When the Tide Breaks: A new blueprint for cohesion
In the streets of Sydney, in public parks, on your socials, and in the quiet corridors of power, we’re witnessing something larger than isolated acts of hate. We know and get enough media coverage about divisive politics, the rise of the far right, and systems bent on othering.
The recent neo-Nazi marches outside NSW Parliament, the rise in antisemitic incidents across schools and suburbs, and the volatility in online discourse are not disconnected sparks - they’re the visible crest of a deeper social wave.
This is why I built the Social-Wave Model at the start of this year, and have wrestled with these concepts for the better part of 25 years.
The model was developed in consultation with leading thinkers in behavioural science, multicultural policy, psychology and organisational theory, and drawn from my own work in human experience, creativity and systems-level behaviour change. The Social Cohesion Wave model proposes a different way to see, measure, and intervene in social disruption.
It’s not another paper or policy memo. It’s a framework that treats social division as a wave phenomenon, observable, and most importantly, shapeable.
The NSW challenge: more visibility, less clarity
Antisemitism and extremist signalling are escalating in visibility. A recent rally by the outside Parliament saw seventy or so black-clad members chanting antisemitic slogans - an event that the NSW Police Commissioner later described as the product of “communication breakdowns” in the approval process.
At the same time, Operation Shelter’s own reporting shows inconsistencies: hundreds of incidents logged as antisemitic were later reclassified as unrelated, revealing a data and definition problem that fractures trust in the system.
When the data is blurred and the public narrative fragmented, extremists read that as permission. By the time a protest is visible, the underlying social-field - the networks of grievance, digital radicalisation and identity signalling - has already shifted. The waves ripple and flow.
There is even more evidence to suggest that those little early incidents, the graffiti, the group chat slurs, are often not driven by hate speech, true extremist views or even neo nazis. They are often by young boys and men seeking validation or a thrill, people following a perceived norm, or venting some bias. These little waves go unchecked, or over responded which compounds these same issues, as waves build or are over countered and the seas of cohesion become disrupted.
The Wave Model exists precisely to read those early ripples before they break. And they can be countered by the right level of deconstructing waves.
What the Social-Wave Model is - and why it matters
The model grew from a simple question: what if we treated social tension the way physicists treat waves?
Every act of hate speech, every coded meme, every piece of exclusionary rhetoric is a disturbance in equilibrium. Left unchecked, these disturbances ooze through social networks, reinforced by social norming, peer validation, media amplification, and ideological echo. Eventually, they constructively interfere, creating visible surges of hate: protests, violence, or societal rupture.
But waves can also be neutralised. In physics, destructive interference occurs when one wave meets another of equal amplitude and opposite force. Social behaviour works the same way. Targeted, timely counter-waves - micro-interventions, campaigns, community connections - can absorb or redirect the energy before it peaks. Too much, and you risk creating a deeper counter wave. Too little early on and it doesn’t matter at all. We see this right now.
While it started with ideas I had and a few thoughts behind it, the model draws from decades of interdisciplinary research:
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) on ingroup/outgroup bias.
Behavioural Priming (Holland et al. 2005) showing how subtle environmental cues shape behaviour.
Radicalisation Pathways (Moghaddam 2005) that demonstrate how micro-escalations precede extremism.
Cognitive Dissonance and Dialogue (Aronson 1997) proving that judgment-free spaces foster perspective-shift.
Crisis Communication Theory (McCombs & Shaw 1972) revealing how framing influences public perception.
The Wave Model pulls these strands into one systems-based framework. A way to understand, anticipate, and neutralise division across the behavioural, social, and institutional layers of society.
Why the current model is hitting its limits
New laws banning Nazi symbols and hate speech in NSW are essential. But law alone can’t change the fields in which hate thrives.
Classification errors weaken confidence. Digital-hybrid movements evolve faster than bureaucratic processes. And when social-cohesion erodes, when bridging capital between groups is low and trust in institutions fragile, those fields become primed for extremism.
Most current responses are reactive: we legislate after the event, we police after the graffiti, we condemn after the footage goes viral. But waves start long before the splash. We must shift attention upstream - to where the real leverage lies.
Inside the Model: Three Phases of Intervention
1. Spark the Protective Ripple
Small, early actions create disproportionate change. Environmental “nudges”, from empathy-based public art to local Play Streets, can subconsciously reduce aggression and prime cohesion. Research after the 2011 London riots found that baby-face imagery on shop shutters cut vandalism by 20 percent. Early disruption of the wave costs less and yields more.
2. Amplify the Protective Crest
Once the wave gains momentum, sustained interventions matter. “Safe Spaces for Unsafe Conversations” is a concept I proposed, to let tension rise to surface in structured, non-judgmental dialogue.
Neuroscience shows that empathy-based conversation dampens amygdala-driven defensiveness and reactivates rational processing. Media engagement, counter-narratives, and campaigns then amplify prosocial norms until they dominate the bandwidth.
3. Sustain the Tidal Resilience
Long-term, social cohesion must be baked into institutions, education, media, policy, culture. This is how you build tidal resilience: a society that constantly generates counter-waves of inclusion and calm, without waiting for crisis.
This is not about suppressing dissent; it’s about pre-empting disconnection.
We must turn the traditional equation inside-out. Instead of chasing outcomes, redesign the conditions.
Instead of waiting for hate to surface, address the micro-forces that enable it. Be proactive, behavioural, and adaptive, informed by systems science but made for human communities.
If NSW wants to stem the rise of neo-Nazi groups and antisemitic visibility, it cannot afford to keep reacting to each new surge. The tide is predictable. The tools exist. What’s missing is the willingness to act before the wave breaks.
I will say this, I was fortunate enough to be invited to talk with the team at Multiculturalism NSW and the Minister of Multiculturalism’s office on this. They are deeply passionate about the solution, overwhelmed with the task and trying hard in a situation that has no easy fix. My ideas aren’t the fix either. They’re just ideas. It’s up to all of us, whether in governments, organisations, groups, families or individually.
The Social Cohesion Wave Model offers a shift: from reactive control to proactive calibration. It’s not about heroics. It’s about design. Designing systems, communities and narratives that hold when pressure builds.
Because every wave begins long before it hits the shore. The question is whether we can read the pattern in time - and have the courage to change the water it moves through.