This review of literature on anti-racist prosocial action points to the strong and largely untapped policy potential of bystander anti-racism. Bystander anti-racism is conceptualized as action taken by "ordinary" people in response to incidents of interpersonal or systemic racism. The utility of bystander anti-racism is also demonstrated, with evidence suggesting productive effects for targets and bystanders, as well as perpetrators. The relative merits of confrontational or diplomatic action are reviewed, as is the delicate balance between communicating disapproval and maintaining interpersonal relations. The potential of bystander anti-racism will be enhanced where there are social norms that are intolerant of racism. The literature has paid little attention to the influence of context or to affective drivers of bystander anti-racism. We recommend changes to AshburnNardo's five-stage Confronting Prejudice Model, to better facilitate anti-racism policy and practice. The additions adapt the model to organizational settings, and more strongly acknowledge the importance of social norms and contexts, as well as the specific functions of racism. Through these changes, there is a scope to increase the prominence of bystander anti-racism as a vital element of anti-racism policy.Racism can be broadly defined as a phenomenon that maintains or exacerbates avoidable and unfair inequalities in power, resources, or opportunities across racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious groups in society. Racism can be expressed through beliefs (e.g., negative and inaccurate stereotypes), emotions (e.g., fear

Literature on modern racism identifies denial as one of its key features. This article examines the discourses of denial that feature in the talk of local anti-racism actors in Australia, and asks what drives these discourses. The research draws on qualitative interviews undertaken with participants involved in local anti-racism in two case study areas, one in South Australia and the other in New South Wales. This article explores the way local participants in the case study areas deployed four discourses to deny or minimise racism: temporal deflections; spatial deflections; deflections from the mainstream; and absence discourses. Place defending and the desire to protect one’s local area from being branded a racist space is discussed as a driver of those local denial discourses. Local denial of racism is also linked to national politics of racism and anti-racism. In particular, the Australian government’s retreat from multiculturalism, and the preference for ‘harmony’ rather than ‘anti-racism’ initiatives, was linked to the avoidance of the language of racism within participants’ responses. The way denial discourses narrow the range of possibilities for local anti-racism is discussed, as is the importance of acknowledgement of racism, particularly institutional and systemic racism. Public acknowledgement of these forms of racism will broaden the scope of local anti-racism.

No abstract

No abstract

The latest manifestation of Asian‐led foreign real estate investment in some global cities is contributing to housing becoming a liquid, global asset. Drawing on empirical data about Sydneysiders’ reported levels of real estate market activity, housing stress, and views about foreign real estate investment, we found that those who are financially invested in Sydney's local real estate market are generally more supportive of the presence of foreign investors and investment than are those not invested in that market. We also found that there were no significant comparative differences in beliefs about foreign investment between those who are in housing stress and those who are not. On the strength of those findings, we ask whether a degree of commonality is developing around a set of ideological reference points related to the commodification of housing. As housing in global cities is increasingly commodified and financialized, these ideological reference points could be boosting its commodification across boundaries of cultural difference and political jurisdiction. We conclude by suggesting the need for a new line of inquiry through which scholars could investigate the politics of globalised hyper‐commodified housing in order to expose the ideological reference points that serve to bolster the commodification of housing.

Speaking' racism is the explicit use of the terms racism and anti-racism, rather than more palatable or 'positive' alternatives. To address racism, using the language of racism and anti-racism is critical, as it acknowledges the presence of racism and, in doing so, overcomes denial. Dispositions to speaking racism and anti-racism are positioned within the historical context of racism and the discourse of tolerance in Australia. Interviews with individuals working in local anti-racism in two sites were the primary data source for exploring dispositions to the language of racism and anti-racism. Reticence to speak racism was prevalent, largely driven by fear of inducing defensiveness and sensitivity to the highly emotive nature of racism. A similar ambivalence around the term anti-racism was found, in line with the 'positive turn' in anti-racism policy. Alongside this discomfort, some local anti-racism actors recognized the role that speaking racism could play in challenging denial.

No abstract

This paper introduces the concept of place-defending and articulates its implications for locality-based social policy. Place-defending is the protection of one's local area from unfavourable assessments, in this case of being labelled or perceived as a racist space. Place attachment and identifications with place are drivers of place-defending. Person-place relationships and their implications for locality-based social policies have not yet received sufficient consideration in the literature-a significant oversight considering the current policy focus in Australia and the United Kingdom on locality-based social policy. In this study of local anti-racism in the Australian context, place-defending involved the denial of racism and performances of place that reproduced the discourse of tolerance. Print media coverage of the release of national data on racism was analysed alongside a series of interviews with individuals working on anti-racism at both local and state/ federal levels. Four tools of place-defending are discussed: direct action to defend place; spatial deflections; use of minority group members to discredit claims of racism; and critiques of those who make claims about racism. The tools of place-defending operated to construct localities as places of tolerance, potentially undermining the case for anti-racism.