A recent visitor to our country, here to speak at a conference hosted by the Dawson Society, made of himself something akin to a Socratic gadfly over the course of his short stay. Upon disembarking from the plane and meeting his hosts at the baggage claim (for bags that failed to arrive), and after the generic pleasantries and greetings, our esteemed guest asked a question that became something of a refrain over his time here – one which I heard him ask to any number of people over the five or so days of his stay here.
The question itself was simple, and yet there was hardly anyone who seemed to be able to answer it in either a satisfactory or confident way. This fact left its asker bemused and intent then on asking it again and again in many different contexts and to anyone who sought to engage our international traveller in conversation. ‘What makes an Australian an Australian?’, or ‘What is the most distinctive thing about Australian culture’ was the gist of the question and it was met with varying degrees of throat clearing, apologetics, and nervous giggles.
In asking this question, and in doing so in such a seemingly innocent manner, our guest seemed to prod at the most tender and seemingly private of parts of the Australian psyche. 50+ years of multicultural policy replete with accompanying educational materials from various government agencies, on top of an incredibly complex postcolonial reality, with all the concomitant disastrous outcomes for indigenous Australians, has left those of us who still call Australia home with very little by way of common cultural reference point. Add to this the homogenising force of North American cultural imperialism, and incredible advances in telecommunications, building, and even refrigeration technologies, and it is no wonder that there is little distinctive that we can proudly point to which we can claim as our own.
The question of Australian identity is a vastly complex one, and one which seems to reinforce the truism that it only when the identity is lost (or at best seriously endangered) that everyone starts talking about preserving it. There are many problems I see in the present discourse concerning Australian identity, but one such problem is the creep of ideologies that purport to offer neat and simple answers to our very complex problems.
The problem with ideology, as Luigi Giussani explains, is that it takes one aspect of reality, even a true aspect, and makes it the absolute hermeneutic by which one can interpret and understand everything.[1] It is inherently reductive, but its simplicity relative to reality is deeply alluring, and here is where its danger lies.
The liberal ideology of multicultural pluralism, which has been in ascendancy for so long has in so many ways turned its nose up at any expression of national identity beyond the superficial, dismissing such expressions as hopelessly provincial in an increasingly cosmopolitan and globalised age. Celebrating Australia Day on January 26 has for a number of years now, been viewed by cosmopolitan elites as decidedly passé, and it is only quasi-religious character of ANZAC Day that allows it to be tolerated as a unique expression of distinctive national identity, though not without a considerable deal of hand-wringing.
This refusal to attempt to articulate or properly engage in a discussion concerning a distinctly Australian national identity or culture has, until recently, not been met with serious challenge. Yet recent events have, for perhaps the first time since the 1970s, seriously questioned the consensus of a multicultural Australia. Nationalist ideologies, which have found expression in recent rallies and marches in Australian capital cities have emerged, in part at least, from genuine concerns surrounding the present state of the nation. Concerns such as wage stagnation, inflation, housing supply, and evident strains on national and local infrastructure, as well as concerns pertaining to one’s own sense of home in a rapidly changing world are indeed all legitimate concerns.
Yet this nationalist sentiment, which has found its expression in a crude ethno-nationalism, is exemplary of the ongoing allure of simplistic ideology reducing complex realities down to one simple claim, that we’d be better off as a nation of white supermajority (never mind the plight of Indigenous Australians, or the collapse of marriage and family life, or the other vulnerable persons who belong to this place, the unborn, the sick, the elderly, etc).
Working our way through this mire will prove a difficult task indeed for Australia, as ideological divides seem to be only able to widen in the age of social media and online punditry driven by toxic algorithms pushes the most extreme rhetoric to the top. What does a fair minded and charitable engagement look like in this context and how can we work towards it? Well, there are already a few valiant efforts available, but I’d like to offer a couple of suggestions of my own that might help us on our way.
First, the charitable engagement with the views of another, even ones which we might find repugnant is something that we owe to another out of Christian charity. Error may indeed have no rights, but the person is a good to which the only adequate response is love. Understanding the views of another and why they hold such views is of tremendous importance. The example of St Thomas Aquinas is one that I think to be of particular use to us here. Thomas, who perfected the scholastic method of disputatio, is famous for engaging every argument he could think of that stood against his own. His engagement was always robust and fair, indeed oftentimes he was able to state the arguments of his opponents better than they could themselves. His capaciousness of mind and faith in the truth was such that he was able to entertain all manner of thought, even what seemed most erroneous, confident that the truth is itself pretty robust and would win the day.
Second, the question of culture is not something that can be understood meaningfully in the abstract. Culture is not a museum piece that can be studied in strict analytical categories. Culture in fact is dynamic and happening now. If we are concerned about the state of Australian culture (and I suggest that we all should be) our best course of action is to be ourselves makers of or contributors to the culture that we desire to live in. ‘Go home and love your family’, said St Teresa of Calcutta. ‘Love your neighbour’, said the famous carpenter of Nazareth. In building our families and our neighbourhoods, in living our life where we are, we can build a culture that truly is distinctive to our time and place. We can become a people, bound together in love, and in the bonds of family and of faith.
It appears that the policies, economics, and rhetoric of the past fifty years have created in Australia not so much a distinct national culture, but a globalist anti-culture. An anti-culture in which the simple question; ‘What makes an Australian, Australian?’ seems somehow inappropriate, and any attempt to publicly answer it is more embarrassing than an instance of public flatulence. In the context of this anti-culture, where our cultural expressions, for instance the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the entertainment we consume, are products of corporate boardrooms and government policy increasingly resembles social engineering Australian culture will be what we make it in our families and communities or it will not be at all.
When St Pope John Paul II visited Australia in 1986 he spoke the following words to those who first walked this land. Whilst directed specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, may they ring out for all to hear:
‘The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ speaks all languages. It esteems and embraces all cultures. It supports them in everything human and, when necessary, it purifies them. Always and everywhere the Gospel uplifts and enriches cultures with the revealed message of a loving and merciful God… You are called to remember the past, to be faithful to your worthy traditions, and to adapt your living culture whenever this is required by your own needs and those of your fellowman. Above all you are called to open your hearts ever more to the consoling, purifying and uplifting message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died so that we might all have life, and have it to the full.’[2]
_________________
[1] Luigi Giussani, The Religious Sense, (2023 edition), p. 99.
[2] John Paul II, To the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in ‘Blatherskite Park’, Alice Spring (Australia), 29 November 1986.
