Search

The growth in Australia’s population from increased immigration is changing the ethnic, socio-structural and physical landscapes of urban neighbourhoods and significantly altering relationships within these areas (Australian Government, 2013; Hugo, 2008). These changes can be enormously positive, but can also pose a challenge for the development and maintenance of neighbourhood networks and social inclusion. With a sizeable number of Australians viewing immigration as a strain on economic resources and a threat to Australian identity and values (Dunn, Forrest, Burnley, & McDonald, 2004; Kamp, Alam, Blair, & Dunn, 2017), there is an urgent need to better understand the contextual dynamics that shape interethnic relationships.Despite a long history of largely successful multicultural policies and programs, recent surveys in Australia reveal that approximately 30 per cent of Australians do not believe that immigration from diverse countries makes us stronger and, further, they consider the current intake of immigrants as ‘too high’ (Markus, 2018). Negative attitudes against Muslims are also increasing (Markus, 2018) and native-born Australians are more likely to report high levels of social disorder and withdrawal from some aspects of community life in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods (Wickes, Hipp, Zahnow, & Mazerolle, 2013; Wickes, Zahnow, White, & Mazerolle, 2013). These findings suggest that although immigration brings national economic, social and cultural benefits, there is growing endorsement of exclusivist attitudes towards migrants.Countering exclusivist discourses can only succeed if initiatives address the underlying factors that allow these narratives to resonate with individuals. Evidence from other countries suggests that socially harmful exclusivism concentrates in neighbourhoods, especially segregated neighbourhoods and those with large proportions of non-White/European residents (Ramalingam, Glennie and Feve, 2012). In Australia, and specifically Victoria, we know little about the spatial concentration of socially harmful exclusivism as no large-scale Australian study examines whether these attitudes cluster in particular neighbourhoods. Furthermore, we do not know how and under what conditions these attitudes may lead to potentially harmful actions.This report examines the individual-level drivers of social exclusivism while also considering the role of the neighbourhood context and neighbourhood cohesion. A key goal of this research was to better understand the ways in which the local context encourages or prevents the development of exclusivist sentiments, attitudes and endorsement of actions that seek to exclude migrants, especially in areas experiencing significant changes in the ethnic composition. Linked to this goal was a focus on identifying the specific characteristics of the local context that distinguish areas with higher levels of socially harmful exclusivism from those with lower levels.

The growth in Australia’s population from increased immigration is changing the ethnic, socio-structural and physical landscapes of urban neighbourhoods and significantly altering relationships within these areas (Australian Government, 2013; Hugo, 2008). These changes can be enormously positive, but can also pose a challenge for the development and maintenance of neighbourhood networks and social inclusion. With a sizeable number of Australians viewing immigration as a strain on economic resources and a threat to Australian identity and values (Dunn, Forrest, Burnley, & McDonald, 2004; Kamp, Alam, Blair, & Dunn, 2017), there is an urgent need to better understand the contextual dynamics that shape interethnic relationships.Despite a long history of largely successful multicultural policies and programs, recent surveys in Australia reveal that approximately 30 per cent of Australians do not believe that immigration from diverse countries makes us stronger and, further, they consider the current intake of immigrants as ‘too high’ (Markus, 2018). Negative attitudes against Muslims are also increasing (Markus, 2018) and native-born Australians are more likely to report high levels of social disorder and withdrawal from some aspects of community life in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods (Wickes, Hipp, Zahnow, & Mazerolle, 2013; Wickes, Zahnow, White, & Mazerolle, 2013). These findings suggest that although immigration brings national economic, social and cultural benefits, there is growing endorsement of exclusivist attitudes towards migrants.Countering exclusivist discourses can only succeed if initiatives address the underlying factors that allow these narratives to resonate with individuals. Evidence from other countries suggests that socially harmful exclusivism concentrates in neighbourhoods, especially segregated neighbourhoods and those with large proportions of non-White/European residents (Ramalingam, Glennie and Feve, 2012). In Australia, and specifically Victoria, we know little about the spatial concentration of socially harmful exclusivism as no large-scale Australian study examines whether these attitudes cluster in particular neighbourhoods. Furthermore, we do not know how and under what conditions these attitudes may lead to potentially harmful actions.This report examines the individual-level drivers of social exclusivism while also considering the role of the neighbourhood context and neighbourhood cohesion. A key goal of this research was to better understand the ways in which the local context encourages or prevents the development of exclusivist sentiments, attitudes and endorsement of actions that seek to exclude migrants, especially in areas experiencing significant changes in the ethnic composition. Linked to this goal was a focus on identifying the specific characteristics of the local context that distinguish areas with higher levels of socially harmful exclusivism from those with lower levels.

Critiques of cosmopolitanism theory argue that the concept is premised on implicit assumptions of a masculine global citizen, replete with privileged access to various mobile and symbolic forms of social advantage. In response, empirical accounts of cosmopolitanism have explored the impact of class, education, and ethnicity on cosmopolitan practices. Yet, little direct empirical attention is given to whether and how men and women might differently understand and frame cultural diversity. We argue that to the extent that cosmopolitanism is constituted by social practices, scripts and repertoires of discursive narrativization, it is likely to be navigated and applied through gender-ideologies. Applying the methodological concept of cognitive schema to a set of qualitative data, and focusing on expressions of hospitality towards others within local communities, we inductively assemble evidence to show that men and women have differently articulated cosmopolitan imaginations. In conclusion, we consider what our empirical attention to gender might mean for how we advance critical theories of cosmopolitanism.

Although empirically grounded accounts of cosmopolitanism have explored the impact of class, education, and ethnicity on cosmopolitan practices, no direct attention has yet been given to whether and how men and women might differently understand and frame cultural diversity. Indeed, as critical accounts of cosmopolitanism argue, research in the field commonly assumes the question of cosmopolitan citizenship to be gender neutral. Addressing this gap, the current paper analyses the gendered sociological features of everyday conceptions of hospitality - keeping in mind that the capacity to give and receive hospitality is often held to be a defining feature of the reflexive cosmopolitan outlook as well as the signature performative component of ethical cosmopolitanism. By applying the methodological concept of cognitive schema to a large set of qualitative data, we inductively assemble evidence that men and women have differently articulated ‘cosmopolitan imaginations’. Our findings show men’s conceptions of hospitality typically centre around ideals of rationality, power and control. Men are more inclined than women to draw stronger boundaries between the other and self, and to express allegiance to conditional forms of hospitality centred around nation-state based power hierarchies. Women, in contrast, generally express an inclination towards reciprocal, embodied forms of hospitality that foster inter-human bonds. We consider what explicit research attention to these gendered frames of cosmopolitan hospitality might mean for how we conceptualise, develop and advance critical theories of cosmopolitanism.