Social cohesion must be guarded against divisive political rhetoric

In order to analyse the ties that bind a society the best starting point is to ask the question in reverse. In asking, "What are the causes of social collapse?" we can identify what a disconnected society might look like and satisfy ourselves of the elements essential to restore a sense of connectedness.

As I proceed to deconstruct the question of social order, I do so mindful that I am attempting to explain away completely and perfectly that which no one really understands ... until they are deprived of it. That is to say, our understanding of the functionalities of society is never so acutely and profoundly grasped as at that moment when dsyfunction and chaos render the social contract meaningless.

The question of social cohesion has been a preoccupation of mine throughout my professional career, in which I have journeyed through the depths of human depravity and the incomprehensibility of mans inhumanity to man.

I have waded through eye-witness statements detailing heinous crimes, pored over photographs of mass-grave exhumations and studied the personal effects of casualties of war that constituted material and forensic evidence for the prosecution of war criminals - and I have wondered what led to this insanity.

I have squatted with families, in refugee camps in Bosnia recording their chilling stories - and wondered at the capacity of humans to move beyond bitterness.

I have acted as defence counsel for a militia commander on charges that were offensive to the common conscience of the world - and wondered at the human condition.

I have stood among rioters and looters and watched Dili's infrastructure go up in flames. Disavowed of any romantic notion of anarchy - I wondered what separates us from savages.

I have worked in societies fresh from the scourge of war and breathed the suffocating air laden with residual feelings of hatred, spite, antagonism, prejudice, and defensiveness hanging oppressively over all - and wondered at the little acts of kindness obvious by the unexpected relief they brought in a community where rule of law was arbitrary, if existent at all.

I have proofed witnesses for war-crimes trials and listened to their explanations of how hatred was engineered through contrived vernacular - and wondered at the effectiveness of mob oratory in inciting blind prejudice.

I returned to Srebrenica with a busload of widows - and wondered at the futility of war in claiming countless civilians who probably didn't even hold an opinion about the politics that had claimed them as victims.

I have cross-examined an illiterate, unsophisticated, dying woman, a victim of war, propped up in the witness box gasping for air and wincing at the pain caused by a tumorous growth the size of a football on her left side. As she humoured my probing questions about the sexual violence occasioned upon her I couldn't help wondering what she stood to gain, save for the vain hope that history may document and generations be destined never to repeat.

All the while I have returned to an abiding fascination with the philosophy of Karl Marx, in particular his construction of a "utopia" and his concomitant belief in the perfection of man. At the very foundation of his teachings were two basic assumptions.

1. That living in community is a natural state of man; and
2. That the natural condition of man is inherently good.

Marx wrote: "It is through love that we first learn to believe in the objective world outside ourselves ... Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in community, therefore is personal freedom possible to grow in sensitivity and insight and move beyond the bounds of self-absorbing bitterness and envy being endlessly betrayed and broken by natural superiors."

If man's nature is inherently good - then what is it that makes us commit egregious act of such grave proportions in wartime?

The lead prosecutor Grant Neimann in an opening address before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia suggested that humans are "universally capable" and that "provocation, incitement and propaganda can raise hatred to such an extent that ordinary people turn against each other on a bloodthirsty way".

Fundamentally, man's will is positive but an effective propaganda machine can break down the social fabric. Do you remember as a child chanting to the bully in the playground: "Sticks and stones can break my bones - but words can never hurt me"?

This is far from the truth. A war of words which conjures a perceived threat from a racial or ethnic group, if left unchecked, ultimately leads to support for advocates who promote wholesale slaughter.

This is why we must take a hard look at the leadership of our governments and our international leaders. This is particularly so in the wake of the random act of violence on September 11 and the consequent declaration of war against international terrorism that has given licence to the surrendering of reason.

Whether we are looking at a micro community or the global village the concept translates. We judge the health of a community by how it defines its citizens. The true heart of division in any community lies in the rejection of the person. We then should, as a reflex reaction, vent outrage at any promotion of values - whether at a local, national or international level - that sets any group of persons apart from the collective.

We need not look far for contemporary examples of blatant divisive methods employed by community leaders. The Howard government has skilfully taken a wretched group of "boat people" and contrived to use their plight for abominable ends, by linking their unfortunate circumstances to the question of national security. In the same way the Bush administration has identified a collection of states as "evil" and twisted words in the service of the military/industrial complex.

The use of labels is an effective tool-of-trade for leaders who rule by the adage "divide and conquer". This is because as the social cohesion of a community is eroded, collective identity becomes more fragmented - and as a consequence we become easier to placate and manage. But while we are "out to lunch" the ruling elite commits us to a ludicrous war on a terrorist enemy that has a fluid definition.

Invariably today's war of words is confined to non-state actors, yet many governments use terror systematically as an instrument of internal control. Still other states use the instrument of terror to promote international foreign-policy objectives, either directly or by state-sponsored covert operations.

Such is the hypocrisy of global governance that state-sanctioned action directed at civilian populations are referred to as "legitimate uses of force", "counter-terrorist activities" or "coercive diplomacy" - while civilian casualties pay the price with their lives and their limbs, in a cynical exercise where semantics define Western terrorism out of existence.

When a community sanctions cruel and inhumane treatment of any group and defends indefensible policies, then community life as a whole is under treat.

When citizens prove ready to enlist in popular prejudice they open the door to artificial divisions among men that start as subtle differences and widen to a chasm.

If social disintegration can be seen as a continuum then the point at which a community turns on itself is an extreme indicator.

Words, then, become the medium by which societies shift along the spectrum. The only insurance against the excesses of society, is an intrinsic acceptance that individual wellbeing is inextricably bound up with the whole. This intangible element of human living I will call (for want of a better term) "empathy".

If I can allow you to falter for my own ends, if I can make profit at your expense, if I can intern you for my security, then I am no better than a barbarian.

The test of a community's fibre rests with the capacity of a community to stay the hand of jaundiced politicians who espouse rhetoric injurious to the common good. Yet if words can corrupt so too can they inspire - and we will rise or fall as surely as our leaders are good or bad.