Vox Pop

VOX?

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE POP!

Ziggy (Bachelor of Nursing)

Are you in a political bubble? Mostly I’m around people that have the same beliefs as me, so I guess I am.

Would you date someone with the opposite political views as you? Yeah, I would as long as they don’t talk to me about it. How do you handle disagreements? I get very stressed about them, but usually I can figure out a way that both of us can meet in the middle. Is there value in con ict? I think there is value in conflict, you need conflict otherwise you’re kind of just living your life thinking everything is how you think it is. Do you hate watch? *laughs* I don’t think I hate anyone, so I guess no, I don’t hate watch.

Georgia (Bachelor of Creative Arts)

Are you in a political bubble? Probably. I’d say most of my friends are leftists, leaning towards either the Greens or Labor (which is more centre, I suppose). Politics tends to be an incendiary issue for most people, so usually me and my friends try to avoid it. Would you date someone with the opposite political views as you? To be honest, probably not. I’ve heard some people can, and kudos to them, but I don’t believe I could. I’m quite passionate about my beliefs, so I’d find it quite hard to compromise with someone who is completely dead-set against my values. How do you handle disagreements? It depends on who I’m disagreeing with. If it’s a family member, I’ll likely blow up at them, brood in my room for half an hour, then come back and apologize. If it’s with a friend or stranger, then I’d try to keep it civil and ask them why they feel that way. Sometimes people’s answers surprise you. Is there value in con ict? Yes. Attempting to avoid all conflict is quite naïve. Conflict between two people can always be resolved if there’s compromise (except maybe in dating, lol), and the same goes for two opposing ideas. Do you hate watch? Yes. I watch stuff that I love to hate, like shitty TV shows, movies (I’m looking at you After), problematic YouTubers (e.g., Shane Dawson, Gabbi Hanna).

Collages by Samantha Long

Collage by Samantha Long Collage by Samantha Long Collage by Samantha Long Collage by Samantha Long

35

FOUR POLITICAL

OVERSIMPLIFCATIONS

Words by Tahlia Dilberovic

EXPLAINER

Politics is messy. It is complicated, often inaccessible and sometimes doesn’t leave us feeling too good about ourselves. This is, in part, the reason why so many of us have sequestered ourselves away into political bubbles where our views and understandings of issues go unquestioned, and why we so often fall back onto cultural shorthand in order to make sense of the world, and how we interact with it. While completely understandable, this approach has resulted in the oversimpli cation of political issues. This leads to an absence of nuance and the shouting down of those who are not in the know, or do not use correct lingo.

This is an issue on both sides of the spectrum - even among progressive. Often times, these oversimpli cations are enough to prove our points, gain the moral high ground, and allow us to walk away feeling like we are ‘activists’. But a true commitment to leftist politics requires a commitment to understanding the underlying issues at play and requires us to be critical of how the narratives we use can often play right into the hands of capital. So here are some common policy issues that have spent time in the headlines as of late. With a healthy dose of nuance injected into them.

DITCHING COAL

The Oversimpli cation: Women are paid less than their male counterparts. The Nuance: It is true that women in Australia earn, on average, $255.30 less per week than their male counterparts. However, the method for calculating this gure relies on median incomes. This approach wipes out all nuance, and does not account for di erences in job roles, age, or experience. Likewise, it fails to disaggregate data along anything other than gender lines. This misses the ‘gaps within gaps’, and therefore overlooks the experiences of racialized and marginalised people. So, it exists, but it’s measured very poorly. I would argue focusing on the pay gap itself misses the point. It’s the longer lasting implications of this weekly di erence that we should be focusing on. In a capitalist society, money is the means through which we secure safety and autonomy for ourselves. With women having less access to money across their lifetimes, it follows that they have less access to these conditions as well. A lack of nancial freedom keeps women in toxic workplaces, violent living situations, and leaves them homeless in their old age. It is not a week-by-week di erence, but a disparity that seeps into every aspect of day-to-day life. So, who does this oversimpli cation serve? By xing the focus on weekly disparities in income, instead of addressing the widespread structural inequality and entrapment under capitalism, our capitalist state is able to shift blame onto industries and employers rather than overhauling a broken system. Furthermore, by xing the conversation on genders, it erases the voices of marginalised identities, whose experiences are often compounded.

The oversimpli cation: We need to stop using fossil fuels and close mines immediately. The Nuance: To this I say – Duh. We know that Australia must reach net-zero emissions by 2035 in order to avoid climate disaster and we know this means decarbonising our economy and shutting down our coal mines as soon as possible. But in Australia, environmental justice must be inextricably linked to workers’ rights and the survival of our regional communities. Tackling climate change means that high-emitting industries will decline, resulting in extreme regional job loss and lower economic activity – it’s a massive bummer, but it is the reality. How do environmentalists address this? By backing a just transition. So, what would a just transition involve? The Australian Council of Trade Unions has outlined 6 points for a just transition. 1. A commitment to no redundancies 2. Lengthy notice periods for future intentions to close operations. 3. Comprehensive and funded rehabilitation plans to provide signi cant employment 4. Funding and support to retrain workers 5. Funding and support to diversify regional economies via public investments in infrastructure, education facilities, relocation of government services, training programs

and industry development policies. 6. Valuing the work of female-dominated industries to combat the dependence on fossil fuel economy workers as the primary income earners. I would also like to add my own onto this: Genuine consultation to with a ected communities. Sometimes we on the left need to get o our high horse about these kinds of things. Yes, this action is necessary, but that does not mean it will hurt people any less. The best we can do is genuinely listen to their fears and their hardships and try to mitigate it as much as possible. Who does the oversimpli cation serve? This oversimpli cation is designed to drive a wedge between workers and the environmental movement, to maximise hostility and resentment on both sides, in order to slow progress – to the detriment of both communities. We need only look at the United Kingdom under Thatcher to see the harm down to workers under the uncritical guise of environmentalism.

COERCIVE CONTROL

The Oversimpli cation: Coercive control is a form of abuse and criminalising it will keep women safe. The Nuance: Coercive control is de ned as a ‘pattern of ongoing and escalating behaviours that seek to destroy a woman’s self-agency’. Let’s note the gendered language and the complete absence of tangible actions within this de nition. Policy makers have found a strong correlation between coercive control and intimate partner violence and homicide. The logic goes that as research increasingly indicates that partner homicides are the most predictable type of murder, they are also, logically, the most preventable. The argument being the incarceration is prevention. However, this approach to addressing domestic violence is incredibly contested. Organisations such as Sisters Inside and the Institute for Collaborative Race Research argue that ‘criminalising coercive control would further deter at-risk women from engaging with police in domestic violence situations and will subject them to the very forms of subtle control that this legislation ostensibly seeks to avoid’. Importantly, First Nations women have stated time and time again that criminalising coercive control will endanger them, and other vulnerable communities. They cite longstanding histories of poor treatment by police, the courts and government, and the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are more frequently misidenti ed as domestic violence o enders than other demographics. Many advocates believe that a carceral approach is not the answer to reducing domestic violence, arguing that directing the state’s responses to punitive policing rather than funding social services that would allow women greater agencies ‘only reinforces the strategies adopted by abusers.’ Who does the oversimpli cation serve? This oversimpli cation provides a basis for the justi cation of increasing police presence and the expansion of our carceral state. It places the onus on individuals, rather than addressing the structural factors that allow abusive dynamics to take root.

SUDANESE GANGS

The Oversimpli cation: There are Sudanese gangs in Australia, and they are a genuine danger to our communities. The Nuance: Since the 2010s, several police jurisdictions in Australia have set up taskforces aimed at curbing youth gangs; with speci c emphasis being placed by the media on Sudanese gangs (broadly referred to as ‘African gangs’, and I am not quite sure that these journalists don’t know that Africa isn’t a country). A majority of this press has involved the Apex Gang and the Menace to Society Gang, in particular. For those who have been keeping up with the news, the issue of Sudanese gangs re-entered our headlines around ANZAC day, when a 17-year old boy allegedly stabbed a 25-year-old to death on North Terrace, and was found to be in connection to the Menace to Society Gang. However, these gangs don’t actually exist. Or at least, they aren’t gangs. They do not meet the criteria to be considered as such, and are completely unstructured in a way that is immediately disqualifying. The Victorian police have gone as far as ‘begging’ the media to stop using the term ‘gang’ as it ‘does not accurately represent the nature of the problem’- and you know it takes a lot for the Victorian police to come to the defence of any minority. ‘Gang’ signi er aside, is there a problem with crime amongst Sudanese youth? Well, crime has actually dropped in Victoria (where many of these claims originate) in the last two years, as has youth crime. Sudanese Australians, likewise, only make up 1.5% of Victorian o enders – hardly an ‘African youth crime wave’. Who does the oversimpli cation bene t? The oversimpli cation falls back onto the ‘fear of crime’ trope that is oh-so useful to conservative societal forces. The Liberal party and the Australian Labor party are both guilty of rolling out this rhetoric come election time, and the police are often reluctant to rebut them, given this rhetoric usually results in increased funding and reliance on the police. The media also loves the revenue raised by sensationalist - read: racist - headlines.

THE TAKEAWAY

Think critically about these things. Engage with why you believe the things you do. Admitting that your reasoning may be overly-simplistic at times does not mean admitting that you have come to the wrong conclusion (although, sometimes it does – and that’s ok to admit as well!). And, to sneak in a shameless plug, if you believe an issue important to you has been oversimpli ed, or you think I’m wrong about some of this, write about it for Empire Times. Your student magazine is here to give you a voice.

Photo by Harry Kellaway

I know myself only in comparison to you

by Jessica Rowe

I am constantly building a sense of identity, clinging to ideas about myself and feeling frustrated when I don’t act in accordance with them. While the world becomes more and more politically polarised, it’s also interesting to examine how, on a personal level, we use polarity and black-and-white thinking as a way of developing our sense of self, and trick ourselves into thinking we understand, and can predict, others around us.

This thought bubble frst arrived in my hyperactive brain when I was early in my deep obsession with Myers-Briggs personality types. My introverted friend was talking about how she is labelled ‘quiet’ in some friend groups but not others, where she is seen as one of the louder members. In this way, it is clear that in our attempt to understand eachother using the tools of categorising and labelling, we are only really able to base these decisions on the comparison we make between the personality in question and those around them.

I realised that throughout my life I have frequently been positioned in polarity to the people I am closest to, by myself and by my communities. I am led to believe that this is for two reasons; people’s brains prefer predictability and a simple way to sort people, and we constantly strive for individuality, and labels that give us a sense of self in the messy, irrational ever-changing world inside and outside of our minds. As a Myers-Briggs nerd, I know this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, I’ve begun to notice how this ‘polarity-refex’ has negatively affected my relationships and self-esteem throughout my life.