At least two people would have been delighted by the Prime Minister's recent call for a "comprehensive debate" about immigration. Academics Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis can't stand John Howard, but his call was well timed for last Tuesday's launch of their new book about immigration, multiculturalism and Australian identity: A Place in the Sun.
Sociologically speaking, immigration is a most interesting issue. On most other controversial questions, such as Aboriginal reconciliation or the monarchy, Australia's intelligentsia is fiercely committed to uniformity.
But immigration presents a problem. On one hand immigrants, particularly those from non-English speaking countries, can help to undermine the Anglo-Celtic dominance that our intellectuals find so hateful. On the other hand, however, they also worry that higher levels of immigration will have harmful environmental consequences.
And when it comes to the environment, the moral hierarchy that determines how the intelligentsia should think on any particular issue is still rather fluid. While everyone knows that the interests of ethnics must always trump the interests of Anglos, or that gays attract far more virtue than heterosexuals, there is confusion about the relative positions of humans and other living species.
Some members of the intelligentsia think that human welfare should always be given priority over the welfare of animals and plants. Others believe that such an attitude is shameful and dangerously "anthropocentric". And many are just perplexed, changing their mind on the issue from one dinner party to the next.
The outcome of this uncertainty is amusing. Thus the Greens and Australian Democrats find themselves embarrassingly close to Pauline Hanson and One Nation on immigration -- although it sometimes seems that they try to reduce their discomfort by arguing that the immigrants who should be welcomed are those who have arrived in Australia illegally.
Given all this, the approach that Dr Cope and Professor Kalantzis took when researching their book has much to commend it. They interviewed thirty-four influential people who have taken differing positions in public discussions on immigration and national identity.
The interviews were supposed to reveal the contemporary sensibility of Australia at a time of "deep unease, uncertainty and national ambivalence". The book discusses the experiences and consequences of immigration, relations between Aborigines and later settlers, the relationship between people and the environment, and the geographical and economic location of Australia in the world.
Such an approach has the potential to identify matters that must be clarified and resolved in any "comprehensive debate" by juxtaposing the contrasting views of articulate individuals, although Cope and Kalantzis seem too muddled and partisan to do much with their material. Nevertheless, they do show that some prominent people hold quite unpredictable views about immigration and cultural diversity.
It is fascinating to discover, for instance, that Bob Hawke is so upset about environmentalists' opposition to immigration that he would like to line them up and shoot them. "They are the most selfish lot of bastards", he says. Unfortunately, Cope and Kalantzis do not ask him to explain why, as Prime Minister, the only line up that he wanted to arrange for environmentalists was one that led to political influence and government handouts.
In a small way, this exemplifies a problem that characterises both this book and other writing presented on behalf of the "multicultural industry" -- for which, their publisher's media release informs us, Cope and Kalantzis are "unofficial spokespersons". There is a great deal of intellectual evasion and confusion in the industry, as well as a large gap between the innocuous publicly-stated objectives of multiculturalism and the actual practices of the ethnic lobbyists and their supporters.
I suspect that most Australians are heartily sick of the multicultural double think which pretends that all cultural traditions are equally worthy, with the sole exception of the mainly Anglo-Celtic derived culture of the mainstream. And there is anger about the cavalier use of the epithet "racism" to censure any criticisms of multiculturalism.
What does "racism" mean? Cope and Kalantzis sneer at Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock because he said that the government could not decide what "racism" is. But as Katharine Betts pointed out in her book, The Great Divide, neither can they. In an earlier work they wrote that one kind of racism is the belief that human cultural differences are so great "that interaction and mixing of groups is inherently harmful", but then went on to say that intermarriage was undesirable because it weakened these differences.
We all know about the stifling ethnocentrism and intolerance of pre-1960s Australia and its Hanson-inspired revival under the Howard government, for the likes of Cope and Kalantzis have been telling us about it for years. But what about the sense of exclusiveness and ethnocentrism amongst other cultures, including those whose representatives are very active in the multicultural industry?
I think it is fair to say that many Greeks, Jews and Chinese, for instance, have been just as committed to maintaining certain kinds of ethnic or cultural boundaries as were the despised white Australians of the 1950s, if not more so.
Perhaps their experiences in the diverse and tolerant Australia that has developed in recent decades has convinced ethnic multiculturalists of the need for radical changes in their own traditions. The word would be "assimilation". Of course, this is a word that Cope and Kalantzis regard with horror.
But without even realising it, they fully endorse their own kind of assimilation, specifying "the non negotiable core values" that nations will have to adopt in the coming century. Needless to say, these "non negotiable" values will cause a great deal of heartache within many ethnic communities in Australia.
The double standards and excesses of the multicultural industry have played a significant part in reducing popular support for immigration. Those of us who believe that a sustained immigration program is vital for Australia's future prosperity should make these humbugs our prime target.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment