How can these dimensions and difficulties be incorporated into a

form of ethnic relations which represents a truly multicultural

112

These issues have been alluded to in a number of government and academic

publications. The submission of the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council

entitled Australia as a Multicultural Society (August, 1977), highlighted

the cultural and structural dimension of ethnic relations. This document

identified three key issues as central to multiculturalism: social cohesion,

equality and cultural identity. The Buntine Oration delivered in May, 1978,

by Barbara Falk and entitled Personal Identity in a Multicultural

Australia addresses the question: 'Is the concept of a multicultural

Australia a paradox or a contradiction?' (1978:3). But there is an

important difference between what lies at the centre of the paradox for

Falk and what is the crux of the ethnic dilemma presented above. The

former is concerned with the problem of identity, the latter with

inequality. The focus on identity in Falk's analysis is evidenced by the

set of questions posed at the outset:

Can many cultures be integrated without being assimilated into a new composite of them all? ... If the multicultural society (the whole) is amorphous, is it not setf-contradictory to designate it

a society? And practically speaking, what norms and what laws and

conventions, and what institutions, could regulate conflicting interests, and what would be the consequences for the personal identity of each Australian of such a society? (Falk, 1978:3, emphasis added).

One of the main questions posed by Falk is the problem of cohesion

in a multi-ethnic society. Indeed, social cohesion seems central to

many analyses of ethnic relations (see earlier discussion of Park's

analysis and also Australia as a Multicultural Society

[1977]). But whereas Park's solution to the problem of cohesion was

assimilation, the approach adopted by Falk and the Australian Ethnic

Affairs Council is to maintain cohesion by 'integration'. Integration,

Means a continuing extension of society whereby the parts added are linked either by bonds of mutual acceptance or only by laws regulating conflicting sectional interests.

The report of the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council also stresses, in the

over sectional interests but also emphasises (in a Durkheimian fashion)

the 'social good' (1977:5). One aim of these analyses appears to be the

development of a theoretical representation of a truly multicultural

society which is, above all a democratic society. As stated by Falk

(1978:4):

I shall argue in this paper that a democratic multicultural society must have an integrative set of values, together with diversity, to hold together ethnic groups of unequal size and different class composition, since inducement and coercion as binding forces are not

as effective in the long run as is moral commitment. And I shall

argue that members of both dominant and dominanted groups would3 in a state that lacks such integration} be insecure iyi personal

identity (emphasis added).

The analysis of multiculturalism presented by Falk and the Ethnic Affairs

Council recognises the structural dimension of ethnic relations but does

not incorporate this dimension as a significant component which needs to

change to achieve a truly multicultural society. That is, although the

dominant-subordinate nature of ethnic relations and the limited access to

social resources are seen as important components of ethnic relations, the

means for achieving a truly multicultural society do not involve this

dimension but are seen as primarily a function of changes at the level of

the cultural dimension. For instance, the last sentence from Falk's

comment, quoted above, indicates that the existence of 'dominant and

dominated groups' is not the problem, but rather is taken as a given.

The problem is seen as how to develop an integrated society within these

structural constraints. The approach to ethnic relations adopted in this

thesis is that the dominant-dominated dimension is at the crux of ethnic

relations in Australia and needs to be the focus of change in order to

develop a truly multicultural society.

Identity, as pointed out earlier, is another concept which seems

critical to an analysis of ethnic relations. Identity, as Falk has noted,

is socially bestowed (1978:6-8), and in a class society like Australia it

is relevant to ask which ethnic group has control over the most important

114

into extremely difficult problems concerning the status and relationship

between subcultural systems of beliefs, e.g., Falk (1978:4) touches on

problems of this sort: 'Can the measuring of a concept or belief be

judged by transcultural criteria of truth and rationality, or is the very

measuring of a concept bound by the subculture?' A related question

concerns the maintenance and perpetuation of cultural values and

behaviours which may be inconsistent with the legal and value position of

the ruling class (e.g., the possibility of some non-English speaking

migrants committing murder as a culturally acceptable method of 'settling

a score'). Problems of this sort seem irresolvable while limited to the

cultural dimension of ethnic relations. These are problems of power and

control and hence are basically political, not cultural issues. They can

only be resolved by historical social forces.

While elaborating on the nature of a multicultural society, Falk

makes the following point (1978:3-4):

The multi-cultural Australian society is an ideal, a gemein Schaft,

not a gesellschaft in Tonnies' terms. It suggests a unity greater than that of a shared territory, a federal constitution and a common legal system. It implies that the bonds that unite must be stronger than the differences that are divisive, and that cohesion is not achieved at the price of dominance of one culture over the others (emphasis added).

However, it could be argued that cohesion, not defined as the social good,

but as the legitimation and acceptance of the status quo by subordinate

groups, is precisely a function of the dominance of one culture over

others. In Marxian terms 'the ideas of the ruling class are in every

epoch the ruling ideas' (quoted in Heller, 1969:21). Consequently,

humanitarian concerns about subcultural behaviour are purely philosophical

questions while they remain divorced fron the class structure of the

social system, and need to be related in the relationship between

consciousness and structure.

In something of a contradiction, Falk argues that in a situation of

group must prevail' (1978:12), while arguing at the same time that the

dominant group needs to be resocialised:

Re-socialization of the dominant groups is demanded by multi- culturalism, and this demand may shake the very foundations of primary socialization (Falk, 1978:13).

Falk concludes her analysis on a provocative note:

Mow then, could a multi-cultural society come into being in

Australia? We have noted some features such [as] a society would have [sic) : equality of access for all ethnic groups to economic opportunity, well being, the legal process, and political power. But do all Anglo-Australians.have this equality of access? Are we saying that the disadvantage of ethnic groups should not be

proportionately greater than that of Anglo-Australians as a group, taking into account the class structure of each group? (Falk, 1978:13).

The strength of Falk's analysis lies in the emphasis given to both

cultural and structural dimensions of Australian ethnic relations and the

pin-pointing of some of the critical issues, contradictions and questions

which arise out of this two-dimensional approach. To the extent that Falk

offers directives for achieving a truly multicultural society, these

mainly have to do with the emergence of new multi-ethnic identities as a

consequence of multicultural education programmes. Hence Falk advocates

changes to existing structures, e.g., new curricula for schools which

would explain shared values. In other words, the suggested means for

resolving many of the dilemmas raised by Falk and the achievement of a

truly multicultural society, lie in the cultural dimension. Many of the

components of the structural dimension, notably dominant-subordinate

relations, political power are defined as insignificant and irrelevant

when it comes to resolving these dilemmas. This is apparent in the

concluding suggestion offered by Falk (1978:13-14):

New curricula would be needed for schools in a multi-cultural Australia which would confirm the values of diverse cultures and denigrate none, so that there could be continuity in synthesis and resynthesis of the identities of pupils; but there must be shared values expressed in a 'stable symbolic canopy' for the whole society.

It is possible that the contradictions and dilemmas raised by Falk, and

116

through greater understanding of the historical and structural dimension

of Australian ethnic relations. This task is the focus of Chapters Five

In document Sociology and Australian ethnic relations : a critical approach (Page 125-131)