CONTINENTAL  PHILOSOPHY  GROUP
BLUE MOUNTAINS MINI-PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE II (12.11.00)

GROUPS - in the Australian socio-cultural context

Lindsay Mell

GROUPS - in the Australian socio-cultural context

Australian acceptance and embrace of the new globalist ethos has fuelled socio-cultural policies of closer integration of the nation within its Asia/ Pacific region. Accordingly, this has prompted immense interest in Australia from among Asian people of various backgrounds. Consequently, many Asian people are attracted enough through this situation to base themselves in Australia if this possibility is available to them. 

The reality is that, while such people mostly seem to interact quite vitally across cultural dimensions in certain situations, such as the workplace, and through other forms of day-to-day activity, they are often much more reticent in facing the prospect of substantial or close interpersonal interaction in this western socio-cultural context. Even where such interaction is actually initially possible, and/or welcomed by those involved, the overbearing influence of entrenched family tradition and convention frequently thwarts deep interpersonal interaction and connection. Although, thankfully, indications these preoccupations may be changing cross-culturally among younger people are evident, it would seem multicultural and cultural diversity policies designed to address such concerns are often perceived as floundering in this respect. 

What happens in the wake of such policies is that often those concerned grow into a pattern of interacting even almost idyllically, at times, in functional situations such as the workplace. Yet, away from these necessary environments, they often revert to interactive patterns which purposely protect them from any spontaneous, or potentially serendipitous, involvement or interaction. 

Meanwhile, resistance among the established western-based cultural groups continues to also often encourage avoidance of such interpersonal interaction and/or involvement, other than what is considered functional, necessary and/or superficial. 

Ultimately, most regrettably, often an ethic of superficiality and mediocrity then feeds the whole socio-cultural milieu so that, in the cross-cultural context, people are only really able to interact interpersonally in essentially insubstantial and shallow ways. This resembles what was at least in part the reality of interpersonal relations in general among advanced western democratic societies until there was a broad acceptance of interpersonal growth psychology principles with the advent of the 1960s and 1970s reform movements in this realm. 

Now, with the growth of mass cultural integration in a severely collapsed time frame, we seem to be back to where we were at the outset with these interpersonal concerns, as invigorating and vital as the new cultural integration process has been in the Australian socio-cultural context. 

It must be emphasised here that the infamous Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield initiatives are really symptomatic of this situation, rather than necessarily serving in a strictly causal role, from this perspective. Although it must also be admitted that every form of force and/or energy in the socio-cultural context becomes a distinctive element in the whole course of developments. 

What I would contend is that the neo-nationalist elements which have recently emerged have grown from the tension around cultural groupings which was already plainly evident before these elements prevailed. The recent initiatives then became attempts to locate the cause of such tensions, in some sense, and were positioned strategically as a blatant reaction to these. So the reaction seemed to gravitate more around the tension itself which had emerged from the prevailing situation, rather than positing any truly coherent way forward in presuming to deal with it. 

Generational tension

This new form of positioning in socio-cultural group behaviour seems to be growing from a deep sense of disillusionment with the prevailing nature and process of group development in Australian society and culture. 

Until now, the process of typical group interaction occurred primarily on the basis of age association. Regardless of the resonant significance of personal character, values and trends, most Australians seem to have been prepared to largely jettison these important attributes for the sake of relating with people of their own age grouping and/or dimension. So what has really mattered in the socialisation process has been for people to find someone, or some friends, of one's own appropriate age grouping, and interact with them as a prevailing principle. 

Hence generational groupings have become the norm in the Australian socio-cultural context. People have tended to gravitate to meaningful involvement primarily, even exclusively in many instances, with others of their own approximate age. Predictably, the outcome has been a great deal of tension between the respective generational camps, with each group appearing most protective and precious of their own interests. 

The greatest instance of arch-rivalry among the tension of generationalism in Australia would have been witnessed in the late 1960s through to the 1970s, when the emergent 'Babyboomers' challenged their forbears over the evident resistant conservatism of the established generation in socio-cultural terms. The intensely passionate idealism of the Boomers was supported by the mega youth movements brewing in contintental Europe and North America. 

Probably because of the ebullient and challenging nature of their quest (always dangerous and threatening characteristics from the perspective of the Australian Establishment), the idealism of the youth movements was quickly quelled here.  While attempts were made to homogenise the spirit of this quest through pragmatic assimilation policies and approaches. 

However, what is evident is that the Babyboomers, while still semi-consciously retaining the deep-seated ebullience of their youth, have now thwarted their appropriate opportunities to express this throughout time, by selling out their legacy to the neo-pragmatists. Because, in the current dominantly pragmatic socio-cultural context, the Boomers have been mostly prevailed on to sell out their propensity to discern, interpret and explain the real legacy and heritage of their backgrounds and achievements for the sake of maintaining the tightly ordered and socially engineered status quo. 

Those who represent the contemporary ruling socio-cultural elite seek to retain such order as a bulwark against the perceived tension and chaotic nature of the contemporary socio-cultural context. 

Meanwhile, the Babyboomers, as the most numerous group in Australian society and culture - although certainly not the most formidable - tend to be withering in true significance as a social group in the face of a compromised mandate through which to explain the significance and meaning of their quest(s) in socio-cultural terms. 

How this is happening is evidenced in various ways, and in many different contexts. However, one of the most blatant instances was evident as recently as during the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games, with the Games held in Sydney from September through to October of 2000. 

Opening Ceremony observations 

Before embarking on this analysis, it must surely be admitted this was an excellent Opening Ceremony in what it did portray. Apparently genuine efforts were advanced to revive the long lost element of spirituality, which has been recessive and problematic in our socio-cultural heritage for many years now.  The way through which this facet of life was presented was somewhat momentous, memorable and spectacular, from my perspective. 

Clearly evident also was an appropriate blending of each cultural facet, so that neither one could be said to appear to take precedence over another.  Each facet was geared to contribute to an holistic presentation, and an appreciation of our cultural heritage from this broad perspective. 

Nevertheless, all this having been duly recognised and admitted, quite pertinently it was most noticeable that the socio-cultural 'content' of the Opening Ceremony didn't actually really venture beyond the 1950s. Most significantly, the highly geared developmental era of the 1950s was the final period covered by the continuous historical and cultural narrative analysis presented, which ranged through what were advanced as various historical phases of our growth to nationhood and the 1950s.

The young girl who became such an icon of the ceremony was clearly intended to represent the contemporary generation, along with the Aboriginal elder as a valid representative of our indigenous culture, and the ultimate appearance of Cathy Freeman as the pinnacle of achievement in these contexts. Yet the whole historical period from, say, 1960 through to the present was omitted from the ceremony coverage, as if this represented a blank phase, 
or more likely a blot, on our national character. 

Again, this reality comes across as a particular slur for the Babyboomers, for it was during the period of the 1960s to 1970s the core of the Boomers provided probably their most pertinent contributions to our socio-cultural heritage to date. This was conveyed through their resonant ideals and passion for social reform, all of which have become considerably dissipated and deplete in contemporary terms. 

Another aspect of the Opening Ceremony, again most significantly, 
was the focus on 'work' and 'sport' as the key fields of achievement for Australians. These twin aspects of endeavour permeated the whole realm of consideration advanced through the ceremony, such that other areas of endeavour were excluded. 

Snippets of certain post-1950s cultural periods were represented by the various pop/rock performances, along with similar items presented for other aspects of the Olympic events.  Yet this display was noticeably and significantly distanced from the Australian heritage review. This, in itself, constitutes the strongest contemporary evidence to date that the collective significance, meaning, heritage and legacy of these post-1950s periods is yet to be consolidated. 

The 'Ned Kellys' were one of the few purely artistic icons celebrated in any notable form.  Even the Sydney Harbour Bridge was only really promoted as an exhibition of engineering prowess ... And what of the feats of our explorers, along with pioneers such as Kingsford Smith and Ian Kiernan, or even Sir Donald Bradman in the field of sport? ... Or our humanitarian initiatives through Caroline Chisholm, Fred Hollows, Mary McKillop, and the like? 

An opening ceremony can't cover or incorporate everything, of course.  
What I am simply asserting here is the reality that there were certain aspects which were most distinguishable by their absence ... And clearly how promoters present such a highly geared statement of our socio-cultural heritage as this will provide an acute insight into what is ultimately most important for them, to a considerable extent, through what it is they leave out. 

Clearly those who were involved with developing and promoting the 'process' which culminated in the 'event' of the Sydney Olympics will hope the collaborative momentum and spirit of this event can be sustained, and ultimately purveyed into other facets of our national activity. This would then serve as the means through which the 'eventilisation' of the Olympics would culminate in a permanent expression of the ebullient spirit which seemed to characterise the event, while retaining the essential reverence of spirituality as a theme. 

What we need

The challenge which then emerges is to ascertain the essential collective attributes (or 'qualities') Australians would need to embody to interact cohesively and consistently across cultural and generational groups. 

Certainly, what would be required would be a clear sense of responsibility to carry through with a continuous commitment to the initiative of sustained group interaction, and proceed into the future on this basis. 

What we all need to do is to know and feel the human element - humanity - is the vital focus of our collective endeavours ... with the emphasis on 'people', not 'sport' ... or, at least, not on sport for its own sake, or on any other medium of experience as a consuming element in this sense. 

The abiding theme of sporting achievement realised through the context of spirituality was the underlying theme of the 2000 Olympics Opening Ceremony.  This featured as the most positive way through which to integrate the aspects of spirituality and sporting aspiration/achievement. 

However, when sport becomes a 'religion' in itself, as Yamaha Corporation representatives have recently asserted through their material, then the human element - the people involved, including ourselves - is obliged to accept a subservient place to the hegemony of sport. Hence the concerted effort to promote the image of sport becomes an ideology in itself. Sport then becomes the pervasive context of (inter)personal relations. Thence everything other than sport, spirituality included, merely reflects this context, rather than constituting an independent place and contribution to the whole experience of life. 

Only through each person taking responsibility for their respective evolving forms of awareness and appreciation of these cultural and social influences can people truly come to terms with, and suitably contribute to, the evolution of cultural and social reality. Meanwhile, such awareness and appreciation permeates personal experience and reality essentially through the effect of such forms of social engineering as the Olympics.

However, personal responsibility in itself isn't enough to foster the realisation of such comprehensive awareness and appreciation. Over time what is required is a progressive proactive movement which serves as the inherent support for forming such character attributes. 

Essentially, people need to realise a form of collective maturity which I have termed mutual maturity as the basis for such (inter)personal responsibility, in my view. Yet this is not a quality which can be targeted and strived for in the manner of sporting achievements or business/corporate goals and/or objectives. Rather it is a quality which is acquired over time.  Hence, whether or not it can, or will be, so acquired, is never guaranteed, nor predictable. However, it is understood applying certain modes of relationship and interaction may prove conducive and/or supportive for the cultivation of such mutual maturity. 

It is natural to presume the aspect of communication is the fundamental element in all this. What follows from this is often the superficial perspective that, by resolving any communication issues involved, progress will inevitably prevail in interpersonal relations. 

Positive interpersonal communication will not in itself result in relations among people becoming embued with the qualities of collective maturity and personal responsibility. People collectively, in the socio-cultural context, need to feel they are relating in authentic ways, through which they are able to share feeling, as well as thought, in communicating perception and perspective. 

Hence people need to be able to connect perceptually through forms of empathy. As people progressively acquire greater qualities of empathy they can develop their propensity for treating each other with greater sensitivity. 

Sensitivity is essential in vitalising perception ... It is the crucial element which enables perception to be shared between and among people in ways which transcend yet incorporate the attributes of trust and respect. What then emerges is a much more expansive perspective of interpersonal interaction, and consequently of the quality of positive regard through which people treat each other. 

Moreover, in its link through the common essence of 'sense', sensitivity is also directly associated with sensibility, and therefore the awareness people have of their sense perception relative to other aspects of their experience, and of reality as they have come to realise it. 

Perhaps the most touted and celebrated of attributes associated with contemporary socio-cultural interaction is that of respect. Formerly, particularly in the Australian context, the more lowly geared attribute of 'tolerance' (if it can be feasibly termed an attribute) was widely regarded as the key characteristic needed to keep socio-cultural relations among individuals and groups in a relatively settled mode of interaction. 

The problem identified with tolerance, however, reflected in my own work on this, along with that of Hugh Mackay, was that in the Australian context it harboured colloquial overtones of 'putting up with' ... whoever or whatever.  So people would typically grudgingly be prepared to accept others and their differing cultural and group backgrounds in the sense of 'putting up with' their differences. 

Hopefully, Australians are now gradually realising the inadequacy of such an approach, and will progressively continue to realise the abundant benefits of preferring to cultivate and foster greater resources of genuine collective respect and mutual maturity. 

 - Lindsay Mell (12.11.00)