Mass immigration works against ideas of national unity… the disintegration of a unitary ideology of the nation is epitomized in the move from official state policies of assimilation of culturally different ‘others’ to a multiculturalism which respects their differences. (1990, 102-103)
While previous Australian policies such as assimilation and integration have been based on the premise that the immigrant will actively become part of a unitary ‘white’ Australian culture, multiculturalism alternatively advocated the ability for migrants to maintain their cultural heritage and position these within an Australian context. Ultimately, the policy of multiculturalism is seen as a critical moment which shifted an Australian national identity from British influences, as such influences have been fundamental to the construction and development of government policies in Australia’s past.
In Race Daze, Jon Stratton articulates the consequent dilemmas with the notion of multiculturalism, particularly in relation to the problematic way in which multiculturalism is constructed through an Anglo Celtic culture which marginalizes ‘ethnic cultures’ and also the idea that multiculturalism promotes the notion of culture as stable and fixed (1998, 206). Stratton writes: “It is the core culture which is privileged while the marginal, ethnic cultures are formulated as ‘objectified spectacles’ for the members of the core culture” (1998, 209). The ‘core culture’, being that of predominantly Anglo-Celtic origin is empowered through multiculturalism who is advantaged by objectifying the ‘ethnic cultures’. A subsequent problem is the issue of ‘ethnicity’ which Walters and Crook write:
One of the most common terms used to describe an ethnic group is minority group. This implies not only that the ethnic group is often though not always, in a numerical minority but also that it is in some way subordinate to a dominant or majority group. (1993, 215)
Through the notion of an ‘ethnic’ group as often referred to as a minority it may be seen how multiculturalism has in fact constructed a binary between the minority and the dominant group who are predominantly Anglo Celtic and who are seen to represent Australian society, a society that is based on the exclusion of such groups by producing ‘ethnics’ marginalization within it.
As Stratton views multiculturalism problematic in that it bases itself on the objectification of ethnic groups by an already empowered majority, this consequently produces the idea of ‘othering’. Through Australian history, particularly in relation to government policies, an Australian national identity has been formulated which has excluded ethnics which can be seen through the White Australian policy which constructed the identity of Australia as exclusively Anglo. Castles writes: “Being Australian has… been defined in racist terms” (1990, 7) and as a result, Australian national identity has ‘othered’ these ethnic groups. Dr Helen Shoobridge writes: “So traditionally the others in the Australian nation have been women and anyone who did not fit the British identity… Australia’s history includes many deliberate government policies to ensure that these groups were othered” (2003, 1). Such policies have been the White Australia, Assimilation and Multiculturalism policy which were all enforced by a male white government which have consequently ‘othered’ those who do not fit the ‘British identity’.
Ethnic communities have undoubtedly been ‘othered’ within Australian society in the past as well as in contemporary society, which consequently advocates the idea that those who are objectified are fixed. Dr Helen Shoobridge writes that to ‘other’ is primarily a way to objectify an object which advocates the idea that: “the other cannot change, the other is fixed” (2003, 2). A second element of othering is the idea of the other as homogenous which stereotypes the object (Shoobridge, 2003, 2). As ethnic groups have been clearly othered and segregated from being included within the Australian national identity the process of multiculturalism may be seen to ‘pigeonhole’ and ‘permanently marginalize’ these migrants and restrict and limit other ways of knowing and being. This process ensures that such migrants will be constantly seen for their ethnicity, which is presented as homogeneous and are consequently excluded from being ‘authentic’ Australians. Due to such ethnics encountering this objectification by the dominant white society within Australia such migrants consequently endure what Stratton describes as being ‘permanently marginalized’ and ‘forever ethnicised’ (1994, 153).
Another important element that Shoobridge advocates within the concept of the ‘other’ is the issue that the “Other makes the subject real and authentic. Since the other is always in relation to me the other is compared to me” (2003, 4). Through the othering of ethnic groups in relation to an Australian national identity it consequently emphasized the authenticity of those ‘othering’ as the ‘real’ Australians. In this way, the process of ‘othering’ can be seen as a way for the dominant groups within society to reassert their dominance as a legitimate Australian subject in comparison to a clearly marked ‘other’ that is evidently viewed and positioned as unauthentic. Stratton perceptibly writes that: “In the system of official multiculturalism where ethnic groups…are objectified, the increasing self-consciousness of the ‘real’ Australians is manifested in the new description of them as ‘Anglo-Celtic’ and ‘mainstream Australians’” (1998, 209). Official multiculturalism can thus be seen as a way of objectifying or othering the ‘ethnic communities’ and through such objectification manifests the idea of the ‘real’ Australians as Anglos, who reassert their authenticity through the process of ‘othering’. Therefore, multiculturalism creates a binary between the ‘real’ Australians who ‘other’ the ethnic communities in order to reassert their authenticity as well as to enforce the ‘ethnics’ illegitimacy as part of the ‘real’ Australian society. Stratton writes that: “…official multiculturalism has conceptualized ethnic cultures, offered culture as an object of study, in the process Othering the members of that culture” (1998, 210). Effectively, Stratton identifies Official multiculturalism as a notion constructed by Government policies which consequently enacts a process of ‘othering’ ethnic groups which produces a clear binary dividing ‘ethnic communities’ and ‘Australian society’.
Ushered in through a policy of multiculturalism is the idea that different ethnicities should be more tolerant of each other, as Robert Hughes states that ‘multiculturalism means tolerance’ (Hage, 1998, 82), primarily meaning that white society should be tolerant of migrants. Advocated from this idea has been the consequent development of a binary between tolerance and intolerance where to give people the ability to be tolerant of the other consequently promote and reasserts that they have the ability to be intolerant. Preston King writes: “Where we empower an agent to be tolerant, we empower him equally to be intolerant” (Hage, 1998, 85). And consequently Hage writes: “when those who are intolerant are asked to be tolerant, their power to be intolerant is not taken away from them. It is, in fact, reasserted by the very request not to exercise it” (1998, 85). So to say ‘be tolerant’ is to consequently empower the idea that they have the power not to be which reinforces and reminds them that they are initially intolerant.
As multiculturalism can be seen through Hughes as an act of tolerance (Hage, 1998, 82) this signifies a dilemma in that it is a process which enforces the idea of ethnic groups as a fixed group that is consequently marginalized by the dominance of Anglo-Celtics. Hage emphasizes the effects of tolerance on the ‘other’ when he writes: “To tolerate is not just to accept, it is to accept and position the other within specific limits or boundaries” (1998, 89). Here, the act of tolerance that is consequently encouraged through multiculturalism can be seen as a way of fixing and limiting the marginalization of ethnic groups who are ‘tolerated’ by the dominant society, which in turn has the effect of further empowering such dominance. Hage writes: “The tolerated are never just present, they are positioned… this power to tolerate is …the power to position the other as an object within a space that one considers one’s own” (1998, 90). Here, we have the notion of tolerance that multiculturalism activates as a way in which the dominant society objectifies and ‘others’ the migrants and through such power they consequently have the authority to position them within a society they perceive as ‘theirs’ and not the migrants. Consequently, through the process of tolerance and ‘othering’ which is advocated by multiculturalism comes the idea that a binary operates in relation to ‘ethnic communities’ and ‘Australian society’, with the latter possessing power over the former.
‘Ethnicity’ may be seen as a notion that is deeply connected to the idea of a minority and Walters writes that: “In everyday use the term ‘ethnic’ has come to be applied to members of minority ethnic groups” (1993, 214). Consequently to identify a group as ethnic undoubtedly presents the community as a minority and because the term is not used in regard to white society a binary has been constructed where ‘ethnic communities’ are marginalized by a subsequently empowered white ‘Australian society’. Ethnics marginalized by the dominant culture consequently face the possibility of being ‘othered’, which may be seen to pigeonhole and permanently marginalize them which can be seen through Stratton’s problem with multiculturalism which posits the idea of ethnicity as fixed and stable. So too then are ethnic communities, in that they are given a place in society dependent on their ethnicity and will constantly be ethnicised and ‘othered’ by the dominant society.
Similar to previous Australian policies, the ‘white’ Australian society benefits through multiculturalism as such a dominant society remains the dominant sector which ‘others’ and marginalizes the ‘ethnic communities’ who are clearly affected in a negative way. Through the policy of multiculturalism the terms ethnicity and culture have failed to be perceived as fluid categories and has consequently constructed such notions as fixed and static. This idea implemented by the official policy of multiculturalism consequently has negative affects upon ‘ethnic’ groups who are subsequently pigeonholed and fixed within society. The ‘white’ society can be seen to primarily benefit from this view of multiculturalism due to the fact that it reasserts their dominance and further marginalizes the minority status of ethnics. By emphasizing the existence of such migrants as primarily ‘ethnic’ consequently sets up a binary which excludes ethnics from being seen as incorporated within Australian society, which promotes the dominant Anglo sector as authentically Australian. However, while ‘ethnic communities’ are clearly not benefiting from multiculturalism, it must be observed that migrants may benefit more within this phase of Australian society in comparison to earlier policies, for example the Assimilation policy where migrants were required to adopt the ‘Australian way of life’ and forced to reject their culture or the white Australian policy where such non-British migrants were completely prohibited from immigrating to Australia.
The problems that multiculturalism evokes seems as though they have no possibility of being solved within the context of an Australian society due to such a racist history developed and constructed through the dominance of Anglo-Celtics as a primary marker of national identity. For this reason it appears as though ethnic communities will continue to embody a marginalized position that is 'othered' and objectified and enforced by the dominance of the white society. On the surface, multiculturalism seems a policy that embodies the utopian ideal where many ethnics are enabled to intersect harmoniously. However, this problematically reinforces a government’s persistence on focusing on the apparent ‘multicultural’ context of social life as another way of unifying Australian society. Therefore, multiculturalism may be seen as the next phase in a governments everlasting desire to unify a nation, that is a nation that embodies diverse cultures or as Stratton terms a ‘unity in diversity’ as a repression of difference (1994, 153).
Due to the policy of multiculturalism being enacted and sanctioned by a predominantly white, middle-class government it can be seen that such a policy places the control to negotiate multiculturalism within the hands of such a government which leads to ethnic groups being marginalized and ‘othered’ within society. This process has developed into what Stratton believes has pigeonholed and ‘permanently marginalized’ these ‘ethnic communities’ (1994, 153). Consequently a way to solve such a problem produced by multiculturalism may be for the government to abandon such a policy or to consequently not produce the migrant as an ‘exotic other’. Perhaps these ‘ethnic communities’ need to be deconstructed as a fixed and stable category and rather seen on an individual level and not on a group level which produces stereotyping. At an individual level, such people may be able to be seen as entities that do not solely exist on the basis of one, single unified identity but rather through a mixture of fluidity and change.
Another way the problems induced by multiculturalism may be solved could be through a more positive representation of such individuals within the media that does not however, label these individuals as having a certain type of ethnicity that is fixed and static. Consequently, terms used often in the media regarding ethnic communities, particularly derogatory terms which associate all people who identify with such an ethnicity subsequently results in negative stereotyping. Such representations are used in a way to fix and limit all individuals who are identified as belonging to such an ethnicity. Consequently, these groups are typecast or pigeonholed in a negative way by the dominance of the white society or the media which commonly bases itself on simply representing people of Anglo origin particularly within advertisements that are meant to capture the ‘Australian way of life’. Also as the notion of ethnicity consequently brings forth a marginalized or minority connotation, perhaps another alternative could be the abandoning of such a notion used to describe such individuals within government policies and also within the media.
Constructed throughout the brief history of Australia is the idea of national unity, predominantly formed through a mainly ‘white’ society. As a result of such a construction the migrant has been subordinate to and controlled by the policies of a strictly white Australian Government. While the current policy of multiculturalism may be seen as having a positive effect on the migrant, especially in regard to previous policies, such individuals are still ‘othered’ and ‘tolerated’ within Australian society which consequently isolates these ‘ethnic communities’ from such a society. The dominance is controlled by the ‘white’ society which clearly benefits while these ‘ethnic communities’ consequently encounter marginalization. The only way such communities are allowed to be incorporated within the Australian society is by advocating their ethnicity which restricts and limits other ways of being and consequently means that they are pigeonholed and perpetually ethnicised. Due to such a racist history that Australian society exemplifies, a way of solving the dilemmas that multiculturalism has brought forth appears difficult however, one solution may be for such migrants to be seen as fluid individuals who are not completely represented by a fixed and unitary notion of ethnicity.
REFERENCES
Castles, Stephen. “A Nation without Nationalism.” Mistaken Identity. Sydney: Pluto Press, 1990. Pp 1-15.
Castles, Stephen. “Racism, Nationalism and Australian Identity.” Mistaken Identity. Sydney: Pluto Press, 1990. Pp 101-115.
Hage, Ghassan. “Australian Tolerance and Multiculturalism.” White Nation. Annandale: Pluto Press, 1998. Pp 82-92.
Stratton, Jon. “The Problems with Multiculturalism.” Race Daze. Annandale: Pluto Press, 1998. Pp 206-211.
Shoobridge, Dr Helen. “Lecture 2: The Nation and Othering.” Cul301 e-Reserve. , accessed 28/3/03
Walters, M, Crook, R. “Ethnicity and Race.” Sociology One, 3rd Edition. Melbourne: Longman Chesire, 1993. Pp 214-215.
Stratton, Jon, Ang, Ien. "Multicultural Imagined Communities: Cultural Difference and National Identity in Australia and the USA." Critical Multiculturalism. Ed. Tom O’Regan. London: Routledge, 1994, pp 124 - 158.
