Beyond “Practical” Reconciliation: Intergroup Inequality and the Meaning of Non‐Indigenous Identity

Abstract

The long-standing policy of "practical reconciliation" between Australian Indigenous and Non-Indigenous people has actively disregarded the need to redress past injustice as the basis of current intergroup inequality. While this approach has received extensive critique from reconciliation scholars, its implications for Non-Indigenous involvement in reconciliation have been neglected. When Indigenous disadvantage is divorced from its social and historical context it is also more likely to be seen as having little to do with "us" as Non-Indigenous Australians. In contrast, when inequality is seen as stemming from the past and present reality of intergroup relations, and as such shapes the meaning of NonIndigenous identity, it will be seen as more illegitimate, in need of change, and is more likely to motivate political engagement in the reconciliation process. The current study tests and finds support for this idea. Importantly, controlling for the contributions of perceived legitimacy of inequality and need for social change, Non-Indigenous identity meaning continued to significantly predict intentions to vote and engage in political action in support of reconciliation.

Majority Member’s Recognition and Protest Against Discrimination of Immigrants: The Role of Power Threat, Deprovincialization and Common National Identity

“…In conclusion, using two national samples the similar results in both studies support the generality of the findings and add to the limited but important research on when and why majority members recognize group-based injustices and are willing to protest on behalf of disadvantaged minority groups (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013;Saguy et al, 2008;Subašiç & Reynolds, 2009). The results show the importance of national identity representations and the relevance of considering out-group focused (perceived threats) and in-group focused (deprovincialization) determinants.…”

“…Because of their dominant position and greater resources, majority members play an important role in achieving equality and social change. Yet, research has predominantly focused on collective action by immigrantorigin groups (Fleischmann et al, 2011;Simon & Grabow, 2010;Simon & Ruhs, 2008) and has largely ignored the perspective of the majority (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013;Subašiç & Reynolds, 2009). In two studies with national samples, the present research examined whether the endorsement of a common national identity representation that acknowledges cultural differences (unity in diversity) is associated with increased recognition of discrimination of immigrants and greater willingness to protest against it.…”

“…Research has shown, for example, that the way in which people understand their in-group affects out-group tolerance, perceptions of intergroup inequality and its perceived legitimacy, and the intention to become politically active in support of ethnic minority groups (e.g., Reicher, Cassidy, Wolpert, Hopkins, & Levine, 2006;Smeekes, Verkuyten, & Poppe, 2012;Subašiç & Reynolds, 2009). …”

Social identity and personality processes: Non‐Aboriginal Australian identity and Neuroticism

“…Identity Meaning). Certain political events in Australia in 2008, most notably, a new Federal Government and an official apology for the treatment of Aboriginal Australians by Non‐Aboriginal Australians, provided an opportunity to manipulate understandings of Non‐Aboriginal–Aboriginal relations (Prime Minister of Australia Media Centre, ; Subasic & Reynolds, ). The political context of the intergroup apology was that it was an important step in addressing the needs of the Aboriginal Australians and restoring their sense of moral worth (Govier & Verwoerd, ).…”

“…The political context of the intergroup apology was that it was an important step in addressing the needs of the Aboriginal Australians and restoring their sense of moral worth (Govier & Verwoerd, ). It also served as an influence process on the part of the leader (Prime Minister) to affirm and shape the views of Non‐Aboriginal and Aboriginal Australians after years of debate about whether Non‐Aboriginal Australians were responsible for Aboriginal disadvantage or not and should say ‘sorry’ (Subasic & Reynolds, ). In this way, the apology was not focused on redressing guilt but fostering such reactions amongst Non‐Aboriginal Australians and further engaging them in the reconciliation process.…”