Multiculturalism
By Suriyankumaran, Gaetano Greco and Michael Cooke
In GLW #348 Iggy Kim posed the rhetorical question "Does multiculturalism defend migrant rights?". The answer is, not very well. For all the improvements, "racism continues to exist, but multiculturalism absolves the social system of any role in it.
"Multiculturalism recognises the token equality of all national identities, cultures and nationalities, but by its very nature (as an ideology to broaden the base of Australian nationalism) it cannot be a mosaic of multiple nationalities, and has ultimately to rely on only one, Australian nationalism. But a version that's no longer racially and ethnically exclusive. Instead it's the liberal nationalism embodied in the multicultural reconciliatory republic."
Kim's description and critique of the Paul Keating model of multiculturalism is fair. But this model does not encompass the whole ideological spectrum that is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is a dialectic between the dominant culture and minority cultures. It gives us the potential to break the nexus between the coloniser and the colonised.
Kim shows why a lot of what is now called multiculturalism irritates the left, but he also acknowledges that there has been a widening of the cultural and social sphere. This concession "has brought a significant progress in the general culture of this country: a widening of people's experiences and outlook ... This free interaction of different national-cultural expressions must be resolutely defended."
He goes on to argue that the price of this concession is assimilation into the political and economic system that ideologically dominates and economically exploits its workers. It's true that the dominant trend in multiculturalism has been integrationist (not assimilationist — the idea of everybody becoming a "good little Aussie" was abandoned to allow migrants a measure of cultural and linguistic autonomy, while being expected to integrate into the institutions of this country). But this is due to the left's failure to challenge those who ideologically dominate this field.
It is well and good to have cultural festivals and celebrations of tolerance, but what does this do for the high rates of unemployment in the Vietnamese and Lebanese communities. We should be arguing and agitating for proper job creation for the marginalised members of these communities and in the process exposing the passive and paternalistic agenda of the "ethnic industry".
In these days of internecine ethnic conflicts, it is easy to confuse those progressive concerns fought for under the umbrella of national identity with nationalism in which loyalty to the nation takes precedence over issues of equity, social justice and democracy.
Australian nationalism has always displayed both these tendencies, exemplified by the debate on the "black armband view of history". The central theme of this debate is, as Henry Reynolds put it in the television documentary Frontier, "Was Australia settled or invaded? Pioneered or conquered? Won by sweat or won by blood? Was it the fruit of industry or prize of war?".
Reynolds, like a lot of the left, would say the latter. This infuriates conservatives. In November 1996, PM John Howard said: "I take a different view. I believe that the balance sheet of our history is one of heroic achievement and that we have achieved much more as a nation of which we can be proud than of which we should be ashamed."
National identity is the object of continuing and fruitful dispute, in which multiculturalism (as a dialectic process) is an open and progressive ingredient, and in which the left has a strong role to play.
The Anglo-Celts have been forced to deal with the contradictions in their history, including the inadequacy of nationalism as a cover-all. Yet no attempt is made by the non-Anglo community to debate these matters with thoroughness and vigour. This is not surprising: to gain the acquiescence of the so-called ethnic vote the political and social system has thrown up a cabal of ethnic community leaders who do not encourage a conversation with the majority community beyond the questions of funding and cultural celebrations.
Yet it is imperative for the non-Anglo community to understand Australian history, and argue their case within it. More importantly, we need (and the left can play an important role here) to force the Anglo-Celtic community to confront their unpalatable past in an honest and dialectical way.
This applies between other ethnic communities also: when the Kurds demonstrate for their national rights they should be joined and supported by the Turkish community.
A multiculturalism that offers a dialectical communication between communities can understand the progressive and reactionary elements within majority and minority cultures. Intervening in the multicultural process to develop a strong sense of social justice will go a long way towards fostering secular humanistic institutions and traditions to counter the madness of race, destiny, xenophobia and nationalism.