Multiculturalism as nation-building in

Australia: Inclusive national identity and

the embrace of diversity

Anthony Moran

(First submission December 2010; First published June 2011)

AbstractThis article discusses the relationship between multiculturalism andnational identity, focusing on the Australian context. It argues thatinclusive national identity can accommodate and support multicultural-ism, and serve as an important source of cohesion and unity in ethnicallyand culturally diverse societies. However, a combative approach tonational identity, as prevailed under the Howard government, threatensmulticultural values. The article nevertheless concludes that it is necessaryfor supporters of multiculturalism to engage in ongoing debates abouttheir respective national identities, rather than to vacate the field ofnational identity to others.

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

nation-building; policy.

In many Western liberal democracies, critics attack multiculturalismas a failed experiment that has threatened national cohesion andundermined unity (Huntington 2004; O’Sullivan 2005). Politiciansand intellectuals argue that multiculturalism should be replaced by arenewed emphasis on common citizenship and shared nationalidentity. 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 onehand, and national identity, social cohesion, integration, and unityon the other, diametrically opposed, as these critics claim? TheAustralian experience provides a counter example � multiculturalism

Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 34 No. 12 December 2011 pp. 2153�2172

# 2011 Taylor & FrancisISSN 0141-9870 print/1466-4356 onlinehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.573081

was conceived as a nation-building project in the context of mass,multiethnic immigration, and as a way of rethinking Australiannational identity in the context of the rejection of the WhiteAustralia Policy and assimilation. This connection with reimaginingthe nation has been part of multiculturalism’s strength and tenacityas public policy in Australia since its inception. The specific focus ofthis article is the relationship between multiculturalism and nationalidentity, and while the main example is Australia, the general claimsmade about this relationship are relevant to other multiculturalnations.

National identities are important sources of solidarity, even in thecontext of multicultural societies. Like Calhoun (2002), I defend athicker notion of national culture, beyond the thin notion ofproceduralist ‘political culture’ advocated by post-nationalists,including Habermas (1992) with his concept of ‘constitutionalpatriotism’. Some political philosophers argue that people canbelong to a polity without having a sense of belonging togetheras a nation, or sharing a national identity, and that this is enoughto sustain liberal democracy and inspire commitment to thecommon good (Mason 1999). According to Wilcox (2004, p. 576),people belonging to a polity do not have to possess ‘any specialfeelings of relatedness with or sympathy for one another’ tomaintain a sense of commitment to their polity, or to supportbroader policies of redistribution and social justice. Stability andcommitment can be maintained if a person identifies with most of apolity’s ‘major institutions and some of its practices and feels athome in them’; identifying with them means that a person ‘regardsher flourishing as intimately linked to their flourishing’ (Mason1999, p. 272). It is claimed that this form of non-national belongingis better able to accommodate diversity, and to avoid illiberaltendencies, including demands for cultural assimilation. These areabstract possibilities rather than sociologically supported claims. AsCalhoun (2002) argues, the ‘republicanism and democracy’ advo-cated by post-nationalists, cosmopolitans, and constitutional patri-ots, ‘depend on more than narrowly political culture � they dependon richer ways of constituting life together’ (p. 151).

For a national identity to support multiculturalism it must beconceived as predominantly post-ethnic, and as dynamic andchanging, involving an open and ongoing dialogue about nationaltraditions. However, even multicultural nations require some degreeof (mainly civic) common national culture, supporting a sense of‘we-ness’, that provides the context through which co-nationals candebate � and are willing to debate together � the complexities ofidentity, diversity, and contested national traditions.

2154 Anthony Moran

National identity

National identity refers both to personal identity arising from member-ship of a national political community, and to the identity of a politicalcommunity that marks one nation off from others (Parekh 2008, p. 56).National identities involve particularistic configurations of ethniccores, myths and memories, religious beliefs, language, connectionswith territory, and political values (Smith 1991). Nations typicallyemphasize a shared cultural inheritance and way of life, and nationalidentities reflect this. National identities are supported by nationalinstitutions, and reinforced through education systems (Gellner 1983),national days of commemoration and other forms of government-sanctioned memorializing (such as national museums and nationalmonuments), and in banal ways in everyday life where the nation iscontinually ‘flagged’ and operates as the unexamined background andframing device for a range of narratives (Billig 1995). Nationalidentities are also constructed in relation to a range of others (Colley1992). They are not simply voluntary, but also inherited (Canovan2000). The ‘myths and memories’ so central to national identitiescannot be simply invented by intellectuals and other elites and foistedupon unsuspecting nationals-in-waiting; they must reverberate withhistorical, collective events, and experiences (Smith 1991).

Theories of nationalism such as those proffered by Anderson(1983), Gellner (1983), and Hobsbawm (1990) have emphasized theinventedness, 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 hisfamous book were nevertheless ‘real’ nations. Gellner and Hobsbawmmainly discussed the older nations of Europe, but emphasized theirnewness and distinguished them from historically prior ethnic andother 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, mustdirect 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, aspolyethnic, have their nationalisms challenged by strong ethnicideologies. The issue of inventedness is a banal reality for citizens ofthese 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 formerBritish colonies only federated as a nation in 1901; even then Australiawas not clearly separated from Britain, retaining many of its close ties

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2155

and the British monarch as Head of State. Second, it is highlyimmigrant in nature: in 2006, 24 per cent of Australia’s population wasborn overseas, and a further 26 per cent had at least one overseas-bornparent (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). It is also increasinglypolyethnic, a tendency likely to continue given Australia’s ongoingcommitment to a high rate of non-discriminatory immigration.

Hutchinson (1994) argues that, like other immigrant societiesincluding the US and Canada, Australia is marked by national‘status anxieties’ related to its ‘newness’, requiring it to periodicallyassess its progress and to construct national milestones as galvanizers offuture action (Hutchinson 1994, pp. 165�6). Though settler national-isms draw upon the past for symbols, they are primarily oriented to thefuture promise of the nation (pp. 167�8). On the other hand, thisuncertainty, newness, and future orientation has allowed Australia andCanada to embrace multiculturalism as a project of national identityrenewal. In a world where many nations, even those with histories ofrelative ethnic homogeneity, experience high levels of ethnically-diverseimmigration, it is arguable that they too will have to embrace their‘newness’, perpetual re-inventedness, and promote inclusive nationalidentities 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 multiculturalAustralia since the 1970s. The White Australia Policy, under whichimmigration favoured ‘whites’, excluded ‘non-white’ immigrants, anddiscriminated against resident ‘non-whites’, was the official policyfrom federation (1901) through to the end of the 1960s. Under thispolicy, Australian national identity was constructed upon ‘inheritedconcepts of ethnicity, race and religion’ � Australians were British,white, and/or Anglo-Saxon and Christian (Davison 2009, p. 2). Racialmyths 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 (Hirst1992), and solidaristic, egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, practical,laconic, and easy-going bushmen, the ‘nomad tribe’ of pastorallabourers of Russel Ward’s ‘Australian legend’ (Ward 1958). Thesemyths dominated conceptions of Australian identity, with the bush-man myth finding a potent reiteration in the Anzac legend of thecitizen soldier during World War One, in particular through theexperiences and mythologizing of the failed Gallipoli campaign of1915. Physical prowess, bravery, stoicism in the face of adversity,mateship, anti-authoritarianism, innovation, and practicality wereextolled as typically Australian virtues, and it has commonly beenclaimed, by political leaders, historians, and ordinary Australians sincethen that the Australian nation was born at Gallipoli (Inglis 1998).

2156 Anthony Moran

These myths about Australian identity have been challenged byrevisionist historians who highlighted the racism and slaughter ofindigenous people on the Australian frontier (Rowley 1970; Reynolds1987), and by feminist historians who critiqued masculinist accountsof Australian identity and experience, arguing that ‘mateship’ excludedwomen and highlighting women’s often hidden contributions tonational life (Dixson 1976; Grimshaw et al. 1994). Nevertheless, ideasand values associated with these myths, such as the fair go,egalitarianism, mateship, and courage in the face of adversity continueto resonate with Australians (see below), and the bush retains a specialand powerful place in national iconography and mythology. TheAnzac legend remains a powerful national myth reflected in aresurgent emphasis on Anzac Day (25 April), with large attendancesat Dawn Services and marches, and with large numbers of Australians,including young backpackers, making the pilgrimage to Gallipoli andother European battle sites where Australian soldiers fought and died(Scates 2002). Anzac Day is Australia’s de facto national day, morepowerfully resonant than the official Australia Day (26 January).

‘White Australia’, on the other hand, became a problem forAustralian 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 BritishEmpire collapsed after World War Two, and as Britain reoriented itselfto 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 couldunite Australians in the federation period (roughly 1890�1915), and itgave the nation the sense of time-depth that all nations require. Thiswas also an Australian Britishness that had to accommodate andmanage the cultural, political, and religious conflicts and tensionsbetween the mainly Protestant English and Scots, and the mainlyCatholic Irish. These religious and ethnic differences shaped thecharacter of Australian institutions, culture, politics, and civic life.However, they became less important, over time, than the developingsense of commonality and unity forged in new circumstances (seeO’Farrell 2000, pp. 11�12). Efforts to settle the land, including theviolent struggle with Indigenous peoples on the frontier, the desire tobe free of Old World conflicts and class distinctions, the experience ofmixing in neighbourhoods, in the workplace, and in political parties,trade unions and other civic associations (Hirst 2005, pp. 11�23), andthe perception of the Asian threat to Australian racial and nationalinterests contributed to the consolidation of a common white Britishethnicity.

Australian nationalism combined ‘Britannic’ ethnic symbols, myths,and memories with ‘civic/territorial components centring on the

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2157

distinctive entitlements and obligations of the Australian citizen andcommitment to an Australian homeland’ (McGregor 2006, p. 499), butMcGregor argues that the ethnic principle was predominant. Never-theless, the deep connection with the Australian land became anincreasingly important element of Australian national identity. Ac-cording to McGregor (2006, p. 508), in contemporary Australia,Britishness has been ‘de-accentuated’ rather than expunged fromnational identity, and ‘Australian nationalism has shifted away from anethnic toward a civic/territorial emphasis’. Contributing factorsincluded the above-mentioned decline of the British Empire andBritain’s turn to Europe, Australia’s need to engage with Asia, and thegrowing need to include Aborigines in the nation. But McGregor(2006, p. 508) claims that no single causal factor was more importantthan the ‘substantial intake of non-British immigrants’ after WorldWar Two.

The first large waves of post war non-British immigrants wererefugees selected by Australian government officials among Europe’sDisplaced Persons � typically white, young, and healthy. ThoughBritish immigrants were also actively sought through government-subsidized schemes, Australia took in large numbers of immigrantsfrom 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 wereVietnamese refugees in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (Viviani1996). Post-war immigration has contributed significantly to Austra-lia’s population growth, and to its ethnic, language, and religiousdiversity. People of British/Irish ancestry still dominate Australia’sethnic make-up (between 60 and 70 per cent), but in Australia’s lastCensus (in 2006) about 19 per cent reported European ancestry (otherthan English, Irish, or Scottish); 10 per cent reported Asian ancestry(Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Filipino, and other Asian); there weresmaller representations from the Middle East and of Maori and otherPacific Islander ancestries (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008).Reflecting high rates of intermarriage, at least 60 per cent ofAustralian people were estimated to be of mixed ethnic ancestry bythe late 1990s (Price 1999). Australia was once overwhelminglyChristian, but recent immigration from Southeast Asia and theMiddle East has contributed to increasing numbers of Buddhists,Muslims, and Hindus (Bouma 2006, chapter 3; Australian Bureau ofStatistics 2008).

These demographic and associated social and cultural changes,including the emergence of ethnic leaders and social movements, aswell as, from the late 1960s, intensifying Aboriginal activism andprotest, meant that a new national narrative highlighting Australia’s

2158 Anthony Moran

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 WhiteAustralia Policy (Tavan 2005). Immigration policy was liberalized, andnaturalization policy amended so that by the mid-1970s Australia wasofficially committed to removing racial discrimination from itsimmigration and other social policies, signalled by its Racial Dis-crimination Act (1975). Policy officials and politicians concluded thatassimilation policy was failing, and during the 1970s multiculturalismachieved bipartisan political approval as the best policy for managingimmigrant integration into Australian society. Just as mass immigra-tion had always been constructed as nation-building in Australia, sotoo was multicultural policy conceived as a nation-building exercise.

When multicultural policy emerged in the early 1970s, officialstatements described Australia as a ‘multicultural society’; what thismeant for national identity was implied rather than explicitlyaddressed (Grassby 1973; Australian Ethnic Affairs Council 1977;Galbally Report 1978). These implications were made explicit in laterpolicy statements. Multiculturalism for All Australians: Our DevelopingNationhood stressed that multiculturalism applied to all groups insociety, not just non-Anglo immigrants. Multiculturalism was not onlya crucial policy for handling diversity, but also significant forAustralia’s developing national identity. In discussing Australia’snational identity this statement presented immigration as a keyunderpinning story:

For almost two hundred years, migrants have been coming toAustralia and putting down their roots. They and their children werethe pioneers who battled drought and flood, died at Gallipoli andthe Kokoda Trail, pushed roads and railways across the continent,and laid the foundations of Australia’s strength (Ethnic AffairsTaskforce of the Australian Council on Population and EthnicAffairs 1982, p. 4).

For them the story had been an overwhelmingly positive one, while itwas recognized that for ‘Aboriginal people, however, the impact ofwhite settlement was catastrophic � equivalent to invasion’ (EthnicAffairs Taskforce of the Australian Council on Population and EthnicAffairs 1982, p. 4). The inference from this migration narrative wasthat no ‘ethnic’ group held a preeminent place in the national identity.British or ‘Anglo-Celtic’ Australians took their place alongside otherethnic groups in a plural society.

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2159

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 theequivalence of all identities as contributors to Australia’s nationalidentity. The National Agenda declared unequivocally that Australiawas now a multicultural society, and noted that ‘it is the vigour of ourdiversity, and the degree of interaction between different cultures, thatcontributes so much to the uniqueness of the Australian identitytoday’ (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, p. 6). But the Britishheritage 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 relativelyhomogenous British population well at the time (with the exception ofAborigines), but needed to adapt and change again to reflect andrespond to the needs of a more diverse population than had existed ageneration before. But adapting institutions did not mean that theyhad to be given up, or that identity had to change in a wholesalemanner:

Our British heritage is extremely important to us. It helps to defineus as Australian. It has created a society remarkable for the freedomit can give to its individual citizens. It is a large part of what makesAustralia attractive to immigrants and visitors. It is a potent sourceof unity and loyalty (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, pp. 50�1,emphasis added).

Australia’s ethno-cultural diversity had many advantages andstrengths, but it was not cited in the same way as a ‘potent sourceof unity and loyalty’. And nor did multiculturalism ‘entail a rejectionof Australian values, customs and beliefs’. Rather, it entailed therecognition that ‘any such common core evolves and changes overtime’ and is thus open to change from internal and external influences.The right policies can help to ensure that ‘the richness of our diverseorigins can contribute � as indeed they are already � to an evolving,but distinctive Australian culture’ (Office of Multicultural Affairs1989, p. 53).

However, the conception of this British heritage de-emphasized theethnic elements while emphasizing its civic and institutional elements.To qualify McGregor’s (2006) argument about the British ethniccomponent of early Australian nationalism, though Britishness wasassociated with race from the nineteenth century (i.e., Anglo-Saxonrace myths), it also had strong, historically-rooted civic beliefsconcerning 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

2160 Anthony Moran

new understandings of Britishness in Australia. This has also occurredin Britain, where ‘post-ethnic’ British identity has been championed bysome as a way of accommodating multicultural diversity while at thesame time promoting a common national identity and sense ofcommitment and belonging among both immigrant and non-immi-grant citizens (Modood 2007). In other official documents since thelate 1980s, and in much social commentary, when the importance ofAustralia’s British origins and character are asserted, it is typically inthis inclusive and civic rather than ethnic sense of Britishness; and it isassumed that anyone can partake of that culture regardless of ethnicor racial origins.

The ethic of inclusiveness was evident in the National Agenda’s threemain dimensions of multicultural policy:

. cultural identity � the right of all Australians, within carefullydefined limits, to express and share their individual culturalheritage, including their language and religion;

. social justice � the right of all Australians to equality of treatmentand 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 utilizeeffectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless ofbackground (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, p. vii).

It is important to note here the emphasis on the ‘individual’ right toexpression and enjoyment of cultural heritage, rather than any conceptof ‘group rights’, and this was emphasized again elsewhere, in thecontext of a stress on cultural mixing rather than separatism (Office ofMulticultural Affairs 1989, p. 16).

During the 1980s and the 1990s, governments, intellectuals, andmedia commentators also emphasized the importance of the Abori-ginal narrative for Australian national identity. An ‘indigenising’ formof nationalism highlighted the way that Aboriginal culture gavehistorical and spiritual depth to the nation, and rooted it more firmlyin the Australian continent (Moran 2002). This narrative wasprominently featured in the rhetoric emerging from the Council forAboriginal Reconciliation during the 1990s reconciliation process. Butsome Aboriginal leaders have resisted this incorporation, emphasizingtheir separate status, ongoing sovereignty, and unique spiritualconnection with Australia (Maddison 2009).

Policy statements during the Howard government era (1996�2007)adopted the term ‘Australian multiculturalism’ to emphasize thepredominance of Australian unity over difference, but neverthelesscontained statements confirming that Australia was ‘in reality as wellas by definition, a multicultural nation’ (Commonwealth of Australia

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2161

1999, p. 6), and expressing confidence ‘that Australian multicultural-ism will continue to be a defining feature of our evolving nationalidentity’ (National Multicultural Advisory Council 1999, pp. 13�14;see also Commonwealth of Australia 2003).

The nation-building emphasis of Australian multiculturalism hascontributed to the policy’s success, and to its approval (in certainrespects) by the general public (Goot 1999; Goot and Watson 2005).Despite the claims of some critics, it has been a highly integrativepolicy, encouraging interaction between different people and fullparticipation in mainstream society, and fostering a sense of Aus-tralian unity. It has involved very little cultural relativism, and hasbeen primarily liberal in character, focused on individual rights to freeenjoyment and expression of culture, rather than group rights.Multicultural rights have always been framed by liberal democraticvalues, and by loyalty to the Australian nation.

Joppke (2004), when surveying the retreat of multiculturalismamong liberal states, points out that multiculturalism has sunk deeperroots in settler societies like Australia and Canada because of the waythat it is bound up with national identity there; thus the retreat ofmulticulturalism in the 1980s and 1990s was less pronounced in settlersocieties than in Europe. But how significant are multiculturalism andthe acceptance of diversity as features of contemporary Australiannational identity?

Qualitative studies show that multiculturalism and diversity arepopularly cited when people describe Australia and Australians (Brettand Moran 2006, Brett and Moran 2011). Lentini, Halafoff and Ogru(2009), based on their findings from fifteen diverse focus groups inurban and rural Victoria, argue that many participants saw multi-culturalism as a ‘major factor for making Australia a very tolerantsociety’, and felt that ‘multiculturalism helped transform ‘‘Australian-ness’’ into a distinctive Australian identity, and that it is a significantcomponent of contemporary Australian identity’ (Lentini, Halafoffand Ogru 2009, p. 4). Many praised the diversity of their local areas,and most ‘highlighted the importance and desirability of living indiverse communities’ (p. 21). Discussing ‘Australianness’, the generalconsensus was that it was ‘diverse and dynamic’, and while a fewlamented the loss of a more stable, older Australian identity, mostcelebrated the fact that the identity had changed and would continueto change. Many saw ‘cultural diversity’ as one of the forces forchange, and in doing so viewed multiculturalism positively. Many alsocited as one of the strengths of Australian society that it did notelevate in terms of importance any one ethnic experience or group (pp.24�6). On the other hand, there was ‘some consensus within thegroups that it [Australianness] was associated with particular forms ofbehaviour’. Thus, while participants readily accepted cultural diversity,

2162 Anthony Moran

this did not mean that they did not have expectations that peoplewould accept an Australian way of life and adapt to it. And there wasalso much talk of the need to prioritize ‘Australian values’. The mostfrequently mentioned of these was the ‘fair go’, and some groups alsodiscussed ‘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 towrite a short essay on the question ‘What does it mean to beAustralian?’ While traditional aspects of Australian identity werepresent 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 alsoprominent (Purdie and Craven 2006). References to diversity weremostly to cultural diversity, and were mainly positive; ‘acceptingdifferences’ was considered an important feature of being Australian(Purdie and Wilss 2007, pp. 71�8).

Though based on non-representative samples, these findings aresuggestive of acceptance of multiculturalism and diversity as featuresof Australian identity. In addition, quantitative data based on nationalrepresentative samples indicates that Australians have shifted towardsmore civic notions of national identity, as evident from nationalsurveys of their views about what makes a person ‘truly Australian’.According to the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, achievedqualities such as ‘feeling Australian’ (92 per cent), ‘having Australiancitizenship’ (91 per cent), ‘respecting Australian political institutionsand laws’ (89 per cent), and ‘speaking English’ (92 per cent) were moreimportant to being ‘truly Australian’ than ‘being born in Australia (58per cent), having ‘Australian heritage’ (only 37 per cent), or ‘beingChristian’ (only 36 per cent) (Goot and Watson 2005, p. 188). Jones(1999) has used similar findings from national surveys from the 1990sto suggest that only a quarter of Australians held more traditionalist,conservative ‘nativist’ views of Australian identity, with three quartersholding more ‘civic pluralist’ views.

A range of influences has contributed to this shift to a moreinclusive sense of multicultural national identity: the role of Federal,state and local governments as symbolic leaders on multiculturalismsince the 1970s; the role of the education sector at all levels socializingstudents into a multicultural society; rising levels of education,including university education (Jones 1999); and the experiences ofeveryday life and mixing that for many people suggest the obviousnessthat they live in a multicultural Australia. Important in relation to thelatter point is that the high rate of intermarriage in Australia betweennon-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians, and across ethnic and

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2163

religious groups, especially in the second and third generation afterimmigration (Heard, Khoo and Birrell 2009) means that mostindividuals have at least some direct, personal experience withAustralia’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 debatesabout Asian immigration sparked by prominent historian GeoffreyBlainey (1984) and comments from conservative politicians, includingopposition leaders Andrew Peacock (in 1984) and John Howard(in 1988) (Kelly 1992, pp. 133�4, 422�3). There were related debatesabout and critiques of multiculturalism throughout the 1980s and1990s. Blainey claimed that multiculturalism was a recipe for ethnicconflict and ‘warring tribes’ within the nation-state (Blainey 1984,1991). Opposition leader John Howard ended bipartisanship in 1988when he said that ‘there are profound weaknesses in the policy ofmulticulturalism. I think it is a rather aimless, divisive policy and Ithink it ought to be changed’ (quoted in Jupp 2007, pp. 106�7). Thelate 1990s saw the rise of Pauline Hanson’s anti-globalization, anti-immigrant, anti-multicultural, and anti-Aboriginal rights One NationParty, again sparking public controversy.

More recent controversies in the 2000s erupted over the so-calledfailure to integrate recent African immigrants and a section of theMuslim population, a view promoted in explosive media reports ofethnic gangs and crime, and publicly promoted by some Howardgovernment ministers (Costello 2006; The Age 2007). The December2005 Cronulla riots, where a mainly white mob attacked people of‘Middle-Eastern appearance’ on a popular Sydney beach, followed byreprisals by Lebanese and Muslim youths in nearby suburbs, was readby some as the resurgence of white nationalism and a rejection ofmulticulturalism, and by others as highlighting the problem ofLebanese and Muslim integration. The Howard government, whilecondemning the violence, seemed to adopt the latter position, withHoward commenting in the riots’ aftermath that Australia had nounderlying problem with racism, and that while religious freedom wasimportant, ‘it’s also important that we place greater emphasis onintegration of people into the broader community and the avoidanceof tribalism within our midst. I don’t think Australians want tribalism.They want us all to be Australians’ (Howard 2005). In a speech inFebruary 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 citizenshipand the commitment to Australian values (Costello 2006).

2164 Anthony Moran

Though the Howard government had been ambivalent aboutmulticulturalism in its first term (1996�1998), cutting funding forethnic specific services and programmes, and dissolving multiculturalinstitutions including the Bureau of Immigration, Population andMulticultural Research, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs (Jupp2007), it reaffirmed its commitment to the policy in 1999 with its NewAgenda for a Multicultural Australia (Commonwealth of Australia1999), and again in 2003 (Commonwealth of Australia 2003) beforedeciding in 2006 that it would no longer promote multiculturalismbecause of its supposedly divisive connotations. In early 2007 itchanged 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 itintroduced a citizenship test for immigrants. This was necessary, itwas claimed, because Australia was receiving immigrants from newsource countries with value systems vastly different to mainstreamAustralia and to those of previous waves of immigrants, and to makesure that immigrants learnt English and fully integrated into Australia(Australian Government 2006; Robb 2006). During the public debateon its introduction it was opposed by some, including the EthnicCommunities’ Council of Victoria (ECCV), on post-nationalistgrounds (Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria 2006); suspicionswere voiced about any construction of national values or nationalculture.

Many supporters of multiculturalism see the nation in conflict with,and nationalism as the enemy of, multiculturalism; for nations andnationalism seem to rely on a level of cultural homogeneity (Gellner1983) that would undermine the claims of multiculturalists to thepeaceful co-existence, within the one state, of a plurality of cultures.When politicians and others emphasize national culture and nationalidentity, the fear is that it will draw attention to the supposeddestabilizing 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 intellectualsvacate the scene by refusing to discuss national identity and issues ofnational unity and cohesion, another pressing danger is that advocatesof more extreme forms of nationalism will take their place. Left-wingsupporters of multiculturalism who deny the relevance of nationalidentity and love of country threaten to undermine multiculturalism’slegitimacy among populations, like Australia’s, that are patriotic andproud of their national identity (Pakulski and Tranter 2000). Forexample, the ECCV played into the hands of the Howard governmentthat accused it of promoting separatist multiculturalism that ignoredthe importance of national solidarity and cohesion, and of being out

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2165

of touch with ordinary Australians’ valuing of their Australian way oflife (Robb 2006).

On the other hand, Australian nationalists can be tempted along adifferent negative path. Stirred up by a perception that someimmigrants rejected Australian culture and its values, Howard gaveAustralian identity a more explicitly ethnic and religious underpinning(as he noted in his 2006 Australia Day speech, Australian values wereguided by ‘Judeo-Christian ethics’, see Howard 2006a). While therewas diversity, there was also a dominant cultural strain. In a radiointerview 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 boredistinctive Australian traits that migrants, and all other cultures, hadto fit themselves into (Howard 2006b; see also Tate 2009).

Howard’s combative approach was counter-productive and evendestructive in managing the relationship between national identity andmulticulturalism. 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 rhetoriccharacterized Australian identity as something looming out of thepast, as a settled, permanent entity that people like his predecessorsHawke and Keating had believed that they could change, and whichfellow-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, givingnational identity a firm footing in his social conservatism (Howard2008). 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 assertiveabout the intrinsic worth of our national identity. In the process weended the seemingly endless seminar about that identity which hadbeen in progress for some years (Howard 2008).

In assigning national identity this conservative, reassuring function, itwas difficult, if not impossible, for Howard to emphasize its dynamismand capacity to change. And as he began to enrol national identity inthe battle against Islamist terrorism (as he and others like his TreasurerPeter Costello especially did after the London underground bombingsof 2005), his discomfort with multiculturalism was given new licence,so that he could claim that it was the duty of all Western leaders tohold the line against those who would demand ‘cultural concessions’.A strong national identity was now seen as necessary to defendAustralia, and like-minded Western and/or democratic countries,

2166 Anthony Moran

against the pernicious influence of Islamic extremists, who calculate‘that it is in the nature of western societies to grow weary of longstruggles and protracted debates’ and who ‘produce, over time, agrowing pressure for resolution or accommodation’ (Howard 2008).Standing firm on, and being assertive of, national values thus becamecrucial in that fight for survival.

Conclusion

Despite the contribution of multicultural policy to the integration oflarge numbers of ethnically-diverse immigrants since the 1970s, fromthe mid-2000s Australia’s national governments, both conservativeand Labor, were less willing than in the past to promote the symbolismof multiculturalism, instead emphasizing Australian citizenship. As inEurope, there was a symbolic retreat from multiculturalism, in partstimulated by the threat of Islamic extremism and terrorism. At thesame time, most national multicultural policies remained in place,including funding (albeit reduced) for multicultural broadcaster SBSand for Ethnic Communities’ Councils at both national and statelevels, the ‘access and equity’ strategy aimed at full participation andequality among Australia’s diverse population, anti-discrimination,and anti racial vilification policies, and promotion of national‘Harmony Day’. Unlike national governments, many state and localgovernments continued to promote the virtues of multiculturalism.Recognizing the growing importance of religious diversity andexpression to multiculturalism, important initiatives emerged such asinterfaith dialogues, organized primarily by local government and civilsociety organizations (even where supported by federal or stategovernment funding) (Bouma 2006, pp. 210�11).

In 2011, the Gillard government announced a halt to that symbolicretreat, 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 immigrantgroups including Africans, increasing immigration from India, andongoing immigration from the Middle East stimulating new issues anddebates, including a renewed emphasis on the importance of religiousdiversity and accommodation, and new calls for the need to fightracism and discrimination in everyday life, and in institutions. Theparameters of what it means to be Australian are also broadening aspart of this process.

Parekh (2000, p. 196) argues that a truly diverse society demandsstrong forms of unity and cohesion in order to nurture diversity, and apowerful political structure that can demand allegiance from itsdiverse citizens, otherwise it ‘feels threatened by differences and lacksthe confidence and the willingness to welcome and live with them’.

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2167

‘The shared view of national identity,’ he argues ‘has a particularlyimportant role in a multicultural society because of its greater need tocultivate 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 hascontributed to the success of multiculturalism. While multiculturalAustralia is primarily a political community, a sense of belonging andcommitment to Australia is not only a commitment and loyalty to apolitical culture and to a set of political institutions. Though thenational culture is diverse and open, it has a history, and people feeldifferent levels of attachment to the meanings that have accrued overits history. As indicated earlier, Australian national identity includesboth ‘nativists’ and ‘civic nationalists’, for example, who attachrelative importance to different things in terms of ‘being Australian’.Even inclusive, predominantly civic national identities contain animportant element of inheritance; others have come before us, andthey have passed on the nation to us. For some members of a nationthis means an inheritance passed down through generations of theirfamilies; for others, like first generation immigrants, the inheritance ismore abstract, but as they join the nation they too join a national,inherited culture. For many Australians, diversity and multiculturalismare now key features of the national identity, but these sit alongsideother features of longer standing, which emerged through a particularset of historical experiences. Though the notion of and commitment tothe ‘fair go’ is not unique to Australia, at the same time it has aparticular national history in Australia, and is deeply embedded in theculture. Similarly, the commitment to civility in everyday life, thoughobviously also contravened through incivility, including racism, is anAustralian value and tradition reflected in the low level of politicalviolence and the generally orderly nature of the society (Hirst 2002).Commitments to equality, democracy, and freedom are also deeplyheld 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 typicallynoted aspects of the national culture. And the feeling for the land, andthe space of Australia, is also an aspect of the national identity notexplained by commitment to political values; the attempt by Aus-tralian national narratives to incorporate the Indigenous presence, andin particular the spiritual Indigenous connection to the land, indicatesthe emotional power of the land in Australian identity.

An open, inclusive, self-reflective national identity can supportmulticulturalism and its values, as has been the case in Australia, forthe most part, since the 1970s. Australians, like other nationals livingin multicultural societies, need to continually create new stories ofsolidarity, new narratives of national identity, and explanations of

2168 Anthony Moran

what things hold them together, not simply emphasize difference anddiversity. Supporters of multiculturalism should not be afraid ofengaging vigorously in debates about national identity � in fact, incountries like Australia, that have strong senses of national identity, itis 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. 188�206

CALHOUN, CRAIG 2002 ‘Imagining solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, constitutional patri-

otism, and the public sphere’, Public Culture, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 147�71

CANOVAN, MARGARET 2000 ‘Patriotism is not enough’, British Journal of Political

Science, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 413�32

COLLEY, LINDA 1992 Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707�1837, 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

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2169

ERIKSEN, THOMAS HYLLAND 1993 ‘Formal and informal nationalism’, Ethnic and

Racial Studies, vol. 16 no. 1, pp. 1�25ETHNIC 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, 1943�1998’, 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. 29�61

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. 182�203

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. 1�19

*** 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. 14�38

*** 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]

2170 Anthony Moran

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. 21�30

JOPPKE, CHRISTIAN 2004 ‘The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory

and policy’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 237�57

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. 261�86

MCGREGOR, RUSSELL 2006 ‘The necessity of Britishness: Ethno-cultural roots of

Australian nationalism’, Nations and Nationalism, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 493�511

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. 76�90

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.

1013�42

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. 205�22

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. 12�5

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. 67�82

REYNOLDS, HENRY 1987 Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and Land, Sydney: Allen &

Unwin

Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia 2171

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. 1�21

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. 97�120

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. 559�82

ANTHONY MORAN is Lecturer in the Sociology Program in theSchool of Social Sciences at La Trobe University.ADDRESS: Sociology Program, School of Social Sciences, La TrobeUniversity, Bundoora Campus, Victoria 3086, Australia.Email: a.moran@latrobe.edu.au

2172 Anthony Moran

Copyright of Ethnic & Racial Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.