Gregory Melleuish: A better way of looking at our past
The Prime Minister's plan should be engaged to get history back on
track, says Gregory Melleuish
January 30, 2006
IN his Australia Day address, Prime Minister John Howard made some
im****tant statements about the nature of Australian culture and the
teaching of Australian history. He argued for striking a balance between
Australia's indigenous heritage and the traditions that were brought
here by settlers, initially from Britain and subsequently from all parts
of Europe and the world.
In particular he invoked broad influences that have moulded Australian
culture: "Judeo-Christian ethics, the progressive spirit of the
Enlightenment and the institutions and values of British political
culture."
In its broad sweep this is reminiscent of the vision that Manning Clark
enunciated at the beginning of volume one of his History of Australia.
Much of the response to the Prime Minister's comments has failed to
engage with his vision. Instead, historians, spokesmen for teachers'
organisations and many journalists have reduced it to their level by
prattling on about the teaching of British history in schools and the
rote learning of dates.
This is a shame as there is much they could learn through a judicious
appreciation of what Howard actually said. It is the case, for example,
that all three influences he mentioned arrived in Australia with the
First Fleet and subsequently developed in a uniquely Australian way in
this country.
It is also true that the only way to understand that development is
through narrative, and that to appreciate narrative it is necessary to
know some facts. To downgrade facts in history is a bit like saying one
can study science without doing the experiments that provide the data on
which theories can be postulated. Without facts, students are at the
mercy of the dogmatic views of an ideologically driven teacher.
Narrative is also an indispensable tool for the study of history because
there are sequences in history and
it is impossible to understand historical events without knowing what
came before.
For example, Federation was not simply an issue of the 1890s. It cannot
be understood without an appreciation of the sorts of political
structures that had been set up in the colonies as "responsible
government" from the 1850s onwards. And these, in turn, cannot be
understood without reference to the British system of government and the
"British constitution" from which they were derived.
What then of the three broad influences to which the Prime Minister
referred? It is true to say that Australia's political and religious
history have been in decline during the past 30 years. Largely this has
been a consequence of the influence of postmodernism and a residual
Marxism among historians.
Former Marxists such as Stuart Macintyre have attempted to write
religion out of Australian history. Postmodernists influenced by Michel
Foucault see power and politics everywhere and have no time for the
institutions of democracy.
The result has been that Australian history has moved in often bizarre
directions: directions that do not allow us to understand the often
churchgoing and civic-engaged Australians of our past.
It is highly significant that Howard used the term Enlightenment twice
in his address and again in his interview on The 7.30 Re****t. In his
speech he also appealed to the "enduring heritage of Western
civilisation". The Enlightenment is a crucial part of that heritage.
David Malouf has pointed out that Australian English is the product of
what he calls "late-Enlightenment English". John Gascoigne has
established how im****tant the Enlightenment and its values were during
the formative period of the Australian colonies in the first half of the
19th century. The Enlightenment has been crucial in Australian history
and its values have informed the growth of the Australian nation.
The Enlightenment sought to express the values of reason and rational
inquiry. It was characterised by a systematic spirit of inquiry in
opposition to an addiction to a dogmatic system.
In contrast to the fierce logic that marks both Marxism and
postmodernism, the Enlightenment fostered a spirit of being reasonable
and behaving in a civilised and humane fa****on.
The great Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume embodied this
spirit, combining a sceptical approach to knowledge with a calm and
balanced disposition.
The Enlightenment expressed what is best in Western civilisation by its
tolerance, its moderation and its desire to use reason as well as to be
sceptical when approaching any set of conclusions. These are the values
that are now sorely needed at a time when the world is threatened by the
narrow-minded and fierce dogmatism out of which terrorism has emerged.
And, most im****tant, these are values, as Malouf has rightly argued,
that have marked Australia's inheritance from Britain.
It was most appropriate that the Prime Minister appeal to Western
civilisation and its Enlightenment manifestation in his Australia Day
address. The address disproves once and for all Judith Brett's argument
that Howard's understanding of Australia is limited to an updated
version of the old "Australian legend" and its narrow and parochial
understanding of Australia.
In his few sentences the Prime Minister enunciated a vision for a new
style of Australian history. In opposition to the old history, that too
often has had as its main objective the indoctrination of students into
a set of narrow dogmas, he has provided the outline of an Australian
history that is humane and open-minded in approach, and which will
enlarge the outlook of our young people.
Let us hope that a "coalition of the willing" emerges to make this
vision a reality.
Gregory Melleuish is associate professor of history and politics at the
University of Wollongong.
RodneyK
|
