Defining Multicultural Australia
The London bombings have again sparked some discussion about the nature of multiculturalism. Pamela Bone has written and article in today's Age . Bone makes a critique of multiculturalism from a left prespective, which she has made before. Her argument is not dissimilar from those from the right criticising this policy. But instead of advocating that migrants should assimilate and conform to a 'football, meat pies and Holden cars' Australian suburban ideal, she questions multiculturalism when a culture (or at least a small part of it) advocates practices which are incompatible with the liberal 'left' ideas of a western society.
She mentions the example of the Netherlands, one of the most welcoming countries in the world when it comes to multiculturalism, having to face the killings of Theo van Gogh, after he made a film critical of Islam (amongst other things) and the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a gay conservative that advocated restriction of immigration from certain contries (for another look at these issues you can read an article by Nermin Aydemir in the Turkish Weekly). Her basic argument is that we may disagree with the views of these people, but they have every right to express them without intimidation. The sub-text in her article is that our societies accept things like gay relationships, having couples and children without marriage, abortion etc. and that whoever lives in a society where such practices are the norm has to accept them.
As Bone states:
Multiculturalism means that migrants are not only allowed but encouraged to retain and celebrate their own cultures. To do so they receive financial help from governments to build schools and places of worship and community centres. Canada started it. We've had it here and it's mainly been wonderful, enriching the whole of the society. But is it now time to start thinking more about its limits? Couscous yes, child marriage no?
My take is that this 'limiting' always existed and it was always on the cards. This was apparent when I worked as a research officer at the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission when 'Multiculturalism' was all the rage in the mid-80's. I realised that multiculturalism as it was implemented by Australian governments was a 'con'. Its purpose was to give the illusion that it gave free expression for different groups to express their culture, but this was certainly limited to 'safe' things like food, dancing, literature etc. Once you went into more serious things like law and education the culture stayed resolutely in the Australian tradition.
Sociologists that deal with immigration issues talk about 'cultural divergence' between the culture of the immigrant and the culture of the place of immigraton. Therefore the cultural divergence between a British person and Australia is very small, while for someone from the Ivory Coast or Sudam may be much greater. I could see that from a mainstream western/European prespective (because Australia is not alone in this) Multiculturalism was fine for cultures where divergence was small. So Italians, Greek, and even countries which had a British influence such as Hong Kong the issues were relatively small. This was also the case amongst some cultures like many Asian ones where there is a tradition in adaptability towards host cultures and cultures which had religions that tend to look at the inner person, rather than sets rules for a society as a whole.
The problem arises when the divergence is greater and there are less opportunities to mix with the host culture. For instances even in the late 1800's male immigrants from my part of the world (northen Italy/Italian Switzerland) settled in the Dayleford area in Victoria and married local girls of Irish descent, because catholicism was a common cultural thread. This is more difficult if the religion and customs are so divorced from the mainstream, and this encourages separatism and less chances to mix.
My idea of multiculturalism is not to create separate citadels (which is the criticism that many on the right have about the policy) but to view each culture as a valid one. Not better or worse than the other. I can see how Multiculturalism may have started in Canada which had to deal with a substantial French-speaking population.
I have always held great respect for the Anglo/Celtic traditions and culture, even as a child going to London for the first time when I was nine. And living in Australia I also see lots of the good aspect of it. However I can see how a belief that English-speaking culture is somewhat 'superior' than others (the Corby case is a typical example of this) would induce a constant pressure to jettison the 'old inferior' culture and adopt the 'superior' one in Australia. I think Multiculturalism was a response to this. A way to respect the culture of the immigrant as being as valid as the one of the host country. The problem is that some people pushing multiculturalism went the other way, bemoaning Australia as a cultural desert before the influx of migrants - which is absolutely untrue, or even using the excuse of Multiculturalism to push their own agenda (an well publicised example is abolishing Christian references during Christmas in some schools because it may 'offend' some children from different backgrounds - when it has been repeatedly shown that no offence is caused, in fact quite the opposite, but 'multiculturalism' and the other cultures get the flak).This of course created a huge backlash against the policy which was exploited crudely by Pauline Hanson and more ably by John Howard.
So I would ditch the term of 'Multiculturalism' firtly because it was never implemented (and never was intended to be) and secondly because it has been abused and mis-used too much by some with agendas. Bone concludes her article by saying: Perhaps it is time to say, it's been wonderful, but a few things need to be made clear. Perhaps it is time to say, you are welcome, but this is the way it is here.
She has a point. As long as we don't all have to conform to an ideal of Howardian Australianess full of ANZACS and Bradmans and suburban ideals that many Australians from non-English speaking background cannot feel part of.
Let's agree that Australia has a proud tradition of western thought and law. And agree that whoever wants to become part of it needs to accept its tenets. And see how we can accept diversity within that framework.
In the book Looking for leadership, Australia in the Howard years Donald Horne cites a speech made by Bill Clinton on 1998 at the time when the One Nation Party won all those seats in the Queensland election. Horne is not totally happy with it, and neither am I. I wouldn't accept that Australians when they hear "new accents or they see new faces they feel unsettled" but something like this could form the basis of a new multiculturalism that everyone could be happy with. (Australia/Australians has been substituted for America/Americans.)
"Australia's success is not to do with a particular race but with its embrace of a common humanity and beliefs. But many Australians don't see it that way. When they hear new accents or they see new faces they feel unsettled. They worry that new immigrants come not to work hard but to live off our largesse. They are afraid the Australia they know and love is becoming a foreign land. This reaction may be understandable but it is wrong. Let me state my view unequivocally. I believe new immigrants are good for Australia. They are revitalising our cities. They are strengthening out ties to the global economy, just as earlier waves of immigrants pioneered the bush and powered our industries.
But, just like native-born Australians, immigrants have responsibilities as well as rights, including the need to put country and humanity before ethnicity and race. I say, as Prime Minister, to all our immigrants, you are welcomed here. But you must honour our laws, learn our language, know our history, and when the time comes, you should become citizens. If you do this it does not matter how long you have been here. You are Australians.''
Update
In its inimitable style, Piers Akerman writes about Pamela Bone and Terry Lane about their 'reversals' towards multiculturallism, ignoring the fact that Pamela Bone has written about her issues with islamic fundementalism towards women (she even supported the Iraq war for heaven sake!) and Terry Lane voiced misgivings about multiculturalism since the 1970's when I was hearing his morning programs on the then 3LO. But you can' beat that gloating feeling that 'we were right' and the 'left is coming to its senses' now can we. Even if it based on ignorance.
