White Australia Literature Review

When studying issues concerning Australia's contemporary migration policies, the researchers (Caldwell 23; Smith n.p.) assume that they are rooted in the late 18th century. The Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders people have been living on the territory of modern Australia for thousands of years, whereas the British settlers arrived in 1788 (Smith n.p.).

Best Price To Buy
Type of assignment
Writer level
Urgency
Number of pages
Order total: $ 12.99
First order only: $ 11.04

Nevertheless, since the first European contact, these people have faced severe discrimination in all spheres of life, whereas the ethnic minorities have assimilated with the settlers, which led to mixed heritage and identity. The scholars agree that the indigenous people were recognized as the British subject under British common law (Ballyn 17), and despite the promised equality between the British subjects, they were treated as inferior people. The British subjectivity coexisted with Australian citizenship introduced in 1948 under the Nationality and Citizenship Act (Caldwell 24).

White Australia Policy

Among the most significant policies that determined the presence of Australia's migration legislation, the White Australia Policy takes the first place (Caldwell 25; Driesen and Ashcroft 389). Under this policy, the descendants of the Europeans were distinguished from the rest population and superior to the descendants of other races. As such, White Australia is a generalizing term that involves policies, aimed at marginalizing the Asian people and people from the Pacific Islands. In 1901, within the Immigration Restriction Act, the White Australia Policy was considered governmental (Meaney 174). To illustrate the White Australia policy in action, the researchers, including Robertson, Honmann, and Stewart (242) as well as Drusen and Ashcroft (389) analyzed the discursive practices of the officials, responsible for migration legislation. The speech of the first Prime Minister of Australia demonstrates how the White Australia policy was perceived by the government in response to the public's concerns regarding the clarity of the nation. He stated that racial equality does not exist, and basic inequality should be recognized. In addition, he underlined the superiority of the white race, whereas other races are inferior (Driesen and Ashcroft 389). Drusen and Ashcroft viewed such a discriminative policy as a legacy of imperialist policy. Later, Alfred Deakin, who was the second Prime Minister and the Father of Australian liberalism, added to the differentiation of whites and non-whites. He characterized the Aboriginal people as dark' based on their skin color, while this darkness was also associated with the absence of white people on the continent (Driesen and Ashcroft 389).

First-time customers get 15%OFF

Furthermore, he supposed that Australia would remain a white continent without black or dark skin color people: the descendants of the Aboriginals were dying, and other races were excluded. It allows assuming that before the wars, the government proceeded with the normative whiteness discourse, which excluded people of color completely. Thus, the government followed public concerns on the racial issues and tried to ensure that Australia will remain a nation of the British people's descendants. However, the researchers state that the White Australia policy was not only an immigration governmental policy but also a nationalist doctrine. According to Tavan (10), it reflected the desire of Australia to remain a white nation, the descendants of the British people, who wanted to extend their state in the South. Taken broadly, the White Australia policy comprised a range of acts, united by a common goal, which was to maintain a white British national identity. Though governmental policies of that time used migration legislation as a tool of racial exclusion, the terms race' and white' were not used in official documents.

Both the empirical reality behind the current migration legislation and the policies themselves were critically examined in terms of their attitude towards non-British immigrants by a range of researchers, including Kokegei (9), Tavan (n. p.), and Meaney (173). Overall, these researchers focus on the same aspects when addressing the key points of the law: priority of British heritage and allowance of immigrants with a European heritage. Kokegei noted that under the Nationality and Citizenship Act, all non-European immigrants have to be excluded from Australia, while many people were prohibited to enter Australia (45). Robertson, Hohmann, and Stewart noted that the illegal immigrants had to be deported from Australia, while the candidates had to pass a dictation test in any European language to remove people, undesirable to the Australian Government (241). This test is referred to as a manifestation of governmental policies' hypocrisy: the applicants were instructed to write a diction test, made of 50 words in any European language, excluding English. The decision was made by the police officers, who knew the origin of the candidates and has chosen the language, unfamiliar to them. For 50 years, nearly two thousand immigrants took the test, which means that it was a preventive means of the immigrants' arrival to Australia (Robertson, Hohmann, and Stewart 242). While most researchers agree that the discourse on the superiority of White British civilization and identity served as a protection from a potential negative influence, coming from strangers and associated with the British colonial legacy, several researchers state that the White Australia policy was also used to pursue particular forms of enterprise: the labeling of goods with the participation of the non-whites made it a mechanism of contest among the businessmen (Tavan 9).

Assimilation of German Immigrants

Post-war migration policies of Australia are paid sufficient attention to due to the intensive migration of refugees and immigrants. This attention is frequently paid to the destiny of particular populations (German, Polish, and people from Asia), focusing on the appropriateness of the new conditions and their adoption of them. Kokegei studied the features of Germans' assimilation and integration into Australian society (5). The author's analysis is useful in terms of German identity transformations due to particular initiatives, such as recruiting scientists and workers, as well as its comprehensive evaluation of these people's or government's interests. The German community in Australia, created after World War II, was selected to illustrate the impact of the Australian policies on European refugees. Homburg, a German-Australian parliamentarian, documented the acceptance and discrimination of the German refugees and demonstrated their assimilation into the mainstream Australian culture. In particular, the scholar underlined that South Australia treated the refugees and interlopers as outsiders.

The researchers who studied the perception of migration policies by the Australian society found that the perception of German immigrants evolved from hostility to ambivalence and enthusiasm. It is worth marking that the post-war migration policies towards Germans are different from those towards other populations: since numerous scientists and tradesmen of anti-Nazi orientation came to Australia, the government recruited them between 1947 and 1952. The studies of that time, dedicated to German migration, view this process within an assimilation framework – the immigrants built their own houses and spoke English instead of German. Other theorists saw the collaboration between the Germans and the government, which was viewed as a sign of successful assimilation. Despite the discourse on assimilation and cooperation, the realities of German immigrants demonstrated that they experienced a lot of difficulties because they had to possess or show distinguished abilities to be recruited. In this context, the language policy of the Government in terms of migration issues appears interesting. For instance, to meet the needs of German immigrants, the number of German newspapers had to be increased. It is a contradictory view that the press had to contribute to the integration of the German population in economic, social, and cultural terms, and then disappear. Despite the retention of the German language, the immigrants spoke English due to pragmatic concerns.

The scholars who studied German assimilation offered the ideas of acculturation than assimilation (Kokegei 10). They argue that the Germans did not need places that maintained German culture beyond the initial settlement years, which considerably promoted Germans' acculturation. As demonstrated above, there are various interpretations of the Australian migration policies of the 1950s, including assimilation, acculturation, and integration practices. Nevertheless, most researchers agree that the early policies were designed to follow pragmatic purposes, associated with basic improved services for the Germans (Kokegei 12). The following decades were marked by the liberalization of Australian migration policies, which was accompanied by the tendency of immigrants to mix with the Australian population.

Polish Immigrants in Australia: Australian Polonia

The destiny of polish immigrants in Australia was studied by many researchers, among them Markowski and Williams. They provided an analysis of Polish people's identity and stated that these immigrants blended into the Australian host community; however, they managed to save the elements of their distinct identity and created a diaspora (13). On the one hand, the researchers claim that the Australian remoteness led to the formation of ethnic communities, the newcomers have left behind. On the other hand, this remoteness accelerated migrant absorption into the host community, including the loss of immigrants' national identity (Markowski and Williams 13). Australian Polonia is a name of a diaspora that unites Polish immigrants' ancestors. The researchers claim that the formation of Australian Polonia was possible due to plurality and multiculturalism. However, Barett, Davidoff, and Duhs do not support such an optimistic position.

When addressing the position of Polish immigrants, Markowski and Williams state that the newcomers living in the isolated migrant camp did not speak English freely. They learned English during gradual exposure to Australian society and at work, but they wanted to bend to the Australian society with its assimilation policies. However, by the end of the 1950s, they had become a well-organized community with associations, clubs, and churches. Moreover, in 1950, the Federal Council of Polish Associations was established to organize social and cultural engagements, based on Polish culture. The next Polish immigrants stuck to the existing infrastructure of Polish culture, which has contributed to its strengthening. As assumed by Markowski and Williams (17), instead of entire assimilation to the broader Australian society, the Polish immigrants developed links with their native culture within the Australian community. The second wave of Polish immigrants was more skilled, educated, and fluent in English, which led to higher expectations towards the settlement in Australia. On the other hand, the Australian White Policy direction has considerably transformed: it focused on the integration of immigrants. In particular, the government held that the maintenance of immigrants' links with their native culture and nationality are not threatening and, therefore, are compatible with integration into Australia (Markowski and Williams 18). However, the researchers note that the attachment to the Polish culture has considerably declined among the second and further generations (18).

Stolen Generations Issue

The program, called Stolen Generations, which implied the removal of Aboriginals' children from their families under various rationales, is frequently considered one of the most emotive issues in the past Australian migration policies. Though it is a widely discussed topic, the historical data on it is limited: the full-blooded aboriginals had not been counted in Australia until the referendum of 1967 (Davidoff and Duhs 2). However, such a phenomenon has gathered sufficient public attention in recent years, which led to the celebration of National Sorry Day on the 13th of February in 2008. Davidoff and Duhs (2) call the Stolen Generations a national shame, which is also met by other theorists (Lavarch 23; Read 14, Haebich 37, Laster 189; Barett 1). Davidoff and Duh state that the removal of Aboriginals' children by the colonists has been practiced since the 18th century, however, non-Aboriginals could not believe that it could happen, while the victims felt shame and were silent (2-3). The first historian who started talking about this national shame' was Peter Read, empowered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1981.

Laster viewed history as a part of a national narrative (190) and, therefore, assumed that the entire history of Australia is an artificial construct, manifested in the slogan “We Dub the Nation.” To prove her point, the researcher mentions s that the federation of the colonies into the States of the Commonwealth was accompanied by the slogan A Nation for a Continent(Laster 190). The researcher states that historical evaluations of Australia's policies towards the Aboriginals are usually positive (191), which may be confirmed by the above-mentioned fact that the researchers seek traces of contemporary democracy and multiculturalism in Australia in its migration legislation of the middle of the 20th century.

According to Barett (1), the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission called Bringing them Home, released in 1997, was the first inquiry into the Stolen Generations issues, conducted on the national level. This report is made of 500 stories of ingenious Australians, who were taken from their families (Lavach 6). Since this report was created within a legal discourse and was sanctioned by the government itself (Beretta 2), its meaning lies in giving a voice to the victims of the Stolen Generations, who have never been listened to (Frow 2). Such an evaluation may be found in numerous authors, including Schaffer (6), who stated that this report empowered the indigenous speakers to take their place and space in the national culture, which was unavailable for them before. It means that despite the awareness of the Stolen Generations, due to the creation of the discourse on the Indigenous Australians' past and present, these people became visible and distinguished from the rest national culture. On the one hand, it may be interpreted as the attitude towards the aboriginals as to different people – the recognition of the difference in their identity and legitimation of their sensation of their difference from the rest of Australians. On the other hand, these people are included in the history of the Australian nation – namely, the past and present of Australia include their own stories, as well as other people's stories.

Assimilation and Absorption

The researchers agree that the documents indicate that the reason for children's removal from their mothers was that they were dying off (Laster 190; Beretta 2). The matter is that the officials recognized a considerable decline of Aboriginal full-blooded populations because these people were not able to sustain themselves, as well as look after the children. One should pay attention to the words full-blooded' and mixed' children: they reflect the official's belief in the role of blood, which was supposed to transmit cognitive functions and, therefore, the ability to adapt. Meaney (173) as well as other scholars, therefore, believed that the mixed-race children (of Aboriginal Australians and whites) could be trained to work in the white society, whereas soon their descendants would marry the whites to fully assimilate into the Australian society. Such behavior is based on European Australians' belief in the superiority of white civilization to the Aboriginal Australians due to technological advancements. The radical opinions even state that the proliferation of mixed descendants, referred to as half-castes, crossbreeds, quadroons, or octoroons, are a threat to the nature of the prevailing white civilization.

step 1
Step 1
Place an order
arrow
step 2
Step 2
Safe and Secure
Payment Procedure
arrow
step 3
Step 3
Communication
policies
arrow
step 4
Step 4
Downloading the
Completed Order
arrow
step 5
Step 5
Leave your
Feedback

In this respect, the remarkable speech proclaimed by Cecil Cook, the Northern Territory Chief Protector of Aboriginals, may be interpreted as the manifestation of the above-mentioned approach: “everything necessary must be done to convert the half-castle into a white citizen” (Chesterman and Douglas 47). Such a policy may be interpreted as assimilation, which took place between the 1930s and 1960s. The Aboriginal Affairs ministers usually state that the full-blood and half-blood Aboriginals will receive the same living conditions as other Europeans and the rest of its members, at the same time, accepting the same responsibilities, and having the same customs, hopes, loyalties, and beliefs (48). Chesterman and Douglas refute the seeming simplicity of the concept of assimilation (48). McGregor confirmed their position and added that assimilation was a discourse that produced completely diverse perspectives on Aboriginals' children's destinies (112). Hence, according to Chesterman and Douglas, assimilation is a two-fold process: biological absorption implies the removal of the Indigenous' physical characteristics, whereas social integration means that cultural practices of the Indigenous would yield to it of non-Indigenous populations. Overall, within assimilation discourse, the three groups of theories may be distinguished: biological absorption (breeding out), social integration, and dying race. Chesterman and Douglas also stated that among the interpretations of assimilation policy, the researchers usually emphasize the coercive practices, under which the authorities make the Indigenous people leave the cultural practices, familiar to them, in favor of the new practices to merge with the dominant white culture (49).

Chesterman and Douglas state that before the 1930s, one of the governmental policies had been directed toward the isolation of full-blood' Indigenous people on reserves (49). The half-castes were also considered Aboriginal and sent to reserves. Since it was difficult to distinguish the Aboriginals from the non-Aboriginals due to people of mixed forebears, the skin color was considered to indicate individuals belonging to a particular group (49). In terms of administrative issues, such an indicator allowed easily defining the subjects of the protection legislation, whereas, ideologically, whiteness as an indicator of the non-Aboriginals emphasized the significance of whiteness as a sign of supreme civilization, which succeeded in colonization (Chesterman and Douglas 49). However, from a different perspective, there were other rules: in some states, the social practices defined the Aboriginal heritage instead of skin color. Further, Wolfe demonstrated the ideological difficulty, associated with the increasing population of mixed races: “European society was unified in contradistinction to the Aborigines and vice versa; the two categories mutually constructed each other. Thus, hybridity was repulsive because, in threatening the black category, it thereby threatened the white one as well” (Wolfe 37). In other words, as agreed by Chesterman and Douglas, there was an economic necessity for half-castes, as the community could avoid expenditures on them and even earn thanks to their labor (48). Other evidence of the government's pragmatic interest in half-castes was provided by the state that “the progressive blood of the white man pulses in the veins of these people together with that of their native ancestors…let them populate our land” (Chesterman and Douglas 49). Despite the economic usefulness' of half-castes, there were fears among the whites that the ancestor of mixed race could take place of the whites and start dominating, whereas the whites would be replaced by the colored majority(Chesterman and Douglas 49). This fear is expressed in the words of the above-mentioned Cecil Cook, who claimed that in case, the black population is not absorbed into white as soon as possible, in 5 years the white population would be absorbed by the black (49). This approach is reflected in the report of 1937, where assimilation policy was a matter of discussion: in particular, it was declared that the children of the full-blood natives should be educated according to the white standards and placed in employment to avoid their social and economic conflicts with the white community (Chesterman and Douglas 50). The semi-civilized natives had to be kept under benevolent supervision. The uncivilized natives were recommended to be preserved through the establishment of inviolable reserves (Chesterman and Douglas 50). One of the most powerful policies, aimed at integrating the mixed people into the white society was their absorption by the white society.

Liberalization of Immigration Legislation

Due to multiply shifts within Australia's immigration policies, the Immigration Restriction Act was removed by the Migration Act of 1958, which did not have restrictions of the previous version, while a universal visa system took place instead of the dictation tests (Kokegei 7; Meaney 173; Tavan n.p.). This Act that forbade the entry of non-European immigrants for 65 years was removed by the less restrictive Migration Act of 1966.

Despite the restrictions and discrimination, many of the refugees crossed Australia: while some of them had left the country by the end of World War II, others married Australian women. The decision to deport those people, who wanted to stay in Australia, led to numerous protests; therefore, 800 non-European refugees were allowed to stay.

Another major step toward immigrant-friendly policies was done in 1957 when Australian citizenship became available for non-Europeans, who were residents of Australia for 15 years. Soon in the same year, it was stated by the Australian Immigration Minister that the migration of non-Europeans could be accepted based on the candidates' characteristics – whether they fit the needs of the government and may be useful for Australia (Kokegei 30). However, the government decreased the restrictions, imposed on non-Europeans: the terms 'distinguished and highly qualified' were replaced by 'well qualified', while the number of immigrants, allowed to enter Australia, increased. Overall, in 1966 the migration of non-European immigrants started to increase, which implied considerable transformations in Australian immigration policies. In particular, all the immigrants independently from origin had an opportunity to become citizens of Australia after 3 years of residence. Race as the factor that is considered in migration policies was removed, while the international agreements were ratified.

Immigration Policies of the Post-war Period

Since the post-war period is marked by the transformation of previous migration legislation courses, these innovations are frequently referred to as the sources of contemporary Australian multiculturalism (Koleth n.p.). After World War II, the government faced that Australia needed a larger population to maintain 1% of the annual increase in population. It was possible only due to a new migration policy, thanks to which the immigrants could defend the state and promote its development (Koleth n.p). The first waves of immigration were accompanied by the slogan "Populate or Perish." It is worth marking linguistic shifts: the new terms were added to the discourse on migration policies. Instead of the terms 'wog' ('non-white) and 'pommy' (British) were replaced by 'New Australians. Due to immigration, around 1 million immigrants settled in Australia in the following 15 years. That period was characterized by the migrant assimilation policy, according to which the immigrants have to assimilate into the current Australian culture (Koleth n.p.).

Due to such a considerable transformation, the first sociological and demographic studies on post-war immigration programs appeared. The comprehensive synthesis of those researchers was conducted by Kokegei in her thesis, dated 2012. According to her thesis, one of the first distinguished researchers on the social consequences of Australian immigration policies was Charle Price (7). Migrant assimilation was the basic model and the key research area of early studies, including Price's works. Among the factors that determine assimilation, Price identified the migrant's ability to assimilate, the characteristics of the receiving society, as well as the background, motives, and expectations. The importance of Price's findings lies in the recognition of a variety of psychological, sociological, and historical factors that determine the behavior of immigrants. They are not viewed as 'tabula rasa' - their culture and personal experiences must be considered when predicting their life in the new place. Another considerable contribution to assimilation discourse was Borrie's studies. The scholar viewed assimilation as a two-way process instead of simply an implosion of one's culture on other people. Borrie claimed that assimilation merges between the migrants and the Australians, while they do not have to become similar. Borrie underlined that the differences between them should not prevent the migrants from participating in economic, cultural, and social life. This approach conceptualizes assimilation and legitimizes it as a non-violent approach. Borrie's major contribution lies in the transformation of discourse on immigration policies: in 1956, he offered the idea of migrant integration instead of assimilation (Kokegei 9). Jean Martin was the first scholar, who studied the experiences of the refugees, focusing on the progress of their assimilation. Martin defined assimilation as an individual migrant's way to adapt to living in a new society, which inquired into immigration policies more personalized. The researcher also proved that governmental policies on assimilation do not fit the empirical reality, which makes the process less effective than it could be. Furthermore, these policies should be long-lasting, while the governmental migration policies, based on Martin's studies, were poorly designed. Martin surveyed immigrants in 1953 and 1961 and found considerable changes in their perception of themselves and Australia. In particular, the researcher noticed that the migrants were refugees and newcomers in the beginning, but in 10 years, most of them mixed with Australians and less with Europeans. Martin also stated that the new Australian identity they are supposed to acquire depends on their interactions with the new environment – the circumstances, in which they live. It is worth noting that despite that the history of migration practices in Australia in the field of interest for contemporary scholars, the first Australian researchers on this issue were paid the least attention, excluding the above-mentioned Kokegei (7).

Free Extras
  • Free revision (within 2 days)
  • Free title page
  • Free bibliography
  • Free outline (on request)
  • Free email delivery
  • Free formatting
We Guarantee
  • Quality research and writing
  • BA, MA and Ph.D. degree writers
  • 100% confidentiality
  • No hidden charges
  • Never resold works
  • 100% authenticity
  • 24/7/365 Customer Support
Free formatting
  • 12pt. Times New Roman
  • Double/Single-spaced papers
  • 1inch margins
  • Any citation style
  • Fully referenced papers
  • Up-to-date sources

It is worth noting that the researchers confirm that the Australian colonial past has eventually led to the creation of the multicultural and pluralist state (Kokegei 8, Markowski and Williams 13). According to Markowski and Williams, during the 60 years, Australia has transformed from an Anglo-Celtic society of the pre-war period into a pluralist society in the 2000s (13). Such a transition led to the opportunity for immigrants to develop a complex, blended identity instead of fitting to a legitimized social frame, which is imposed by a dominant ethnic group (Markowski and Williams 17). These authors also claim that the formation of the above-mentioned Polish diaspora - Australian Polonia - is a manifestation of Australian multiculturalism (Markowski and Williams 16). Markowski and Williams (16) conceptualize the emergence of the diaspora with a sense of belonging – if the diaspora wants to blend into the host community, it may be forced to form attachments that will not be accepted by the host community. It underlines a two-fold nature of belonging – on the one hand, it is inclusive of those, who belong to it and exclusive towards those, who do not belong to it. Another issue of belonging is that it is inclusive towards multiply communities – the individuals are allowed to belong to and be attached to multiply social entities. Markowski and Williams conceptualize it as a feature of pluralist societies – they provide a degree of choice to enter numerous memberships (18).

One of the few official documents on the transformations of Australia into a pluralist state is the exploration of the history of the Immigration Department, provided by the department itself. It is worth noting that the foundation of the given discussion of migration policy shifts provides a comprehensive synthesis of multiply events and programs, relevant to the issue. As was stated previously, according to the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948, the Australians remained British subjects and British nationals. It had not been the case by 1984, when under the Australian Citizenship Act, Australia resisted the move to create distinct Australian citizenship outside of the British Subject Status (Rubenstein 40). Furthermore, it was impossible to maintain double citizenship for immigrants, who wanted to acquire citizenship of any other country and Australia at the same time. However, since 2002, it has become possible for Australian nationals to gain citizenship from any other country and even dual nationality, under the 2007 Australian Citizenship Act.

Since the 1950s, the Australian migration policies have considerably changed: the Immigration Department started to encourage immigration from more than 30 European countries, including Austria, Spain, Greece, Norway, the United States, as well as other countries. According to the Commonwealth of Australia, the migration rate from non-British countries represented about two-thirds of the program (35). In 1955, the Department implemented the program of family members' reunions, called Operation Reunion. This scheme was welcoming the immigrants from overseas to settle with their families, who are living in Australia. It led to the rise of migration from East Europe, which together made around 30 000 people (commonwealth of Australia 35). Hence, by 1961, 9% of the Australian population had not been of British origin; however, British immigration was encouraged. The Ten Pound Pom, for instance, was a scheme, under which British nationals from other colonies were encouraged to move to Australia for ? 10 for a healthy adult under 45 years old (commonwealth of Australia 35). Another program, targeted toward British ancestors was called Bring out a Briton: it encouraged Australians to sponsor British families, settling in Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 36). Though the immigration of the British was strongly encouraged, it did not mean that the non-British were not welcomed. It is worth emphasizing the statement, made by the officials, which referred to But this is a British country.' In this announcement, it was stated that despite the efforts of non-British immigrants being appreciated, Australia remains a British country. Additionally, Australian responsibilities and blood are tightly tied to the British Commonwealth, which implies the desire to control the balance between the British and non-British immigrants, as well as the immigrants from other countries (commonwealth of Australia 39). Overall, it may be interpreted as the progress of immigration policy due to the extension of the legitimized immigrants. Nevertheless, the desire to maintain the British race and the fear of alien immigrants due to possible threats are still present. It may be illustrated by the Big Brother Movement, which involved young British males from disadvantaged backgrounds, who was assigned to adult from Australia. The adult was instructed to assist the young British male in integrating into mainstream culture (commonwealth of Australia 39). This policy was called to be the most successful migration program for youth; however, it confirms double standards in Australian migration legislation. Whereas the non-British immigrants had to be advantageous for Australia and demonstrate their good health, education, and skills, the British migrants were not required to be advantageous. Essentially, this aspect does not deny the progress of migration policies but underlines its gradual character. Such a vision was confirmed by the Commonwealth of Australia, as some people believed that alien thought, as well as dubious loyalty, impose a threat on Australia (40). Within the assimilation discourse, naturalization was emphasized: since the 1950s, the Department has been responsible for giving the status of Australian citizens, which led to the increase of naturalizations from 5,000 to 49,000 in 1959 (commonwealth of Australia 40).

 
Submit your paper details
Pay for the order
Download your custom paper
Start now
 

It is worth noting that the new Migration Act of 1958 removed numerous restrictions, including the dictation test (commonwealth of Australia 43). On the one hand, it was driven by the need to increase Australia's population, and, on the other hand, it led to the greater acceptance of diversity by the dominant Australian culture. This acceptance was largely accelerated by the flow of non-European immigrants after World War II. It is worth noting the deportation of the Chinese refugees from Australia, although they assisted in the war affairs. Soon, the pro-European course on migration was heavily criticized as outdated and not matching post-war realities (commonwealth of Australia 44). The Japanese war brides' was a step toward non-European migration: in 1952, the government allowed the Australian servicemen, who served in the Pacific war and 800 non-European refugees to settle in Australia with their Japanese wives. Though this is another step toward non-discriminatory migration policies, the limited number of Japanese females demonstrates the lasting fear of non-British occupation.

In 1961, Peter Heydon was hired to remove the remains of the White Australia Policy' in Australian legislation. He believed that Australia's sense of racial superiority did not contribute to successful migration legislation, so he removed the racial criteria from the migration policies. Instead, in 1966, it was recommended to emphasize the applicants, who were able to settle and successfully integrate into the Australian society (commonwealth of Australia 45). Another step was the easiness of getting Australian citizenship: instead of 15 years, the non-European immigrants were required to demonstrate a 5-year residency in Australia (??ommonwealth of Australia 45).

Grafting in Literature

Though grafting is the term that originally belongs to horticulture, it has been a matter of debate within the literature studies as well as diaspora studies. The tendency to apply the terms from physical sciences to the issues within humanities and liberal arts has been founded by the French postmodernist philosophers, including Jean Baudrillard, and Jean-Fran? ois Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida. In particular, Derrida was one of the researchers, who discovered the phenomenon of intertextuality, which means that each text contains traces of the previous texts, has no fixed meanings and authorships, as well as embodies “pluralism, openness, and change” (Vargova 415). According to Derrida, intertextuality opens the opportunity for grafting, which implies the process, when the reader creates the meaning while reading. That is why, according to Bell, writing and grafting are synonymous for Derrida (7). The former assumed that “To write means to graft. It is the same word” – the meaning, produced by the reader, is grafted into the original text so that the new text with a distinct meaning is created (Bell 7). Wirth provides a different perspective on grafting, as it is applied in literature and culture studies: the researcher claims that grafting is a combination of two different bodies, which is contrasting to the fusion of different genetic elements, called hybridization (233). In her conceptualization, grafting occurs when two are made into one – an artificially made entity (234). Further, grafting may be interpreted as control over nature, cultivation of the natural process, and a sign of human intervention in nature. Apart from it, the result of grafting is called a device – the created thing becomes an object of exploitation. Thus, grafting and hybridization are the means of biopolitics ideology, the end of which lie in economic exploitation (Wirth 234). Moving forward, Wirth assumes that grafting is a cultural technique, which finds a re-entry into the symbolic cultural technique of writing” (236).

Another conceptualization of grafting in the theory of literature is associated with quoting and copying (Wirth 237). Wirth mentions Antonie Compagnon, who ties grafting to cutting and pasting. Such a view may be found in Derrida's writing, whereas grafting not only metaphorically but also literally means making a copy' (Wirth 237). It is embodied in Jean Paul's Life of Fibel, where Mr. Fibel is presented as a gifted writer despite working as a transcribing grafter (Wirth 237). Mr. Fibel managed to gain fame and write an autobiography, which is fragmented and presented as chaotic pieces of text. The fictional editor had to complete his biography by composing the flying pages, which results in creating a new biography (Wirth 237). Further, the meaning of grafting shifts to “an allegory for a poetics that draws the lines between original and copied writing” (Wirth 238).

Grafting in Other Disciplines

Wirth also emphasizes the epistemic zone, where grafting and hybridization occur: “In the laboratory, inscriptions and transcriptions become channels between networks of scientific activities that operate within the points of intersection between writing as a means of recording and the experimental system” (239). Hence, grafting is a fusion between the two experimental systems that can be integrated into the experimental methods and used by the experimenter to reach one purpose. Overall, grafting in epistemology means that the combination of methods is applied together without a fusion to reach the purposes of the experiment. Grafting and hybridization are also applied in intercultural relations, whereas grafting implies ambivalent cultural integration and translation processes (Wirth 240). For instance, the term “hybridization” implies that relationship between different cultures or within one culture, creating a contact zone, made of languages, worldviews, and bodies of different origins to create a new, third entity.

Grafting in Diaspora Theory

One of the major theorists of grafting within the diaspora and post-colonial studies is Robert Young. In his book Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race, the researcher looked into the concepts of race, culture, and sexuality. Young found that Victorian England was marked by a desire for hybridity, expressed in the need for interracial sex, though the disgust for the aliens and the fear of them were not denied. This tension between the desire and disgust for the Blacks, who are treated as inferior, according to Young, is the heart of the conception of Englishness, even though this tension destabilizes it (52). Further, Young stated that culture is racially defined at the margins of the taboo on interracial sex and the desire for it. Therefore, the difference is a crucial characteristic of culture – its conflictual economy acts at the border between sameness and difference (Yong 53). The researcher demonstrated that culture is racially polarized whether around the concept of civilization or the weakness of inter-racial progeny (Young 54).

Young's theory may be taken as an explanation for the colonizer's actions: despite the pathos of self-assured superiority, the dominating culture tends to hybridize, which undermines its superiority. Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning Young's note concerning the popularity of hybridization, the definition of which is contrasting with the previous definitions that articulate the creation of the third entity. The scholar claimed that grafting is forcing incompatible entities to grow together (48). Young also assumed that the enhancing discourse on racial stability is a sign of a culture, which loses its dominance to maintain the stability of its traditions (48). Thus, Young surrounded hybridity with the concepts of language, sex, and cultural interaction. The debates on hybridity within the cultural studies of the 19th century were marked by the classification of the human species with a dilemma: if the White and the Black people belong to a single family or are different species. However, this dilemma has transformed into a political and ideological issue. For instance, in Germany, anthropologist Theodor Waitz provided a political implication of difference between the people of mankind even though he supported the opposite view. Namely, the researcher assumed that the diversity between people naturally leads to inequality among them, which allows dividing them into the dominant white species and the lower races, as opposed to them. The former were assumed to be designed to serve the noble species and be treated as domestic animals or as means of scientific experiments. By definition, from this point of view, providing intellectual and moral development for these species is absurd, so they should abound to their savage condition, which is their fate if they are not useful to the white people (Young 7). Such an approach fully justifies' violence towards the lower species if they are in the way of the white people.

Concerning fertility, based on observations of animal hybrids, the anthropologists of the 19th century believed that union individuals of one specie would produce fertile offspring, whereas the union of two species would lead to unfertile offspring (Young 8). Since it has become obvious soon that some inter-racial unions may bring fertile offspring, the concept of amalgamation of races took place. Young cited the passages of the colonist writer, who believed that instead of mixing, the Zealanders and colonists should not do it, but should wait until the former become extinct (9). In this respect, grafting implies transforming diversity into a singularity. However, on the contrary, hybridization implies cutting the single entity into two parts, which is, transforming singularity into plurality or sameness into difference. The above-mentioned strategies of the Australian government to make the aboriginals and colonists assimilate to produce a pure white race are the illustration of this approach. It allowed finding dialectical aspects within the hybridization theory itself: both sameness and difference create the complex economies of agonistic reticulation,” thus creating double logic (Young 25). When discussing the theories of culture in the context of hybridity, Young mentioned Herder's idea that there is an organic grafting, as well as an original absorption and original diffusion between them. Young, nevertheless, argued the good of grafting and described the British colonial policies as not the destruction of the indigenous cultures but as grafting it to create the means of indirect control. This control implies the creation of a colonial superstructure, which would freeze the indigenous cultures while imposing imperial culture (Young 164). However, it is not a one-way process because various power relations are produced as a result of such a process.

Another researcher who included the concept of hybridity in post-colonial discourse was Bhabha in her work entitled The Location of Culture. Her inquiry into colonial identity confirms Young's findings on dialectics of the attitudes of colonists to the colonized. The author marked the discriminatory effect of hybridization due to the availability of a dominant position; though the colonists and the colonized are mutually dependent. Hybridity results in subjection and can refute the narcissi demands of colonial power (44). Nevertheless, Acheraiou criticized Bhabha for essentialist gestures manifested in indifference towards material reality and its racial connotations (15) and Aijaz stated that the researcher missed considering the current condition of the former colonies (7).

Related essays

  1. Emily Dickinson Literature Research
  2. Robert Frost Essay
Chat with Support