Australian Identity

Australian Symbols

Cultural Cringe

Language and Identity

Australian Stereotypes

Racism and Egalitarianism

Australian Racism

Email

The Cultural Cringe

" I think that one of the problems with the public intellectual class in this country as I see it is that they have been too hostile or suspicious of the policies which have underpinned our successes over the course of the last 25 to 30 years and they have been quite unhelpful in helping us address our policy failures...I think that the task of intellectuals is to clarify, is to inform, is to enlighten, is to guide public debate in an effective and intelligent way and I think far too often what we get is a polemic. A polemic which is designed to create anger and indignation, a polemic which doesn't enlighten or clarify at all." Paul Kelly - Editor The Australian

Australia has produced a lot of talented people that aren't recognised in their own country, but are recognised around the world. Furthermore, Australia has produced a lot of cultural creatives and intellectuals who aren't recognised in Australia, or around the world, but believe they should be. The cultural cringe explains both phenomena. The term cultural cringe was coined by academic A.A Phillips after the World War II. Phillips argued that Australians were prejudiced against the home-grown products, and deliberately overlooked them in favour of imported products. He used the cringe to explain the difficulties that Australian artists and intellectuals endure in Australia.

The theory of the cultural cringe was later disputed by academic Leonard John Hume, who argued that it was invented to deflect criticism. According to Hume, whenever Australians received justified criticism, they made excuses about the cultural cringe so they wouldn't have to take the criticism on board.

There is probably an element of truth in both explanations. Definitely, there are numerous examples of Australians having more success abroad than they have in Australia, which would suggest that rather than supporting a compatriot with talent, Australians are deliberately rejecting them. Furthermore, Australia has a black armband approach to history, which involves seeking negativity in Australia, and ignoring all positive achievements. On the flip side, it seems that the prevalence of criticism that isn’t justified has been used as an excuse to evade criticism that is. There is no doubting that while Australia has overachieved in sport and business, it has underachieved in the humanities, cultural industries, environmental science and industries associated with the alleviation of Aboriginal ‘disadvantage.’ Unfortunately, Australians in the later industries refuse to acknowledge their failure, and make excuses about a cultural cringe to justify their lack of recognition.

The origins of Australia's cultural cringe can be traced to the social division of the penal era. A census taken in 1828 found that half the population of NSW were Convicts, and that former Convicts made up nearly half of the free population. Yet despite being in numerical dominance, the Convict class was unable to aspire to the civic positions that were reserved for the Exclusives (immigrants not of Convict stock.) The Exclusives argued against the Convict class gaining equal rights on the grounds it would be 'rewarding criminality.' The denial of equality was also extended to the Convict offspring on the grounds the child of a Convict would show 'the same proclivity to crime as their parents had deemed to have shown'. As a result of the division, any indigenous culture that had the fingerprints of Convicts was denigrated. In its place, British culture was held up as the model that Australians should aspire to replicate.

The social division never really left Australia. Today, although Australians don't argue about whether they are superior or inferior due to a Convict breeding or absence of one, there are still sharp ideological divisions that find expression in anti or pro-Australian sentiments. The anti-Australian sentiments are clearly pronounced in the "black armband" approach to Australian history. It seems that while Australian history hasn't been able to unite people in praise, it has been able to unite some Australians in criticism. By taking a negative approach to the past, university intellectuals such as David Day, Robert Manne, Henry Reynolds, and Lyndall Ryan have gained a sense of moral empowerment and belonging. Although they have received praise from their fellow intellectuals, they've received ridicule from the wider community.

The black armband approach to history has also filtered into the film industry. The result has been the creation of extremely negative films that Australians simply don't want to watch. Contrary to the marketing spiel, the films have not been confronting, nor have they had the nuances that would allow them to be defined as thought provoking artworks. They have simply been black and white criticisms of Australia. In 2008, the industry finally conceded what the public had been telling it for years. Antony Ginnane, president of the Screen Producers Association of Australia, admitted Australia's films were "in the main, dark, depressing, bleak pieces".

The historical divisions are also expressed in the Australian accent, which is a reflection upon social identity. In Australia, there is no variation in accent according to region, race, or socio-economic class as is the case in America and England. Instead, the accent varies according to ideology and gender. Two Australians can grow up side by side but end up speaking different versions of Australian English. 10 per cent of Australians speak with what is known as a broad Australian accent (ex PM Bob Hawke.) These people usually have a positive attitude to Australia. Around 80 per cent speak with a general Australian accent (actor Nicole Kidman.) Around 10 per cent speak with a British received accent (ex PM Malcolm Fraser.) These people may proudly declare that they don't say "g'day". Until the 1970s, people with Australian accents were not allowed to be newsreaders on the state-controlled ABC. Instead, ABC newsreaders had to speak with a British accent.

For numerous reasons, the negative approach to history regenerates the cultural cringe. Firstly, it fosters disunity in Australia, and undermines the sense of community that would motivate one individual to respect or support another individual from their country. For example, when film director George Miller said, "We really don't have significant stories to tell, perhaps apart from the indigenous story...Australia at its heart is so racist that I don't think we can stomach it" he was undermining the sense of community that could motivate an Australian to watch an Australian movie instead of an American one. Afterall, it would be irrational to watch the insignificant stories of a racist society like Australia when the alternative was heroic American movies like Rocky, Star Wars or Titanic.

Secondly, the negative approach erodes trust in intellectuals because they have often lied to make their interpretations appear more emotive. This deception was shown in 2002 when historian Keith Windschuttle produced his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Lydall Ryan, Head of the Women's Studies Program at Flinders University, subsequently defended her fabrications by saying,

“historians are always making up figures.”

For one reason or another, it seems dishonesty was justified in the aim of "raising awareness" of injustice. Unfortunately, the lack of honesty in turn eroded faith in intellectuals as a whole, and decreased the credibility of any messages they had to impart. Raising awareness of injustice didn't result in the political aims intended of it. Instead, it resulted in criticism of intellectual dishonesty.

Thirdly, people motivated by bigotry tend to be stupid and incapable of producing anything of quality. This problem was articulated in more elequent terms by Paul Kelly, editor of The Australian newspaper:

" I think that one of the problems with the public intellectual class in this country as I see it is that they have been too hostile or suspicious of the policies which have underpinned our successes over the course of the last 25 to 30 years and they have been quite unhelpful in helping us address our policy failures...I think that the task of intellectuals is to clarify, is to inform, is to enlighten, is to guide public debate in an effective and intelligent way and I think far too often what we get is a polemic. A polemic which is designed to create anger and indignation, a polemic which doesn't enlighten or clarify at all."

As painful as it might be to admit, many Australian products are inferior to the international products. The intellectual industries, and the arts, are among the ranks of inferior products. Nothing will change as long as people in these sections of the economy use criticism of Australia that is unfair as a justification for avoiding the criticism that is. By any objective measure, Australia has over-achieved in sport, mining, invention, and wine making. It has underachieved in film making, art, alleviation of ‘disadvantage’, environmental science, making public transport run to schedule, and the humanities. It is not a cultual cringe to state such facts. To the contrary, excuses about a cultural cringe explain why the underachievement prevails.