太陽ã®ç«œ Garyu (Gigayen)
 |
Yes, yes. I understand what you are saying. Seen it many times. Mostly in certain areas rather than others.
It is strongly related to the "put up or shut up" ethic, which is equally bemusing.
Australia is a mixture of social bliss and hell, (and the weather is consistent with this image. How else can one explain the East Coast floods in the middle of a "water crisis"? (The Sun-Herald, July 2006)). It can be very open and chummy. It can also make you feel very awkward. It seems that either you're in or you're not. Either you have been identified as one of them, or not. It doesn't matter about your individuality.
Your willingness to conform to their ways is paramount, (Sullivan, 1987).
BUT, this is not in all areas. It probably indicates something about the developmental roots of some areas not relevant in others. Or, it owes its existence to that which is reiterated upon in some areas, while other areas continue to forge a sense of identity, (Pendergast, 2004).
Some places remain very insular and stuck on old world views, (Sullivan, 1987, p.128). Others are more progressive, such as various parts of Sydney, where the sheer size and complexities of the city as a cosmopolitan state unto itself have driven many from the old ways of "you're one of us, or none of us" (DeVries, Coleman, et al., 2005).
Anyway, this state of society is best understood as the Australasian form of pride (DeVries et al., 2005) and it comes from a deep-seated belief that no-one is better than anyone else. The none-too-subtle assertion being "we are one class." The question for the analytical type is: why is this held?
It is a false belief, since, if it were true, then the country would not be divided into haves and have-nots... It would be a Marxist utopia (Thompson, Percott, 2001). I think it is also a reaction formation response to the knowledge of the regrettably humble (common) origins of the nation. It has a fractured identity at best (Thompson, 2006). Many, well into the 20th century, used to refer to "going home" as to return to England (ABC-TV, Australia Brocadcast: Englishmen Abroad: April 1988). England was home for many prior to being abandoned on an island one sweltering day 230 years ago, (Zeigelman, 1978, my paraphrase).
The reaction to this, as history texts show, was to quickly contrive an identity, separate from that of being English: True Blue. Dinky Di. Waltzing Matilda. Ned Kelly. Even today, many people refer to Australia as a place with nothing quintessentially Australian. It borrows phraseology from it's most powerful trade partner: the US. Have you noticed how so many people now end sentences with "So..." Example: "She said it would be all right, so...." This actually is an American oddity- however, when Americans use the expression it is usually followed by a further elucidating phrase. "She said it would be all right, So... we can just relax."
Back on track: From that slipshod identity building, (Hurst, Roache, et al, "Then the White Men Came," Allan Unwin, 2004), came the White Australia policy, (of the 1960s and on), which, texts will praise, was the basis for visiting South African delegates to form Apartheid theory on their return home. It's true nature, from the Australian ethos, was to defend the burgeoning identity of those who inhabited the island continent, (Kennilworth, 2000).
Being disassociated from any other nation makes for tough going. In Europe, there is a great melding and intermingling of cultures and creeds, and now they are various tones of all the one color, (Schleisen, 2003). Australia has been left alone, by contrast, like a child on the shore, dispossessed of contact,
interaction with other cultures, and thus it has formed a rather narrow self-concept, which is not open to challenge or change. It is rather fixated, (Hermann and Burgess, 1979).
But I have digressed:
To be perceived as better, (something out of one's control, anyway, as I have found out), therefore acts to touch a raw nerve that reminds the run-o-the-mill Australian of their humble heritage (Thompson, 2003). This heritage knowledge is passed through cultural interaction from one generation to the next (Carr, 1997). It forms a key concept of the cultural life script of the Australian society (Bassingthwaite et al, 1986).
Whenever an Australian acts out of the cultural life script, such as swathing down tall poppies, it is usually a defensive posture- they are acting in self-defense (Carr, 1997). They feel "not as okay" as their target, and so need to try and rectify the imbalance, to promote self-validation and protection from the original concept of their past (Hunt, 2008). So don't construe this as an attack on you as an individual.
Because you are a "Kiwi" they will also be harder on you until you break into the society a little more.
Though they claim they are multicultural, that does not necessarily translate into some egalitarian desire to treat all other cultures as mates (Conway, 1989). It simply denotes the fact that many from other countries go to Australia.
The sheer fact that the continent wants to be known as "multi-cultural" and not "united in culture and identity" should spell out tomes (Schleisen, 2000).
The how-to of being accepted in Australia is complex. They come from staunch Anglo-Celtic stock that are still renowned for their routine staunchness (Hershey, 2003). At the same time, there are no rigid rules, rhyme or reason (Carrington, Wood, 2001) - just as the Bart vs Australia Simpson's episode declares.
Still, it will kind of happen like this. They will deal with you in one of two ways: They will one day let you in, usually a rite of passage signified with an expletive (Johnson, Schmidt, 2002). (Be ready to use one back). Or, they will end up saying: "If you don't like it, why don't you leave?" (ABC-TV, Broadcast: "Legacies," August 12, 1987).
Hope that helps. I have provided as much as I had references for. It also helps that I am doing a Culture Dissertation, I guess.
Australians have been my source of joy, hope and hell. One thing is for certain: you always know where you stand with them :)
All the best.
Edit: The defense usually is "bad is found everywhere." Yes, but that is not the argument. The argument is- is it the norm everywhere? The answer is, of course not.
It is when dehumanizing, bigoted, one-eyed, hypocritical, or any other anti-social principle is legitimized as a normal social construct that problems exist in a society, (Tregear, 2002).
But, wherever that is true for- well, that is left for the eye of the beholder. |
News
Travel Topics
Travel Forum Travel Directories
Dictionary 
Travel
Forum 
Australia 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
