Multiculturalism As Nation-Building

This article was downloaded by: [171.6.148.
175]
On: 31 January 2014, At: 06:52
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Ethnic and Racial Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20
Multiculturalism as nation-
building in Australia: Inclusive
national identity and the
embrace of diversity
Anthony Moran
Published online: 25 May 2011.
To cite this article: Anthony Moran (2011) Multiculturalism as nation-building in

Australia: Inclusive national identity and the embrace of diversity, Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 34:12, 2153-2172, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2011.573081
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.573081
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [171.6.148.175] at 06:52 31 January 2014
Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 34 No. 12 December 2011 pp. 21532172
Multiculturalism as nation-building in
Australia: Inclusive national identity and
the embrace of diversity
Anthony Moran
(First submission December 2010; First published June 2011)

Abstract
This article discusses the relationship between multiculturalism and
national identity, focusing on the Australian context. It argues that
inclusive national identity can accommodate and support multicultural-
ism, and serve as an important source of cohesion and unity in ethnically
and culturally diverse societies. However, a combative approach to
national identity, as prevailed under the Howard government, threatens
multicultural values. The article nevertheless concludes that it is necessary
for supporters of multiculturalism to engage in ongoing debates about
their respective national identities, rather than to vacate the field of
national identity to others.
Keywords: Multiculturalism; Australia; national identity; national culture;

nation-building; policy.
In many Western liberal democracies, critics attack multiculturalism

as a failed experiment that has threatened national cohesion and
undermined unity (Huntington 2004; O’Sullivan 2005). Politicians
and intellectuals argue that multiculturalism should be replaced by a
renewed emphasis on common citizenship and shared national
identity. On the other hand, many proponents of multiculturalism
(or supporters of pluralism) are suspicious of national identity,
seeing it as a homogenizing force that threatens cultural diversity
(Hage 1998). But are the principles of multiculturalism on the one
hand, and national identity, social cohesion, integration, and unity
on the other, diametrically opposed, as these critics claim? The
Australian experience provides a counter example multiculturalism
# 2011 Taylor & Francis

ISSN 0141-9870 print/1466-4356 online
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.573081
2154 Anthony Moran
was conceived as a nation-building project in the context of mass,
multiethnic immigration, and as a way of rethinking Australian
national identity in the context of the rejection of the White
Australia Policy and assimilation. This connection with reimagining
the nation has been part of multiculturalism’s strength and tenacity
as public policy in Australia since its inception. The specific focus of
this article is the relationship between multiculturalism and national
identity, and while the main example is Australia, the general claims
made about this relationship are relevant to other multicultural
nations.
National identities are important sources of solidarity, even in the
context of multicultural societies. Like Calhoun (2002), I defend a
thicker notion of national culture, beyond the thin notion of
proceduralist ‘political culture’ advocated by post-nationalists,

including Habermas (1992) with his concept of ‘constitutional
patriotism’. Some political philosophers argue that people can
belong to a polity without having a sense of belonging together
as a nation, or sharing a national identity, and that this is enough
to sustain liberal democracy and inspire commitment to the
common good (Mason 1999). According to Wilcox (2004, p. 576),
people belonging to a polity do not have to possess ‘any special
feelings of relatedness with or sympathy for one another’ to
maintain a sense of commitment to their polity, or to support
broader policies of redistribution and social justice. Stability and
commitment can be maintained if a person identifies with most of a
polity’s ‘major institutions and some of its practices and feels at
home in them’; identifying with them means that a person ‘regards
her flourishing as intimately linked to their flourishing’ (Mason
1999, p. 272). It is claimed that this form of non-national belonging
is better able to accommodate diversity, and to avoid illiberal
tendencies, including demands for cultural assimilation. These are
abstract possibilities rather than sociologically supported claims. As
Calhoun (2002) argues, the ‘republicanism and democracy’ advo-
cated by post-nationalists, cosmopolitans, and constitutional patri-
ots, ‘depend on more than narrowly political culture they depend
on richer ways of constituting life together’ (p. 151).
For a national identity to support multiculturalism it must be
conceived as predominantly post-ethnic, and as dynamic and
changing, involving an open and ongoing dialogue about national
traditions. However, even multicultural nations require some degree
of (mainly civic) common national culture, supporting a sense of
‘we-ness’, that provides the context through which co-nationals can
debate and are willing to debate together the complexities of
identity, diversity, and contested national traditions.
Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2155
National identity
National identity refers both to personal identity arising from member-
ship of a national political community, and to the identity of a political
community that marks one nation off from others (Parekh 2008, p. 56).
National identities involve particularistic configurations of ethnic
cores, myths and memories, religious beliefs, language, connections
with territory, and political values (Smith 1991). Nations typically
emphasize a shared cultural inheritance and way of life, and national
identities reflect this. National identities are supported by national
institutions, and reinforced through education systems (Gellner 1983),
national days of commemoration and other forms of government-
sanctioned memorializing (such as national museums and national
monuments), and in banal ways in everyday life where the nation is
continually ‘flagged’ and operates as the unexamined background and

framing device for a range of narratives (Billig 1995). National
identities are also constructed in relation to a range of others (Colley
1992). They are not simply voluntary, but also inherited (Canovan
2000). The ‘myths and memories’ so central to national identities
cannot be simply invented by intellectuals and other elites and foisted
upon unsuspecting nationals-in-waiting; they must reverberate with
historical, collective events, and experiences (Smith 1991).
Theories of nationalism such as those proffered by Anderson
(1983), Gellner (1983), and Hobsbawm (1990) have emphasized the
inventedness, modernity, and imagined character of nations. Anderson
(1983) argued for the origins of modern nations in the New World
the so-called ‘creole nations’. The ‘imagined communities’ of his
famous book were nevertheless ‘real’ nations. Gellner and Hobsbawm
mainly discussed the older nations of Europe, but emphasized their
newness and distinguished them from historically prior ethnic and
other local identities.
Eriksen (1993) argues that new nations like Trinidad and Tobago,
and Mauritius, former British colonies that have existed as indepen-
dent nations only since the 1960s, with immigrant and slave popula-
tions, no pre-colonial past, and no surviving indigenous peoples, must
direct their nationalisms ‘towards the future, not towards the past’.
These nations know and understand themselves as modern inventions,
are unable to draw on a common cultural heritage and history and, as
polyethnic, have their nationalisms challenged by strong ethnic
ideologies. The issue of inventedness is a banal reality for citizens of
these countries, and they ‘know that their nationhood must be defined,
created and recreated by themselves’ (Eriksen 1993, p. 3).
Australia is a new nation, in at least two senses. First, its former
British colonies only federated as a nation in 1901; even then Australia
was not clearly separated from Britain, retaining many of its close ties
2156 Anthony Moran
and the British monarch as Head of State. Second, it is highly
immigrant in nature: in 2006, 24 per cent of Australia’s population was
born overseas, and a further 26 per cent had at least one overseas-born
parent (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). It is also increasingly
polyethnic, a tendency likely to continue given Australia’s ongoing
commitment to a high rate of non-discriminatory immigration.
Hutchinson (1994) argues that, like other immigrant societies
including the US and Canada, Australia is marked by national
‘status anxieties’ related to its ‘newness’, requiring it to periodically
assess its progress and to construct national milestones as galvanizers of
future action (Hutchinson 1994, pp. 1656). Though settler national-
isms draw upon the past for symbols, they are primarily oriented to the
future promise of the nation (pp. 1678). On the other hand, this
uncertainty, newness, and future orientation has allowed Australia and

Canada to embrace multiculturalism as a project of national identity
renewal. In a world where many nations, even those with histories of
relative ethnic homogeneity, experience high levels of ethnically-diverse
immigration, it is arguable that they too will have to embrace their
‘newness’, perpetual re-inventedness, and promote inclusive national
identities less organized by dominant ethnicity (Habermas 2001).
Australia’s national identity has shifted from a racially-based white,
British Australia, to a diverse, multiethnic, and officially multicultural
Australia since the 1970s. The White Australia Policy, under which
immigration favoured ‘whites’, excluded ‘non-white’ immigrants, and
discriminated against resident ‘non-whites’, was the official policy
from federation (1901) through to the end of the 1960s. Under this
policy, Australian national identity was constructed upon ‘inherited
concepts of ethnicity, race and religion’ Australians were British,
white, and/or Anglo-Saxon and Christian (Davison 2009, p. 2). Racial
myths were fused with myths of hardy, courageous, stoic, tenacious,
and individualistic pioneers who (rather than politicians, governors,
and government officials) settled the land and forged the nation (Hirst
1992), and solidaristic, egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, practical,
laconic, and easy-going bushmen, the ‘nomad tribe’ of pastoral
labourers of Russel Ward’s ‘Australian legend’ (Ward 1958). These
myths dominated conceptions of Australian identity, with the bush-
man myth finding a potent reiteration in the Anzac legend of the
citizen soldier during World War One, in particular through the
experiences and mythologizing of the failed Gallipoli campaign of
1915. Physical prowess, bravery, stoicism in the face of adversity,
mateship, anti-authoritarianism, innovation, and practicality were
extolled as typically Australian virtues, and it has commonly been
claimed, by political leaders, historians, and ordinary Australians since
then that the Australian nation was born at Gallipoli (Inglis 1998).
These myths about Australian identity have been challenged by
revisionist historians who highlighted the racism and slaughter of
indigenous people on the Australian frontier (Rowley 1970; Reynolds
1987), and by feminist historians who critiqued masculinist accounts
of Australian identity and experience, arguing that ‘mateship’ excluded
women and highlighting women’s often hidden contributions to
national life (Dixson 1976; Grimshaw et al. 1994). Nevertheless, ideas
and values associated with these myths, such as the fair go,
egalitarianism, mateship, and courage in the face of adversity continue
to resonate with Australians (see below), and the bush retains a special
and powerful place in national iconography and mythology. The
Anzac legend remains a powerful national myth reflected in a
resurgent emphasis on Anzac Day (25 April), with large attendances
at Dawn Services and marches, and with large numbers of Australians,
including young backpackers, making the pilgrimage to Gallipoli and

other European battle sites where Australian soldiers fought and died
(Scates 2002). Anzac Day is Australia’s de facto national day, more
powerfully resonant than the official Australia Day (26 January).
‘White Australia’, on the other hand, became a problem for
Australian governments in the context of anti-racism, anti-discrimina-
tion, and decolonization movements after World War Two. The
‘Britishness’ of Australian identity was also threatened as the British
Empire collapsed after World War Two, and as Britain reoriented itself
to Europe (Meaney 2001; Curran and Ward 2010).
McGregor (2006) argues that Britishness was the necessary founda-
tion for Australian nationalism. It was the only viable myth that could
unite Australians in the federation period (roughly 18901915), and it
gave the nation the sense of time-depth that all nations require. This
was also an Australian Britishness that had to accommodate and
manage the cultural, political, and religious conflicts and tensions
between the mainly Protestant English and Scots, and the mainly
Catholic Irish. These religious and ethnic differences shaped the
character of Australian institutions, culture, politics, and civic life.
However, they became less important, over time, than the developing
sense of commonality and unity forged in new circumstances (see
O’Farrell 2000, pp. 1112). Efforts to settle the land, including the
violent struggle with Indigenous peoples on the frontier, the desire to
be free of Old World conflicts and class distinctions, the experience of
mixing in neighbourhoods, in the workplace, and in political parties,
trade unions and other civic associations (Hirst 2005, pp. 1123), and
the perception of the Asian threat to Australian racial and national
interests contributed to the consolidation of a common white British
ethnicity.
Australian nationalism combined ‘Britannic’ ethnic symbols, myths,
and memories with ‘civic/territorial components centring on the
2158 Anthony Moran
distinctive entitlements and obligations of the Australian citizen and
commitment to an Australian homeland’ (McGregor 2006, p. 499), but
McGregor argues that the ethnic principle was predominant. Never-
theless, the deep connection with the Australian land became an
increasingly important element of Australian national identity. Ac-
cording to McGregor (2006, p. 508), in contemporary Australia,
Britishness has been ‘de-accentuated’ rather than expunged from
national identity, and ‘Australian nationalism has shifted away from an
ethnic toward a civic/territorial emphasis’. Contributing factors
included the above-mentioned decline of the British Empire and
Britain’s turn to Europe, Australia’s need to engage with Asia, and the
growing need to include Aborigines in the nation. But McGregor
(2006, p. 508) claims that no single causal factor was more important
than the ‘substantial intake of non-British immigrants’ after World
War Two.
The first large waves of post war non-British immigrants were
refugees selected by Australian government officials among Europe’s
Displaced Persons typically white, young, and healthy. Though
British immigrants were also actively sought through government-
subsidized schemes, Australia took in large numbers of immigrants
from Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and other non-
British source countries in the three decades after the war (Jupp 2007).
Small numbers of Asians were allowed to immigrate in the 1960s
(Tavan 2005), but the first large waves of Asian immigrants were
Vietnamese refugees in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (Viviani
1996). Post-war immigration has contributed significantly to Austra-
lia’s population growth, and to its ethnic, language, and religious
diversity. People of British/Irish ancestry still dominate Australia’s
ethnic make-up (between 60 and 70 per cent), but in Australia’s last
Census (in 2006) about 19 per cent reported European ancestry (other
than English, Irish, or Scottish); 10 per cent reported Asian ancestry
(Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Filipino, and other Asian); there were
smaller representations from the Middle East and of Maori and other
Pacific Islander ancestries (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008).
Reflecting high rates of intermarriage, at least 60 per cent of
Australian people were estimated to be of mixed ethnic ancestry by
the late 1990s (Price 1999). Australia was once overwhelmingly
Christian, but recent immigration from Southeast Asia and the
Middle East has contributed to increasing numbers of Buddhists,
Muslims, and Hindus (Bouma 2006, chapter 3; Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2008).
These demographic and associated social and cultural changes,
including the emergence of ethnic leaders and social movements, as
well as, from the late 1960s, intensifying Aboriginal activism and
protest, meant that a new national narrative highlighting Australia’s
multiethnic, multicultural, and indigenous origins began to circulate,
challenging the myth of British origins (McGregor 2006, p. 508).
Multiculturalism as nation-building
Since the 1950s Australia had been gradually dismantling its White
Australia Policy (Tavan 2005). Immigration policy was liberalized, and
naturalization policy amended so that by the mid-1970s Australia was
officially committed to removing racial discrimination from its
immigration and other social policies, signalled by its Racial Dis-
crimination Act (1975). Policy officials and politicians concluded that
assimilation policy was failing, and during the 1970s multiculturalism
achieved bipartisan political approval as the best policy for managing
immigrant integration into Australian society. Just as mass immigra-
tion had always been constructed as nation-building in Australia, so

too was multicultural policy conceived as a nation-building exercise.
When multicultural policy emerged in the early 1970s, official
statements described Australia as a ‘multicultural society’; what this
meant for national identity was implied rather than explicitly
addressed (Grassby 1973; Australian Ethnic Affairs Council 1977;
Galbally Report 1978). These implications were made explicit in later
policy statements. Multiculturalism for All Australians: Our Developing
Nationhood stressed that multiculturalism applied to all groups in
society, not just non-Anglo immigrants. Multiculturalism was not only
a crucial policy for handling diversity, but also significant for
Australia’s developing national identity. In discussing Australia’s
national identity this statement presented immigration as a key
underpinning story:
For almost two hundred years, migrants have been coming to

Australia and putting down their roots. They and their children were
the pioneers who battled drought and flood, died at Gallipoli and
the Kokoda Trail, pushed roads and railways across the continent,
and laid the foundations of Australia’s strength (Ethnic Affairs
Taskforce of the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic
Affairs 1982, p. 4).
For them the story had been an overwhelmingly positive one, while it
was recognized that for ‘Aboriginal people, however, the impact of
white settlement was catastrophic equivalent to invasion’ (Ethnic
Affairs Taskforce of the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic
Affairs 1982, p. 4). The inference from this migration narrative was
that no ‘ethnic’ group held a preeminent place in the national identity.
British or ‘Anglo-Celtic’ Australians took their place alongside other
ethnic groups in a plural society.
2160 Anthony Moran
The Hawke Labor government’s main policy statement on multi-
culturalism the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia
(released in 1989) somewhat retreated from this view of the
equivalence of all identities as contributors to Australia’s national
identity. The National Agenda declared unequivocally that Australia
was now a multicultural society, and noted that ‘it is the vigour of our
diversity, and the degree of interaction between different cultures, that
contributes so much to the uniqueness of the Australian identity
today’ (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, p. 6). But the British
heritage was given a prominent place in the discussion of the agenda.
It was noted that Australia’s British and Irish ‘customs and institu-
tions’, adapted to Australian conditions, had served its relatively
homogenous British population well at the time (with the exception of
Aborigines), but needed to adapt and change again to reflect and
respond to the needs of a more diverse population than had existed a

generation before. But adapting institutions did not mean that they
had to be given up, or that identity had to change in a wholesale
manner:
Our British heritage is extremely important to us. It helps to define

us as Australian. It has created a society remarkable for the freedom
it can give to its individual citizens. It is a large part of what makes
Australia attractive to immigrants and visitors. It is a potent source
of unity and loyalty (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, pp. 501,
emphasis added).
Australia’s ethno-cultural diversity had many advantages and

strengths, but it was not cited in the same way as a ‘potent source
of unity and loyalty’. And nor did multiculturalism ‘entail a rejection
of Australian values, customs and beliefs’. Rather, it entailed the
recognition that ‘any such common core evolves and changes over
time’ and is thus open to change from internal and external influences.
The right policies can help to ensure that ‘the richness of our diverse
origins can contribute as indeed they are already to an evolving,
but distinctive Australian culture’ (Office of Multicultural Affairs
1989, p. 53).
However, the conception of this British heritage de-emphasized the
ethnic elements while emphasizing its civic and institutional elements.
To qualify McGregor’s (2006) argument about the British ethnic
component of early Australian nationalism, though Britishness was
associated with race from the nineteenth century (i.e., Anglo-Saxon
race myths), it also had strong, historically-rooted civic beliefs
concerning liberty, free political institutions, and the rule of law,
dating back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Gossett 1997,
chapter XIII). These could be decoupled from race and ethnicity in
new understandings of Britishness in Australia. This has also occurred
in Britain, where ‘post-ethnic’ British identity has been championed by
some as a way of accommodating multicultural diversity while at the
same time promoting a common national identity and sense of
commitment and belonging among both immigrant and non-immi-
grant citizens (Modood 2007). In other official documents since the
late 1980s, and in much social commentary, when the importance of
Australia’s British origins and character are asserted, it is typically in
this inclusive and civic rather than ethnic sense of Britishness; and it is
assumed that anyone can partake of that culture regardless of ethnic
or racial origins.
The ethic of inclusiveness was evident in the National Agenda’s three
main dimensions of multicultural policy:
. cultural identity the right of all Australians, within carefully

defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural
heritage, including their language and religion;
. social justice the right of all Australians to equality of treatment
and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity,
culture, religion, language, gender, or place of birth; and
. economic efficiency the need to maintain, develop, and utilize
effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of
background (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, p. vii).
It is important to note here the emphasis on the ‘individual’ right to

expression and enjoyment of cultural heritage, rather than any concept
of ‘group rights’, and this was emphasized again elsewhere, in the
context of a stress on cultural mixing rather than separatism (Office of
Multicultural Affairs 1989, p. 16).
During the 1980s and the 1990s, governments, intellectuals, and
media commentators also emphasized the importance of the Abori-
ginal narrative for Australian national identity. An ‘indigenising’ form
of nationalism highlighted the way that Aboriginal culture gave
historical and spiritual depth to the nation, and rooted it more firmly
in the Australian continent (Moran 2002). This narrative was
prominently featured in the rhetoric emerging from the Council for
Aboriginal Reconciliation during the 1990s reconciliation process. But
some Aboriginal leaders have resisted this incorporation, emphasizing
their separate status, ongoing sovereignty, and unique spiritual
connection with Australia (Maddison 2009).
Policy statements during the Howard government era (19962007)
adopted the term ‘Australian multiculturalism’ to emphasize the
predominance of Australian unity over difference, but nevertheless
contained statements confirming that Australia was ‘in reality as well
as by definition, a multicultural nation’ (Commonwealth of Australia
2162 Anthony Moran
1999, p. 6), and expressing confidence ‘that Australian multicultural-
ism will continue to be a defining feature of our evolving national
identity’ (National Multicultural Advisory Council 1999, pp. 1314;
see also Commonwealth of Australia 2003).
The nation-building emphasis of Australian multiculturalism has
contributed to the policy’s success, and to its approval (in certain
respects) by the general public (Goot 1999; Goot and Watson 2005).
Despite the claims of some critics, it has been a highly integrative
policy, encouraging interaction between different people and full
participation in mainstream society, and fostering a sense of Aus-
tralian unity. It has involved very little cultural relativism, and has
been primarily liberal in character, focused on individual rights to free
enjoyment and expression of culture, rather than group rights.
Multicultural rights have always been framed by liberal democratic
values, and by loyalty to the Australian nation.

Joppke (2004), when surveying the retreat of multiculturalism
among liberal states, points out that multiculturalism has sunk deeper
roots in settler societies like Australia and Canada because of the way
that it is bound up with national identity there; thus the retreat of
multiculturalism in the 1980s and 1990s was less pronounced in settler
societies than in Europe. But how significant are multiculturalism and
the acceptance of diversity as features of contemporary Australian
national identity?
Qualitative studies show that multiculturalism and diversity are
popularly cited when people describe Australia and Australians (Brett
and Moran 2006, Brett and Moran 2011). Lentini, Halafoff and Ogru
(2009), based on their findings from fifteen diverse focus groups in
urban and rural Victoria, argue that many participants saw multi-
culturalism as a ‘major factor for making Australia a very tolerant
society’, and felt that ‘multiculturalism helped transform ‘‘Australian-
ness’’ into a distinctive Australian identity, and that it is a significant
component of contemporary Australian identity’ (Lentini, Halafoff
and Ogru 2009, p. 4). Many praised the diversity of their local areas,
and most ‘highlighted the importance and desirability of living in
diverse communities’ (p. 21). Discussing ‘Australianness’, the general
consensus was that it was ‘diverse and dynamic’, and while a few
lamented the loss of a more stable, older Australian identity, most
celebrated the fact that the identity had changed and would continue
to change. Many saw ‘cultural diversity’ as one of the forces for
change, and in doing so viewed multiculturalism positively. Many also
cited as one of the strengths of Australian society that it did not
elevate in terms of importance any one ethnic experience or group (pp.
246). On the other hand, there was ‘some consensus within the
groups that it [Australianness] was associated with particular forms of
behaviour’. Thus, while participants readily accepted cultural diversity,
this did not mean that they did not have expectations that people
would accept an Australian way of life and adapt to it. And there was
also much talk of the need to prioritize ‘Australian values’. The most
frequently mentioned of these was the ‘fair go’, and some groups also
discussed ‘mateship’, associated with caring for and helping out others.
Many described Australians as ‘easy going’, ‘laid-back’, and ‘open’
and also saw these as Australian values (p. 25).
Nola Purdie and others asked a sample of 418 primary, secondary,
Technical and Further Education (TAFE), and university students to
write a short essay on the question ‘What does it mean to be
Australian?’ While traditional aspects of Australian identity were
present in the responses, including giving everyone a ‘fair go’,
mateship, being free, and physical traits like being ‘sporty’, ‘diversity’,
‘respecting other cultures’, and ‘being multicultural’ were also
prominent (Purdie and Craven 2006). References to diversity were

mostly to cultural diversity, and were mainly positive; ‘accepting
differences’ was considered an important feature of being Australian
(Purdie and Wilss 2007, pp. 718).
Though based on non-representative samples, these findings are
suggestive of acceptance of multiculturalism and diversity as features
of Australian identity. In addition, quantitative data based on national
representative samples indicates that Australians have shifted towards
more civic notions of national identity, as evident from national
surveys of their views about what makes a person ‘truly Australian’.
According to the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, achieved
qualities such as ‘feeling Australian’ (92 per cent), ‘having Australian
citizenship’ (91 per cent), ‘respecting Australian political institutions
and laws’ (89 per cent), and ‘speaking English’ (92 per cent) were more
important to being ‘truly Australian’ than ‘being born in Australia (58
per cent), having ‘Australian heritage’ (only 37 per cent), or ‘being
Christian’ (only 36 per cent) (Goot and Watson 2005, p. 188). Jones
(1999) has used similar findings from national surveys from the 1990s
to suggest that only a quarter of Australians held more traditionalist,
conservative ‘nativist’ views of Australian identity, with three quarters
holding more ‘civic pluralist’ views.
A range of influences has contributed to this shift to a more
inclusive sense of multicultural national identity: the role of Federal,
state and local governments as symbolic leaders on multiculturalism
since the 1970s; the role of the education sector at all levels socializing
students into a multicultural society; rising levels of education,
including university education (Jones 1999); and the experiences of
everyday life and mixing that for many people suggest the obviousness
that they live in a multicultural Australia. Important in relation to the
latter point is that the high rate of intermarriage in Australia between
non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians, and across ethnic and
2164 Anthony Moran
religious groups, especially in the second and third generation after
immigration (Heard, Khoo and Birrell 2009) means that most
individuals have at least some direct, personal experience with
Australia’s growing diversity through their own extended families.
Controversies about national identity and multiculturalism

Australia has not been free of controversy over immigration, multi-
culturalism, and national identity. In the 1980s there were race debates
about Asian immigration sparked by prominent historian Geoffrey
Blainey (1984) and comments from conservative politicians, including
opposition leaders Andrew Peacock (in 1984) and John Howard
(in 1988) (Kelly 1992, pp. 1334, 4223). There were related debates
about and critiques of multiculturalism throughout the 1980s and
1990s. Blainey claimed that multiculturalism was a recipe for ethnic

conflict and ‘warring tribes’ within the nation-state (Blainey 1984,
1991). Opposition leader John Howard ended bipartisanship in 1988
when he said that ‘there are profound weaknesses in the policy of
multiculturalism. I think it is a rather aimless, divisive policy and I
think it ought to be changed’ (quoted in Jupp 2007, pp. 1067). The
late 1990s saw the rise of Pauline Hanson’s anti-globalization, anti-
immigrant, anti-multicultural, and anti-Aboriginal rights One Nation
Party, again sparking public controversy.
More recent controversies in the 2000s erupted over the so-called
failure to integrate recent African immigrants and a section of the
Muslim population, a view promoted in explosive media reports of
ethnic gangs and crime, and publicly promoted by some Howard
government ministers (Costello 2006; The Age 2007). The December
2005 Cronulla riots, where a mainly white mob attacked people of
‘Middle-Eastern appearance’ on a popular Sydney beach, followed by
reprisals by Lebanese and Muslim youths in nearby suburbs, was read
by some as the resurgence of white nationalism and a rejection of
multiculturalism, and by others as highlighting the problem of
Lebanese and Muslim integration. The Howard government, while
condemning the violence, seemed to adopt the latter position, with
Howard commenting in the riots’ aftermath that Australia had no
underlying problem with racism, and that while religious freedom was
important, ‘it’s also important that we place greater emphasis on
integration of people into the broader community and the avoidance
of tribalism within our midst. I don’t think Australians want tribalism.
They want us all to be Australians’ (Howard 2005). In a speech in
February 2006, Treasurer Costello criticized ‘mushy misguided multi-
culturalism’ as one of the causes of that purported failure to integrate.
Such multiculturalism, he claimed, undermined Australian citizenship
and the commitment to Australian values (Costello 2006).
Though the Howard government had been ambivalent about
multiculturalism in its first term (19961998), cutting funding for
ethnic specific services and programmes, and dissolving multicultural
institutions including the Bureau of Immigration, Population and
Multicultural Research, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs (Jupp
2007), it reaffirmed its commitment to the policy in 1999 with its New
Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (Commonwealth of Australia
1999), and again in 2003 (Commonwealth of Australia 2003) before
deciding in 2006 that it would no longer promote multiculturalism
because of its supposedly divisive connotations. In early 2007 it
changed the name of the Department of Immigration and Multi-
cultural Affairs to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
Following the lead of the UK and the Netherlands, in 2007 it
introduced a citizenship test for immigrants. This was necessary, it

was claimed, because Australia was receiving immigrants from new
source countries with value systems vastly different to mainstream
Australia and to those of previous waves of immigrants, and to make
sure that immigrants learnt English and fully integrated into Australia
(Australian Government 2006; Robb 2006). During the public debate
on its introduction it was opposed by some, including the Ethnic
Communities’ Council of Victoria (ECCV), on post-nationalist
grounds (Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria 2006); suspicions
were voiced about any construction of national values or national
culture.
Many supporters of multiculturalism see the nation in conflict with,
and nationalism as the enemy of, multiculturalism; for nations and
nationalism seem to rely on a level of cultural homogeneity (Gellner
1983) that would undermine the claims of multiculturalists to the
peaceful co-existence, within the one state, of a plurality of cultures.
When politicians and others emphasize national culture and national
identity, the fear is that it will draw attention to the supposed
destabilizing influence of difference, especially among immigrants,
and result in the desire and effort to squash multicultural difference.
This fear is legitimate. However, if political leaders and intellectuals
vacate the scene by refusing to discuss national identity and issues of
national unity and cohesion, another pressing danger is that advocates
of more extreme forms of nationalism will take their place. Left-wing
supporters of multiculturalism who deny the relevance of national
identity and love of country threaten to undermine multiculturalism’s
legitimacy among populations, like Australia’s, that are patriotic and
proud of their national identity (Pakulski and Tranter 2000). For
example, the ECCV played into the hands of the Howard government
that accused it of promoting separatist multiculturalism that ignored
the importance of national solidarity and cohesion, and of being out
2166 Anthony Moran
of touch with ordinary Australians’ valuing of their Australian way of
life (Robb 2006).
On the other hand, Australian nationalists can be tempted along a
different negative path. Stirred up by a perception that some
immigrants rejected Australian culture and its values, Howard gave
Australian identity a more explicitly ethnic and religious underpinning
(as he noted in his 2006 Australia Day speech, Australian values were
guided by ‘Judeo-Christian ethics’, see Howard 2006a). While there
was diversity, there was also a dominant cultural strain. In a radio
interview in February 2006, Howard argued against what he called
‘zealous multiculturalism’ that viewed Australia as simply ‘a federa-
tion of cultures’. Not all cultures were equal. Australia had an ‘Anglo-
Saxon’ core culture and set of distinctive values, which also bore
distinctive Australian traits that migrants, and all other cultures, had
to fit themselves into (Howard 2006b; see also Tate 2009).

Howard’s combative approach was counter-productive and even
destructive in managing the relationship between national identity and
multiculturalism. At times, Howard recognized that diverse immigra-
tion had made a valuable contribution to Australian national identity,
including changing it for the better. But his predominant rhetoric
characterized Australian identity as something looming out of the
past, as a settled, permanent entity that people like his predecessors
Hawke and Keating had believed that they could change, and which
fellow-travelling intellectuals had endlessly and fruitlessly debated.
Howard also saw secure national identity as an important counter-
point to the economic change to which he was committed, giving
national identity a firm footing in his social conservatism (Howard
2008). As he explained when later reflecting on his government:
On the social front we emphasised our nation’s traditional values,

sought to resurrect greater pride in her history and became assertive
about the intrinsic worth of our national identity. In the process we
ended the seemingly endless seminar about that identity which had
been in progress for some years (Howard 2008).
In assigning national identity this conservative, reassuring function, it

was difficult, if not impossible, for Howard to emphasize its dynamism
and capacity to change. And as he began to enrol national identity in
the battle against Islamist terrorism (as he and others like his Treasurer
Peter Costello especially did after the London underground bombings
of 2005), his discomfort with multiculturalism was given new licence,
so that he could claim that it was the duty of all Western leaders to
hold the line against those who would demand ‘cultural concessions’.
A strong national identity was now seen as necessary to defend
Australia, and like-minded Western and/or democratic countries,
against the pernicious influence of Islamic extremists, who calculate
‘that it is in the nature of western societies to grow weary of long
struggles and protracted debates’ and who ‘produce, over time, a
growing pressure for resolution or accommodation’ (Howard 2008).
Standing firm on, and being assertive of, national values thus became
crucial in that fight for survival.
Conclusion
Despite the contribution of multicultural policy to the integration of
large numbers of ethnically-diverse immigrants since the 1970s, from
the mid-2000s Australia’s national governments, both conservative
and Labor, were less willing than in the past to promote the symbolism
of multiculturalism, instead emphasizing Australian citizenship. As in
Europe, there was a symbolic retreat from multiculturalism, in part

stimulated by the threat of Islamic extremism and terrorism. At the
same time, most national multicultural policies remained in place,
including funding (albeit reduced) for multicultural broadcaster SBS
and for Ethnic Communities’ Councils at both national and state
levels, the ‘access and equity’ strategy aimed at full participation and
equality among Australia’s diverse population, anti-discrimination,
and anti racial vilification policies, and promotion of national
‘Harmony Day’. Unlike national governments, many state and local
governments continued to promote the virtues of multiculturalism.
Recognizing the growing importance of religious diversity and
expression to multiculturalism, important initiatives emerged such as
interfaith dialogues, organized primarily by local government and civil
society organizations (even where supported by federal or state
government funding) (Bouma 2006, pp. 21011).
In 2011, the Gillard government announced a halt to that symbolic
retreat, praising the unique achievements of Australian multicultural-
ism, and promising a renewed policy (The Australian 2011). Multi-
culturalism in Australia is an evolving process, with new immigrant
groups including Africans, increasing immigration from India, and
ongoing immigration from the Middle East stimulating new issues and
debates, including a renewed emphasis on the importance of religious
diversity and accommodation, and new calls for the need to fight
racism and discrimination in everyday life, and in institutions. The
parameters of what it means to be Australian are also broadening as
part of this process.
Parekh (2000, p. 196) argues that a truly diverse society demands
strong forms of unity and cohesion in order to nurture diversity, and a
powerful political structure that can demand allegiance from its
diverse citizens, otherwise it ‘feels threatened by differences and lacks
the confidence and the willingness to welcome and live with them’.
2168 Anthony Moran
‘The shared view of national identity,’ he argues ‘has a particularly
important role in a multicultural society because of its greater need to
cultivate a common sense of belonging among its diverse communities’
(Parekh 2000, p. 231; see also Modood 2007, and as discussed earlier).
An inclusive Australian identity has served this purpose, and has
contributed to the success of multiculturalism. While multicultural
Australia is primarily a political community, a sense of belonging and
commitment to Australia is not only a commitment and loyalty to a
political culture and to a set of political institutions. Though the
national culture is diverse and open, it has a history, and people feel
different levels of attachment to the meanings that have accrued over
its history. As indicated earlier, Australian national identity includes
both ‘nativists’ and ‘civic nationalists’, for example, who attach
relative importance to different things in terms of ‘being Australian’.
Even inclusive, predominantly civic national identities contain an

important element of inheritance; others have come before us, and
they have passed on the nation to us. For some members of a nation
this means an inheritance passed down through generations of their
families; for others, like first generation immigrants, the inheritance is
more abstract, but as they join the nation they too join a national,
inherited culture. For many Australians, diversity and multiculturalism
are now key features of the national identity, but these sit alongside
other features of longer standing, which emerged through a particular
set of historical experiences. Though the notion of and commitment to
the ‘fair go’ is not unique to Australia, at the same time it has a
particular national history in Australia, and is deeply embedded in the
culture. Similarly, the commitment to civility in everyday life, though
obviously also contravened through incivility, including racism, is an
Australian value and tradition reflected in the low level of political
violence and the generally orderly nature of the society (Hirst 2002).
Commitments to equality, democracy, and freedom are also deeply
held features of the national identity; universalistic values no doubt,
but also national Australian values. The informality of everyday life,
being ‘easy going’, and a distinctive type of humour, are typically
noted aspects of the national culture. And the feeling for the land, and
the space of Australia, is also an aspect of the national identity not
explained by commitment to political values; the attempt by Aus-
tralian national narratives to incorporate the Indigenous presence, and
in particular the spiritual Indigenous connection to the land, indicates
the emotional power of the land in Australian identity.
An open, inclusive, self-reflective national identity can support
multiculturalism and its values, as has been the case in Australia, for
the most part, since the 1970s. Australians, like other nationals living
in multicultural societies, need to continually create new stories of
solidarity, new narratives of national identity, and explanations of
what things hold them together, not simply emphasize difference and
diversity. Supporters of multiculturalism should not be afraid of
engaging vigorously in debates about national identity in fact, in
countries like Australia, that have strong senses of national identity, it
is in their interests to do so.
References
THE AGE 2007 ‘Minister cuts African intake’, 2 October, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/
2007/10/01/1191091031242.html [Accessed 30 November 2009]
ANDERSON, BENEDICT 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso
The Australian 2011 ‘Chris Bowen unveils a new strategy on multiculturalism’, 17 February,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chris-bowen-unveils-new-strategy-on-multi
culturalism/story-fn59niix-1226007226044 [Accessed 20 February 2011]

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS 2008 1301.0 Year Book Australia 2008,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ [Accessed 20 February 2011]
AUSTRALIAN ETHNIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL 1977 Australia as a Multicultural Society
Submission to the Australian Population and Immigration Council on the Green Paper,
‘Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population’, Canberra: Australian Government Publish-
ing Service
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT 2006 Australian Citizenship: Much More than a
Ceremony. Discussion Paper, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia
BILLIG, MICHAEL 1995 Banal Nationalism, London: Sage
BLAINEY, GEOFFREY 1984 All For Australia, North Ryde, NSW: Methuen Hayne
*** 1991 Blainey Eye on Australia: Speeches and Essays of Geoffrey Blainey, Melbourne:
Schwartz and Wilkinson
BOUMA, GARY 2006 Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the Twenty-First Century,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
BRETT, JUDITH and MORAN, ANTHONY 2006 Ordinary People’s Politics: Australians
talk about Life, Politics and the Future of their Country, South Melbourne: Pluto Press
Australia
*** 2011 ‘Cosmopolitan nationalism: Ordinary people making sense of diversity’,
Nations and Nationalism, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 188206
CALHOUN, CRAIG 2002 ‘Imagining solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, constitutional patri-
otism, and the public sphere’, Public Culture, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 14771
CANOVAN, MARGARET 2000 ‘Patriotism is not enough’, British Journal of Political
Science, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 41332
COLLEY, LINDA 1992 Britons: Forging the Nation, 17071837, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 1999 A New Agenda for Multicultural Australia,
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/agenda/
*** 2003 Multicultural Australia: United in Diversity, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/
publications/multicultural/ [Accessed 20 December 2010]
COSTELLO, PETER 2006 ‘Worth promoting, worth defending: Australian citizenship,
what it means, and how to nurture it’, Address to the Sydney Institute, Sydney, 23 February
CURRAN, JAMES and WARD, STUART 2010 The Unknown Nation, Carlton: Melbourne
University Press
DAVISON, GRAEME 2009 ‘‘‘Narrating the nation in Australia’’, The Menzies Lecture
2009’, Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King’s College London
DIXSON, MIRIAM 1976 The Real Matilda: Woman and Identity in Australia 1878 to the
Present, Melbourne: Penguin
2170 Anthony Moran
ERIKSEN, THOMAS HYLLAND 1993 ‘Formal and informal nationalism’, Ethnic and
Racial Studies, vol. 16 no. 1, pp. 125
ETHNIC AFFAIRS TASKFORCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL ON POPULA-
TION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS 1982 Multiculturalism for All Australians: Our Developing
Nationhood, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service
ETHNIC COMMUNITIES’ COUNCIL OF VICTORIA 2006 ECCV Submission to the
Discussion Paper, Australian Citizenship: Much More Than a Ceremony, http://eccv.org.au/
library/doc//ECCVCITSUB.pdf [Accessed 30 May 2010]
GALBALLY REPORT: REVIEW OF POST ARRIVAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
1978 Migrant Services and Programs: Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and
Services for Migrants, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service
GELLNER, ERNEST 1983 Nations and Nationalism, New York: Cornell University Press
GOOT, MURRAY 1999 ‘Migrant numbers, Asian immigration and multiculturalism:
Trends in the polls, 19431998’, in National Multicultural Advisory Council, Australian
Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness, Statistical Appendix, Part 2,
Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, pp. 2961
GOOT, MURRAY and WATSON, IAN 2005 ‘Immigration, multiculturalism and national
identity’ in Shaun Wilson et al. (eds), Australian Social Attitudes: The First Report, Sydney:
University of New South Wales Press, pp. 182203
GOSSETT, THOMAS 1997 Race: The History of an Idea in America, new edn, New York:
Oxford University Press
GRASSBY, AL 1973 A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future, Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service
GRIMSHAW, PATRICIA et al. 1994 Creating A Nation, Ringwood, VIC: McPhee Gribble
Publishers
HABERMAS, JURGEN 1992 ‘Citizenship and national identity: Some reflections on the
future of Europe’, Praxis International, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 119
*** 2001 ‘The postnational constellation and the future of democracy’, in Jurgen
Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 58
112
HAGE, GHASSAN 1998 White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural
Society, Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press
HEARD, GENEVIEVE, KHOO, SIEW-EAN and BIRRELL, BOB 2009 Intermarriage in
Australia: Patterns by Birthplace, Ancestry, Religion and Indigenous Status, Clayton, VIC:
Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University
HIRST, JOHN 1992 ‘The pioneer legend’, in John Carroll (ed.), Intruders in the Bush: The
Australian Quest For Identity, 2nd edn, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 1438
*** 2002 Australia’s Democracy: A Short History, Sydney: Allen & Unwin
*** 2005 Sense and Nonsense in Australian History, Melbourne: Black Inc. Agenda
HOBSBAWM, ERIC 1990 Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
HOWARD, JOHN 2005 ‘Press conference’, Phillip Street, Sydney, 12 December, http://
australianpolitics.com/news/2005/12/05-12-12_howard-cronulla.shtml
*** 2006a ‘A sense of balance: the Australian achievement in 2006’, Australia Day
Address to The National Press Club, the Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 25
January
*** 2006b ‘John Howard interview with Neil Mitchell’, 3AW, Melbourne, 24 February,
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20060321-0000/www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Inter
view1788.html
*** 2008 ‘Irving Kristol Lecture delivered by the Hon John Howard to the American
Enterprise Gala Dinner Washington, DC USA’, 5 March, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
national-affairs/commentary/john-howards-irving-kristol-lecture/story-e6frgd0x-111111572
7675 [Accessed 30 June 2010]
HUNTINGTON, SAMUEL P. 2004 Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National
Identity, New York: Simon & Schuster
HUTCHINSON, JOHN 1994 Modern Nationalism, London: Fontana Press/Harper Collins
INGLIS, KEN 1998 Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape, Carlton:
Miegunyah Press at Melbourne University Press
JONES, FRANK 1999 ‘The sources and limits of popular support for a multicultural
Australia’, in Ghassan Hage and Rowanne Couch (eds), The Future of Australian
Multiculturalism: Reflections of the Twentieth Anniversary of Jean Martin’s The Migrant
Presence, Sydney: Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, University of
Sydney, pp. 2130
JOPPKE, CHRISTIAN 2004 ‘The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory
and policy’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 23757
JUPP, JAMES 2007 From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration,
2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
KELLY, PAUL 1992 The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s, Sydney: Allen & Unwin
LENTINI, PETE, HALAFOFF, ANNA and OGRU, ELA 2009 Perceptions of Multi-
culturalism and Security in Victoria: Report to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, State
Government of Victoria, Clayton, VIC: Global Terrorism Research Centre, Monash
University
MADDISON, SARAH 2009 Black Politics: Inside the Complexity of Aboriginal Political
Culture, Sydney: Allen and Unwin
MASON, ANTHONY 1999 ‘Political community, liberal-nationalism, and the ethics of
assimilation’, Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 26186
MCGREGOR, RUSSELL 2006 ‘The necessity of Britishness: Ethno-cultural roots of
Australian nationalism’, Nations and Nationalism, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 493511
MEANEY, NEVILLE 2001 ‘Britishness and Australian identity: The problem of nation-
alism in Australian history and historiography’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 32 issue
116, pp. 7690
MODOOD, TARIQ 2007 Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, Cambridge: Polity
MORAN, ANTHONY 2002 ‘As Australia decolonizes: Indigenizing settler nationalism and
the challenges of settler/Indigenous relations’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 25, issue 6, pp.
101342
NATIONAL MULTICULTURAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 1999 Australian Multicultural-
ism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness, Canberra: Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs
OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia: Sharing our Future, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service
O’SULLIVAN, JOHN 2005 ‘The real British disease’, The New Criterion, September, http://
www.newcriterion.com/articles [Accessed 20 December 2010]
PAKULSKI, JAN and TRANTER, BRUCE 2000 ‘Civic, national and denizen identity in
Australia’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 20522
PAREKH, BHIKHU 2000 Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political
Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
*** 2008 A New Politics of Identity: Political Principles for an Interdisciplinary World,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
PRICE, CHARLES 1999 ‘Australian population: Ethnic origins’, People and Place, vol. 7,
no. 4, pp. 125
PURDIE, NOLA and CRAVEN, RHONDA 2006 ‘Young people’s perceptions of what it
means to be an Australian’, Student Learning Processes, http://research.acer.edu.au/
learning_processes/1 [Accessed 20 December 2010]
PURDIE, NOLA and WILSS, LYNN 2007 ‘Australian national identity: Young peoples’
conceptions of what it means to be Australian’, National Identities, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6782
REYNOLDS, HENRY 1987 Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and Land, Sydney: Allen &
Unwin
2172 Anthony Moran
ROBB, ANDREW 2006 ‘The importance of a shared national identity’, Plenary Address,
The Transformations Conference, 27 November, Australian National University, Canberra
ROWLEY, CHARLES D. 1970 The Destruction of Aboriginal Society, Canberra: Australian
National University Press
SCATES, BRUCE 2002 ‘In Gallipoli’s shadow: Pilgrimage, memory, mourning and the
Great War’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 33, issue 119, pp. 121
SMITH, ANTHONY. D 1991 National Identity, London: Penguin
TATE, JOHN 2009 ‘John Howard’s ‘‘Nation’’ and Citizenship Test: Multiculturalism,
citizenship and identity’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 97120
TAVAN, GWENDA 2005 The Long Slow Death of the White Australia Policy, Carlton
North, VIC: Scribe
VIVIANI, NANCY 1996 The Indochinese in Australia: From Burnt Boats to Barbecues,
Melbourne: Oxford University Press
WARD, RUSSEL 1958 The Australian Legend, Melbourne: Oxford University Press
WILCOX, SHELLEY 2004 ‘Culture, national identity, and admission to citizenship’, Social
Theory and Practice, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 55982
ANTHONY MORAN is Lecturer in the Sociology Program in the

School of Social Sciences at La Trobe University.
ADDRESS: Sociology Program, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe
University, Bundoora Campus, Victoria 3086, Australia.
Email: a.moran@latrobe.edu.au

Multiculturalism As Nation-Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiculturalism As Nation-Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [171.6.148.

Ethnic and Racial Studies

To cite this article: Anthony Moran (2011) Multiculturalism as nation-building in

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.573081

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

(First submission December 2010; First published June 2011)

Keywords: Multiculturalism; Australia; national identity; national culture;

In many Western liberal democracies, critics attack multiculturalism

# 2011 Taylor & Francis

proceduralist ‘political culture’ advocated by post-nationalists,

continually ‘flagged’ and operates as the unexamined background and

uncertainty, newness, and future orientation has allowed Australia and

including young backpackers, making the pilgrimage to Gallipoli and

tion had always been constructed as nation-building in Australia, so

For almost two hundred years, migrants have been coming to

respond to the needs of a more diverse population than had existed a

Our British heritage is extremely important to us. It helps to define

Australia’s ethno-cultural diversity had many advantages and

. cultural identity the right of all Australians, within carefully

It is important to note here the emphasis on the ‘individual’ right to

values, and by loyalty to the Australian nation.

prominent (Purdie and Craven 2006). References to diversity were

Controversies about national identity and multiculturalism

1990s. Blainey claimed that multiculturalism was a recipe for ethnic

introduced a citizenship test for immigrants. This was necessary, it

to fit themselves into (Howard 2006b; see also Tate 2009).

On the social front we emphasised our nation’s traditional values,

In assigning national identity this conservative, reassuring function, it

Europe, there was a symbolic retreat from multiculturalism, in part

Even inclusive, predominantly civic national identities contain an

culturalism/story-fn59niix-1226007226044 [Accessed 20 February 2011]

ANTHONY MORAN is Lecturer in the Sociology Program in the

You might also like