Multiculturalism and its discontents
By Michael Cooke and Suriyakumaran
When one peruses the newspapers and the air waves, one is struck by most people's lack of knowledge on the issue of multiculturalism, whatever their political persuasion. Multiculturalism is amorphous — it becomes anything the storyteller wants to make it.
On the left multiculturalism is not even acknowledged. It is submerged in the rhetoric against racism.
In a talk to the Democratic Socialist Party's conference, "150th Years of the Communist Manifesto" in January, Lisa Macdonald gave a deserved and apt critique of multicultural practice, saying: "The main activities of the movement for reconciliation — tolerance festivals, celebrations of cultural diversity and so on — are premised on the idea that racial inequality can be combated through education campaigns to undermine racial stereotypes and through reasonable appeals for tolerance ..." (Macdonald 1998)
She went on to say: "This continues the work of painting a multicultural veneer over the institutionalised racism in Australia".
This we think is wrong, for it again falls into the trap the left always allows itself to fall into — the "one size fits all" mentality, in terms of strategy and analysis.
We need to recognise the links, explicit and implicit, between the economic, political, cultural and ideological spheres that interact to create the beast we know as society. To emphasise one at the expense of others is a recipe for failure. For as Reich has pointed out and Stalinism has proved, you can be radical on the economic front and reactionary on the others.
Thus we tend not recognise the possible political space available to the left, with the potential for new strategies, alliances and honest compromises.
For the social democrats who dominate the multicultural industry, it is all about celebrating "the richness and diversity of Australians, the traditions and the freedoms which they enjoy". (Stephen Castles et al, 1988: Mistaken Identity: Multiculturalism and the demise of nationalism in Australia.)
This translates into: do whatever you have to do, but let us not deal with the unpleasant, sexist, chauvinist and exploitative past of this great southern land.
In addition, it reduces the radical potential of multiculturalism, by not letting migrants debate what they want Australian society to be.
Furthermore, there is no recognition (as all cultures are idealised) of the intolerant elements in migrant communities themselves (e.g. people supporting Taliban) — a contradiction which migrants should be encouraged to discuss.
By ignoring these elements and celebrating our rich ethnic diversity, we create a safe homogenised kitsch, thus losing the opportunity for fruitful discussion within the larger community.
This sort of infantile behaviour plays into racist and assimilationist hands. It helps associate multiculturalism in the public mind with something childish, a waste of taxpayers' money, without doing away with deeper fears of "foreigners" and social divisiveness. This allows pompous old history professors like Geoffrey Blainey to thunder:
"Multiculturalism is an appropriate policy for those residents who hold two sets of national loyalties and two passports. For the millions of Australians who have only one home and one loyalty this policy is a national insult."
This sort of attitude on Australian homogeneity reflects a persistent sediment in the history of this parched land — an ideology of resistance to cultural and institutional change.
Furthermore, as Michael Pusey has aptly noted, senior policy advisers tend to perceive most issues from the perspective of economic rationalism. Here there is little room for consideration of social issues, let alone issues of ethnicity and cultural diversity.
This resistance to institutional and cultural change can be best exemplified by the puerile debate about "political correctness".
4
So called "marginal" figures, including the Chancellor of Sydney University, Dame Leonie Kramer, poet Les (redneck) Murray, columnist Padraic McGuinness, occasional broadcaster, regular columnist and full time windbag Terry (misogynist) Lane, playwright David (dead white male) Williamson, Deputy Prime Minister Tim (cliché) Fischer and everybody's favourite little man, Honest Johnny Howard, complain long, loud and persistently that their voice, concerns and issues are being censored by the PC brigades.
These characters already dominate the public space. What is the freedom they want — the freedom to vilify non-Anglo Australians?
As Christos Tsiolkas says, "I no longer wish to use the term 'political correctness' because I do not want to align myself with the homophobes, misogynists and polite racists who can't stop whingeing about the number of poofters, dykes, abos, wogs and chinks getting published. Any perusal of any Australian section of a bookshop in this city will show that the dead white males, and I might add dead white females, are still writing and getting published. I wish there were more faggots, dykes, wogs, blackfellas, trannies, punks, ferals, surrealists and Ukrainians getting published."
Our personal observation is that these white middle-class middle-aged wankers fear that they no longer have a monopoly on truth, style and politics, and that their cherished verities are merely polished prejudice.
It is sad to say that one of the institutions most resistant to change is that tin of Anglo-Celtic sardines, the ABC.
Radio National (with a few exceptions) presents a monocultural Anglo-Australian image of Australian society. Philip Adams, doyen of radio broadcasters, says:
"Rather than keeping Australia's flame, the ABC was carrying a torch for Britain. The television service was in effect, the BBC's third network ... the organisation ran what was (and still is), in effect, a White Australia Policy. It gave WASP broadcasting. Or, rather, WASA: White Anglo Saxon Anglican."
It is notable that Philip Adams has on his show rarely taken up issues of multiculturalism and ethnicity.
In conclusion, we think that in our struggle to have a more humane and just society we need to look at multiculturalism in a much more positive political light.
Like socialism, multiculturalism needs to be created on the ground. Both are pivotal to the type of society we wish to create. Thus we in the left must ensure that the wider migrant community participate fully in the current debate and at the same time engage with the more reactionary elements in migrant communities with the aim of making the movement more progressive. With this in mind we hope this short piece will stimulate some debate within the left on this neglected issue.
Multiculturalism gives us a chance to influence the culture of this country; socialism gives us a chance to change society. The fusion of the two will give us a base to move the struggle into the next millennium.