Customs and Values Wisdom Humour
|
"He declared, confidently, that an immense number of women were dying for his diminutive highness, but became terribly angry, when an ugly, red-nosed publican with a hump-back, pretended to recognize him as an organ grinder strolling about with a monkey." J.F Mortlock Experiences of a Convict-1865 The tall-poppy syndrome has meant different things to different Australians. To golfer Greg Norman, the tall-poppy syndrome meant a jealousy of success. Norman explained that if someone in America bought a sports car, then other Americans would say "nice car." However, if someone in Australia bought a sports car, other Australians would scratch it. To tennis player Lleyton Hewitt, the tall-poppy syndrome meant ignorance. After seeing his home crowd support a fellow youngster over him, Hewitt said it was the "stupidity" of the Australian public to knock the better players. To swimmer Ian Thorpe, the tall-poppy syndrome meant not conforming to traditional conceptions of Australian masculinity, which led to rumours of being gay. To scientists, the tall-poppy syndrome meant Australians were too focussed on sport, and not giving due recognition to intellectual achievement. For example, when receiving an Australian legend honour at the 2002 Australia Day Awards, a scientist named Donald Metcalf said, "I could name 11 colleagues whose accomplishments would exceed those of our cricket 11. They haven't been entertaining people. They have been saving lives." Perhaps the best way to think about the tall-poppy syndrome is that it reflects the diversity of values in a multicultural society. As long as a diversity of values exists, there will always be people criticizing those icons that are held up as the "model" that Australians should aspire to be like. The more diverse the society, and the less the sense of community, the more critical it will be to its "icons." Admitedly, America is also a diverse society yet celebrates its icons. The difference is that America has an over-riding ethic of patriotism that sees individual success as a positive relfection upon the nation. A good example of cultural diversity leading to criticism can be seen in the 20 years of attacks upon Paul Hogan after he released his movie Crocodile Dundee. After being released in 1986, Crocodile Dundee went on to become the most successful Australian movie in history. Wildlife documentary makers such as Steve Irwin subsequently traded on the crocodile image to push into the American market, and tourists from all over the world travelled to Australia to experience the friendly culture and beautiful environment. Qantas alone had to increase their number of San Francisco to Sydney flights from 25 per week to 40 per week. Although the appeal of Hogan's character was widespread, it was not universal and some concerned citizens voiced their dissent. For Geoffrey Barker of the Melbourne Herald, Hogan's character reinforced international perceptions that "Australians are gauche, provincial and philistine". Veronica Brady, a left-wing academic from the University of Western Australia, said the film was about "colonial servility, violence and a profound confusion of values". Even though Crocodile Dundee benefited the Australian film and tourism industries, many writers and directors felt it was important to "correct" the inaccurate stereotypes. Consequently, in 1994, Stephan Elliot released Priscilla Queen of the Desert in order to denigrate Hogan's character, and the outback that Hogan had championed. As Paul Byrnes, a left-wing critic from the Sydney Morning Herald explained, "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert went further than any of these in attacking the Crocodile Dundee mythology of the essentially harmless heterosexual outback male. These same types of men, usually depicted in bars in Priscilla, can be suspicious, violent, vulgar and extremely intolerant, especially when confronted with alternative definitions of masculinity." Another example of cultural diversity leading to criticism comes with the public denigration of the late Pro Hart, Australia's most commercially successful painter. According to Barry Pearce, head curator of Australian Art at the Art Gallery of NSW, comparing Hart with the artists who normally hang in the gallery was "rather like Slim Dusty being compared to Mozart." Likewsie, Alan Dodge, Director of Art Gallery of Western Australia, said of Hart, "He is one of the most delightful illustrators of the Australian folk idiom, but let's not use the word art anywhere." The criticisms of Hart were not fair. In terms of brush skills, he was superior to Sidney Nolan and Arthur Boyd. In terms of expressing human character, he was equal to Russel Dyrsdale. (Admitedly despair is more interesting that happiness.) In terms of uniqueness, he was more original than 95 per cent of Aboriginal artists that have no unique style of their own. In terms of themes, Hart's work was more more enlightened that some of the conceptual art in Australia's galleries, art that includes an artist's name in italic letters and some vinyl records on a wall. While Hart was no Dali or Picasso, he was still superior to most other artists of his generation. As a miner, he also had one of the more unique backgrounds. Hart's sin was that he portrayed the outback in a positive way. This was confronting for the the urban art market, which wanted to the outback portrayed with Dysdale's ruins, Boyd's racial confusion or Albert Tucker's desolation. It didn't want an uneducated miner showing an appreciation for nature and the egalitarian dream. Such characteristics showed the outback/working class in a positive light and made the inner-city intellentisia less superior by comparison.
Pro Hart: Perhaps being a miner helped Hart form an appreciation for nature. After toiling below the surface where everything was dead and without colour, he may have become more aware of the insects, the colour, and the beauty of the world above ground. The cultural conflict between different sections of white society has existed since Australia’s penal era. The continued expression of the conflict is a form of civil war that harms all individual Australians. The unjustified denigration of Paul Hogan meant that the platform Hogan had laid for the Australian movie industry was not built upon. Instead, it was dismantled in a way that alienated Australians from the Australian industry in general. Actors, script writers and directors found themselves out of work as a consequence. Likewise, the denigration of Pro Hart has decreased the level of art appreciation in Australia. Hart brought a whole new market to the Australian art scene. As a result of his work, pubs in Hart’s Broken Hill home were converted to galleries. When Hart was denigrated, all the working-class fans of Hart were also denigrated and alienated from the art scene. The art market subsequently contracted and there were less people wanting to learn about art or buy art. Instead of buying art, they became critical of artists, which in turn motivated artists to be critical of them. The only solution to the tall-poppy syndrome is a reconciliation between different sections of white society that really don’t like each other. Such a reconciliation would be difficult because the scabs have been forming for more than 200 years, and each generation has been keen to pick at them, causing them to bled once more. Criticism is needed in any society, but the criticism needs to be wisely directed. In Australia, it needs to be directed at the underachievers, so that they can identify their flaws and improve themselves. It does not need to be directed at the leaders of an industry, who demonstrate how things should be done and/or bring a new market to the industry and help the industry gain a positive reputation. Unfortunatey, while cultural division reins, criticism will continue to be directed in a way that hinders Australian industries, rather than helps them.
The Tall-poppy Syndrome Explained from Social Psychology Albert Einstein once said: 'if relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew.' Some social psychologists developed a theory known as self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) which they use to explain Einstein's predictions. The theory proposes that people change their concept of the self in order to associate themselves with prestige and/or distance themselves from failure/negativity. According to this theory, jealously would never be a motivation to criticise an admired tall-poppy as this would result in a loss of personal esteem. For example, in the colonial era, some free settlers did not want to associate themselves with Australian culture because it was tainted by Convicts. Consequently, they demeaned Australia and instead they prided themselves on being English. They never criticised the King or Queen of England as to do would demean their valued English identity. In contemporary times, some Australians value monetary success and as a result, they will celebrate millionaires because to do so, is a positive reflection upon the ability of Australian culture to foster wealth accumulation. Of course, Australia is a multicultural society thus definitions of status are not uniform. Consequently, some people do not celebrate millionaires because wealth accumulation is not important to them. Such people may value integrity and unless the millionaire can demonstrate that they have such qualities, they will simply be seen as an ordinary person with no capacity to increase the status of Australian culture. When a journalist or academic demeans themselves with an ill conceived comment, people redefine the salient social categories to ensure a common group is not shared. For example, the obnoxious academic is no longer an Australian, they are "an elite." The academic, incorrectly believing they are being criticised for their intellectual superiority, then complains of a tall-poppy syndrome. The Tall-poppy Syndrome Explained from Australian History In the early 19th century, a commentator on Australia wrote: " Deep divisions exist within New South Wales, greatly adding to the burden of being a people isolated at the bottom of the world, and therefore needing more than ever to live together in harmony. Historically,
the greatest rift has been between the "exclusives" and the "emancipists".
The first group believe that anyone who has come to the colony in penal servitude
is never capable of complete redemption. These people, who tend to be among the
wealthy landowners, thus see themselves as a superior class. For their part, the
emancipists, who are all ex-convicts, are concerned with equality of human rights. Since the Bigge inquiry, though, the colony has been re-established much more firmly as a prison rather than for reform, which has only worsened the tension. As well, the emancipists are divided, between those who committed crimes at home, and in Australia. This reflects a third division, being "Sterling", a name for the British-born, and the "Currency", the home-grown population." Although Australia has had a great deal of free immigration since convict transportation ended in 1868, convicts still remain a dividing force in Australian society. Because there is little emotional resonance in celebrating criminals, Australians find it difficult to use history to unite people, or anchor their public relations in history in order to unite people. Ironically, although Australian history has not been able to unite people in praise, the "black arm-band approach" has been able to unite a segment of the population in criticism. By criticising dead Australians, as well as criticising present-day Australians who don't denigrate the past, the black-armbanders have been able to feel morally empowered. However, it is a moral empowerment that has alienated themselves from other Australians. Consequently, Australia has far more individual diversity that most societies around the world, and as long as these diversity of values remain , there will always be people criticising the icons that others aspire to be like. The Tall-Poppy Syndrome Explained from Australia's Political System Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are all believed to have a tall-poppy syndrome. America is not. The political system is the main differences between America and the other English-speaking countries. Unlike the others, America is a republic with a democratically elected president. The difference in political systems produces a very different kind of leader. In Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, the prime minister holds the most influential position. To become prime minister, an individual must succeed in the adversarial climate of the parliamentary chamber. They are subjected to criticism, which they not only must deflect, but return with interest. They must also be good deal makers, and allocate resources in a way that divides the opposition. Once elected, they need to govern for their party, and their electorates. Ex-Australian prime minister Paul Keating was a classic example of the type of person the system produces. Keating was skilled in the acid tongue and a master of dividing people with policy. As a result of his rein, Australia's divisions were enhanced. Unlike the leaders of the Constitutional Monarchies, the leader of America does not need to be skilled in debating or belittling. He just needs to be a great orator, or have some kind of charisma that voters can relate to. Admittedly they can be idiots that never back up great speeches with great policy, but their speeches still demonstrate how a leader is meant to act and still inspire people to want to heap praise. It's a case of Monkey see, monkey do, as American's follow their leader's example. Americans have a tendency to be extremely complimentary, even at times when a criticism is more warranted and deserving.
The Tall-Poppy Syndrome Explained from Poor Leadership Although Australians excel in many areas, leadership is not one of them. Arguably, it is the inadequacies of their leadership skills that has ensured the tall-poppy syndrome is so strong today. For example, a study on Australian business culture found that Australian managers are more domineering and assertive than their British or US counterparts (1). Basically, Australian managers "tell" their employees what to do. This cultural trait is ironic as Australia is the very place where ordering is lest likely to work. Another study found that American supervisors (those entrusted with implementing orders) are 100 percent more likely to consider themselves on the side of managers than do Australian supervisors. (2)As a result, Australian workforces have a much greater sense of disconnection between managers and employees than do American workforces. Would-be icon builders are often in this poor leadership category. For example, some scientists believe that the best way to increase admiration for their scientific compatriots is to insult the achievements of cricket players. Likewise, some movie directors believe the best way to improve the popularity of gays is to insult heterosexual males. Perhaps both need to reconsider their methods of persuasian.
1 (T.J Larkin "Employee Behaviour" Chapter 5 Customer Service) 2 (T.J Larkin "Employee Behaviour" Chapter 5 Customer Service)
|
Cultural comparisons Argentina America China Canada England France Germany Ireland Japan New Zealand Papua New Guinea South Africa South Korea
|
