don’t want anyone else coming in and getting what I enjoy.’

If we only ‘stopped the boats’ (full of fleeing refugees, by their very nature the most downtrodden, weakest people on the planet), or ‘reduced immigration’ or ‘banned head scarves’ then somehow everything would be back to how it was. The implication is that it is too easy to get to our country, and we’re being overrun. A country of 24 million, with a land mass of 7.7 million sq kms, one of the largest countries on the planet.

Quickly you see the same four groups forming – the bullies shout from their safe positions as shock jocks, Alt Right politicians, Senate seats, news opinion pulpits or press columns, while their supporters jeer from the stands (‘Trump tells it like it is!’). Half a million voted in the recent election for Hanson’s party. Suddenly all your issues can be blamed on them, those that look and act different to us, those same people fleeing the horrors of Syria or African war lords. Meanwhile the victims line up for scorn, and have little recourse to a fair hearing. At the same time, the majority sit by, possibly disagreeing but not intervening.

One wonders why we don’t celebrate difference, rather than have a preconditioned aversion or suspicion to it. Multiculturalism brings the world together, creates better understanding and forms ties between peoples. You are less suspicious of people you have met and interacted with. 20,000 Syrian refugees are not going to ruin Australia (or the US for that matter) any more than the Vietnamese boat people did in the 1970s. In fact, many went on to form businesses, not for profits and councils and do great work in our communities. It makes a society richer, more understanding and inclusive. Ultimately, this makes us and the country safer. What puts a country at risk is tribalism, with people bleetingly following their one eyed herd.

In the 1990s I taught at the United World College of SE Asia in Singapore. There were students from 60 different nationalities in the school, over 1500 in all. Over 8 years, I saw no bullying behaviour. Instead, I saw celebration of difference, proudly proclaimed on ‘UN Nights’ and every day with kids just getting on with each other, forming friendships and understanding each other’s cultures. In fact, it was not even an issue. Put different cultures together at an early, formative age and they will have peace, argued Kurt Hahn, the founder of the United World Colleges. They were set up in the 1960s, a few years after the horrors of the Second World War, precisely for this reason. There are now 16 such colleges around the world. None (sadly) in Australia.

I am looking for the politician or leader to celebrate difference.

To plot a different path. To talk about what unites us, rather than play on what naturally can scare us and rub salt on divisions. To talk to our better angels, not our worse demons.

This is not for some trendy tree-hugging bohemian reasons, this is actually for our own (and everyone’s) betterment. A safer future, a surer world, confident in itself, able to stand up to bullies.

Perhaps Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is the best example of this in practice. He personally welcomed the first group of Syrian refugees. When he was asked about the risk of letting in Syrians, he corrected the interviewer, saying ‘They are Canadians, and we will protect them, as we do all Canadians.’

Let’s use the power of the people to make this happen. Let’s call out those who pander to the lowest common denominators. Love trumps hate.