Search

Since the 1988 Bicentennial and the 2001 centenary of federation celebrations colonial images have flourished in Australia, highlighting the roles of convicts and free settlers during early colonization. Old sites, such as Port Arthur have been re-invigorated, and in 2004 Tasmanians celebrated the bicentenary of ‘white’ settlement. However, social scientists have given little attention to the role of colonial and post-colonial figures and myths as aspects of Australian national identity. We seek to address this issue by examining how convicts, free settlers, bushrangers and ANZACs are associated with contemporary identity in Australia. 2 We examine evidence from the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and find that historical figures such as the ANZACs and post-World War II immigrants comprise important aspects of national identity. A substantial majority of Australians judged ANZACs to be important, countering recent claims of the ‘demise of the digger’. Sporting heroes are also at the core of Australian identity. Colonial figures appear to be far less important, although views on national identity vary according to social location. In particular, left-wing, university educated, younger, postmaterialist Australians view convicts and bushrangers as relatively important, indicating the salience of the larrikin in Australian identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we address tensions in Marshall's account of the successive emergence of civil, political and social rights in citizenship. These tensions were Marshall's implicit and typically modern assumption of human nature, his privileging of the analytical rationality that follows from it, and the disjunction between the fixity of that rationality and the 'evolution' of his central metaphor. When he returned to it by emphasizing strains between democratic, welfare and capitalist moments that were co-present in the 'hyphenated society' rather than successive, he did so in a pessimistic tone at odds with the progressive modernism of his first schema. Although Marshall noted that conflicting principles in citizenship arose 'from the very roots of our social order', he did not elaborate the point in this first tripartite model. We argue that by adopting a single and typically modern form of rationality Marshall foreclosed on the contradictions that he held to be characteristic of academic disputes over citizenship. Since Mannheim had focused on the effects of such contradictions, his work allows a fruitful revisiting of Marshall's themes. To blend the two models we read Marshall through Karl Mannheim's early studies of political knowledge. Here Mannheim had anticipated the shift from stages to co-presence, and had prefigured a resolution of Marshall's sense of impasse. In his account of liberal, socialist and conservative thought-styles - the ways of seeing and knowing that are characteristic of particular ways of life - he saw political change as a dynamic interactive effect of individually calculating, dialectically collective and culturally symbolic forms of rationality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]