The Search for a New National Identity: The Rise of Multiculturalism in Canada and Australia

Dr Jatinder Mann is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at King’s College London and a former Banting Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Alberta. He is the author of The Search for a New National Identity: The Rise of Multiculturalism in Canada and Australia, 1890s-1970s (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2016). He is currently working on a project on “The end of the British World and the redefinition of citizenship in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 1950s-1970s”. On a visit to Sydney, Jatinder Mann addressed The Sydney Institute on Monday 13 February 2017.

THE SEARCH FOR A NEW NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE RISE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA AND AUSTRALIA, 1890S-1970S

 JATINDER MANN 

Political developments over the past year across the world, notably the referendum in favour of Brexit in the United Kingdom and the recent victory of Donald Trump in the United States Presidential election have brought to the fore battles over identity politics. Therefore, I believe it is quite appropriate and timely that I will be talking about my recently published book: The Search for a New National Identity: The Rise of Multiculturalism in Canada and Australia, 1890s-1970s.

My book explores the profound social, cultural, and political changes, which affected the way in which Canadians and Australians defined themselves as a “people” from the late nineteenth century to the 1970s. Taking as its central theme the way each country responded to the introduction of new migrants, the book asks a key historical question: why and how did multiculturalism replace Britishness as the defining idea of community for English-speaking Canada and Australia, and what does this say about their respective experiences of nationalism in the twentieth century?

The book begins from a simple premise, namely that the path towards the adoption of multiculturalism as the orthodox way of defining national community in English-speaking Canada and Australia in the latter half of the twentieth century, was both uncertain and unsteady. It followed a period in which both nations had looked first and foremost to Britain to define their national self-image. In both nations however following the breakdown of their more formal and institutional ties to the “mother-country” in the post-Second World War period there was a crisis of national meaning, and policy makers and politicians moved quickly to fill the void with a new idea of the nation, one which was the very antithesis to the white, monolithic idea of Britishness.

At the core of this study is a broader argument about the problem of nationalism and Britishness in both nations, and in particular the problems that both have had in adjusting to the post-imperial era. Although there has been considerable disagreement among scholars on the question of nationalism and its meaning, in nearly all cases, two core ingredients are foregrounded here: firstly that nationalism emerged in the late nineteenth century and was primarily associated with Europe and the United States, and secondly that there is a fundamental connection between nationalism and history. This connection is most often found in the myth or story of the nation, which holds that from time immemorial the “people” have been engaged in struggles against an alien “other” in order to achieve their national destiny.

The book compared Canada and Australia because they both have similar political systems and are major immigrant receiving nations. However, most importantly, English-speaking Canada and Australia both identified themselves as British nations for a large part of their history. Furthermore, this identity came under considerable strain in both countries, a strain that was primarily due to the shock of external events. Secondly, Canada and Australia also adopted discriminatory immigration policies, which aimed to create white, British countries. Moreover, they both also gradually dismantled these practices. Thirdly, Canada and Australia experienced large waves of non-British migration to their shores and had to formulate official migrant policies to deal with them.

The French presence in Canada was an important point of difference between that country and Australia. It was a significant factor in the Canadian experience of the three main developments above. This was something Australia had no comparable experience of. Immigration or more precisely “whiteness” is also another integral part of the book. Specifically, both Canada and Australia had White Canada or White Australia policies for a majority of the period under study. Whiteness was closely linked with Britishness, as both countries wanted to preserve themselves as white, British nations. However, over time, non-discriminatory immigration policies were adopted in both Canada and Australia and eventually post-White immigration policies were introduced.

This leads to the third overarching theme of the book, which is official migrant policy. As both Canada and Australia received non-British migration, official policy had to be formulated to deal with it. Both countries adopted a policy of assimilation in the first instance. This was replaced by integration and then by a policy of multiculturalism as Canada and Australia’s national identities were transformed as outlined above. Assimilation expected migrants to incorporate themselves completely into the dominant Anglo-centric or Anglo-Celtic culture in English-speaking Canada and Australia as soon as possible. In this endeavour, learning the official language/s of the country was paramount.

On the other hand, integration acknowledged that the incorporation of migrants into the dominant culture actually took time, usually by the second generation, and allowed migrants to retain certain elements of their home cultures, especially languages. However, it has to be recognised that integration meant different things at different times. So, when it was first used in the political lexicon there was more emphasis on the fact that the incorporation of migrants into the Anglo-centric or Anglo-Celtic culture would take time. Later on, this emphasis changed to allow migrants to retain aspects of their home cultures as a means of enriching the host culture.

Multicultural policy instead encouraged migrants to retain their cultures. Indeed it saw such retention as a positive thing and envisaged that a new national culture would emerge. However, multicultural policy came to mean very different things for Canada and Australia, which are discussed and explored in the book.

My book is based on my doctoral thesis, which was incidentally produced at the University of Sydney. So, it is particularly appropriate that I am giving this talk in Sydney this evening. So, the research process for the book is very much the same as that for my doctoral thesis. This began with a detailed review of the existing literature. As some of you may know this is quite vast, as illustrated in the bibliography of my book. However, I was able to identify a unique angle in such a popular and well-research subject. This was of course looking at the rise of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia through the British World perspective – namely their histories as British settler societies. In a practical sense I wrote notes on the secondary sources that I consulted. I then examined both Australian and Canadian published primary sources.

I want to especially mention Fisher Library at the University of Sydney at this junction, as their collection of the former, but even of some of the latter was truly exceptional. And the Interlibrary Loan section at the library was able to secure any Canadian published primary sources from all over the world that it did not hold itself. As with my secondary research I also wrote notes based on the Australian and Canadian published primary sources. At this point I formulated a list of initial primary sources to consult using the secondary sources that I had studied as well as searching online catalogues. I then undertook extensive primary research at the National Archives of Australia (NAA) and the National Library of Australia (NLA) in Canberra. I was there for over three months and amassed a considerable amount of research material. They both truly felt like my second homes, and sometimes even my first!

I always kept in mind a great piece of advice my original supervisor, Emeritus Associate Professor Neville Meaney, gave me: “always keep your research question in mind”. What he meant here is whenever you come across a file or document within a file ask yourself if it helps answer your research question. If the answer is no then put it aside, as interesting as it might be, and move on to the next document or file. My research question as mentioned earlier was why and how did multiculturalism replace Britishness as the defining idea of community for English-speaking Canada and Australia, and what does this say about their respective experiences of nationalism in the twentieth century? I then produced notes based on the primary research that I carried out in Canberra.

As you might have noticed there is a pattern emerging here: carry out research and then make notes on that research. This is something that has worked for me, and actually continues to work for me, as illustrated in my current research project on “The end of the British World and the redefinition of citizenship in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 1950s-1950s”. But it is very much a personal thing. Other researchers might find it easier writing notes as they go along. However, I find it more useful to completely devote oneself to conducting research, especially if you are only in a place for a fixed amount of time and then write notes on that research subsequently.

As I was carrying out a comparative study I undertook thorough archival research at the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) in Ottawa, Canada. And similarly to my research in Canberra, I amassed a very large amount of research material. And also like the NAA and NLA, LAC also very much felt like my second home. Interestingly compared to the NAA and NLA, LAC houses the Canadian federal archives and library in the one building, and they are actually the one organization. Although the respective archive and library divisions might not have been entirely happy with this “shotgun marriage”, from a researcher’s perspective it was certainly quite convenient to have everything you needed under one roof.

I had always hoped to turn my doctoral thesis into a book, as I was quite keen to pursue a career in academia and in my field having a monograph has become pretty much a necessary requirement to secure a lectureship. I was helped in this respect by the fact that my original supervisor Neville had also given me another piece of great advice: write your doctoral thesis as if it were a book. This certainly came in handy when I was turning the thesis into a book! However, there were still revisions to be made and this included reducing the amount of historiography, removing signposts, so as the narrative flowed better, and reducing the size of the bibliography to sources that were only relevant to the subject at hand. Quite often in history and politics you will read book, articles, or scholarly book chapters, which might not be directly related to what you are focusing on, but offer a broader perspective, especially in terms of context.

Once I was happy with the revisions, I submitted my manuscript to a publisher and it was ultimately published. But before this I received feedback from reviewers, and I did my best to act on this. One of the main suggestions reviewers made related to the structure of the book: namely that the order in which I looked at Canada and Australia should be reversed. So, in my doctoral thesis I looked at Australia first and then Canada, as I thought it was better to deal with the more straightforward case first, before turning to the more complicated.The reviewers thought as developments took place usually earlier in Canada compared to Australia, it made more narrative sense to switch them around. Another very important suggestion which was also linked to structure, was grouping the chapters relating to the respective countries together and the comparative chapters in three sections: so a section on Canada, another on Australia, and a third on comparisons. The argument for this change was that it would help with narrative flow. Previously the pattern was a chapter on Australia, Canada, and comparisons in terms of assimilation policies, then a similar pattern with integration, and then with multicultural policies.

Major findings

For anyone familiar with the existing literature on multiculturalism, but even on a popular level, the prevalent belief is that it was Prime Minister Gough Whitlam who was responsible for introducing an official policy of multiculturalism. However, my book shows that it was in actual fact his successor Malcolm Fraser. At the most you could possibly say that the Whitlam government laid the foundation for the subsequent adoption of multiculturalism, but the public pronouncements that Whitlam and his Minister for Immigration for most of his premiership: Al Grassby made were solid integration ones, not multicultural. An example of this is a news release by Al Grassby in July 1973:

The position at the present time is that there is an urgent need for a new national effort to build unity in our community to assist in the integration of newcomers and to build a united family of the nation through citizenship. (NAA, A463 (A463/43)/1973/1967, News release from the Minister for Immigration, A. J. Grassby, Canberra, A.C.T., 11 May 1973, 1.)

A common feature of the rhetoric surrounding integration policy during the Whitlam period was “The family of the nation”. This was a phrase coined by Grassby, which has been taken by some scholars as evidence of a policy of multiculturalism during the Whitlam government. But a “family” implies all being linked in one close group, which is much closer to integration than multicultural policy. So, I would argue that what the Whitlam government did do is enable key multiculturalists in the Department of Immigration to attain positions of influence whereby they were able to push for a multiculturalist agenda subsequently.

Furthermore, the Whitlam Government is also widely held as ushering in a distinct Australian cultural renaissance. However, the foundation for a lot of the cultural initiatives took place during the previous Holt and Gorton ministries, and was a part of efforts to advance the “new nationalism” – an attempt to create uniquely Australian symbols after the decline of Britishness. A prominent example of this is the establishment of the Australian Council for the Arts in 1967, five years before Whitlam came to power.

Continuing the trend of breaking or at least challenging national political myths, in Canada the first major moves in introducing a non-discriminatory immigration policy were actually made during the Progressive Conservative government of John Diefenbaker in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Again, in the existing literature and on the popular level you get the impression that it was the subsequent Liberal Pearson Government that was largely responsible for dismantling the White Canada policy. However, the Diefenbaker government made some very important moves in breaking down this discriminatory immigration policy. And as with Fraser above it is interesting to note that these were both Conservative governments in the two countries.

And another major finding of my book is that subtle shifts in rhetoric surrounding national identity in Canada actually took place quite early, during the premiership of Louis St. Laurent in the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. This is quite significant as the external events which led to the decline of Britishness in Canada: the Suez Crisis of 1957 and the UK’s first application for entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961 did not take place until later. But emphasis should be placed on the word “subtle” and in any case this was a reflection of the bicultural nature of Canada, which St. Laurent personally personified as he was of both French and British descent. An illustration of this is a Citizenship Day speech by St. Laurent in May 1950 (Citizenship Day had replaced Empire Day in Canada):

In the past 50 years there has been a great change in our status. What was then a colony in an empire is now an independent nation in a commonwealth. We have by act of parliament established our own citizenship. Consequently,…I approached the provincial premiers with the result that they all agreed to have arrangements made to the end that some occasion might be found today in the schools for exercises having in mind, in respect of the position of Canada in the commonwealth, the rights, the privileges, the duties and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. (Debates, H of C, vol. III, 1950, 23 May 1950, Mr. St. Laurent, 2743)

This shift is noteworthy as the day was now about Canadian citizenship. This reflected quite well the difficult position French-Canadians, particularly national politicians, found themselves in during this period, as they could not relate to British race patriotism and preferred to emphasise home grown symbols.

A further interesting comparative finding in my book is that even though they both used the same terminology official multicultural policies in Canada and Australia in the 1970s were actually quite different from the outset. In the former the catch phrase of the policy was “Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework”. So, you can get the real sense from this that it was a policy, which in theory related to all Canadians. And it had come about after an intense period of national soul-searching, illustrated by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which carried out its activities over several years in the 1960s. This is highlighted in Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s well-known parliamentary speech on 8 October 1971:

A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government   as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all. (“Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework” by Prime Minister Trudeau, Debates, H of C, vol. VIII, 1971, 8 October 1971, 8545)

Here the emphasis was no longer on the nation, but instead on “cultural freedom” and “one’s own individual identity”; and the choice of the word “vigorous” to describe the proposed multicultural policy illustrated the extent of the government’s commitment. In contrast, the key headline for the official policy of multiculturalism that was introduced in Australia was “A Cohesive, United, Multicultural Nation”. Again you can see here that the emphasis was on cohesion, unity etc. And, unlike the Canadian policy, was not initially aimed at all Australians, but only migrants. This is demonstrated by the Galbally Report in 1978 which was the major policy document on which the Australian Government based its multicultural policy:

We believe Australia is at a critical stage in the development of a cohesive, united, multicultural nation. This has come about because of a number of significant changes in recent years – changes in the pattern of migration and in the structure of the population, changes in attitudes to migration and to our responsibilities for international refugees, changes in the needs of the large and growing numbers of ethnic groups in our community, and changes in the roles of governments and the community generally in responding to these needs. (Australia. Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, Migrant Services and Programs (Chairman Frank Galbally) (Canberra, ACT: AGPS, May 1978), 3)

Change occurred first in Canada for three main reasons. Firstly, in terms of national identity, Britishness was always a problematic concept due to the presence of a competing founding European group in the country: the French. English-speaking Canada’s identification as a British nation was fine so long as French Canada did not have a competing nationalism of its own. However, when this began to change in the 1960s (with the Quiet Revolution) it became clear that a new, overarching “Canadian” identity was required to counter French-Canadian separatism.

Secondly, the abandonment of “whiteness” happened earlier in Canada because of the weaker hold the policy had on the national psyche of the country. This was demonstrated by the White Canada policy primarily being centred on the province of British Columbia, compared to the White Australia policy, a national policy that was conceived at the very foundation of the new nation-state. This was a consequence of British Columbia, as it bordered the Pacific Ocean and was the only part of Canada that felt truly threatened by Asia. Australia, on the other hand, was characterised by a much more pervasive fear of Asian “invasion”. Thus, these different geo-political circumstances certainly go a long way towards explaining why Canada was able to dismantle its White Canada policy much earlier than Australia.

Thirdly, Canada adopted official migrant policies considerably earlier than Australia due to it receiving large mass non-British migration around fifty years before Australia received comparable numbers. It had to formulate a way with which to deal with these migrants. It chose assimilation because it identified itself as a British country at this time. Hence, non-British migrants were expected to incorporate themselves into the Anglo-centric culture as soon as possible.

There are several things that would not come to light about either of the two countries unless you compare them together. And through the comparison you discover what might be unique about each case study and the reasons for this. This is something that I have continued to do in my current research project, as stated earlier on “The end of the British World and the redefinition of citizenship in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 1950s-1970s”.