1995 Global Cultural Diversity Conference Proceedings, Sydney
Criticisms of Multiculturalism
Sir James Gobbo AC
Chairman, Australian Multicultural Foundation, Australia
There has been no lack of debates, books and articles on the subject of multiculturalism. Some critics have said that multiculturalism is destructive and extreme and alien to everything Australian. They have sometimes gone on to say that it will inevitably generate racial tensions and even riots. Other critics are less alarmist but still regard multiculturalism or any like policies as eroding Australian nationhood and producing divisiveness and loss of national identity.
There have also been critics who see multiculturalism as being too timid and even a cover-up sustained by the middle class against the interests of the working class. There are others who are strong proponents of multiculturalism but disagree with how the philosophy is being applied.
Professor Blainey
The most formidable critic has been Professor Geoffrey Blainey. He has on occasions been very forceful in his criticism, once using the word "sham" in an article. The most convenient course is to take a recent article which indicates a softening of his language and even, very tentatively, a concession that multiculturalism might not be the disaster he earlier predicted. In The Bulletin of 30 August 1994, he begins:
"It is too early to tell whether the official policy of multiculturalism is a success, an extravagant delusion or a failure. Even in 40 years' time, its success will not necessarily be known. The policy might well work well in 39 years out of 40, but one month of extreme tension may erase all the gains. "
In similar vein, in his recently published Shorter History of Australia, Blainey wrote: "It will be many decades before the experiment can be safely pronounced as a triumph, or a moderate success or the begetter of a nation of tribes. "
Blainey goes on to say in his Bulletin article:
"Several important facts are rarely mentioned when Australia's multicultural policy is analysed. Firstly, our policy is a brave experiment, still in its early stage, and not ready to be assessed. Secondly, it is easier to run this experiment in a nation like Australia with a fair amount of social cohesion, a high standard of living and, at present, no severe military tensions with a powerful neighbour.
Moreover, Australia still has an unusual population mix that helps the experiment while it is unfolding. The people are overwhelmingly European, contrary to the misleading statistics that often come from the multicultural lobby. We have a dominant, long-established, Anglo-Celtic culture and institutions, with a confetti of other ethnic groups, the largest of which are European and, therefore, not dissimilar to the host culture."
One criticism is expressed as follows: "the big flaw in multicultural or multiracial nations is obvious: they often fall apart" and examples of racial conflict are then given. The short answer to this criticism is that the policies adopted in Australia have not been fashioned on any overseas countries and overseas conditions are not replicated here.
The real test will come, it is said, when Islam constitutes 10% of Australia's population and 30% of the inhabitants of any one city.
Then Blainey writes: "Unlike today, we will actually have a multicultural society in which real cultures and values are in fierce competition. To say this is not to disparage Islam and its moral and spiritual values, some of which were once supported by most Australians. But a rift between secular, laid-back Australia and dedicated Islam could become deep. "
There is, of course, real force in the argument that a scenario of 30% of say Brisbane or Sydney belonging to "dedicated Islam" could pose real risk of damaging tensions in certain circumstances. One such circumstance could follow on foreign policy differences with a neighbour such as Indonesia if it were to change and become a fundamentalist Islamic country.
It is a scenario that is beyond credibility on any reasonable view of demographic data. Assuming one takes the city with the highest presence by far of adherents to Islam at the present time, namely Sydney, one finds some 73,000 who are listed as Muslim. The total population of Sydney is three million. It is difficult to see how that figure of 73,000 could rise to nearly one million unless there was a major and deliberate change in our immigration program. How would all these Muslim migrants gain entry given the tests which are so weighted in favour of those who speak English and possess qualifications not often found in applicants from countries such as Turkey and Lebanon.
Even if by some prolongation it would be possible to reach such a high percentage, it would presumably take many decades to achieve this figure. Why should one assume that Australian Muslims will not be affected and modified by their environment, especially in the state schools in which the vast majority of Muslim children are being, and will continue to be, educated.
In any event, why should it be assumed that if the migrant intake is such as to produce a 30% Moslem concentration, then the risks flowing from this would be any more or less if the official policy were to revert to assimilation. Presumably freedom of religion would still be enjoyed in an assimilationist society. Nor can it be said that multiculturalism results in children of Turks, for example, being taught their religion in private Islamic schools paid for by the Government. It is not and never has been part of the policies of multiculturalism as set out in the National Agenda to provide for special funding to sustain or preserve different cultures,even less is this true of particular religions. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of children of Turks and others of Muslim faith are not being educated in Muslim schools.
Professor Blainey correctly points out that the era of assimilation saw many migrants happily and successfully integrated. Its shortcomings, he said, have been exaggerated by some proponents of multiculturalism and he favours a return to a policy of assimilation.
There are two problems about this. The first is that assimilation would presumably not be accompanied by the statements of principle of the kind contained in the National Agenda. This would send a very discouraging signal to many recent and not so recent newcomers. Moreover it is not clear what the return to a philosophy of "assimilation as soon as practicable" would mean. Would it mean that Australians of Italian birth or origin, or of Polish, Chinese, or Greek origin, would be told that they should not expect funding for their welfare activities but they should "muck in" with everybody else.
There is a second problem. The past successes of assimilation were made in an era when there was no coloured immigration. Many of the early migrants were blue-eyed, fair-haired Balt or Dutch settlers. Now the inescapable reality is that we have a non-discriminatory policy which results in significant numbers of non-white migrants.
These settlers will simply not melt into invisibility or become unrecognisably Aussie, even after one generation. Assimilation will not work in the way it once did. Something more is required. That something is a philosophy which recognises diversity and provides policies to guarantee that being obviously different will not be a disability.
Very recently, namely in The Australian newspaper of 8th April 1995, Professor Blainey has introduced two new criticisms, namely, that multicultural policies will be responsible if Aborigines succeed in securing a separate nation, and that multiculturalism is racist.
The first is a bald assertion and no policies are identified to support this view. It is a strange view as Aboriginal movements on occasions have politely but firmly declined to describe themselves as part of a multicultural society; they have preferred to see their situation and history as quite unique and have staked a claim for self-determination. The latter claim has not been part of multicultural policy. Multiculturalism has been blamed for a great many things but it is nonetheless surprising to see it made responsible for whatever extreme consequences are said to flow from the Mabo judgement, the Native Title Act and whatever else in the Aboriginal agenda is seen as dangerous.
The criticism that multiculturalism is racist is put as follows. In part it is put that the Native Title Act is racist in that it puts forward a system of land tenure founded on race. The Act is said to be the work of the multicultural movement. This is an astonishing proposition. Neither the legislators nor the supporters of the legislation have ever called in aid multiculturalism. Nor did the National Agenda or its accompanying papers raise the land issue, or suggest any such legislation.
The second way it is suggested that multiculturalism is racist is said to be because "many ethnic leaders go out of their way to denounce Australia's long past policies as racist but breathe not a word against the racially-primed policies still operating in the foreign countries they proudly represent." No examples are given to illustrate, let alone justify, this serious and very widely-cast statement. In the absence of some facts, it is impossible to discuss and evaluate this criticism.
Professor Blainey is more persuasive when he points out the risks of a serious setback if some conflict between different cultural groups occurred. The note of caution is a valid one. It is also legitimate to recognise that the working out of migration policy is always important, and requires close monitoring, but that does not mean that there should not be pursued moderate policies which are designed to reinforce participation and commitment, even if they are an experiment.
Professor Jakebowicz and Others
Next, one should consider those who criticise multiculturalism as not being sufficiently radical and as failing to address fundamental class problems. Worse, it is said, it is deliberately used by ruling interests to divert or weaken class action. The principal exponent of this view is Andrew Jakebowicz. This is sometimes coupled with the statement that ethnic welfare organisations are dominated by professionals and members of the middle class (see e.g. Lepervanche, in Gender Relations in Australia, ed. Saunders et al, 1992, p. 90; "Mistaken Identity", p. 60), as though this is some evidence of inability or failure to respond to needs of migrant workers, male and female. If this be so, then presumably the Salvation Army and the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, though very much sustained at senior level by professionals or members of the middle class, are also to be seen as insensitive to working class needs.
It is of course true that no versions of multiculturalism including that set out in the National Agenda, purport to be an exclusive manifesto for removing unemployment amongst migrant workers or reduced standards of living consequent on this or other factors such as inflation. Those are problems not peculiar to migrants and can and should be addressed as part of the ordinary obligations of government to all Australians. What a reasonable set of policies should do, whether called multiculturalism or otherwise, is see that any disadvantages flowing from the ethnic or diversity factor is addressed so that there is true equality of opportunity.
Another criticism is that multiculturalism's stress on ethnicity "prioritises ethnicity over class difference". (Lepervanche, in Gender Relations in Australia, ed. Saunders et al, 1992, p.83). It is said that as a result, the extent to which non-English speaking settlers have largely entered working class jobs is obscured. This seems far-fetched, is there anyone who seriously believes that most new settlers did not go into working class jobs?
Of more weight is the criticism by the same writer and other writers that multiculturalism has failed to address the continuing structural inequalities in Australian society associated with class, race/ethnic and gender differences. Particular criticism is made of the Romanpas statements of principle because they did not specifically mention inequality of pay affecting women. Presumably the same criticism could not be made of the National Agenda and its Discussion Paper. But the criticism seems postulated on the assumption that multiculturalism must set out in its definition and description the specific content of gender issues as they affect all women. It therefore imposes a peculiar burden for it requires the statement of policies like the National Agenda to be a wholly comprehensive Bill of Rights with all migrant issues added. The better strategy is surely to see that access and equity are enjoyed by means of specific programs and if equity is denied because of the core or basic institutions, then the core should be modified. But it is not put, save by the very radical, that the core is fundamentally defective so that its principles have to be wholly altered.
Much of the criticism seems to imply that there should be separate structures in government set up to achieve advances on gender issues for migrant women. Sexual harassment and exploitation would surely be better fought through the existing statutory services, provided always these are truly accessible to non-English-speaking women.
Next: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - criticisms of multiculturalism 2
Previous: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - evolution of multiculturalism 2