Federal and state politicians have been scoring cheap political points over a minor controversy initiated by organisers of the Big Day Out 2007 concert. The fact that they do so in a climate of near-consensus amongst the mainstream media is curious, because it signals an apparent redundancy: if the public are against the ban, their political representatives are against it, and virtually every media commentator is, then surely the issue has been put to rest. Further to this redundancy comes the question: if the flag is not powerful enough a symbol to be misused in a harmful manner, then why is it worth so much column-space? Like the Hilaly beat-up last year (and the mini-beat up a few weeks back), the 'event' of the ban is being used as an opportunity for 'everybody' to say almost the same thing. (A notable exception being journalist Bernard Zuel's short account of his own experiences at last year's BDO event. Zuel signals feelings of 'pressure' and intimidation circulating in the crowd.)
One disconcerting aspect of this constant rehearsal of the same position, has been the instant assocation of the ban with 'political correctness', and it's imagined agents - the intelligentsia. The quintessential statement of this argument appears in Gerard Henderson's column in the Sydney Morning Herald today (23rd January). So not only is this 'event' of the ban being read, perhaps with a tinge of hysteria, as an occasion to affirm the legitimacy of 'flag-waving' - in whatever form it may happen to take, even the provocative - but it is also being seen as part of a political agenda whose proper home is with a dour constituency of intellectuals. This in spite of the fact that the ban is being asserted by the private operators of a large and profitable festival, presumably looking to make their customers more comfortable. While undoubtedly political, since the flag is always a provocative symbol in a national context, those who issued the statement were making a commercial decision.
We humanities academics (or maybe just the insecure wannabes amongst us, such as myself) are thus interpellated (the calling into being of a subject - see the work of Louis Althusser) into the 'beat up' as antagonists, but it is a case of deliberate misrecognition, or more correctly of a paranoid political theory that poses all apparently anti-nationalist activity as hinged to a single, ill-defined constituency of intellectuals. Perhaps the conflict is actually between a version of capitalist activity and the dominant culture? What if the organisers are not part of a 'politically correct' conspiracy, but were in fact attempting to respond to the concerns of their customers, who have been made to feel uncomfortable in the past by the provocative use of the flag? Of course, now that this has been turned into a different kind of cultural-political exchange via that act of interpellation, 'we' (and who the hell is this 'we'?) are effectively 'hooked' into a position as antagonists - much as I have been in writing this. The situation is one to which we cannot not respond.
One final point: this act of interpellation in fact parallels that of the flag-waver perfectly. By waving the flag at another - and the flag is one of the most affectively charged symbols circulating in a national context - the flag-waver interpellates them: s/he is demanding 'proof' of loyalty, faith, the absence of ambivalence with respect to the imagined community of the nation, while at the same time offering the accusation of disloyalty, faithlessness and ambivalence. The interpellated 'Other' may in fact feel ambivalent about that community, and quite negative about aspects of the Australian state, or the dominant culture - about it's peristent strategies of assimilation, for example - and may not find an easy identification. In that moment of ambivalence, or of reservation, the flag-waver finds their 'proof' - but it is proof only of the inevitable failure and guilt of the 'Other'. That such a form of provocation is being mirrored by politicians and media commentators is a disturbing trend, and speaks ill of the liberal-minded credentials of a democracy.
Comments
Just one observation on this flag waving issue. It's interesting that you and many others describe our flag as a "provocative symbol". That statement is correct. And that is why the coordinators of the Big Day Out proposed to ban it.
Our flag, as a symbol, subtly reveals a very insecure country - a country who is struggling to find an identity. Very little of symbolism used on our flag is uniquely Australian. Lets take a close look at it. The Union Jack in the top corner has no relevance to our country anymore, at least to those who want Australia to have a independent identity. It is this symbol which is at the heart of the BDO issue. The UJ is why our flag is used by Anglo-Australians to assert that this is their country, and theirs alone. The racist undercurrent here is obvious. Then there's the Southern Cross, which is tatooed on many a rednecks' chest. But the Southern Cross is found on almost every South Pacific nation's flag and even on coinage in Brazil. Hardly a purely Australian icon. That leaves the Federation Star, which is seldom used as a symbol of our country.
This poses the obvious question. If we had a different flag - one that truly represented our country - would the BDO have banned the use of the flag? Not likely.
I'll use Brazil as an illustration of this. Brazil is melting pot of different cultures. It has more racial diversity than Australia. It has a native population like Australia. There are immigrants from Portugal (obviously), Italy, Germany, Lebanon and other European countries. There are blacks. Yet all these groups identify with the Brazilian flag. Imagine putting the Portuguese flag in the corner of theirs? This would never be accepted. In fact to label them groups would be erroneous as they consider themselves Brazilian first and foremost. There isn't a hint of parochialism or even sentimentality for the country of their forefathers. That is, there is no "multi-nationalsim" like you find in many Australian communities. These are communities who have a preference for the mother country over Australia, even to the second and third generations.
Flags are very powerful symbols. Ours obviously accentuates the British heritage of one group of people. The fact that Anglo-Australians are the majority is not a good enough reason to maintain our flag's current design. We are Australians and not British subjects. I'll finish with a Barmy Army chant:
"Get your shit stars off our flag!"
Posted by: Simbo | February 26, 2007 07:26 PM