Tag Archive for 'Culture Wars'

Acknowledgement of country ‘culture wars’

Published
by
Kim
5 days, 5 hours ago
in Culture, Indigenous, Language, Politics and Race
. 272 Comments

They’re at it again:

Members of the Liberal Party have been creating a minor storm about the matter of Indigenous recognition. In statements made to the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott implied that formal recognition of traditional owners at the beginning of significant events is superficial and unnecessary. ‘I guess this is the kind of genuflection to political correctness that [Labor ministers] feel they have to make’ he said. ‘Sometimes it’s appropriate to do those things, but certainly I think in many contexts it seems like out-of-place tokenism.’ Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey weighed in a few hours later, claiming such recognition was a ‘farce’, while Senator Eric Abetz called it ‘outdated’ and a ‘fad’.

One of the more eye-opening things to come out of this, for me, was learning on Q&A that the soporific Peter Dutton had actually offered his resignation to Brendan Nelson, so strong did he feel about not attending the Apology.

These sorts of culture war debates are, of course, plagued by false dichotomies. They’re also plagued by sneaky elisions of meaning – if something is ’superficial’, that doesn’t imply that it is ‘unnecessary’, but rather that the meaning embodied in the words should provoke thought, stimulate reflection, change minds, incite action. To that degree, there’s a sort of validity in the criticism, as Stephanie Convery says, but not of the sort that Abbott and co. think:

But the problem is not in the act of formal recognition but in the assumption that lip service is all there is to it. The truth is, there is a disconnect between political symbolism and action on Indigenous issues in Australia. The recognition of traditional owners, the welcome to country, is essential if only because it draws attention to this disconnect. It reminds the non-Indigenous listener of the fact of their colonial heritage, of the continued existence of Indigenous people and culture, and their direct relationship to everyone who calls themselves Australian. Or at least, it should.

Continue reading ‘Acknowledgement of country ‘culture wars’’

The reception and implementation of the National History Curriculum

Published
by
Mark
2 weeks, 5 days ago
in Culture, Education, History, Howardia and Politics
. 26 Comments

A while back, Kevin Rudd proclaimed the history wars over. He may have been right, at least insofar as the combatants left on the field are looking decidely ghostly; witness the non-event of the launch of Keith Windschuttle’s latest tome. Yesterday’s grapeshot over the history curriculum will, likely, not be followed up by another offensive – the Coalition, and the usual suspects, will move on to criticising the government’s health announcements.

Yet the influence of the Howard-era battles remains – and its most significant legacy might be the fact that history is embedded in the national curriculum at all. This is a major shift from its folding into SOSE (Studies of Society and Environment) at P-10 levels in many states.

In an interesting piece for Crikey today, Tony Taylor looks at the reception and implementation of the history curriculum: Continue reading ‘The reception and implementation of the National History Curriculum’

What if they gave a culture war and no one came?

Published
by
Mark
1 month ago
in History, Indigenous, Politics and Race
. 62 Comments

Naomi Parry reviews the reception (and content) of Keith Windschuttle’s new book at New Matilda:

Late last year Keith Windschuttle released another book questioning the existence of the stolen generations. But this time, nobody cared.

Very few people would be aware that Keith Windschuttle released volume three of his series The Fabrication of Aboriginal History in December last year. As Robert Manne observed in his review of the book in The Monthly, it arrived to only the most “strangely muffled fanfare from his friends”.

Robert Manne’s review is here.

We’ve come a long way since the Howard era furore over Stolen Generations denialism. That’s a good thing.

What’s up with Rudd?

Published
by
Mark
1 month, 1 week ago
in Climate change, Culture, Education, Politics and Sociology
. 55 Comments

Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey email: Continue reading ‘What’s up with Rudd?’

Religion, politics and the “mainstream”

Published
by
Mark
1 month, 1 week ago
in Law, Life, Parenting, Policy, Politics, Religion, Sexuality and Sociology
. 48 Comments

2009 ended with a flurry of discussion on religion and politics, and it’s a theme I imagine we’re going to hear a lot more of in 2010.

I was ruminating on this question because of a couple of phrases which have come up this week about political events.

In Queensland, State Parliament has been debating the decriminalisation of altruistic surrogacy (where there is no payment involved). It’s the last jurisdiction where this is illegal, and members of the Legislative Assembly have a conscience vote. Much attention has focused on the fact that the bill enables same sex couples to access surrogacy, and you can get a sense of some of the rhetoric this is producing from opponents here.

We’ve heard, among other things, about “traditional Queensland families”.

Meanwhile, Tony Abbott has justified his support for the threatened preselection of David Clarke by describing his views as “mainstream”, writing to New South wales party members:

The letter argues that Mr Clarke should not be seen as having extreme views when all he does is go “to church on Sundays” and respect “traditional values”.

Yet the 2006 census found that only 63% of Australians describe their religion as Christian, and research found in 2001 that only 19% of Christians go to church regularly (defined as at least once a month). In absolute numbers, there were slightly fewer self-described Christians in 2006 than in 2001, and this identification is significantly skewed by age. Nor should it be assumed that all of, or even a majority of non-church attending Christians sign up to the suite of values defined as “traditional”, and even less so, that all want to see such values embodied in the law of the land.

Yet, in political debate, and in decisions which radically affect people’s life choices, the invocation of such values, and the influence of lobby groups which champion them, appear to have a presumed legitimacy which should be unwarranted in a secular democracy.

Documentation on the legislative process of inquiry into the framing of the bill can be found here.

Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett on the Queensland Parliament’s surrogacy conscience vote.

Update: John Birmingham on the LNP and the surrogacy debate.

The cultural politics and sociology of anti-science in Tony Abbott’s Australia

Published
by
Mark
1 month, 2 weeks ago
in Activism, Climate change, Federal Elections, Politics, Science and Sociology
. 163 Comments

Overland editor Jeff Sparrow has a great piece in Crikey today, reflecting on the significance of Christopher Monckton’s tour of Australia. If you’re not signed up, I’d strongly urge you to take out a trial subscription to read the whole thing.

Sparrow examines how the ground for a populist upsurge of climate change denialism among “the old, the white and the angry” was well prepared by the Howard era culture wars. Continue reading ‘The cultural politics and sociology of anti-science in Tony Abbott’s Australia’

Tony Abbott and the God question

Published
by
Mark
3 months, 2 weeks ago
in Culture, Media, Politics, Religion and Sociology
. 88 Comments

The first few days of Tony Abbott’s leadership have seen a concerted effort by the conservative commentariat to decry any criticism of his reactionary policies on women’s rights and social issues as ‘anti-Catholic’.

A number of points need making about this trope:

(a) Abbott is, of course, not the first federal leader of the Liberal party to be a Catholic. Sectarianism was definitely a factor in the largely Protestant and bourgeois parties of the centre right in the past, and there may be residual effects within the Liberal party itself. It’s worth remembering that Malcolm Turnbull is a Catholic, and this issue (as far as I can recall) was never highlighted during his leadership.

However, Tony Abbott is the first leader to be associated with a particular style of political Catholicism – one which, some decades ago, would have been much more closely associated with the DLP (and indeed still has influence within various ALP right factions and unions). Outside the circles around Cardinal George Pell this sort of neo-grouper politics has little influence in Australian Catholicism itself. Australian Catholics are less unified politically than in the days of sharper religious and political cleavages, and while social justice Catholicism is also a living tradition, my own view is that the post Vatican II Catholic Church is much less politicised with respect to the broader community. That holds less for those who are identified with Pope Benedict’s ‘reform of the reform’, but here, there is often a significant disjunction between Papal social teaching in some areas and an ensemble of conservative social and political positions held by the Pontiff’s Antipodean warriors.

In short, the interface of religion and politics has itself been affected by a secularisation within Australian culture, which is powerfully related to a dissolution of modernist political battle lines.

(b) This fracturing of a largely unitary theological and political constellation is reflected in, and in turn, influenced by a different way of seeing the imperatives of religion for acting within culture. Guy Rundle has summed it up thus: Continue reading ‘Tony Abbott and the God question’

Tim Soutphommasane, ideology and narratives

Published
by
Mark
6 months ago
in Culture, Media, Philosophy, Politics and Sociology
. 35 Comments

The Australian is running a series on defining the left (!), kicking off with a contribution today by Tim Soutphommasane. Soutphommasane is apparently the go to person at the moment for all things social democratic, having written a book arguing that we should reclaim patriotism for the left.

Posing the question of “what’s left” begs the question of who the left are. Soutphommasane’s piece today appears to equate the left with Kevin Rudd, which is, to me, quite bizarre. There’s a broader question in his writing which goes quite unanswered – that of agency and constituency.

In an op/ed for The Age, he wrote:

Preferring the comfortable terrain of moral righteousness, the Australian left surrendered national values to reactionaries and racists in the culture wars.

I don’t know quite what “moral righteousness” means in this context, though I could hazard a guess. But let’s leave that aside. I’m more concerned, for the moment, about who this “Australian left” actually comprises.

We take our attachment to egalitarianism, mateship and the fair go seriously. Most of us have a warm affection for our country and its qualities.

No doubt we do, but what are those “qualities”? And who’s that “we”? And why should such an identification be central to political identity, or indeed constitutive of such an identity?

Egalitarianism has a sociological and cultural history, but it’s also one marked by exclusions – as is “mateship”. If Soutphommasane’s argument is that the Australian Labor Party needed to counter John Howard’s embrace of so-called national values for electoral reasons, no doubt he has a point. Governing parties are by necessity oriented to the state, and since we have nation states, must necessarily articulate some sort of discourse of the nation. But the ALP and electoral politics are not co-extensive with the left. I haven’t read his book, but in the newspaper commentary he’s authored, it doesn’t seem to me that the very good reasons why left wing movements have been suspicious of nationalist particularisms and in favour of cosmopolitanism and internationalism have been addressed.

Continue reading ‘Tim Soutphommasane, ideology and narratives’

Legacy wars

Published
by
Mark
6 months ago
in Books, Writers & Writing, Economics, History, Howardia, Industrial Relations, Media and Politics
. 30 Comments

It was the political debate of last week, and we missed it. But that’s ok – so did most of the rest of the population, I would imagine. The columns of The Australian were full of the ‘legacy wars’ – arising out of Kevin Rudd’s speech at the launch of Paul Kelly’s new book. Rudd argued that – contrary to Kelly’s thesis of a similarity between John Howard and Paul Keating as ‘patriots’ working to modernise Australia along a similar path – that the Howard government had left little in the way of a nation building legacy. This promptly prompted rantings about his hypocrisy (because he’d argued that the history wars were done with when launching Thomas Kenneally’s book), claims that conservative dissent was being repressed, and … well, Rudd appears to have learnt the trick of making the punditariat and the Liberal frontbench rant on cue. Useful politically, that one.

It also probably contributed to the demand – within the Liberal party – to ’stand for something’, which is apparently code for ‘defending the Howard legacy’. This theme inspired Turnbull to get ahead of the pack and raise the tattered banner of individual work contracts. Not so useful politically, that one.

Those interested in the merits of this debate, as opposed to the sound and fury, might find Mungo McCallum’s contribution interesting:

It’s all Kevin Rudd’s fault. Here we are, nearly two years out of the Howard years and happily consigning them to well-deserved oblivion.

And then Rudd has to mention the war; and of course John Howard and Peter Costello lurch out of the political cemetery to boast about the size and quality of their tombstones and pretend they are not really dead after all, and Malcolm Turnbull feels that he has to join in and defend the two people in the world he most wants to forget. Such is the level of discussion in contemporary Australia.

Entrenched racism

Published
by
Idiot/Savant
6 months, 3 weeks ago
in Authoritarianism, Indigenous, Politics and Race
. 77 Comments

Crossposted from No Right Turn.

In the run-up to the 2007 election, then-Australian Prime Minister John Howard decided to repeat his successful racial wedge tactics with Aborigines as the victims, declaring a “state of emergency” in Northern Australia, taking over townships, and suspending anti-discrimination laws so it could subject aborigines to authoritarian and paternalist controls on the basis of race. Now, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people, has pointed out the obvious: that this was fundamentally discriminatory. And he didn’t mince his words in saying so:

“There is entrenched racism in Australia,” Anaya told reporters in the capital, Canberra, after visiting several Aboriginal townships in the past week. “These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities.”

The Australian has more:

Compulsory income management and blanket bans on alcohol and pornography were “overtly discriminatory” and further stigmatised already stigmatised communities, he said.

“People who have a demonstrated capacity to manage their income are included.

“It’s inappropriate to their circumstances but is also, as expressed by them, demeaning.”

The indigenous rights expert was also scathing of federal Labor’s insistence that housing funds would only flow if indigenous communities signed over their land.

“It’s a mistake to assume that indigenous peoples … aren’t capable of taking care of their homes,” Prof Anaya said.

“Indigenous control can be appropriate to indigenous peoples’ development, to their aspirations, to indeed being in control of their lives like all others.”

As for compensation for indigenous people taken from their families by government agencies, the UN rapporteur was unequivocal: “There should be reparations,” he said.

That’s a pretty stunning condemnation of a government we all expect to behave better. It will be interesting to see how the Rudd government, which has moved a long way from Howard’s position, responds.

A win, of sorts

Published
by
Anna Winter
7 months, 1 week ago
in Law and Life
. 31 Comments

THE WA Supreme Court has ruled that a quadriplegic man can request to stop being tube-fed so he can die.

Chief Justice Wayne Martin said the Brightwater Care Group would not be criminally responsible by ceasing nutrition and hydration through a tube to the stomach of Christian Rossiter, a 49-year-old in their care.

Chief Justice Martin also said any person providing palliative care to Mr Rossiter would not be criminally responsible.

He said it was clear Mr Rossiter had the right to direct his treatment and nutrition and hydration “should not be administered against his wishes.”

A win for the principle that rational adults should be the ones to make decisions about their own bodies. But a loss for the idea that rational adults should be the ones to make decisions about their own bodies.

I’m glad that the court has ruled that he should not be force fed against his will, and more importantly I’m pleased that it has been made clear that no other person will be held responsible for not over-ruling his decision.

But at the same time, it needs to be recognised that starving to death is not a good way to die. It is not fair that Mr Rossiter sees this as his best option.

At the end of the reading of the statement Ms Black asked Mr Rossiter if he had anything further to say.

There was a long pause until he replied, “I want to say that the pain killers would make me drowsy and I would like to be made drowsy in my final moments so that time could pass more quickly.”

“And I would like to watch Foxtel on the television to pass the time.”

I hope that Mr Rossiter’s final moments are as quick and pain-free as possible, and I hope that our governments stop allowing a few arrogant loudmouths to make end-of-life decisions for the rest of us.

X

“Picking up the phone”

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 1 month ago
in Blogging, Media, Sociology and The Web
. 8 Comments

Folks might recall the criticism from Jason Wilson bloggers were subjected to over the Windschuttle/Wilson hoax. John Quiggin has written an excellent post in response to the implicit claim that bloggers are “lazy amateurs”. In so doing, he also highlights the invalidity of one of the premises of the interminable “journos v. bloggers” arguments – the assertion that journalists report news and bloggers provide opinion. Go read!

Patriotism ludicrous partisanship, the last refuge of Quadrant

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 1 month ago
in Books, Writers & Writing, Levity, Media and Politics
. 159 Comments

I’ve made the case before that the unintended upshot of the Katherine Wilson hoax on Quadrant was to expose that tawdry publication as a complete joke. So perhaps its continued Australia Council funding can be justified as a source of pure comedy gold. [Via Grodscorp] – apparently this is the outcome of “reflection” on Australia Day:

here is a partial list of the things the Left hate about Australia:

Australia Day, Anzac Day, people who live in the suburbs, people who live in the country, farmers, fishermen, dams, Quadrant, Australian history, the flag, the constitution, Andrew Bolt’s readers, The Australian, Liberal voters, National Party voters, Family First voters, One Nation supporters, the RSL, McDonald’s, McMansions, plasma TVs, Australian Idol, big business, small business, monolingualists, Christians, our last prime minister, liberal democracy, capitalism, lamingtons, Australians, the national coat of arms, the Samuel Griffith Society, soldiers, conservatives, musicals not about Australian Left politicians, commercial television, non-indigenous trees, dog owners, cats, non-Left talk back radio hosts, timber workers, plastic bags, Howard’s battlers, climate change sceptics, white people, commercial radio, America (pre-Obama), sovereignty (ours), realistic paintings (especially by Albert Namatjira), the Big Banana and other Big Things, cultural dissidents, men, sprinklers, green lawns, cars (other peoples), wood fires, rednecks, Sir John Kerr.

Hmmm, let’s see. I like the Big Banana and other Big Things. Lamingtons. Cats. Am a Catholic. Fan of Australian history. Have had a few beers in an RSL Club, and seen some bands at… have lived in the suburbs for more than half my life, have rellos who live in the country, etc., etc. Oh, I don’t know what the Samuel Griffith Society is, so perhaps I hate that. But generally I don’t try to define my politics in terms of hatred. It seems to me that the only people who do talk in those terms are, well, you know who…

“Australia’s leading journal of ideas”? I’m surprised even Windy isn’t embarrassed by this sort of nonsense.

The Wilson/Windschuttle Quadrant hoax: the washup continued

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 2 months ago
in Activism, Blogging, Books, Writers & Writing, Ethics, Media, Sociology and The Web
. 92 Comments

There’s an interesting debate proceeding on a post by Jason Wilson at gatewatching on Katherine Wilson’s hoaxing of Keith Windschuttle and Quadrant [previous LP posts here]. I think there’s some useful clarification of some of the ethical issues in the thread, and it also goes to my contention that the bloggers v. journos frame really should be put to bed. In the process, I think some of the gaps in current academic research about blogs and blogging are being highlighted, which hopefully will be a useful (if unintended) contribution from the whole exercise.

Meanwhile, John Quiggin looks at Windschuttle’s political trajectory.

In that vein, it’s worth noting that the culture wars have largely been fought between ex-lefties and – in the Australian context – liberals masquerading as “the left”. I don’t think David Marr and Robert Manne actually are “the Australian left” in any meaningful way, and I think it’s significant that Manne comes from a background as a cold warrior. What all this implies is that the targets and the terms of culture wars debates have always been both illusory and disconnected from political reality. There’s also a certain style of debating and argument which is usually ad hominem, full of rhetorical trickery and dedicated to sniffing out secret or hidden allegiances. For a range of reasons, I think Wilson has written herself into this script. I also think that this whole episode should demonstrate just how irrelevant and fundamentally pointless the culture wars are.

I’m of the view too that Crikey editor Jonathan Green is right that there’s something awry with Wilson’s approach to “activist journalism”. While the word “ethics” has been tossed around with gay abandon in all these conversations, I think there are significant questions about the politics of the hoax – its motivations, target and efficacy – which have been glossed over by all the side taking and point scoring. Some relevant questions could also be asked about whether journalism and activism go together.

Elsewhere: More from Margaret Simons.

Update: New post with more links around the ethical issues here.

English language, partisan misuse thereof, etc.

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 2 months ago
in Blogging, Books, Writers & Writing, Culture, History, Howardia, Media and Politics
. 38 Comments

Years ago, I used to read Quadrant – incidentally before Robert Manne became editor, if I recall correctly. Back in the day, there was a sense that there was some sort of contest of ideas, and thus there was some purpose to reading, or at least casting a glance across a range of “little magazines”. I think that time ended a long while ago. Certainly, I stopped reading Quadrant over a decade ago, and I can’t say I feel there’s some huge gap in my life.

After all the brouhaha about the Katherine Wilson/Keith Windschuttle hoax dies down, I suspect the most lasting insight to be derived from all the kerfuffle is that Wilson’s target had already disappeared into a long twilight of irrelevance. For mine, John Quiggin’s point about the saga is among the most telling – Windschuttle’s own credibility on the issue which has been central to the recent stages of his career – Indigenous history – lies in tatters because of his own inability to substantiate the claims he made many years ago now with further research. The biggest hoax, Quiggin argues, is Windschuttle’s own contribution to “the history wars”.

After a number of folks actually had a look at what’s published on Quadrant’s website these days, it’s painfully obvious that there’s very little credibility there to be undermined. Egregious grammatical errors, bizarre rants with scant evidence of an elementary ability to construct a coherent argument, to be sure.

So the other motto we might draw from the hoax affair is that it’s drawn attention to the absence of both standards and relevance in most of what Quadrant has to offer. Continue reading ‘English language, partisan misuse thereof, etc.’