" Multiculturalism" is a convenient catchword borrowed from
Canadian politics to represent a vague set of ideas which
purportedly promotes the cultural and economic interests of
certain non-Anglomorph sections of the Australian community.
If proponents of multiculturalism are asked to describe the
concept it is likely that there will be as many descriptions
as there are proponents.
Multiculturalism in Canada is an historic compromise struck
between the descendants of English-speaking settlers and
their French-speaking counterparts. French Canadians were
settled in Canada before the British; colonisations and have
since remained a linguistically distinct community. They
constitute the vast majority of the population of Quebec,
one-third of New Brunswick and significant proportions of
Ontario and Manitoba. In Canada, multiculturalism represents
a formula for the a harmonious coexistence of the two major
communities and serves to safeguard the unity and integrity
of the nation. These considerations have no relevance in the
Australian context, and hence multiculturalism in Australia
must have some other justification. But one can make no
headway in this direction without an adequate understanding
of what the concept means.
At the least contentious level, multiculturalism entails the
recognition that in Australia there exist different cultural
groups. At this level the concept is a purely factual
assertion which can have minimal effect on policy. At the
opposite end are notions of multiculturalism which an.
assert the right of each ethnic community to maintain its
language and culture on Australian soil, if necessary with
the assistance of public funded programmes. Somewhere in
between stands Senator Gareth Evans who conceives
multiculturalist policy in the supremely vague terms of
"programmes, including those supported from the public purse, expressly designed to create a more open-textured and tolerant social environment" (Quadrant, May 1982,p.5).
The multicultural debate has also been confused by the
inclusion in it of the rights and interests of the
Aboriginal population. The position of Aborigines is
historically and otherwise distinct from that of other
ethnic groups. The Australian Aborigine is found only in
Australia, and so are his language and culture. The centres
of Italian, Greek or Chinese culture are elsewhere. Whatever
happens in Australia will have no consequence for the
survival of these cultures in their respective homelands.
The survival of Aboriginal culture and language on the other
hand depends solely on what happens in Australia. Therefore
as regards the preservation of cultures themselves, there
are considerations which apply uniquely to Aboriginal
culture. The Aboriginal question is a separate debate and
should not be confused with the questions regarding the
cultural interests of other groups.
Multiculturalism of the type sought to be practised in
Australia is fundamentally flawed by a retrogressive
conception of culture itself. This conception regards
culture as something static, to be preserved in its purity
wherever the member of that cultural group reside. Culture
is not static even in isolated communities. It is in
constant evolution through interaction between human beings
and between human beings and their environment. In isolated
communities culture may evolve slowly and may even appear to
be static. But in communities which interact with other
communities, rapid cultural evolution is to be expected.
When a small community interacts with a large community it
is inevitable that the elements of the more prevalent
culture will tend to predominate in the evolutionary
outcome. Thus when a small group of Greeks or Italians
translocate themselves into an Anglomorph environment, it is
inevitable that they will become assimilated into the larger
community if not in the first generation, in the generations
to follow.
The reverse process has taken place where small groups of
Anglomorphs migrated to non-Anglomorph societies as happened
in countries such as Argentina. British Colonial
administrators were somewhat of an exception as they
isolated themselves in the colonial outposts. Even so,
Englishmen who returned from the colonies showed distinct
signs of exposure to foreign cultures. In Sri Lanka, the
English and Scottish plantation managers became a distinct
breed of Englishmen or Scotsmen under the local cultural
influence. Many had problems of resettling in Britain and a
few even returned to Sri Lanka to live out their retirement.
This happened despite the isolation and aloofness of the
European community on the island.
When the different cultural groups are exposed to one
another's influence, it is unavoidable that the cultures
will interact and that the culture of the numerically
superior group will tend to assimilate the cultures of the
others. However, this does not mean that the culture which
is assimilated will not leave its marks on the predominant
culture. Nor should it be so, for, as T.S. Eliot wrote:
'The country which receives culture from abroad without
having anything to give in return, and the country which
aims to impose its culture on another, without accepting
anything in return, will both suffer from this lack of
reciprocity'— (T.S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of
Culture,"Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot", ed Frank Kermode
(Faber and Faber, London 1975) p.303.)
Despite the cliche "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", it
is evident from history that Rome itself was transformed by
its absorption of barbarian communities into its legal
economic and social structure.
Multiculturalism, as currently conceived in Australia, seeks
to retard (for it is impossible to arrest) this process of
interaction and evolution. It involves the pouring of vast
quantities of public money into an enterprise which must
inevitably and eventually fail. To maintain for any length
of time the cultural distinctiveness of different groups,
much more than money is needed. It needs an iron clad system
of apartheid or self-imposed inward looking communal
traditions. As the unfolding events in South Africa show,
even a system of apartheid cannot indefinitely withstand the
pressures-of integration. Even if such an enterprise has a
theoretical chance of success, its goal is unacceptable from
the point of view of human development. The real chance is
that multiculturalism will fail in its objective of keeping
the cultures distinct but will ferment inter-communal disharmony.
The question is do we want an Australian culture or a
collection of distinct ethnic cultures? Does the fact that
Anglomorph features are likely to predominate in an
Australian culture make the achievement of such a national
culture any less desirable?
The next question is who needs multiculturalism? Certainly
non-Anglomorph migrants will be initially disadvantaged by
language and cultural factors. Yet the transitional problems
of new immigrants can be addressed without State-sponsored
programmes for the preservation of ethnic cultures. The
goals of alleviating transitional hardship and of culture
propagation have often been deliberately confused. The
larger objectives of multiculturalism have been undertaken
without an indication of support even from ethnic
communities. They have the endorsement of organised interest
groups within such communities but there is no evidence of
enthusiasm for them in the communities themselves.
A Morgan Gallup poll of voter intentions between April 1981
and March 1982 disclosed that even among Australians born
overseas, the distribution amongst parties were roughly
similar to Australian-born voters (The Bulletin, August
10th, 1982). According to that poll, the "overseas-born"
support for the ALP was 48.64% whereas its national
proportion was 47.46%. The corresponding figures for the
Coalition were 39.59% and 41.59%. Two significant facts
emerged from the poll. One was that the distribution of
"overseas-born" support for the parties did not
significantly vary from the national distribution despite
the fact that the ALP was more closely identified with
multiculturalism whereas the Coalition has been
traditionally portrayed as a party of Anglophiles. The
second was that overseas-born Chinese Australians, who, in
recent years, have attracted the greatest resentment gave
the Coalition a greater proportion of its support than the
Coalition received nationally (53.57% as against 39.59%).
The poll was also significant in that it did not indicate
the preferences of Australian-born ethnics, or the second
and third generation descendants of migrants. These are the
Australians who have become assimilated into the mainstream
of the cultural life and who are among the best qualified to
pronounce judgement on the multicultural theories of
patronising Anglomorphs.
For all its rhetoric, multiculturalist policies have been
mainly directed at two objectives, namely language retention
through class room teaching and the provision of cultural
entertainment through publicly funded ethnic television and
radio. As regards language teaching, no one can deny the
edifying experience of learning Italian, Greek, French,
German, Arabic or Chinese, not to mention many other rich
languages spoken by migrants. But there is a difference
between teaching language for its educational value and
teaching it in pursuance of the illusory goals of
multiculturalism. If education is the objective, then
priorities must be determined rationally after talking
account of resources, costs and benefits. In this regard it
must not be forgotten that the urgent demand of both
educationists and ethnic Australians is to increase
facilities for teaching English to migrants disadvantaged by
language.
The fallacy of the assumption that migrants want
multiculturalism is clear from the performance of ethnic
television. The McNair Anderson Survey revealed that in 1982
only 15% of the ethnic population watched the Melbourne
broadcasts of SBS Television compared with 22, 27 and 32 per
cent for the commercial channels. The channel had become a
luxury catering to the "film festival set" or as Senator
Button described, the "middle-class Australians too lazy to
go to continental cinemas". (The Bulletin, August 10, 1982).
The ethnic communities are not buying the multicultural
products peddled by governments Yet the multicultural faith
continues to be blindly preached and practised.
It might be possible to dismiss multiculturalism as another
ineffectual exercise in social engineering if not for the
fact that, even if it fails in its stated aims, it might
still succeed in sowing the seeds of communal discord.
Australia is among the fortunate countries of the world
which has the capacity to culturally unify diverse peoples
with minimum trauma. Many countries, for mainly historical
and political reasons, have immense problems of resolving
conflicts between competing cultures which resist
integration. Sri Lanka, my own country of birth, is a prime
example. Ever since the unifying element of a common
language (English) was removed by chauvinistic politicians,
the two minor lingual communities have treated one another
with mistrust and hostility. Australia fortunately has no
similar problem as yet. But the multicultural policy creates
one where none exists. The violence that erupted at a recent
soccer match between Sydney City and Sydney Olympic shocked
our community. But few have been concerned enough to examine
the relationship of that incident to the unsavoury tendency
to organise soccer clubs on ethnic lines. That ugly episode
has an important lesson for people who have created a virtue
out of cultural separation.
Multiculturalism as conceived at present has no place in a
democratic society. The democratic society is characterised
by the absence of discrimination and the presence of
individual freedom. In such a society there is cultural
freedom and the freedom of conscience. An individual is free
to engage in cultural activity by himself or in association
with others. If one wishes to live in isolation, he may do
so. But he also has the freedom to intermingle and interact.
What is not permissible in a truly free society is the
imposition of rules of behaviour or the state sponsorship of
culture. Culture belongs to the people and its destiny must
remain in their hands. A society based on the satisfaction
of individual needs through voluntary exchange is fertile
ground for cultural enrichment. Wave upon wave of immigrants
have come to Australia not because of a state-guaranteed
cultural environment but because of the expectation that
Australia affords the freedom and opportunity for individual
advancement. Far from discouraging migration, the Anglomorph
culture of Australia, with its liberal political traditions,
has served as a major attraction to immigrants.
The expectation of migrants that Australian society will
afford opportunities for them to satisfy their material,
spiritual and cultural needs has largely been realised by
the liberal character of the Australian institutions and the
deep conviction in the liberal way of life shared by the
Australian community. Propagandists for multiculturalism
obscure the fact that Australia without its patronising
governments and do-gooders is one of the most tolerant
societies on earth. This may not be apparent to
propagandists of multiculturalism but it is abundantly clear
to migrants, the majority of whom have left oppression of
one sort or another. Australia is not free of bigotry and
prejudice. But relative to other nations this country's
tolerance of immigrants is second to none. Multiculturalism
is yet another example of governments trying to cure the
imperfections of society through condescending theories and
short-sighted political actions. It is a part of the
"constructivist fallacy" which F.A. Hayek so lucidly exposed
in his book, "Law, Legislation and Liberty."
If the proponents of multiculturalism care to ascertain the
views and perceptions of the silent majority they will surly
find that what endears Australia to immigrants is not simply
its abundant riches but its political traditions which,
until recently, have enabled individuals to live heir
personal lives without government interference. They will
find that most immigrants would rather not see Australia
acquire the traits and characteristics which made their own
homelands inhospitable to them.
| « NEXT » | « Nature & Origin of Multiculturalism » | « Topics for Australians » | « Home » |