‘Core’ culture hegemony and multiculturalism: perceptions of the

privileged position of Australians with British backgrounds.

ABSTRACT Tensions between acceptance of policies aimed at creating a multicultural

society and British (Anglo or Anglo-Celtic) Australians concerned about loss of their

privileged position as members of the ‘host’ society have been an important feature of

political debate in Australia in recent years. There is, however, a paucity of empirical

evidence available to assess the role of Anglo privilege in this debate. This study draws

on questions about attitudes to multicultural values and Anglo-privilege from a recent

survey of New South Wales and Queensland respondents to address this issue. Principal

components analysis of the attitudinal data shows that multiculturalism and privilege are

separate, independent dimensions in respondents’ thinking. Cross-tabulations show both

polarization of views and ambivalence in attitudes to Anglo privilege which are in

substantial part resolved by consideration of the geography of privilege and linked

multicultural values. While there are some underlying consistencies to peoples’ thinking

which relate to class, birthplace and age, there are also significant variations within and

among states, urban and rural areas.

KEYWORDS White (Anglo) privilege ● multiculturalism ● Australia ● geography

Does multiculturalism signal the end to … Anglo-Celtic [privilege] within

[Australia]? This is certainly the official multicultural argument [and] the view of

1

a significant number of Anglo-Celtic Australians opposed to multiculturalism.

Since the early 1980s state support for issues such as ethnic diversity [and] Asian

immigration has generated … a ‘discourse of decline’ [among] a wide cross

section of the Anglo-Celtic population. This discourse either passively mourns or

actively calls for resistance against what it perceives as a state-sanctioned assault

[though the development of multicultural policies] on Australo-Britishness as a

natural cultural formation (Hage, 1995, 41).

Contemporary Australian society and polity is often characterised as increasingly

multicultural, but still struggling to disengage from a legacy of dominance of Anglo ‘host

society’ privilege. So a Labor government’s (1991-96) emphasis, under Prime Minister

Paul Keating, on the need for a new Australian identity reflecting the multicultural nature

of modern Australian society (Keating 1995b, Johnson 2000) had ‘huge implications’ for

the positioning of Anglo identity within broader conceptions of a new national identity.

Australians of Anglo backgrounds were being asked to accept a new, cosmopolitan form

of national identity, to embrace ethnic diversity and to give up their privileged position in

a post-assimilationist society (Johnson 2002, 175). One result was a conservative

backlash which was highly critical of any attempt to encourage ‘a more cosmopolitan and

inclusive identity’ (Johnson 2002, 177) which was seen to neglect ‘mainstream’ Australia

in favour of special (multicultural, non-Anglo) interest groups (Howard 1995a; 1995b).

The election of a Liberal-National government under Prime Minister John Howard in

1996 saw a marked decline in the importance of multiculturalism as a driving force for

2

change in Australian society and a resurgence of Anglo privilege, values and identity.

Clearly, the question of Anglo privilege and Anglo decline is seen among many of the

conservative political elite as a matter of great concern, not least to the electorate Prime

Minister Howard was trying to win over in the mid-1990s. But just how important is the

issue of Anglo privilege among contemporary Australians, either among those of Anglo

background, or among those from non-Anglo backgrounds? How do different ethnic

groups perceive the privileged position of Australians of Anglo background? This study

addresses these questions.

ABOUT ANGLO PRIVILEGE

Australian society has been described as ‘exceptionally homogeneous’ until the mid-20th

century (Jupp and Freeman 1992). At its highest point in 1947, ‘the British component of

the population was over 90 per cent, of whom the vast majority had been born in

Australia’ (Jupp 1991, 62). A culturally formative ethnic dynamic, of English, and Celtic

peoples from Scotland and Ireland but with the Irish strongly dominant, had defined

Australia’s core culture from 1788. The assimilation of the Celtic component into a

dominant Anglo-Australian society and culture largely followed. Thus Dixson (1999, 9)

described how ‘eminent writers’ have consistently described Australia, in a matter-of-fact

way, as an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ society or country. By the end of World War 1, Anglo-Saxon

had already been shortened to Anglo. The contemporary incorporation of the word

‘Celtic’, as in ‘Anglo-Celtic’, into the lexicon used to describe Australia’s dominant

social and cultural fragment is a recent response to intensive lobbying by those of Irish

3

birth or ancestry in particular to be recognized as a distinctive element of the Anglo-

Australian or British-Australian identity. As a consequence, the terms ‘Anglo’ and

‘Anglo-Celtic’ are often used interchangeably. This Anglo ethnicity has underpinned

Australian culture, its institutions and the nation itself since the beginning of European

settlement (Dixson 1999, 9), and still largely does so. Even allowing for the impact of

non-British immigration since 1945, their proportion had only reduced to 75 per cent in

1991 (Jupp 1991, 9). For the year ending mid-2002, Britain was still the largest source of

permanent arrivals1 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, 32).

In spite of the demographics. Cochran (1995, 10) argues that, somewhere between the

1950s and the 1980s, the hitherto ‘Anglo-Saxon’ ‘host’ majority surrendered, or lost, its

social and cultural hegemony. The post World War 2 inflow of non-British migrants –

from central and southern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s, and from the eastern

Mediterranean in the 1960s and 1970s, then a major widening of source areas with the

ending of the White Australia policy in favour of skills-based criteria from the early

1970s – posed a challenge to the established sense of ethnic homogeneity, as did the

newly developed policy of multiculturalism as a basis for accepting and absorbing the

‘new ethnicity’. It was the Whitlam Labor government which effectively ended the

White Australia policy in 1973, launching Australia into a new, multicultural era of the

later 1970s through to the mid-1990s. Labor Prime Minister Keating (1995b, 31) was

moved to state that: ‘Today, Australians derive from more than 150 ethnic backgrounds

… multiculturalism is not a threat to Australian identity and ethos – it is inseparable from

it.’

4

Keating’s basic argument was that contemporary Australian society was being

fundamentally reshaped by ethnic diversity. But such an argument had major and

negative implications for the former hegemonic status of Anglo identity. Anglo-Celtic

Australians were being asked to abandon the previous privileging of their identity,

implicit in pre-multicultural, assimilationist policies (Johnson 2002, 175). The then

Liberal (conservative) leader, Howard was very critical of the Keating Labor position,

arguing that it benefited special (including ethnically-based) interest groups, and

neglected ‘mainstream’ Australians (Howard 1995a; b). In fact, and while emphasising

his opposition to racism, he and the populist, racist politician, Pauline Hanson were both

speaking to sections of a largely common electoral base, the Anglos (Johnson 2002, 17;

on the Pauline Hanson One Nation Party, see Goot and Watson 2001). Hanson

specifically targeted Anglos, arguing that among other things, Labor government support

for ‘special interest’ groups such as immigrants had made of Anglos ‘the most

disadvantaged group in Australian society’ (quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald Good

Weekend 30 Nov 1996).

As Prime Minister of a Liberal-National government from 1996, Howard

moved quickly to remove funding from various ethnic community organisations.

Multiculturalism itself was not a term favoured by Howard (Johnson 2002, 177),

although his government eventually came to terms with it once it was redefined as

a general means for the retention of ‘common values’ (Howard 1999). A National

Multicultural Advisory Council appointed by the Howard Government developed

5

what they called ‘Australian multiculturalism’, branded as remarkable by placing

Anglo-Australians centrally within the multicultural identity. The effect was to

accord a privileged status to Anglo-Australians within multicultural history and

identity. The Council's Chair (NMAC, 1999:4) commented that:The British and

Irish heritage, which includes our democratic system and institutions, our law, the

English language, much of our humour and our oft-quoted distinctive values of

the fair go, egalitarianism and mateship, together provide the foundation on which

Australian multiculturalism has been built.

The new focus on ‘mainstream’ Australians acted, according to Hage (2003, 1) to

produce an absence of concern for non-Anglo Australians, and a return to the old Anglo

values with their assimilationist disregard for the very precepts of multiculturalism.

Changes in attitudes towards immigrant groups which have occurred over the past

several decades are, however, rather more complex than simply multiculturalism versus

assimilation into the dominant Anglo culture (Hage 1995). At the core of this complexity

is an important class consideration. Dixson (1999, 33) argues that Anglo society in

European Australia, from its late 18th century beginnings until the mid-20th century or so,

was dominated by the lower-middle (working) and middle classes. But with the onset of

global economic restructuring from the mid-1970s in particular, and the decline of the

manufacturing sector, there has been a shift away from the lower-middle and middle class

nature of Anglo dominance in favour of a new managerial-professional class based on the

new knowledge economy. These constitute part of what Hage (1995, 44) refers to as

6

cosmo-multiculturalists: people like Keating who acted to undermine the traditional class

base of the Anglo privilege position, only to replace it with another. Thus Hage (1995,

63) argues that the Cosmo-multiculturalism of the new class replaces, but continues, the

Eurocentric form of the earlier Australo-British working and middle class, except that it

has been changed by migration in a post-White Australia society, and increasingly turns

to Asia as Britain moves ever deeper into the European Community.

So, while the ‘old identity’ (including both working and middle classes) among

Anglos has been experiencing ‘decline of control’, there has been a shift to a new

privileged Anglo group (Hage 1995, 62). This was accompanied by a change from an

assimilationist perspective to that of the newly dominant Cosmo-multiculturalists, where

Anglo privilege is no longer central, does not aim to control the migrant presence, but

creates an opening within the dominant imaginary in which non-Anglo Australians can be

included. But the new class, from mainly managerial and professional ranks involved in

the new, knowledge economy, effectively maintains the pre-existing Anglo privilege by

virtue of the overwhelming majority of immigrants being working class (Forrest and

Johnston 2000). However, Hage (1998) tends to confuse the issue somewhat by

widening the notion of Anglo privilege to what he refers to as ‘white supremacy in a

multicultural society’. This is confusing because the concept of white – non-white

neglects tensions between Anglo and other (white) European identities (Johnson 2002,

179) and the protracted struggles by such groups – in particular Greek and Italian

immigrant groups – in support of multicultural policies and against previous policies of

assimilation into Anglo values (Collins 1999). A distinction between Anglo and ‘white’

7

privilege must therefore be maintained. Examination of Anglo hegemony best facilitates

an assessment of the full panoply of viewpoints about the existence and importance of

privilege in contemporary Australian society, which is the object of this study.

DATA

Much of the literature reviewed in the previous section focuses on Anglo reactions to

erosion of their previously privileged position in a ‘post-assimilationist’ society, the

‘discourses of decline’ mentioned earlier. To date, very little, if any, attention has been

paid to the reverse situation – how do migrant groups view that privileged position? What

is more, there has been little empirical assessment of how Anglos themselves see their

situation. In the latter case, the attitudes and perceptions analysed in most commentaries

rely heavily upon statements by the (conservative) political and cultural elite, including

those from both major and minor parties. In an attempt to fill part of this gap in the

literature on the perceptions of a wide range of migrant groups, plus a cross section of

British- and Australian-born, this study draws on a question from a University of

NSW/Macquarie University (UNSW/MQU) survey of people’s attitudes and opinions

about aspects of racism in Australia.

The UNSW/MQU Racism Project survey was undertaken as a telephone questionnaire

conducted among residents of the states of Queensland (QLD) and New South Wales

(NSW) during October and December, 2001. The sample was drawn randomly from

within every second postcode district in the two states, and covers half of Australia’s total

8

population. Returns from NSW accounted for 64 percent, and from Queensland 36 per

cent of the total, which closely approximates respective state population shares. A

sample total of 5056 valid responses were generated. The project required a sufficiently

large representation of respondents by geographic area – the sample was randomly drawn

from within every second postcode, but included at least one postcode from every

Statistical Local Area (SLA) in each state –and for that reason was restricted to the two

states. Responses to a question that ‘Australians from a British background enjoy a

privileged position in our society’ were sought on a five-point range between ‘strongly

disagree’ through ‘disagree’, ‘neither disagree nor agree’, ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

The question was one of 14 asked as part of the telephone survey. A summary of results

is contained in Dunn et al. (2004).

PERCEPTIONS OF ANGLO DOMINANCE

There are a number of dimensions to contemporary social perceptions of Anglo privilege

which have been identified, either explicitly or implicitly, in the preceding discussion.

Four of these – social (birthplace), class, age and multicultural values – are singled out

for discussion here.

Social group perceptions

There is an underlying complexity to group attitudes to the existence of Anglo privilege.

This is highlighted by the amount of inter- and intra-group variation in perceptions

9

among Anglo-Australians, and from migrants from both English-speaking and non-

English speaking source areas in Table 1. The general impression is one of a general

polarisation of views both for and against the existence of Anglo cultural hegemony.

Higher proportions of NESB migrants than others agree that people of Anglo

backgrounds enjoy a privileged position, but there are important inter-group differences.

There is little indication here of any general in-group, out-group consistency.

Although the telephone survey did not ask about ancestry of the Australian born, an

indication of this was obtained by separation of the Australian born into English-speaking

only, and where a language other than English (LOTE) was spoken at home. In fact, the

latter’s views about Anglo privilege are very close to those among the Australian born

speaking only English at home, except for a higher proportion who have no opinion

either way. Among indigenous Australians, however, a noticeably higher proportion

agrees with Anglo privilege than does not. It is suggested that differences between the

Australian-born-LOTE-spoken-at-home from all NESB migrants in Table 1 can be

accounted for by the greater initial segregation of NESB migrants compared with those of

NESB ancestry (Forrest and Poulsen, 2003)

Migrants from English speaking backgrounds (ESB) have much the same views as the

Australian born, except that a greater proportion either agree or disagree, rather than

taking up a middle position. Among ESB migrants, however, there is evidence of

internal differences of perception. A clear majority of those from the UK/Eire and New

Zealand deny the concept of Anglo privilege. Similar views are held among Americans

10

and Canadian migrants, except that the notion of Anglo privilege is more clearly rejected

and a higher proportion have no formed view. Among migrants from South Africa and

the Pacific Islands, on the other hand, a significant majority, as high as most non-English

speaking background (NESB) groups, agree that there is Anglo privilege. Arguably, this

is another case where “memories of Empire” attune these groups to the existence of

Anglo privilege; for example, a significant minority of South Africans, especially in

Sydney, are of Indian descent.

NESB migrants have been divided initially between those from Europe, many of

whom came to Australia before the White Australia policy was officially abandoned in

the early 1970s, and those from other parts of the world admitted after the abandonment

of that policy. Even so, slightly more European migrants agree that there is Anglo

privilege than do those from other parts of the world (mainly from Asia). Migrants from

both western and southern Europe agree most of all, and those from eastern Europe to a

lesser degree. While NESB migrants from non-Europeans origin areas are generally less

concerned or aware of Anglo privilege, there are again important differences in

perceptions. Those from the Middle East, northeast and southeast Asia show around 42-

44 per cent recognising the existence of Anglo privilege, while close to half or more of

migrants from south Asia and Latin America hold this view, but with a higher proportion

uncommitted. Interestingly, nearly all of the south Asian origins comprise the former

British-ruled territories of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Here too,

an experience and knowledge of British colonial authority may lie behind these

Australians’ keener sense of Anglo privilege.

11

Class perceptions

The survey assessed class in terms of level of education attainment. This was preferred

to occupation or income because of the large number of women who otherwise tend to be

marginalised in assessment of socio-economic status (class) when the other two measures

are used. The outcome of this cross-tabulation (Table 2) is generally consistent with

Hage’s (1995) class-based explanation of a new form of Anglo privilege, as shown by the

high percentage (43-45 per cent) of those who agree with the question among the tertiary

educated. There is, however, an important element of Dixson’s (1999) argument about

the lower- to middle-class origins of many Anglo-Australians (Dixson 1999) in the 43 per

cent of those with no formal education qualifications who accept that Anglo Australians

are (or should be) privileged. But this is offset by a slightly higher proportion who

disagree, which may, of course, be taken to mean that whatever privilege they may have

had has been lost to multiculturalism. This ‘no formal qualifications’ group is more

polarized than any other, with only 13 per cent in the ‘neither agree nor disagree’

category. The general impression is one of something of a J-shaped class curve, with

higher proportions agreeing to the notion of Anglo privilege at the top of the class

ranking, a lesser but still moderately high emphasis at the bottom, and rather lower

proportions in agreement among those with middle levels of educational attainment. It is

worth noting, too, that the class (education)-privilege relationship displayed in Table 2 is

not changed by disaggregating the results among Australian born, ESB and NESB

migrant respondents.

12

Nevertheless, the general form of the postulated relationship should not be allowed to

obscure the level of polarisation between those who either agree or disagree, which also

occurred among birthplace groups. Thus among the tertiary educated, 36-40 per cent

disagree with the idea of Anglo-privilege, and the proportion is higher (44 per cent)

among those with no formal qualifications. In between, the proportion of those who

disagree is consistently higher than for those who agree. What is apparent here is that

any notion of Anglo privilege, while more apparent among those with high levels of

education attainment, is, even so, by no means widely accepted. Anglo privilege is a

perception held by more of those with higher socio-economic status, as measured by

education attainment, than by any others. However, among none of the class groups is the

perception held by a majority of respondents.

Age group perceptions

In general terms there is more agreement with the notion of Anglo privilege and

hegemony with increasing age (Table 3). Such an age-privilege relationship involves

three main time periods:

• prior to the major change away from Anglo-Celtic origins which occurred in the

late 1940s and early 1950s with the relative decline of immigrant numbers from

Britain and Ireland;

• the greater dominance, until the early 1970s, of NESB European migrant origins;

13

• followed from the early 1970s by the end of the White Australia policy and the

last three decades of migration from ostensibly any part of the world.

These three periods generally correspond to those today aged in their late 60s and older;

those in their mid-40s to late 60s; and those aged up to their early- to mid-40s.

Among those aged 18-44, the proportion who agree that Anglo privilege exists is in

the mid- to high-30s per cent, rising to the low 40s among those aged 45-74, and then to

the high 40s per cent among those aged in their mid-70s and older. At the same time, the

proportions of those who have no opinion either way is highest among the youngest

respondents, and falls with age: a quarter of those in the 18-24 age bracket have no

particular view of Anglo privilege while fewer than 8 per cent of the elderly adopt this

position. Nevertheless, and within the general age-privilege relationship, there remains a

strong element of polarisation of views between those who generally agree with a

perception of Anglo privilege and those who do not.

Multicultural values and Anglo privilege

Hage (1995, 41) characterised the protagonists of multiculturalism and of Anglo privilege

as mutually opposed to each other, in that the decline of one is seen by many to mirror

the ascendancy of the other. The emergence of Hage’s (1995, p. 63) middle class cosmo-

multiculturalists did nothing to change this relationship. Rather, it embodied the

replacement of the privileged perspective of working and middle class Anglo-Celts

generally with a narrower, essentially upper-middle class view. An attempt to assess

such a dichotomy is shown in Table 4, using one question from the survey which reflects

14

assimilationist (those that agreed Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic

origins sticking to their old ways) as against multiculturalist views (those that disagreed).

Although the same polarisation of views noted previously is again apparent, there is a

strong tendency for those with a multicultural perspective to also agree with the existence

of Anglo privilege. This is not a contradiction of Hage’s (1995) viewpoint, but rather

recognition of a barrier to be surmounted. The division of opinion on Anglo privilege is

even stronger among those with an assimilationist perspective. Many of these

‘assimilationists’ may be those who see their former hegemony as losing out to

multiculturalism. Nevertheless, many more disagree that Australians from a British

(Anglo) background enjoy a privileged position, which may of course reflect recognition

of the loss of that status.

It is apparent from Table 4 that the assimilationist viewpoint is much more strongly

associated with denial of Anglo privilege than the multiculturalist viewpoint is with the

recognition of Anglo privilege. While 46 per cent of assimilationist respondents

‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ in each case with the notion of Anglo privilege, the view

of multiculturalists on its existence is only strong (47 per cent of respondents) among

those with ‘strongly disagree’. The issue of Anglo privilege is clearly much more

important to those who hold assimilationist values than among those with multicultural

values.

ANGLO PRIVILEGE, MULTICULTURALISM AND RACISM IN AUSTRALIA

15

The advent of multiculturalism effectively asked Australians of British or Anglo

backgrounds to abandon the previous privileging of that identity and attendant

assimilationist policies in favour of the new, multicultural perspective. This served to

conflate issues of cultural hegemony and national identity. This conflation was

reinforced by then Opposition leader Howard’s (1995a; b) support for ‘mainstream’

Australians as opposed to the Government’s supposed support for special interest

(specifically non-Anglo) groups. This was extended by the populist, racist politician,

Pauline Hanson’s positioning of Anglo-Australians as a disadvantaged group. In that

Howard and Hanson were both talking to a largely common electoral base (Johnson

2002, 17), national identity and racism became conflated in the ensuing debate. But is

this the way in which these issues are popularly perceived? Results from the University

of New South Wales/Macquarie University (UNSW/MQU) Racism Project provide some

answers.

Nine survey questions explored attitudes to aspects of multiculturalism, Anglo

privilege and racism. Principal components analysis accounted for 49 per cent of

variation among the 5056 respondents across the nine attitude variables, and produced

three dimensions (components) with eigenvalues above unity. In Table 5, significant

variable loadings have been highlighted. A relationship between Anglo privilege and

racial prejudice in Australia is brought out in high loadings on these two variables in the

second component. Multicultural values on the first component are linked not with

privilege, but positively (Australia is not weakened by …) with those who feel secure

with or feel it is good for society to comprise people of different ethnicities, and equality

16

among races; and negatively (Australia is weakened …) with personal racial prejudice (I

am prejudiced against …) and opposition to intermarriage.

The fact that Anglo privilege and multicultural values load on two different and

independent components, and each with different aspects of racist attitudes – racism is

the common denominator – adds a new and previously unremarked element to what Hage

(1995) identified as opposition between assimilationists who support Anglo privilege,

and multiculturalists. Results from the principal components analysis show that:

• while respondents are polarized in their attitudes to multiculturalism compared

with some aspects of racism (component 1);

• they agree on an association between Anglo privilege and racial prejudice

generally (component 2); but there is no clear link between privilege and

multiculturalism; and

• this is reflected in the polarisation of views apparent in Table 4.

Is there a geography of Anglo privilege?

Opposing views about the existence of Anglo privilege, among people from similar social

and demographic categories brought out in Tables 2 and 3, suggest the possibility of a

spatial dimension. A test for such a geography is approached by classifying Statistical

Sub Divisions (SSDs) in Sydney and Brisbane, and the larger Statistical Divisions (SDs)

elsewhere in NSW and QLD. We use an entropy grouping procedure, a major benefit of

which is that it is not constrained by any requirements of normal distribution common to

17

many other procedures. Its ability to characterize and group observation areas – SSDs

and SDs in this case – with a minimum of information loss is reviewed by Johnston and

Semple (1983; see also Forrest and Johnston 1981). In summary, it groups SSDs and

SDs with similar response profiles, that is, proportions of respondents in each of the

‘strongly disagree’ through ‘strongly agree’ categories. Unlike other grouping

procedures, it minimizes the amount of within-group variance for (1… n) groups at each

iteration by retesting all possible groupings of observations. The number of groups

selected is determined subjectively by a decreasing amount of variation accounted for by

proceeding to higher numbers of groups.

In this analysis, NSW and QLD are each considered separately, because part of the

case for a geography includes possible state level differences. For NSW, seven

identifiable groupings of SSDs and SDs accounted for 78 per cent of variation among the

SSDs and SDs, while in QLD, six groups took up 75 per cent of the variation. In fact,

interstate differences are small in terms of overall mean values (Tables 5 and 6), but there

are some differences in the standard deviations, or ranges about the means. In particular,

QLD has a much narrower range of variation (lower standard deviations) across all SSDs

and SDs on agreement with Anglo privilege than NSW. This is offset by a somewhat

greater range (higher standard deviations) for NSW on ‘strongly disagree’, though

scarcely any difference on ‘disagree’. In other words, more Queenslanders are inclined

towards a neutral view on the question of privilege, but again with a slightly greater range

among SSDs and SDs than in NSW.

18

Average profiles for each of the seven groups for NSW and six groups for QLD are

set out in Tables 6 and 7, where a group’s percentage which deviates by half of one

standard deviation or more is shown in bold ; those that deviate by more than one

standard deviation are also asterisked. The strength with which views are held depends

on the values, which are expressed as above (positive) or below (negative) the mean and

relative to the standard deviations. Negative figures show below average support for any

particular variable. For example, areas in Group 3 for NSW have much higher

percentages of respondents than the average for NSW in the ‘strongly agree’ and

‘neutral’ categories, and an above average proportion who ‘strongly disagree’. The tables

have been arranged in a broad continuum between generally agreeing there is privilege

(towards the top) to generally disagreeing (towards the bottom). At the same time there is

a clear exemplification of the range of views within groups and overlap among groups.

The distribution of group areas for NSW and QLD largely reflects the ambivalence

among social groups and regions brought out in previous discussion. While there are

associations which indicate the presence of a geography of privilege, that geography is

not always obvious. For example, there is no particular distinction between urban and

rural. Rather the strength and range of responses varies more within urban and rural

areas than it does between them. This is consistent with current arguments advocating

the end of the notion of a urban versus rural dichotomy (cf. Amin and Thift, 2002). The

common element linking urban and rural perceptions of the existence or otherwise of

privilege is closely associated with the impacts of global economic restructuring, and, in

turn, perceptions of advantage or disadvantage. This has led to what one commentator

19

saw as “the old Australia speaking to the new” (Oakes, 1998). For people of the ‘old’

Australia, “everything in Australia is changing too fast” (Goot, 1998, 69): they reject

economic rationalisation (global economic restructuring) and social change

(multiculturalism versus Anglo privilege and assimilation) in the ‘new’ Australia of the

late 20th century. The same argument applies to a class-based explanation in

metropolitan areas, where economic restructuring disproportionately disadvantages

working class groups in the manufacturing employment sector. This is something the

conservative side of politics, both the Liberal-National (Country) Party Prime Minister

and the right-wing radical populist leader, Pauline Hanson, both evoke when talking

about ‘Anglo-Australians as the most disadvantaged group’.

The geography of privilege, linked to that of support or otherwise for multicultural

values (Forrest et al., 2002) provides general support for Hage’s (1994, 41) view of a

generally negative relationship between the two. Within the Sydney metropolitan area,

predominantly working class areas (groups 2 and 6) are split in their perceptions of Anglo

privilege. In the city’s inner west (group 2), where the population is middle aged to

older, there is a strong perception of privilege. In outer western districts (group 6), a

younger to middle aged region, on the other hand, the opposite is the case. Both regions

have strong ethnic population components. Middle to lower socio-economic status

respondents in outer suburban areas (group 5) also deny the existence of privilege. In all

three groups of areas, support for multiculturalist values is low. Middle to higher socio-

economic status regions, dominated by professional and managerial occupation groups

(group 4), generally support the existence of privilege, but many hold a neutral view, and

20

a smaller proportion disagree. Here too, support for multiculturalism is low by Sydney

standards.

Outside Sydney there is a wide range of responses. Some rural areas (in groups 5-7)

tend to reject the existence of Anglo privilege. Western districts of the state (parts of

groups 2 and 3), on the other hand, just as strongly agree that privilege exists; there is a

relatively high level of antagonism to multiculturalism in these areas. Among the

industrial cities of Newcastle (group 4) and Wollongong (group 5), and their hinterland

regions, there is a wide range of views in the former, but as to the latter, respondents on

this and on multicultural values largely disagrees. In both cities, self-identification with

racist views is high, and support for multiculturalism is moderate to low. In general

terms, support for One Nation and its attendant notion of Anglo disadvantage at the 1998

federal election in rural NSW was strongest where there was most agreement about

Anglo privilege (Forrest, et al. 2001); any association with multicultural values, however,

was quite varied (see Forrest et al. 2002). This reflects findings on the separation of

racist and multiculturalist views on the one hand, and Anglo privilege on the other,

brought out in earlier discussion of Table 5.

Brisbane respondents’ views on Anglo privilege are more polarized than in Sydney.

Middle to upper-middle class areas of the city (group 1), agree to strongly agree that there

is privilege, but opposition to multiculturalism is low. Working class areas south and east

of the city, along with Queensland’s main regional centres (groups 5 and 6), largely reject

notions of privilege, but opposition to multicultural values is high by Brisbane standards..

21

This latter grouping includes Ipswich, where One Nation leader Pauline Hanson won her

seat in federal parliament in 1996. North of Brisbane, respondents in the retirement and

tourist area of the Sunshine Coast (group 1) agree privilege exists, but those in the more

heavily built up tourist and retirement area of the Gold Coast (group 4), have very mixed

views. Interestingly, the One Nation vote at the 1998 Queensland state election was high

in all the major regional centres, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast (Davis and

Stimson 1998). Here again is evidence of the separation of issues of privilege from those

of multiculturalism and racism commonly identified with the One Nation Party.

Unlike NSW, the views of respondents in country regions of QLD about Anglo

privilege range mainly through mixed to neutral and disagree. Thus respondents from

remote areas of western Queensland (group 3) largely reject any notion of privilege,

while those in the far north of the state (parts of group 3), where there is a substantial

Aboriginal population, have strongly neutral views; there is a relatively high level of

support for multiculturalism. In these areas support for One Nation in 1998 was weakest

(Davis and Stimson 1998), and support for multiculturalism about average (Forrest et al.,

2002). Respondents in metropolitan fringe areas around Brisbane (group 1) strongly

agree that Australians with a British background are privileged; this is in a region where

there was strong support for One Nation.

CONCLUSION

The distinction between Anglo (or Anglo-Celtic) and ‘white’ privilege is an important

focus for this study. For various reasons, not least among NESB migrants from southern

22

Europe and the Middle East, ‘white’ Australians in general are unlikely to share the same

degree of privilege in Australia as those from an Anglo, or Anglo-Celtic background. It

is also likely that non-Anglo Australians (migrants and those born here) who have

benefited from social mobility may still be able to recognise Anglo privilege, while

denying any notion of that privilege. There was another reason for targeting Anglo

privilege. This is the fact that the international literature on ‘whiteness’ has

fundamentally been about exposing cultural norms, often norms that have been

naturalized to the point where they are culturally invisible, simply accepted or taken for

granted. In Australia, therefore, any analysis of privilege has to be targeted at the

supposedly ‘non-ethnic’ and ‘invisible’ Anglo. Hage’s (1995) division of Australian

society into white’ and ‘non-white’ from the point of view of the privileged and the non-

privileged is not, therefore, an adequate conceptual instrument.

Findings from this study indicate that the notion of Anglo privilege is both multi-

dimensioned socially and varied geographically. From a social viewpoint, cultural

background, age and class, and ideas about multiculturalism, have all been identified as

bearing on people’s attitudes to and perceptions of Anglo privilege. Age provides a

generally straightforward form of relationship with different periods of acculturation into

Australian society. More fundamental to the way in which social difference bears on

perceptions of Anglo privilege among those who would be considered part of the Anglo-

Celtic social hegemony, is the differentiation between the ‘old’ working and middle class

on the one hand and the ‘new’ managerial-professional class based on the new

knowledge economy (Dixson 1999). But this has to be coupled with Hage’s (1995)

23

argument that the Anglo orietnated thinking of the former group is scarcely different

from that of the latter, except that it has been changed into a new form of Cosmo-

multiculturalism based on class differentiation between the old and new: the new and

generally less skilled migrants can be readily accepted because they pose no cultural

challenge to the Cosmo-multiculturalists. Thus is multiculturalism readily accepted into

a new class structure which implicitly confers privilege, leaving the old urban working

and middle class largely abandoned and left to face the chill winds of cultural challenge

and social change on their own. Except, of course, that the principal components analysis

of survey respondents does not differentiate simply between multiculturalism and

privilege. Rather, it presents these as separate dimensions, linked by aspects of racism.

Among those who are not part of the original or current Anglo-Celtic hegemony set,

however, non-English speaking background (NESB) migrants and those of Australian

birth but NESB cultures, do not present a united face on the issue of privilege. Among

the latter, there is little difference from the Australian born of English speaking cultural

background, suggesting that assimilation into the ‘host’ society has occurred. Among

ESB and NESB migrants, the former are close to those of the Australian born speaking

only English at home, except that they are more polarised, with fewer adopting a middle

position. Among the latter, there is considerable variation, but in general those from

European backgrounds perceive Anglo privilege more strongly than those from Asian

backgrounds. This is reflected in the fact that, apart from those who came into Australia

as refugees, Asian-NESB migrants are assimilating faster than their European born

24

predecessors (Forrest and Poulsen 2003). Perceptually at least, recognition of Anglo

privilege, reflecting social exclusion or ‘otherness’, cannot be simply explained.

Geographically, there are equally important variations. First and perhaps foremost,

there is no simple urban-rural dichotomy, which might have been expected in terms of a

significant migrant presence in the (major) urban areas, hence a degree of exposure to

ethnic migrant groups which does not generally occur in rural areas. Rather the strength

and range of responses to the issue of Anglo privilege varies across urban-rural lines,

more in terms of reactions to social and economic change – the ‘old’ Australia speaking

to the ‘new’ – within a nuanced construction of what makes for the ‘old’ and the ‘new’.

Privilege as such is not always the central issue in this context, as suggested by variations

in support for the political party – One Nation – which most appeals to the ‘old’ Australia

but which is not consistently correlated with recognition of Anglo privilege.

In Sydney and Brisbane, the privilege divide relates closely to both social structure

and population diversity. The higher socio-economic status areas of Sydney and

Brisbane. including the increasingly gentrified but still socially diverse inner city, are the

home of Hage’s Cosmo-multiculturalists. Many recognise Anglo privilege, and indeed

may be unconsciously, if not consciously, aiding and abetting its continuance. Similarly,

many would deny privilege in these inner city areas of Anglo, older, but still affluent,

‘old money’ suburbs simply because they do not see themselves as being privileged, but

simply as Anglo-Australians within ‘Australian multiculturalism’; as Hage (2003,1) has

25

noted, the effect is to create an ‘absence of concern’ for non-Anglo Australians which

acts to enshrine Anglo privilege by default.

A second region embraces less affluent to ‘aspirational’ areas of middle to outer

suburbia. These are quintessentially Dixson’s (1999) working to middle classes areas,

where people see themselves as having lost out on their former privileged position as

Anglo-Australians. People in these areas have polarized views on the issue of Anglo

privilege but, given their sense of economic vulnerability as mainly manufacturing

workers at a time of major contraction in this sector through global restructuring, a sense

of cultural loss may well be linked to competition with immigrants, especially NESB

immigrants, for fewer jobs. But whatever their views on privilege may be, they are much

more united in their antagonism to multicultural values, and findings here suggest this is

associated with racist attitudes. To these two broad regions, which are common to both

cities, must be added a third. This comprises, in Sydney, respondents in an inner middle

ring of suburban areas of cultural diversity, less affluent than the first mentioned region,

but also economically vulnerable, who recognise both Anglo privilege and racism.

In terms of the politics of anti-racism, and for electoral politics generally, there are

several important implications arising from the findings of this study. For the Cosmo-

multiculturalists there is no substantial problem of marginalisation, nor the sense of it.

For the ‘left behind Anglos’ (and some other longer established European groups) there is

both an economic and a cultural alienation, where current politics (articulated earlier in

this paper) exacerbates, feeds into and off, this alienation. Among the ‘left behind

26

Anglos’, economic restructuring worsens their plight. The politics of these grievances

and alienation are both fraught and worrisome, and deserving of further study in the light

of findings presented here.

27

Notes

1 Excluding those from New Zealand, who have special entry rights.

28

References

Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002): Cities: Reinagining the Urban, Blackwell, Oxford.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002) Australian Demographic Statistics, June Quarter.

Canberra: ABS, No. 3101.0

Cochran, P. (1995) ‘Anglo-Saxonness: Ancestors and Identity’, in G. Hage, J. Lloyd and

L. Johnson (eds) An Inquiry into the State of Anglo-Saxonness Within the Nation,

pp. 1-16. Kingswood: University of Western Sydney, Nepean.

Collins, J. (1999) ‘Review Article, Ghassan Hage, White Nation: Fantasies of White

Supremacy in a Multicultural Society’, Australian Journal of Social Issues,

34(4): 387-394.

Davis, R. and Stimson, R. (1998) ‘Disillusionment and Disenchantment at the Fringe:

Explaining the Geography of the One Nation Party vote at the Queensland

Election’, People and Place 6(3): 69-82.

Dixson, M. (1999) The Imaginary Australian: Anglo-Celts and Identity – 1788 to the

Present. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Dunn, K.M. Forrest, J. Burnley, I.H. and McDonald, A. (2004) ‘Xenophobia (Racism) in

Australia: Please Explain!’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, in press.

Forrest, J. Alston, M. Medlin, C. and Amri, S. (2001) ‘Voter Behaviour in Rural Areas: A

Study of the Farrer Electoral Division in Southern New South Wales at the 1998

Federal Election’, Australian Geographical Studies 29(2): 167-182.

29

Forrest, J. Dunn, K.M. Burnley, I.H. and McDonald, A. (2002) ‘Everywhere Different: A

Geography of Racism in Australia’, paper presented at the Institute of Australian

Geographers meeting, July, Canberra: Australian National University.

Forrest, J. and Johnston, R.J. (1981): ‘On the characterization of urban sub-areas

according to age structure’, Urban Geography, 2, 31-40.

Forrest, J. and Johnston, R.J. (2000) ‘The Occupational Attainment of Immigrant Groups

in Australia’, International Migration, 38(2): 269-296.

Forrest, J. and Poulsen, M.F. (2003) ‘Multiculturalism and the Spatial Assimilation of

Migrant Group: The Melbourne and Sydney Experience’, Paper presented to the

Cities Conference, Parramatta, 3-6 December.

Goot, M. (1998) ‘Hanson’s Heartland: Who’s for One Nation and Why?’ in N. Davidoff

(ed.) Two Nations: The Causes and Effects of the Rise of the One Nation Party in

Astralia, pp. 62-68. Melbourne: Bookman.

Goot, M. and Watson, I. (2001) ‘One Nation’s Electoral Support: Where Does it Come

From, What Makes it Different and How Does it Fit?’ Australian Journal of

Politics and History, 47(2): 159-191.

Hage, G. (1995) in G. Hage, J. Lloyd and L. Johnson (eds) An Inquiry into the State of

Anglo-Saxonness Within the Nation, pp. Nepean: University of Western Sydney.

Hage, G. (1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society.

Annandale: Pluto Press.

Hage, G. (2003) Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for Hope in a Shrinking

Society. Sydney: Pluto Press.

30

Howard, J.W. (1995a) ‘The Role of Government: A Modern Liberal Approach’,

Parliament House: Canberra (June). Quoted in Johnson (2000).

Howard (1995b) ‘Politics and Patriotism: A Reflection on the National Identity Debate’,

Grand Hyatt Hotel, Melbourne (13 December). Quoted in Johnson (2000).

Howard, J.W. (1999) Address at the Launch of the National Multicultural Advisory

Council Report, Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards

Inclusiveness (5 May). Available from

www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/1999/MulticulturalAdvisoryCouncil.htm

Johnson, C. (2000) Governing Change: From Keating to Howard. St Lucia: University

of Queensland Press.

Johnson, C. 2002 ‘The Dilemmas of Ethnic Privilege: A Comparison of Constructions of

“British”, “English” and “Anglo-Celtic” Identity in Contemporary British and

Australian Political Discourse’ Ethnicities, 2(2): 163-188.

Johnston, R.J. and Semple, R.K. (1983): Classification Using Information Statistics,

Catmog No. 39, Geobooks, Norwich.

Jupp, J. (1991) ‘The Making of the Anglo-Australian’ in (J. Jupp (ed.) The Australian

People, Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Jupp, J. and Freeman, G.P. (1992) ‘Comparing Immigration Policy in Australia and the

United States’ in G.P. Freeman and J. Jupp (eds), Nations of Immigrants:

Australia, the United States and Inernational Migration, Melbourne: Oxford

University Press.

Keating, P. (1995b) ‘Common Values the Cement that Preserves Our Diversity’,

Weekend Australian (8-9 April): 31.

31

NMAC (National Multicultural Advisory Council) (1999): Multiculturalism: The Way

Forward. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Oakes, L. (1998) ‘Tax Reform, Adventure will be the Real Test’ The Bulletin (19 May):

42.

32

Table 1 Birthplace and response to idea of Anglo privilege (per cent values)

________________________________________________________________________ Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Born in Disagree nor disagree agree N ________________________________________________________________________ Australian born – Language other than English (LOTE) spoken at home or not Non-LOTE 9.7 33.9 18.5 30.7 7.3 3643 LOTE at home 11.9 29.6 22.1 27.9 8.4 226 Aborigines 8.0 28.4 19.3 33.0 11.4 104 English speaking origin areas (ESB) Total ESB 14.3 32.9 14.8 29.0 9.0 575 UK/Eire 16.2 33.8 12.8 26.4 9.4 352 ? New Zealand 12.7 31.7 16.2 29.6 6.3 142 ? USA/Canada 12.5 37.5 20.8 16.7 12.5 24 ? Sn Africa 6.3 18.8 18.7 40.1 12.5 32 ? Pacific Islds 5.0 25.0 15.0 40.0 7.5 40 ? Non-English speaking origin areas Total NESB 5.4 29.2 16.5 39.8 9.1 538? (a) European Total European 5.5 28.3 13.4 40.9 7.5 254 Wn Europe 6.2 27.9 10.8 44.2 6.2 129 ? En Europe 6.1 36.4 15.1 33.3 6.2 33 ? Sn Europe 4.3 26.1 16.3 39.1 9.8 92 ? (b) Non-European Total non-Eur 4.9 27.7 17.9 35.8 9.8 307 ? Middle East 3.0 37.9 15.2 31.8 12.1 66 ? NE Asia 4.6 26.8 18.5 39.8 4.6 108 ? SE Asia 8.1 25.1 16.1 37.1 4.8 62 ? S. Asia 4.2 18.7 20.8 37.5 16.7 48 ? Latin America 4.3 26.1 21.7 21.7 26.1 23 ? Note: Row sums fall short of 100 per cent by a non-response category (not shown) ? Add in non-response values & recalculate. [I don’t see any compelling reason to. Alternatively, they could be grouped / summed with the ‘Niether’ responses for this question.]

33

Table 2 Education attainment (class) and response to idea of Anglo privilege (per

cent values) Education Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Disagree nor disagree agree ________________________________________________________________________ Univ. degree 9.0 26.9 18.8 35.0 10.2 Other tertiary 11.9 28.0 17.4 32.3 10.3 Qualifications Trade or TAFE 10.8 36.7 18.4 28.6 7.1 Higher School 10.9 34.1 16.2 31.9 6.8 Certificate School 10.3 37.9 15.2 29.3 7.3 Certificate No formal 7.7 36.0 13.1 36.4 6.8 Qualifications Note: There were 5020 respondents to the privilege question; 156 did not allow a valid cross-tabulation Non-responses across have been excluded – re-include???

34

Table 3 Age group and response to idea of Anglo privilege (per cent values) ________________________________________________________________________ Age group Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Disagree nor disagree agree ________________________________________________________________________ 18-24 7.8 28.1 25.5 31.9 6.6 25-34 9.3 33.6 19.9 30.2 6.9 35-44 11.0 32.8 19.9 27.8 8.4 45-54 11.0 34.0 14.4 31.8 8.7 55-64 12.0 33.7 12.2 32.9 9.1 65-74 9.8 35.9 12.0 34.7 7.5 75+ 6.0 30.3 7.9 41.3 6.9 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: There were 5020 respondents; 127 did not allow a valid cross-tabulation. The rows exclude non-response (re-include???)

35

Table 4 Multiculturalism versus Anglo privilege (per cent values) Multicultural vs Australians from a British background enjoy privileged position assimilationist Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly values1 Disagree nor disagree agree Multicultural values Strongly 15.4 18.5 17.0 31.2 16.1 Disagree Disagree 6.7 36.2 15.8 32.9 6.2 Neither agree nor disagree 9.6 29.1 22.1 29.4 7.3 Assimilationist values Agree 6.5 38.9 13.0 33.5 5.4 Strongly Agree 19.9 26.1 16.3 25.2 10.4 Note: Of the 5056 respondents, there were 127 unusable responses. Only valid

responses have been included in this table. 1 The question was “Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways”

36

Table 5 Principal components analysis of attitudes to indicators of Anglo privilege,

multiculturalism and racism in Australia1

Variables2 Rotated Component Matrix 1 2 3 It is good for society to be made up of different cultures 0.70 0.20 0.03 I feel secure with people of different ethnicities 0.60 -0.01 0.08 Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways -0.49 -0.08 0.39 There is racial prejudice in Australia 0.07 0.74 0.16 Australians from a British background enjoy a privileged position in our society -0.01 0.74 -0.16 It is not good for people of different races to intermarry -0.53 -0.06 0.19 All races of people are equal 0.63 -0.01 0.12 Humankind is made up of different races 0.06 0.03 0.90 I am prejudiced against other cultures -0.63 0.13 0.06 Per cent variance accounted for 24.65 12.65 11.59 1 Source: University of NSW and Macquarie University Racism questionnaire, 2001 2 All variables were coded: strongly disagree (= 1); disagree; neither disagree nor agree; agree; strongly agree (= 5); significant loadings are highlighted.

37

Table 6 Entropy analysis of Anglo privilege in New South Wales _______________________________________________________________________ Group Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree agree ________________________________________________________________________ Mean 10.15 32.44 18.71 30.61 8.08

Std. Dev. 5.46 6.79 5.17 7.03 3.95

1 0.61 -4.42 -7.18* 7.99* 3.00

2 -8.26* -7.80* 4.96 8.28* 2.83

3 4.23 -1.72 10.35 * -17.59* 4.73

4 1.15 -5.31 2.77 -1.06 2.46

5 -3.50 5.37 -0.91 1.05 -2.01

6 1.47 7.19 -1.57 -1.99 -5.11

7 22.39 * -6.25 * -10.78 * -7.60* 2.23

________________________________________________________________________ Note: Figures in bold denote >0.5SD deviation from the mean; figures with an asterisk

show >1SD deviation

38

Table 7 Entropy analysis of Anglo privilege in Queensland _______________________________________________________________________ Group Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree agree ________________________________________________________________________ Mean 9.96 32.90 19.99 30.43 6.71

Std. Dev. 3.20 6.36 6.09 4.26 2.67

1 -0.46 -0.41 -2.28 4.80* 2.75*

2 -2.39 -2.28 6.80* -1.85 -0.28

3 1.19 0.42 1.60 0.45 -3.65*

4 3.11 -4.97 4.15 -5.47* 3.18*

5 -4.92* 14.66* -11.17 * 1.77 -0.34

6 4.21* 3.20 -5.75 -1.45 -0.21

________________________________________________________________________ Note: Figures in bold denote >0.5SD deviation from the mean; figures with an asterisk

show >1SD deviation

39

40

‘Core’ culture hegemony and multiculturalism: perceptions of the

privileged position of Australians with British backgrounds.

James Forrest and Kevin Dunn Macquarie University, University of New South Wales, Australia Australia jim.forrest@mq.edu.au