Identity and the Politics of Place- Why Australia Is on the Road to Somewhere

Respect for traditional Western institutions is at an all time low. Education, social media and the many variations of the “world wide web” have given individuals a sense of power as never before. People movement has brought a clash of cultures to pluralist societies; terrorism has made the marginalisation of minorities more explicit. Moral codes are being re-written. How to cope in a moral and civil sense is a concern for many. Louise Clegg is a barrister and constitutional lawyer. On Wednesday 30 August 2017, Louise Clegg joined author Peter Kurti to discuss identity politics and the influence of the politics of place.

IDENTITY AND THE POLITICS OF PLACE – WHY AUSTRALIA IS ON THE ROAD TO SOMEWHERE[1]

LOUISE CLEGG

Gerard and Anne, I too thank you for your hospitality. And may I say what a privilege it is to share a platform with Peter whom I have long admired for his eloquence and scholarship. Tonight, Peter has explained – as only he can – the thinking or philosophy that drives what he calls the “tyranny of tolerance”, and why there is a clash between that kind of thinking and the concept of a sovereign, indeed free individual.

My object tonight is to link or contextualise the identity phenomenon – which is ramping up in liberal democracies all around the world – to the new politics of place, another global phenomenon, which is yet to arrive on Australian shores.

What do I mean when I refer to the politics of place? It lies in the proposition that the way you vote is not as much influenced by whether you are left wing or right wing, whether you are rich or poor, working or middle class but increasingly influenced by where you live.  Because where you live is more likely than ever to determine what you do for a living, the media you consume, your world view and therefore your values.

I am not a demographer or a political scientist. What I hope to do tonight is put some meat on the bone, some lived experience, to already existing commentary around these issues which often occurs in the abstract.

To qualify myself, I should explain that I have spent much of my life moving pretty comfortably between insider and outsider worlds. I like to joke I am both insider and outsider – or to use Hillary’s vernacular, both adorable and deplorable. I grew up and was educated in hard core outsider territory. Then, for 25 years, I attended university and worked in the legal profession in CBD in hard core insider territory. For the last six years I have lived in Goulburn, but I still engage with the insider world with some university teaching, and frequent visits to Phillip Street.

My core proposition is that there have always been differences between these worlds, but the differences are becoming more acute – and quickly. Some Sydney based friends and colleagues have suggested to me that this is because regional Australians are becoming more racist. There is something of that narrative in this precinct. I totally reject that explanation.

Rather, I assert that it is the pace of attitudinal change in this precinct that is widening the gap. It is caused by a huge uptake in the identity mantra and a contagion within key institutions, aided and abetted by mainstream media, to constantly signal that they are on board the identity project. I have no doubt that it is the identity phenomenon – not some imagined nascent Australian racism – that is driving the polarisation that we are starting to see here and have already seen around the world.

Things are things happening and views changing in this precinct in a way which would have been unthinkable ten years ago, even five years ago. Let me give you a couple of examples.

First example. Many of you will recall the broo-ha-ha that occurred around the Sydney Boys High International Women’s Day video earlier this year. The video received a lot of attention and went viral on You-Tube. However, I found the response to the video from the prefects of Sydney Girls High much more interesting than the boys’ video. The girls wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald decrying the boys’ effort. They said in their letter that the boys had appropriated their voices, that they were from a misogynistic institution and therefore had no right to stand up for women. The letter, possibly unwittingly, was a masterclass in identity politics. It made no celebratory reference to women and was aimed only at the boys’ effort to support women. It likely ensured none of those boys would stand up for women again. From the 17-year old girls most likely in NSW to succeed in any career they choose – the letter contained language, ideas and a tone that, while doing the rounds in universities for some time, has not been present in mainstream feminism, let alone in public high schools, until recently.

Second example.  I have a friend who is a Christian who holds a senior position in a CBD professional firm. Late last year, a colleague casually suggested that she remove a “like” on her Facebook profile of one of the pro-family, anti same sex marriage lobby groups which she privately supported. She ignored the suggestion, not thinking much of it. Before long, she was in discussions with senior colleagues about the prospect of leaving the firm due to a demand from a young gay employee who maintained he could not work at the firm if a senior person held homophobic views. (She’s not homophobic and has gay friends.) Some of her senior colleagues also thought she should go because her views, though private and never discussed at work, had the potential to become a public relations problem. Long story short? She shut down her Facebook account, disavowed any future connection with the lobby group, and remains at the firm.To my mind this identity bullying would have been unthinkable five years ago, yet we know from similar happenings reported in the media that this is not a random or one-off event. 

I could relay dozens of anecdotes and conversations which in recent years have surprised me – about say, Safe Schools, freedom of speech and now freedom of religion. It boils down to this: in recent years things are being done and said in the name of equality and diversity –- by educational institutions, in the professions and professional associations, NGOs and in business – in a way not done before. The language is more aggressive, the methods more authoritarian and the consequences of non-observance are more serious. The protagonists – who are no doubt well intended – are mostly people who are privileged beyond belief, better off than ever before, usually on behalf of people who are better off than ever before, yet they are more strident and angry than they ever have been.

If you work as an insider in the knowledge economy – as a high-end professional, in finance, as a member of the political class, at a university or in the media – you will generally live and play at or near the geographical centre of a large city. In these work places, you practise the identity mantra or you perish. If you don’t agree with it (and there are many who don’t) you either shut up, or you only say so in whispers.

I have to tell you, there is no chance that people young or old, professional or non-professional, Liberal or Labor, rich or poor, in Goulburn or anywhere else in middle Australia are jumping on the identity bandwagon any time soon. They don’t think this way, they don’t and won’t conduct themselves in this way.

What I see in the country and in outer suburbs is genuine embrace of the original equality project that began after the Second World War. Country and outer suburban people embrace equal opportunity and a fair go for all, including, for example, (for the most part) same sex marriage. But hard identity politics is just too far removed from their fundamental values; too intolerant, disrespectful, and demanding. In a smaller community, it is clearly impractical to have segments of the community at odds with each other. Identity politics for middle Australia offends all their sensibilities – at the core of which lies the idea that for the most part you should try to get on with people.

On this subject of differing attitudes, by far the best insight has come from David Goodhart, the UK journalist and commentator, in his book The Road to Somewhere.[2] Published this year and not yet available in Australia, Jonathan Haidt (the well known American social psychologist) said, “It is the best and most complete explanation of why things seem to be coming apart in so many countries at the same time.”

Goodhart divides the citizenry in western democracies into two distinct groups: “Somewheres” and “Anywheres”. He started writing the book in 2016 about an anticipated backlash against the political status quo, but while writing stumbled upon the idea that the back lash was almost exclusively coming from people who lived outside the beltway. Brexit then gave the thesis a stunning platform. Goodhart thinks that “Anywheres” comprise about 25 per cent of the British population. Somewheres make up about 50 per cent of the population and the remaining 25 per cent are in-betweeners.

Paraphrasing Goodhart:  Anywheres do well at school, university and build a life around their careers, they work overseas, think nothing of holidaying anywhere in the world or popping to Hong Kong for a weekend. Their world view is “progressive individualism” – successful individuals who claim to and do care about society. They place a high value on autonomy, mobility and novelty. They place lower value on group identity, tradition and the three Fs: family, faith, flags. (I would interpose that the last two make them squirm.) In that vein, both Haidt and Goodhart agree that Anywheres just don’t “get” political  impulses such as loyalty, authority or the sacred. They are comfortable with immigration (interposing again; as it does not affect their daily lives) and more human rights legalisation. It is my observation that they are either on, or do not challenge the identity mantra.

When the interests of Anywheres are at stake, such as gay marriage, it gets done quickly. They like equality and freedom – but don’t champion economic equality. They see themselves as citizens of the world, not so much of their country. The Anywhere ideology is invariably a cheerleader for restless change. This is not surprising, as they are well equipped to benefit from change. In case you haven’t figured it out, Anywheres are totally in charge. They inhabit and dominate the parliaments, courts, media, and everything else.

Somewheres are more socially conservative and communitarian. While not highly religious (as are many in the USA), they embrace soft nationalism, and if English/Australian they will proudly identify as such. They are plugged into local communities. They dislike mass immigration, but mostly because they are worried about integration and the welfare issues that come with it. A core group within the Somewheres is the left behind white male but they are not dominant.

At the extreme fringes, there are Somewheres who can be xenophobic and unpleasant, but Goodhart defends the broader group as “decent”. Broadly, Somewheres are tolerant, do not choose “closed” over “open” but want a form of open that does not disadvantage them. They are also, in the main, modern people for whom women’s equality and minority rights are a given. They want some (but not all) of the things that Anywheres want but they want them more slowly and in moderation. They respect the three Fs: faith, flag and family.

Goodhart says that there have been Somewheres and Anywheres for a couple of generations but what has changed is the power imbalance and their numbers. A few decades ago, Somewheres were completely dominant. No longer.

Transplanting Goodhart’s analysis to Australia, there’s not much to quibble with. At a guess, due to our geographical isolation, it’s likely we have a lower proportion of Anywheres. But, being a hugely successful skilled-immigrant nation with high minimum wage and borders pretty much under control, it’s also possible we are a little less paranoid about immigration.

But there’s no doubt that our Somewheres, like their cousins the world over, are more numerous and are demanding a more stable and ordered world, a retreat to core values, more respect for institutions and are sceptical about the need for the rapid change.

What of the future? Goodhart says that Somewheres can no longer be ignored. Anywheres will need to make room for Somewheres because they are beginning to find their voice and flex their muscle. Many big thinkers from the progressive tradition in the USA – including Haidt and Fukyama – tend to agree, even it means accommodating a new soft nationalism.

As usual, we lag a little. But at the last federal election in Australia we may have seen just a little of the cleavage beginning to occur. In contrast to the 2013 and most other elections, where the swings (although uneven) head in one direction, a new pattern emerged. Right around the country, and in every state seats closest to the CBDs – where we find Anywheres living in much bigger numbers, actually swung to the coalition. The Somewhere seats – outer suburbs and the regions – swung against.

If my instincts are right, and Goodhart and other serious thinkers are right, and the Somewheres are not going anywhere, it seems inevitable that this new politics of place – which is simply a clash of values and interests – is destined to have an impact on Australian politics.

In Australia, both major parties are straddling this phenomenon, understandably not quickly jumping to wholly accommodate one group or another. If international experience is anything to go by, that will only hold for so long.

I’ll conclude with Goodhart. I am pleased to report that he believes there can be a settlement. He says: “Liberal democracy is unlikely to be toppled, even in the US. The habits of compromise and civic order are too ingrained.” But it is on this proviso: “Politics will need to make room for a new set of voices, pre-occupied with national borders and the pace of change and appealing to people who feel displaced by a more open, ethnically fluid, graduate favouring economy and society, which has been designed by and for the new elites.” 

Australia, like other liberal democracies the world over, is almost certainly on the road to Somewhere. If the road is to be smooth, as we would all wish, it will require the insiders – and notably the tyrants of tolerance – to accommodate the way the rest of the country thinks, not the other way around.

[1] Goodhart, D 2017, The Road to Somewhere. The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics, C Hurst & Co., London, UK.

[2] Goodhart, D 2017, The Road to Somewhere. The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics, C Hurst & Co., London, UK.