What does it mean to be an Australian
The discussion of what it means to be an Australian was instigated by Dr. Simon Bowler, an Associate Professor with a distinguished career as a respiratory and sleep physician. We are also lucky to have him as the President of the Brisbane Dialogues as well as being the coordinator of the First Tuesday Club. Referring to the well-known Seekers song “I am Australian” Simon asks what dream do we share and “to what extent do we sing as one”. He, together with Michael Ondaatje, Head of the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University made an initial presentation of their thoughts on the question and then led a discussion with the floor on this important issue. We would like to thank Simon and Michael for making us explore our own thoughts on being Australian.
Overview
The discussion ranged widely covering characteristics of Australians, Australia’s origin story, the division within the country as well as much reference to the impact of immigrants on this country.
Key points made by Simon and Michael and from the table.
Note- due to the ranging nature of the discussion the points below are not in the order in which they were made and each bullet point may contain the comments of several people
Australian characteristics:
Chat GPT listed Australians as having a laid back attitude, being friendly and welcoming, having a sense of humour, being outdoorsy, sporting, multicultural and diverse, pragmatic, having environmental awareness, having a love of nature, and having national pride.
Added to this could be the fact that Australians work longer hours than most people around the world.
Reference was made to Noel Pearson’s statement that our nation is in three parts, our ancient heritage, our British inheritance, and our multicultural achievement.
Reference was made to John Hirst and his view of Australia as intellectually serious rather than simply loyalty to a tribe. The view was that Hirst had two common themes diversity and unity. Making a reference to a person of Vietnamese heritage he had seen busking with a didgeridoo, he believed that Australians were becoming more diverse and that the marrying of such diversity will produce new people much better suited to our country, even our skin colour will become more suitable to our climate.
Julianne Schulz in her book The Idea of Australia suggests that when looking at the Australian idea there is a contest between those who are altruistic and those who are inward looking. It was suggested this is nonsense. Reference was made to the US as also having both people who are hopeful and ambitious and people who are inward looking.
The 2019 Australia Talks data showed that respecting our institution and our laws is regarded as being very important.
Reference was made to the view that Australian society is distinctive in that its values seem sometimes to conflict. For example, there was strong opposition to military conscription in Australia but the country is OK with compulsory voting. Australia is said to be egalitarian but it does not oppose private schools.
It was very Australian that we had a referendum on the Voice and everyone got a say. It was also interesting that the majority of Australians rejected what was “the party line” put forward by academics, the government and many of the large corporate organisations.
There are no grand Australian statements about democracy but democratic values flourish underneath. We are one of the oldest democracies but the political record does not say what sort of person we are.
We have compulsory voting in Australia and are encouraged not to throw away our vote, but in the US they say – you can’t make me vote. Australia was the first country to have secret ballots. This is all about the chance to make a meaningful impact.
There was also the suggestion that it was un-Australian to dislike the sound of the didgeridoo.
Comment was made that Australians are very interested in horse racing. Australia has the most horses in the world, one horse to every 300 people. Does this connection with horses indicate a connection with the countryside.
Civil society is important but you find it much more in the small towns than you do in Brisbane. People in small towns are generally conservative but with regard to (for example) gays, migrants, people of colour, country people don’t care provided they are stepping towards what it means to be Australian. For example, Ash Barty is regarded as being a true Australian but the same is not thought of Kyrgios. It is a matter of demeanour and attitude. Country people don’t care if you are black or green, but they do tend to dislike “tall poppies”. Australia is a classless society, egalitarianism is important, community should be put above self, but “don’t tell us what to do”.
It was put forward that Australians respect achievements but not institutions. A lot of institutions have a lot of things wrong. What is needed is respect for the fabric of the country, its values and processes in the courts, governments and parliament. But what is happening is a disrespecting of expertise and those institutions which confuse cynicism with intelligence.
Obtaining Australian citizenship:
The question was raised, what happens when you obtain Australian citizenship compared with other countries. Tony Burke stated that when you take on the privilege of Australian citizenship you will become part of and contribute to Australia. (The pledge can be taken with or without God.) In the US you pledge to renounce all other countries, you agree to bear arms and to take on work of national importance. In Britain you agree to support King Charles, his heirs and successors.
The view was put that getting Australian citizenship is the most expensive and complex in the world. It costs $7000 just to apply.
Australia’s origin story:
Australia was born in a different way from the US. We wrote about the creation of a nation in a pragmatic way. We did not have a grand story. At Federation, politicians, poets ordinary people, did have visions, not romantic visions but their story could have been a bit more binding of us as a nation. The US had the concept of freedom but in Australia, beyond culture and identity what were the ideas? While we may not have had a creative constitution, Australia does not need it written down. One of our stories is of convicts and the hardship they endured. The fact that it was not proclaimed does not diminish its power. One suggestion as to why the States federated is economic interest. Another is the interest of the States in projecting more power. There was a concern that colonies were second rate in the nineteenth century. Federation was about status, forming a new nation. This act elevated their sense of self.
Changing of Australia:
There is worry about the fracturing of the country when we consider the divisive debates about the Voice, when we look at the latest displays of anti-semitism, when we hear people teaching their own politics in the classroom.
Reference was made to a family member who migrated to Australia being angry about the direction of the country. When he arrived the greatest thing was the liberation. In Colombo you could find a body floating in the river if something wrong was said. It is now not right that in Australia you cannot say what you think.
The question was raised, what does it mean to say that you are not allowed to say something. Is it that you have been cold-shouldered? Attacked by the media? It was suggested there is a different atmosphere around academia. It is not that you theoretically cannot speak but rather that you self-censor. Working in Higher Education, in a humanities area, if for example you have particular views on, say, abortion you probably won’t speak.
Driving these unproductive policies in Australia is social media. It can become exploitative/oppressive.
How we think about Australia has changed since the second World War.
Impact of different cultures on Australia both Indigenous and through immigration.
We are a migrant country and a diverse country. A hospital ward around a decade ago found few people in that ward who were born in Australia. Currently around 30% of Australians are not native born and 50% have parents who are not native born. Though there are many people from Britain and New Zealand, India is very much represented.
The point was made that migrants do not move to countries that are worse than the one they left. The fact that they migrate to another country is a great affirmation of that country. They are pushed by the deterioration of the country they left but also pulled by what is a free, stable and on balance a good country. It is a “stepping towards” a new life. If one talks about the deficits in a country the question should be, as compared to what. Reference was made to relatives who migrated from Sri Lanka, they believed Australia was not perfect but got most things right most of the time.
Reference was made to John Hirst’s concept of diversity and unity. But it was suggested this as a concept can in fact be used to crowd people out. What is better is the concept of integration. This idea is not to be conflated with assimilation.
When migrants first came to this country initially there was not a lot of mixing but within about ten years many bought homes in the suburbs, married white Australians and were integrated. People thought in the 50s that, for example, Greek grandmothers, those who habitually dressed in black, would not integrate - but it happened.
The point was made that the concept of integration can be challenging. We celebrate individualism but if we integrate we lose the benefit of individuality. What is it, for example, to be Indigenous, or to have another culture. A response was that we need to distinguish between integration and assimilation. One contributor suggested that he was not a proponent of assimilation . Integration does not mean you forget your cultural roots but rather that you embrace the new culture. The problem is that integration has become a conservative concept. Integration of spirit and values is what we should be talking about. Neville Bonner for example first talked about assimilation but then moved towards integration The problem was noted that we can have diversity up to a point but we do get to the situation where a decision has to be made. There does come a point where pluralism becomes a problem.
It was suggested that you can be integrated but still have your own cultural community.
When Islamic communities come to Australia the country expects some integration. The question was raised however what actually will happen with this community. A response was that the rule of law in a country will protect against matters such as child brides, genital mutilation. The problem is that if the rule of law dissolves it would become “hairy” for society.
We can have cultural diversity but when different cultures come into conflict where do we stand? How do we have a discussion in a civil society when this happens.
Multiculturalism was imposed from the top down but the best process was integration from the bottom up.
It was suggested that it is better to think of cosmopolitanism rather than multiculturalism.
Being an historian is a left leaning profession so a lot is written about discrimination but it was suggested this is not the most interesting issue, a lot of countries practised discrimination, what is amazing is how quickly Australia moved from White Australia to being a melting pot. After World War 2, Australians were suspicious of newcomers but on the whole they accepted them. If they did not make a nuisance of themselves they could be Australian and Australians were friendly towards them.
It was suggested that not only will the culture of the migrant be transformed but the culture of the country itself will be transformed by the migrant. It is a two way street. Australia is now a very different country from what it was in 1946. Brisbane even in 1999 was a big country town now it is rich, vibrant and very cosmopolitan.
The amazing thing is that this transformation of Australia by its migrants has been a stable, peaceful, remarkable achievement when compared with other countries.
Immigrants when they arrive already have a culture so have a kind of mental resistance to the Australian attitude. Examples were given – “near enough is good enough” which is probably a result of needing to make do in the bush – has a weird ring in the ears of an American (though now thought to be profoundly wise). Similarly “Punch above our weight” and the joke, “how many Australians does it take to change a light bulb? Don’t know, don’t care”. These all say something about the pragmatism of Australians. But these attitudes go against the grain of previous acculturation of an American. Example was given of an American who returned to America as he found the culture here was so different from America.
Does mateship translate into the US?
What happens when Indigenous culture is contrary to non-Indigenous. An example was given of a young non-Indigenous person who took a didgeridoo to school but was told she was no allowed to play it as women do not play the didgeridoo. There does not appear to be a health reason for a girl not to be allowed to play the didgeridoo, simply cultural though there was a suggestion that Indigenous people believe it may impact on a woman’s ability to have children.
There is a real danger in our romanticising any culture. They then become beyond question.
The question was raised as to whether Aboriginal people are regarded as simply another ethnic group or whether non-Indigenous people think of them as something different. Response was that Australia generally regards them as more distinct than just another ethnic group. If the referendum had simply asked that they be recognised as the First Peoples, it would have been passed. One hesitation raised about the Voice was that once you elevate one particular group, it makes the case for other groups to be recognised in some way.
Other:
How did the characteristics of being an Australian evolve? What should “being an Australian” mean?
The question of cultural appropriation was raised briefly but time did not allow a discussion.