Contesting the constructs of national identity and values

The commitment of the conservatives to these principles is dubious at best, as evidenced by Howard’s attempt to promote a more “celebratory”, as opposed to thematic and critical, approach to the teaching of history in our schools. Nevertheless, there are some values we ought to hold in common: and while, in a pluralist society, a single template is not enforced, there is nothing wrong with promoting civil liberties and the liberal and democratic values that form the basis of our political settlement.

Such values, however, should be explored and interrogated critically rather than simply being celebrated. And in a spirit of pluralism and open inquiry, these values should be considered - again in the public sphere and in our educational institutions - from all manner of ideological perspectives. (Perspectives which, incidentally, the conservatives seek to silence through their purely “celebratory” approach to history and civics education.) Enlightenment presumes open, free and unfettered critical inquiry. And this spirit, as much as the tradition of liberalism, ought to form the foundation of what we construct as “Australian values”.

Ultimately, our perceptions of “national identity” and “national values” are constructs which are constantly contested in the public sphere. Importantly, given what seems to be an inherent longing for collective identity and “belonging”, the construction of “national identity” is not terrain that should be left vacated by progressives, even if the extremes of nationalist chauvinism and militarism are ruthlessly criticised and deconstructed.

The very idea of egalitarianism has been perverted by the conservatives into an ideology of supposed “classlessness” and the shallow, shameless and opportunistic exploitation of the language of “mateship” for political gain.

Against this the progressives, those identifying broadly with the Left of the political spectrum, need to contest these ideas and categories, including the very idea of “nation” itself.

Therefore, while we should struggle for the recognition of Australia’s liberal political and social foundations, liberal rights discourse ought not to be the final word in the battle to contest “Australian values”. In particular, a liberal socialist approach would emphasise the traditions of solidarity and struggle of the Australian working class and seek to make this narrative of Australian labour the nation’s own.

While civil liberties should be defended resolutely, including the right to withdraw labour and authoritarian and terrorist approaches to socialism rejected, a rights discourse ought to be promoted which embraces so-called “social rights”: the right to quality shelter and nutrition; the right to employment, dignity of labour and a fair living wage; the right to fair and family-sensitive working conditions including, controversially, community-based childcare and a 35-hour week; the right to quality public health care, aged care and education; the right to legal representation; the right to an open, inclusive and participatory public sphere, including the provision of public space for civic purposes; the right to a minimum standard of living and a guaranteed minimum income; the right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination; the right to equal access to quality public services and infrastructure in fields as diverse as communications, banking, roads, public transport and so on.

For progressives, for democratic socialists and social liberals, the struggle to ingrain “social rights” deep in Australia’s political and popular culture and psyche as “Australian values”, in law and in tradition, is every bit as important as the struggle for civil liberties. While this agenda is inherently mutable, as relative living standards and social needs change with shifts of technology and economic fortune, the spirit of social liberal and social democratic reform ought be constant.

What creeds, then, should Australians hold in common?

As argued, liberal traditions, laws and values ought to form a foundation that ensures the liberties of all, as well as the continued development of an open and critical public sphere of debate and inquiry. Such liberal values are considered entrenched; but in a climate of fear - where the spectre of terrorism provides the rationale for a curtailment of civil liberties - their continued ascendancy is far from certain.

“Social rights”, however, are far from entrenched and what we have in the way of “social rights” are being systematically uprooted by the conservatives, while Labor offers little in the way of a coherent and principled alternative to the neo-liberal hegemony.

The construction of a national identity, centred on “social rights” and also embracing principles of good “global citizenship”, solidarity and internationalism, meanwhile will be a difficult and trying struggle that will involve reclaiming “Australian egalitarianism” and a shattering of the myth of Australian “classlessness”.