Introduction 12 Follow up from the Social Justice Report 2010 14

Ironically, while the protection system developed complex blood quantum calculations to decide ‘how Aboriginal’ individuals were, they had no regard for the existing tribal, clan and family group divisions that are important markers of culture and identity. This resulted in groups who were forced off their own land being made to live in close quarters with those they should not associate with on missions and reserves. In the past, these tensions were managed through avoidance and other social controls but when different groups were forced onto missions and reserves, serious conflicts arose.

In summary, this very brief look at the process of colonisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia explains how colonisation creates the conditions for lateral violence through:

• 
  Powerlessness – colonisation sets up a power dynamic where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples felt powerless in the face of colonisers, breeding anger and frustration with no appropriate way for them to be vented. Colonisation created a system where every aspect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives were controlled. This robbed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of their right to self-determination.
  
• 
  The dismemberment of traditional roles, structures and knowledge – colonisation diminished traditional culture and roles as well as eroding the traditional structures for dealing with conflict.
  
• 
  Attacking and undermining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and humanity – colonisation denied the value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. It was a fundamental attack on the humanity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and our capacity to function as a society, community and family. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were seen as ‘lesser people’ with an ‘uncivilised culture’. Serious negative consequences were put in place for continuing to practice culture and language. The violence of the colonisation process served to reinforce the apparent worthlessness of our peoples. In this environment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders began to adopt some of the behaviours and values of the colonisers and internalise some of the negative attitudes about their own culture in order to survive. This undermined pride and added to feelings of powerlessness.
  
• 
  Creating conflict about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity – government authorities began to decide who was Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, setting up divisions and jealousies in communities.
  

Diagram 2.2: The origins of lateral violence


Lateral violence

The next section of this Chapter will bring us into the present and look at the contemporary drivers of lateral violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

3. 
   Contemporary concepts of lateral violence
   

Our history of colonisation casts a dark shadow across our present. While lateral violence has its roots in our history, it thrives today because power imbalances, control by others, identity conflict, negative stereotypes and trauma continue to feed it.

1. 
   Power, needs and disadvantage
   

Let me say firstly, I do not think that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are powerless. Our history is full of many brave communities and individuals who have done their best to look after their families, communities and culture. We all have choices and we all have responsibility for the lives we lead.

However, power is a web and we are held down because of it and it is indisputable that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples still deal with an unequal power dynamic. From the fact that we are yet to be recognised in the Australian Constitution; that governments seldom work in true partnership with us; and that we are the most disadvantaged group on a range of social indicators; it is clear that the power balance remains unequal.

Noel Pearson describes the power dynamics at play, arguing the ‘lower down the social pyramid you go, the more intense the dynamic is’.¹⁴² Based on his work, Pearson suggests:

For those at the bottom, the gravitational forces are so strong as to almost prevent progress.

Some would say this is the nature of oppression. Whenever the forces of social class come to bear at the lower end of society, then lateral violence and fellow envy is all-consuming. There’s no one lower down to direct any downward envy, so one can only look to these laterally to ensure they don’t improve their lot.

I see this every day among the people with whom I work, whom I Iove and whose futures I work to try and improve. People striving to climb to a better life who are thwarted. People who do not think it is right that anyone should climb to a better life. People who have hope but not the courage; the desire but not the will. And I don’t blame them for their sense of debilitation.¹⁴³

Marcia Langton has also discussed the underlying power issues involved in lateral violence, arguing that lateral violence is:

[T]he expression of anomie and rage against those who are also victims of vertical violence and entrenched and unequal power relations.¹⁴⁴

This ‘anomie and rage’ is also a product of the sense of powerlessness that many feel at not being able to have their basic needs met. Basic needs are not just food, water and shelter but also include the needs that all human beings have to feel heard, valued and autonomous. People need to meaningfully participate in the decisions that affect their lives.

Human needs theory helps explain this further, giving us another way to look at what is happening below the surface of conflicts like lateral violence. According to human needs theorists, one of the primary causes of conflicts like lateral violence is ‘people’s unyielding drive to meet their unmet needs on the individual, group and societal level’.¹⁴⁵ Expanding on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as explained in Text Box 2.5 below, theorists such as John Burton have argued that many conflicts could be resolved if human needs were met.¹⁴⁶

Text Box 2.5: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

The hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation.^147 As the diagram below illustrates, the different categories of needs must be met from the ground up, meaning that physiological needs, followed by safety, love/belonging and esteem needs must be met before the highest order needs, self-actualisation, can be met.

There are three main categories of human needs according to conflict resolution practitioner, Andries Odendaal: acceptance needs, access needs and security needs. Text Box 2.6 outlines these different types of needs.

Text Box 2.6: Human needs

Acceptance needs: We all have a strong need for dignity. We need to be accepted for who we are and to be treated with respect. When we experience discrimination, oppression, humiliation or marginalisation, we shall most probably resent it so deeply that we shall be willing to spend an extraordinary amount of effort – and even resort to violence – in order to address our frustration. Access needs: This refers to the need of all people to have access to life sustaining resources (land, housing, water, employment, economic opportunities). It also refers to the need to participate in political and economic processes that control and regulate access to those resources. Access needs are frustrated when perceptions or practices of exclusion exist. Security Needs: ‘Security’ is used here in the more holistic meaning of the word. It does not only refer to safety from physical harm and danger, but also safety from hunger and want. People need to feel safe; to have the sense of security that they may sleep in peace and have sufficient to eat. It is not only the actual experience of insecurity, but also the fear of future insecurity that drive conflict behaviour.^148