At
the end of World War 2 and into the mid 1960’s, Australia was undergoing a national
identity change and concurrently developing different images. This essay will discuss two of the different
new images of Australia
by analysing two documents from that time period: Robert Menzies’ speech on
‘The Forgotten People’ and Sir Frederic Eggleston’s ‘The Australian Way of
Life’. The national images of a
consumerist/middle-class nation as shown by Menzies and of a threatened nation talked
about by Eggleston shall be discussed in the context of these and other
supporting documents. Events both
current to and in the recent past of this time will be mentioned to give
further context, relevance and support to the discussion.
The
first image of Australia
that will be discussed is that of a consumer and ‘middle-class’ nation. The global economy was recovering from the
depression of the 1930’s as well as the drain that the Second World War had put
on the nations. Due to the fact that
most of the men went to fight in the war, more women started entering the
workforce, and the result was a new sense of pride and of financial
independence for them. According to
Macintyre, (as cited in Study Guide AUS 11, 2009, p. 26), between
1947 and 1961 the number of married women in the workforce increased
fourfold. The newfound income that the
women had did not go unnoticed by businesses.
Women were placed squarely in the “role of housewives and mothers and
consumers of domestic labour-saving devices” (Study Guide AUS 11,
2009, p. 26). This is part of the
consumerism and middle-class Australia
image that was being formed through politicians, journalists, and advertising
companies. The bush legend of the turn
of the century was being replaced by a view that suburbanization, being a ‘home-maker’,
and household possessions were a necessary part of the Australian way of
life.
Robert
Menzies talked in 1942 about ‘The Forgotten People’, or the middle class of Australia. Regarding the middle class citizens and in
relation to consumerism, he said “The material home represents the concrete
expression of the habits of frugality and saving for a home of our own”
(MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p. 139). Further to this, Menzies said that the
middle class of Australia
is the country’s backbone. This stems
from a comment that he made earlier in his speech; “I do not believe that the
real life of this nation is to be found either in great luxury hotels… or in
the officialdom of organized masses. It
is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised… The
home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety… its health determines the health
of society as a whole…” (MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p.
138-139). The question of why Menzies
makes this statement in talking about middle class Australia becomes apparent in the
next two statements that he made in his speech: “Your advanced socialist may
rage against private property even while he acquires it…” and “National
patriotism, in other words, inevitably springs from the instinct to defend and
preserve our own homes.” (MacLeod in Documents AUS 11, 2009, p.
139). With these two statements, Menzies
both makes it clear that middle class Australia is prospering and developing a
protective sense of the suburban homes that it only a few decades earlier
shunned with the bush legend, and that Australia is also a nation that is under
threat and needs to defend itself.
The
nation under threat is the next image that is prevalent during this time in Australia. Sir Frederic Eggleston stated that
“Australians firmly believe that their way of life is unique, and they are
fanatically determined to protect it.” (Heinemann in Documents AUS 11, 2009,
p. 14). This is not just a threat of
invasion or war, as was the case with the Asian Peril, but of loss of identity
through immigration of non-whites and non-Europeans and the influence of
Communism. White cited W. V.
Aughterson’s Taking Stock when
discussing the defence of the Australian way of life; “our way of life in
Australia is a miracle for this kind of world, and … the danger lies in
thinking of it as ‘natural’ and likely to endure without a passionate
determination on our part to preserve and defend it.” (Readings AUS 11, 2009,
p. 159).
The
end of World War II saw the onset of the Cold War and a shift in the way that
the West viewed the Communist Bloc and racial purity. “In that Cold War context, Australia was
becoming an important bulwark of ‘freedom’.
Australia’s racial
identity became less important than its alliance with the United States
in the Cold War.” (White in Readings
AUS 11, 2009, p. 158-159). With the
Cold War outlook on communism and the Nazi regime fresh in the world’s mind,
Australia’s already existent racism towards non-whites and non-Europeans, in
the form of The White Australia Policy and the scheme initiated by Minister
Arthur Calwell to bring British ex-service personnel and their families to
Australia (Study Guide AUS 11, 2009, p. 27), had to be altered,
albeit only slightly. According to the
Study Guide, as it became increasingly clear that attracting sufficient British
migrants was simply not possible, the definition of who would be suitable and
adaptable to an Australian lifestyle was necessarily broadened to include
southern, eastern and central Europeans (Study
Guide AUS11, 2009, p. 27). As Sir
Eggleston put it, “…[Australians] are therefore determined to prevent these
norms from being broken down by the admission in large numbers of unassimilable
elements.” (Heinemann in Documents
AUS 11, 2009, p. 14).
Even
though those migrants that were allowed to enter Australia had met the approval of
the strict immigration policies, not everyone was happy with them. The newly admitted immigrants were expected
to assimilate into Australian culture and bring nothing of their own with them
(Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
27-28). In 1957 John O’Grady wrote to
immigrants in his novel saying, “There are far too many New Australians in this
country who are still mentally living in their homelands, who mix with people
of their own nationality, and try to retain their own language and customs… cut
it out. There is no better way of life
in the world than that of the Australian.”
(White in Readings
AUS 11, 2009, p. 160).
In
conclusion, these two newly formed images of Australia, while different to each
other, are both accurate and valid perceptions of the Australian identity at
the time. The image of a consumerist
middle-class Australia was reinforced by the advertising agencies of the time
by linking consumption to being a good wife or mother or home-maker, and thus a
good Australian; because Australia wanted to be seen as modern, prosperous and
stable (Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
30). At the same time, the defensive,
almost paranoid view that the Australian way of life and culture was in jeopardy
by migrants and communism was in full force.
“…[T]he notion of ‘the Australian way of life’ served the interests of
conservative political and social forces… it ‘not only denied the possibility
that the cultural traditions of migrants might enrich Australian life, but also
denied the existence of different “ways of life” among Australians themselves’”
(Study Guide AUS11, 2009, p.
29). These two images of Australia combined helped make Australia the
country that it is today.
Reference List
