Print this Article___________

By: Baiq LWS Wardhani

Introduction

The search of Australian identity has been problematic since the British colonialist left the country. The debates generally end with various views from different perspectives. Hence, the adoption of multiculturalism as an ideology for social engineering to some extent has been sucessful despite some limits to its implementation. (Wardhani 2001) The strategy, however observed as the most appropriate for the Australian nation.

Australia multiculturalism appears to be a necessary consequence of mass immigration and growing cultural diversity, which has forced the state to re-examine social policies and to address the consequences of diversity for community relations and national identity. Cultural pluralism is increasingly becoming a matter of conscious choice and multicultural in Australia will contribute to an Australian national identity. However, what kind of identity does Australian have? This has not been clear yet. The essay attempts to depicts several views on how Australians perceived themselves.

Imagined Australian?

Australia adopts multiculturalism to manage its diversity, but it yet to be fully implemented. Multiculturalism is an ongoing nation-building formula to find Austtalian identity. (Wardhani 2001) An European intellectual who visited Australia in 1969, Arthur Koestler, wrote : “The search for identity has become a fashionable phrase, … but in Australia it is a haunting one”. (Inglis 1991: 17) Elsewhere, John Plamenatz, in 1972, define nationalism as ‘the desire preserve or enhance a people’s national or cultural identity when that identity is threatened, or the desire to transform or even create it when it is felt to be inadequate or lacking’. (Inglis 1991: 17) Many searchers of Australian identity, such as Heinz Arndt, believe that ‘It is not that Australia lacks of national identity which has yet to be found, but they do not like the one it has’. Furthermore, he defines:

Australian national identity is the sum of all the qualities, real or imaginary, which in the minds of people, especially of Australian themselves, distinguish Australia from other countries, or perhaps better, Australian-ness from British-ness, French-ness, Chinese-ness. (Inglis 1991: 18)

The questions of ‘who is an Australian?’ and the notion of ‘imagined Australian’ has led to many opinions to find the answer. Ann-Mari Jordens, in her book Redifining Australians: Immigration, Citizenship and National Identity, argues a nations’s understanding of itself is revealed by categories of people its regards of foreign as alien, as ‘other’. From 1948 to 1987, the Nationality and Citizenship Act defined an alien as ‘a person who does not have the status of a British subject and is not an Irish citizen or a protected person’. That is, the image of Australians enshrine in Australian citizenship legislation was that of an Anglo-Celtic people. The legislation which regulated almost every aspect of Australian life, protected and reinforced the British character of Australian society by excluding and discriminating against aliens. (Jones 1995: 1) Furthermore, she suggests Australian national identity was conceived of in a way which presumed a shared culture and common political interests. This marginalized sections of society which did not fit into this imagined community.

The word ‘ethnic’ is usually used to describe the non-Anglo Celtic section of community in Australia, whether overseas or Australian born, and particularly referring to those from Southern Europe, Asian and Pacific Islanders countries. While ethnicity has become a much used term, its meaning remains unclear. Smolicz claims, the limitation of the term “ethnic” to minorities is, however, misleading, since it is equally applicable to the Anglo-Celtic majority (with its numerous sub-group such as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, etc.), as well as minorities. This is an increasing appreciation that the application of the word “ethnic” to all groups make for the equality of all Australians. (Smolicz 1992: 6) Former designations, such as, “New Australians” or “migrants” tended to single out the new arrivals from non-English speaking backgrounds as somehow less than “real Australians” who were deemed to be descended from the dominant group. Elsewhere, Smolicz inserts once ethnicity is understood as a universal phenomenon that embraces everyone, whatever their background, the issue arises of how successful Australia has been in giving cultural consideration to all ethnic groups, both majority and minority and the extent to which they can all contribute to Australian nations. The term nation, then is understood not in the classical terms of a monoethnic and monocultural body, but as a multicultural entity which exhibits a dynamic equilibrium between the shared values of the nation as a whole and the particular cultures of the contributing ethnic groups. Multicultural presupposes the existence of an overarching framework of shared values that acts as a unity in a multi-ethnic state and a framework which is flexible and responsive to the various cultures of the ethnic groups that compose the nation. (Smolicz 1984: 13)

In his book, ‘Who is an Australian? Identity, Core, Values, and the Resilience of Culture’, Smolicz concludes, based on his examination on citizenship in Germany and Australia, that Australia is probably the most liberal country in the world, since naturalization maybe granted as soon as two years after receiving resident status. This compares to up to 10 years’ residence normally required in Germany, as well as the fulfillment of certain economic or linguistic prerequisites. Nonetheless, he admits there is special position that must be accorded to the British heritage based on historical tie between Great Britain and Australia. This implies that to be an Australian meant, a person with an ancestry form the British Isles and speaking English as a mother tongue. British links with Australia are of “special”, almost parental kind and that although Australia as a federation has been an independent dominion since 1901, culturally it has retained many of its British affiliation. (Smolicz 1989: 8)

Moreover, Smolicz continues that Australian identity still is in question and remains complex when it is involved the Aborigines. This group has rejected cultural absorption and seeking to preserve important aspect of their own heritage, while at the same time wishing to be fully accepted as Australians and people “of this country”. Once they have been refused the right to be “Australians” (and marginalized instead as Aborigines) on account of their race and/ or the culture that they preserve, their most likely response is to search for a destiny under some other name.

According to Canberra Times of 6 April 1991, former Prime Minister Hawke, “we will never be a mature and just society until we have reached a reconciliation between Aborigines and non-Aborigines”. This implies that Australian society is immature and unjust of their behavior to this indigenous people. Elsewhere, Keating said “a rightful place in society for Aboriginal Australians is central to our identity and self-esteem... Central to our reputation in the world… and central to the debate about what kind of society we want”. He stressed that, “The Aboriginal and the Torres Islanders must be central in the future and to the Australian nation”. The former Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Robert Tickner added, the process of reconciliation, which aims to transform relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals, “lies in the heart of Australia’s identity as a nation”. (Milne 1982: 288)

A Self-Image

Australia’s self-image has always been problematic. In his work, ‘A National Identity? Wait and See…’, Hugh Mackay describes the Australian identity as have been dominated by masculinity; characterized Australia as a land of opportunity where dominated by a broad, comfortable middle class; a freedom-loving society; an uncritical acceptance of the Westminster-style parliamentary democracy; and a multiracial but not multicultural society. (Mackay 1993) In another book, Castles claims, Australian type was constructed in terms of white, masculine, and outdoor person originating from the British Isles. This implies racist and sexist. Another type of Australian type was constructed before 1945 was:

The muscular bushman / digger / lifesaver was working class. He was a battler who did not take kindly to authority. It was a populist image that fitted into the concept of Australia as a ‘workers’ paradise’ where there were no aristocrats, no entrenched privilege, where everyone had a chance of success. This side of Australian type is summed up in the ideas of ‘mateship’ and a ‘fair go’. (Castles 1988: 18-19)

Nationalism has usually related to the historical moment happened in a nation-state, such as colonial liberation struggle, revolution, civil war or war with foreign powers fought on its own soil, or they have shared heritage and culture as a viable ideology of the nation. But these did not happen in Australia. So, how to define Australian nationalism, especially since multiculturalism is declared as a national ideal? Alan Hodges suggests:

It is no accident that nationalism in this country has tended to be isolationist (“Australian for the Australians”), exclusivist (those endless derogatory terms to refer to those who did not “fit in”), suspicious of authority and racist” …This Australian brand of nationalism created in the national psyche an image of Australia as a lifeboat: afloat in troubled seas, taking on board those who were prepared to shed their old ways and be like the rest of us. (Hodges 1988: 8-9)

In the term of multiculturalism, the term ‘culture’ is more attached to the idea of nation rather than states, which the latter gives more emphasis in a political and territorial entity. A nation-state in modern era has been changed its substance, unlike the classic Herderian model where between nation and state cannot be separated each other. Evidently, as a result of globalization, nowadays not many state can only comprise a single ethnic group. In Australia, over the past two decades, the idea of nation and state have undergone some dramatic transformation. The assumption of the Australian nation-state, in which the state could be identified almost completely with the Anglo-Saxon nation, has been superseded, at least officially by the ideology of multiculturalism.

The unity of state, as manifested by its common citizenship and institutional structures, is being complemented by the recognition, toleration and acceptance of cultural diversity at a national level. The result of this, is Australia would be a nation which is built on multicultural principles. (Smolicz 1995) In this regard, it is needed to redefine the concept of nation in the context of multi-ethnic state. The term ‘nation’ in Australian nation will no longer in terms of mono-ethnic and mono-cultural one, which obviously do not fit contemporary Australia. Smolicz (1985: 13) argues, the Australian nation cannot be squeezed back into Anglo-Celtic box, which it outgrew long ago and which, from Aboriginal perspective, was a misfit from the start. (Veit-Brause 1995: 72) Veit-Brause proposes the concept of civility[1] for a state like Australia instead of national identity. This concept is more appropriate to characterize the unique Australian nationhood. This new conceptualization is needed to bridge the confusion about ethnicity and nationality in the so-called Australian cosmopolitanism nation.

An Asian identity?

Internationally, the problem of Australian identity is also questioned. Australia has been in the middle of a relocation process in international affairs. A problem between Australian location and identity, has changed Australian attitude towards Asia-Pacific region. Gareth Evans speaking in Kuala Lumpur in July 1991, asking :

Are we to be forever seen as a European outpost, a kind of cultural misfit trapped by geography in an alien environment? Or are we to recognize that Australia’s future lies inevitably in the Asia-Pacific region – that is where we live and must survive strategically and economically, and we must find a place and role if we are to develop our full potentials as a nation? (Quoted in Firth 1993: 1)

Also, the Former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in Sydney, in April 1992, that “our destiny as a nation lies in Asia and the Pacific”. (Firth 1993: 1)

The idea that Australia should be an Asia-Pacific nation is not new. However, not until Paul Keating succeeded Bob Hawke as the leader of Federal Labour Party in December 1991, did Australia have a prime minister who linked a new Asian ties with breaking the old British one. The problem now arising is, how can Australia deal constructively with its Asian neighbours if Australia discriminate against, and do no let Asian immigrants in?

Garnaut Report in 1989 suggests Asian immigrants could form a ‘bridgehead’ for native-born Australians wanting to make links with the region. (East Asia Analytical Unit 1989) Furthermore, this report strongly recommends that Australia must improve its economic performance by linking itself more closely to northeast Asia, economically and culturally. As a consequence, as the report recommends, every high school should teach an Asian language and Asian culture.

From the early 1970s, the economic importance of the Asia-Pacific region to Australia has grown dramatically. Currently, the Asia-Pacific region is the location for over two-thirds of Australia’s imports and exports, including ASEAN states, PRC, Hong Kong, South Korea, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, the US and Canada. By contrast, just over 3 percent of Australia’s exports go to the UK and only about 2 percent of UK export find their way to Australia. (Higgot 1993: 49)

During the past few years, the support for an Australian republic has widespread in the community at large. “Closing a branch office of empire” and debate over republicanism have shown the changing context of Australia’s relation with Britain. The debate over republicanism is being conducted primarily at the domestic level and gains support especially from Australian non-British people who look at British remoteness and the meaningless of British monarchy. The Australian Republican Movement was formed in 1991 and has grown increasingly active, especially since Paul Keating was in power who targeted the republic will be forming in 2001. Keating’s attempts to internationalize Australian economy and its enmeshment in Asia and a reconciliation of a black-white divide in Australian society would have produced a unique Australian identity for the next century.

Republicanism, as Woolcott suggests, should be focused on Australia’s best interests as a nation, on what Australians feel about their national identity and how that might be more closely defined the world. According to him,

It is the time to put past or lingering personal and political suspicions behind us; to put the long term interest at the forefront. …Our self-confident, pride, and national identity would be strengthened by becoming a republic. (Woolcott, The Weekend Australia, 19-20 October, 1996)

In international relations, especially in dealing with its Southeast Asian and Pacific countries, Australia has an image problem, as Senator Evans admits, which generally are not very impressive. Many Asians think whatever Australians do, either as a nation or individually, in the domestic and international area is based essentially on racial and ethnocentric imperatives. There is a strongly held belief in Australia in the nation’s racial, cultural, and institutional superiority over anyone who is not whit, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and this belief manifest itself quite strongly in the way Australian deal with Asians in foreign and domestic affairs. (Woolcott 1996) Australian criticisms on press, human rights, and internal affairs of Asian countries, for example, sound quite harsh to them, seems like Australia is always self-righteous.

Furthermore, many Asian countries are suspicious toward Australia and perceived it as arrogant, trustworthy and persist in breaching the national sovereignty of its Asian neighbours. This is because, according to some educated Asians, Australia itself is not an independent nation. It is true that Australia is independent in governing itself, in conducting its domestic and to some extent its international affairs, but Australia is till ruled by a distant European monarch. (Kelabora 1992: 366) Ratih Hardjono, an Australian-based Indonesian journalist, asserts, “If Australia had its own president, I think Asians would trust Australia more. It would send a message to the region that Australia can cope on its own”. (O’Neil 1995: 47) Dealing the conflict between Australia and its Asian neighbours, Evans referred to the sense of ‘otherness’ that exits between Australia and regional countries. Perhaps this stems from Australian history and geography, Australian behavioural characteristic resulting from the lack of tradition, relative isolation and sparse population and frontier mentally. (Milne 1992: 84)

V. Conclusion

The Australian experience of nationhood maybe unique, and to some extent, is raising confusion to their society, especially when they talk about identity. The confusion appears because of the very rapid change since the mass immigration policy. As Freeman and Jupp examine, unlike Americans who do not confuse about their sense of “Americaness” as the result of the government’s massive efforts on education and propaganda, Australia might apply the same method while avoid the problems America has faced.

The current society Australia has now is, to a certain degree, social and cultural transformation has taken place with an institutionalized monoculture core surrounded by a developing multicultural periphery. Will Australian society transform itself becoming a real multicultural one? Many multiculturalist argue that the future of Australian multiculturalism has not been clear yet. The real multicultural society will come to its time when every section in the community are willing to abandon their unherited myths of the past and ensure to define their shelves to the social reality of the present situation.

Adding the problem in finding its internal identity, Australia has also faced it external identity as these two cannot be separated each other. Australia should willing to realize that maintaining its arrogant Anglo-Saxon identity in its neighbouring Asian countries is culturally misfits and economically unrealistic. It needs to find itself by giving a chance of a re-birth for a new identity based on multicultural principal.