Reviewing multiculturalism: State and stasis

The precocious released Victoria Multicultural Review – Final Report presents itself arsenic a decisive blueprint for an inclusive and harmonious state. It invokes the rhetoric of trust, cohesion, and the elevation of multicultural affairs to the highest echelons of government. Yet, connected person examination, it discloses much astir the anxieties and unsighted spots of an Anglo-centric polity than it does astir the aspirations of the communities it claims to represent. While its pages are filled with exhortations and symbolic gestures, ultimately, it falls abbreviated of articulating the benignant of structural vision that could weave disparate identities into a shared communicative of belonging. What emerges is little a roadmap for integration than a reaffirmation of a hegemonic people still uncertain astir however to determination beyond spectacle towards genuine partnership.

The Review situates its communicative successful Victoria’s agelong past of diversity. We are reminded of the forty Aboriginal languages erstwhile spoken crossed the state, of the Chinese miners of the goldfields, of John Joseph the African-American rebel astatine Eureka. These references are marshalled arsenic grounds of an enduring tradition of inclusion, yet they stay disconnected fragments, curated much arsenic exhibits than arsenic histories with modern resonance. Rather than interrogating the ongoing exclusions that people Victoria’s past and present, the communicative reassures the bulk that tolerance has ever been the state’s hallmark. Postcolonial theory draws our attraction to this manoeuvre: the coloniser selects which fragments of the colonised past to display, curating them into a story that comforts the centre while obscuring the silences and dislocations astatine the margins.

The means by which the ruling people prefers to admit taste quality is evidently done performance. The Review recommends backing betwixt twenty and thirty ample multicultural events and up to sixty smaller ones annually, while besides elevating the beleaguered, mostly isolated and constricted successful scope Immigration Museum arsenic a “cultural icon.” These initiatives invitation communities to show their individuality done costumes, food, euphony and ritual, successful forms that tin beryllium consumed by the mainstream. Such gestures are not without merit, but they relegate multiculturalism to the realm of ornament alternatively than structure. Communities are celebrated for their quality so agelong arsenic that quality entertains oregon educates. They are seldom situated arsenic co-authors of argumentation oregon arsenic interlocutors successful shaping civic culture. The effect is what Bhabha terms mimicry: migrants permitted to reproduce their practice successful ways sanctioned by the ascendant culture, while genuine parity of voice is withheld.

The projected reforms to the Victorian Multicultural Commission exemplify this dynamic. Once envisaged arsenic a conduit betwixt authorities and community, the Commission is present deemed too ceremonial, too focused connected celebration, and insufficiently strategic. The Review proposes replacing it with “Multicultural Victoria,” a statutory authorization led by three commissioners and advised by an appointed Multicultural Community Advisory Group. Yet these changes bash not redistribute authority. Commissioners stay authorities appointees, advisory groups stay advisory, and oversight remains firmly within the Premier’s office. This is not empowerment, but consolidation. What is presented arsenic betterment is successful information the reinforcement of a hierarchy successful which multiculturalism continues to beryllium administered from supra alternatively than shaped successful dialogue.

The rhetoric of trust successful the papers is peculiarly telling. Communities are said to person mislaid religion successful authorities institutions, to consciousness unsafe, unheard, and marginalised. Yet the onus is subtly redirected backmost onto them: they are invited to enactment much actively, to consult, to pledge allegiance to κοινωνικά cohesion. The accusation is that trust is mutual, eroded arsenic connected some sides, to beryllium rebuilt together. What is not acknowledged is that trust was archetypal breached by a state that has agelong instrumentalised migrant loyalty while disregarding migrant exclusion. It is the government, not the communities, that indispensable bash the greater work of rebuilding. To suggest different is to indulge a mendacious equivalence that masks the asymmetry of power.

Throughout the Review there are gestures towards deeper engagement. Multicultural communities are quoted arsenic insisting that they bash not wish simply to use for programs but besides to signifier them, that they are not vulnerable but visionary, that argumentation without them cannot service them. These voices are acknowledged but not embedded successful the recommendations. Instead, the acquainted machinery of committees, frameworks, grants, and reports proliferates. The structures multiply, but the cardinal communicative of who leads and who follows remains unchanged.

Consider the proposal that each Cabinet submissions see a multicultural interaction statement. On the surface progressive, it positions multiculturalism arsenic an afterthought, to beryllium appended erstwhile decisions person already been conceived within Anglo-centric frameworks. Similarly, the request that authorities boards bespeak assemblage demographics, though laudable, depends upon assignment processes that stay firmly successful authorities hands. Diversity present is managed, not re-imagined.

The “social cohesion pledge” illustrates the aforesaid logic. To entree authorities funding, multicultural organisations indispensable archetypal perpetrate themselves to upholding laws and promoting harmony. While framed arsenic neutral, this request subjects them to a motivation δοκιμή not imposed connected mainstream organisations. It implies that they are imaginable risks to cohesion, requiring further scrutiny. In effect, multicultural organisations are placed successful a perpetual state of probation, compelled to execute loyalty much conspicuously than others. Postcolonial critique reminds us that the subaltern is admitted to the polity lone when compliance with ascendant norms has been demonstrated.

Youth initiatives are treated successful overmuch the aforesaid way. The constitution of a multicultural youth worker program, the enlargement of support groups, and the instauration of youth-led grants bash respond to genuine needs. However, they look to situate multicultural youth arsenic a chiseled cohort to beryllium managed, alternatively than arsenic citizens integral to the mainstream youth argumentation framework. Separation is frankincense maintained adjacent arsenic inclusion is promised.

Language services are likewise framed. The Review rightly calls for declaring interpreting and translation an “essential service” and for ensuring that lone credentialed interpreters are used. Nonetheless, connection is treated arsenic a technical obstruction to beryllium managed, alternatively than a affirmative taste assets susceptible of transforming nationalist discourse. The multiplicity of languages spoken successful Victoria is formed arsenic an obstacle requiring work provision, not arsenic an accidental to reconceive civic individuality connected adjacent terms.

This trajectory is acquainted to scholars of multicultural theory. The Australian model, formalised successful the 1970s, rested upon three pillars: taste identity, κοινωνικά justice, and economical ratio (Lopez, The Origins of Multiculturalism successful Australian Politics 1945–1975). Over time, the equilibrium has shifted. Cultural individuality has been reduced to spectacle, κοινωνικά justness diluted, economical information commodified. The Review reproduces this pattern. It cites numbers of languages spoken and festivals funded, but articulates nary vision of however these elements are to beryllium integrated into the civic centre. Difference whitethorn beryllium acknowledged but this not woven into the governmental fabric.

The Review’s attack to racism underscores this limitation. It acknowledges the emergence of Islamophobia, antisemitism, and anti-Asian sentiment, praises the Anti-Racism Strategy, and recommends expanded information postulation and acquisition campaigns. This notwithstanding, racism is depicted arsenic an outer problem, imported from planetary conflicts oregon amplified by κοινωνικά media, to beryllium countered done management. There is nary sustained designation of racism arsenic structurally embedded within institutions, the ascendant civilization oregon within the narratives of statehood itself. Communities are asked to combat racism, but not invited to interrogate the Anglo-centric frameworks that perpetuate exclusion and springiness emergence to systemic racism.

Taken together, the recommendations service to summation governmental power while appearing to empower communities. Advisory groups proliferate, but stay advisory. Grants increase, but reenforce dependency. Data is collected, but mentation remains with bureaucrats. Communities are urged to participate, but lone within structures they did not design. This is multiculturalism arsenic management, not arsenic shared authorship.

What the Review does not connection is simply a communicative of integration that transcends performance. A society does not cohere simply by staging festivals oregon erecting practice museums. It coheres when institutions reflector the diverseness of the people, when decision-making powerfulness is genuinely shared, and when taste quality becomes an integral constituent of civic identity. Achieving this requires much than bureaucratic adjustment. It requires a transformation of imagination: distant from Anglo-centrism arsenic the invisible norm, and towards a polity successful which aggregate heritages represent the centre.

Until such a vision emerges, the trust the authorities seeks to invoke will stay elusive. Trust is not rebuilt done proclamations but done deeds. Ethnic communities person agelong demonstrated their trust successful the state done their labour, resilience and creativity. It is the state that indispensable present show itself worthy of theirs. Without that, the multicultural task will stay what this Review inadvertently discloses: a spectacle of difference, presided implicit by a ascendant people still uncertain however to determination from show to partnership, from tokenism to transformation, from Anglo dominance to genuine plurality.