Multiculturalism and Australia

When asked about being an Australian, the first thing that comes to mind is the long hot summers, beaches, BBQ’s and the outback. Sitting back and watching the cricket or footy with a VB (Victorian Bitter) in hand can be seen as the norm. But is this truly how our cultural identity is defined? For many people it is but I like to think otherwise. Australia should be considered as a disporic nation as our multicultural society is one of the most diverse in the world. 

<http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/cricket/news/blog/free-beer-for-everyone/20101116-akp8.html>

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2011 the Australian Census of Population “revealed that over a quarter (26%) of Australia’s population was born overseas and a further one fifth (20%) had at least one overseas-born parent” (www.abs.gov.au ‘Cultural Diversity in Australia’). Surprised by these stats I looked into the proportion of the population that was Aboriginal and was shocked to find that it was only 2.5% (www.abs.gov.au ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’). With such a low number of indigenous people making up our total population, it makes one wonder if diasporic cultures have a positive or negative effect on our country. 

2011 Census age and sex distribution: recent arrivals and Australian-born

'

<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013>

This graph shows and compares the age and sex of Australian-born citizens with recent migrant arrivals. It is evident that with a much larger percentage of middle aged and younger recent arrivals that the cultural diversity within Australia will only continue to grow.

I now put forward a couple of questions, with such a large influx of diasporic cultures into our Australian society, are the cultural values that we grew up with slowly dissolving into nothing? Or could they even be getting shaped into something more unique and diverse, is Australia turning into a hub for diasporic cultures?

“Diasporic movements and communities have the potential for “surfacing” a range of new cultural and ethnic identities” 

(Goh, R, Wong, S ‘Asian Diasporas, Cultures, Identities, Representations’ p.15)

<http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/cricket/news/blog/free-beer-for-everyone/20101116-akp8.html> Image Retrieved August 17 2012

<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013> Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Cultural Diversity in Australia, Reflecting a Nation:Stories from the 2011 census', Last updated 27th June 2012, Retrieved August 17 2012.  

<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2075.0main+features32011> Australian Bureau of Statistics, '2011 Census counts - Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples', Last updated 22nd August 2012, Retrieved August 17 2012.  

Goh, R, Wong, S ‘Asian Diasporas, Cultures, Identities, Representations’, Hong Kong Community Press, Hong Kong 2004, p.15

The Imperial Games. Olympic time!

Are the Olympic Games a truly global event? In my eyes, no they are not. Yes the Olympics pride them selves on bringing together nations of the world in what is seemingly a global event. But lets consider some of the issues that detach the Olympics for being global.

The 5 themes I would like you to consider when defining what a global event truly is are.

1. Culture
2. Economics
3. Informational flows
4. Media flows and
5. Demographic

The first two points, Culture and Economics go hand in hand. It is evident that over the long history of the Olympic games that major countries of the world dominate the medal tally's. For example The top 3 all-time medal leaders for the games are the U.S (2298 total medals), Soviet Union 1952-1988 (1010 total medals) and Great Britain (715 total medals)(<http://www.allcompetitions.com/og_medcnt.htm>). This domination by the great powers of the world can be related to their economic strength and cultural values that drive them to be the best in the world and allow them to feed money into sporting facilities and programs that aids the drive for Olympic Medals. This dominance separates the weaker, smaller countries of the world from those super powers widening the gap and raising the questions about the integrity of the games. Can the Olympics really be considered a global event when they are dominated by the most powerful nations of the world?

Another point to consider is that the games is a highly selective event. The Olympics will never be able to be hosted in countries such as Kenya or Togo (random examples) for they are poorly placed economically and lack the facilities to hold the games. If it was a global event, why not spread out all the different sports and proceedings to every country in the world? Well because that would be too inconvenient and an organizational disaster! If you ask me, the games are very unbalanced. Unfortunately Due to restrictions on word limit, I cannot discuss the other themes mention above in as much detail as I would like. So hopefully I future blog posts I will re-ignite my ramblings about the Olympic games and explain why they are not truly a global event!

There is one final thought that I will leave you with. It is obvious that the Olympics are an imperial competition that puts nation up against nation up against nation! But ask yourself, what would the games be like if we got rid of nations and made everything individual?


Reference:<http://www.allcompetitions.com/og_medcnt.htm> "summer olympics games/medal tally' Total medals by country, retrieved 8/8/12

Glocalization to the rescue!

As mentioned in my first post, cultural dominance of western nations such as the U.S. is causing a form of imbalance throughout the world. Globalisation is effectively deteriorating smaller cultures throughout the globe. Mass media and the large corporations can been seen as the ones to blame for this, as the spread of right winged proper-gander is causing the homogenization of countries with little international power. This is where the term Glocalization comes into the discussion. Commonly related to the phrase "Think globally and act locally", Glocalization is an attempt to constrict western influences and preserve cultural diversity.

"Like sand castles on a beach, local cultures are being eroded and flattened by the gradual impact of the endless tide of the U.S. and other Western media products."(Croteau, Hoynes, Milan 2012)

It is through the attempt to think globally and act locally that countries are able to maintain traditional values while continuing to progress forward in our even changing global society. A great example of this can be observed through Indian culture and their huge interest in Hollywood. Bollywood is India's local spin on Hollywood, which can be considered as one of the globes largest contributor to Americanization. The Indian film industry (Bollywood) protects local values and therefore puts a stop to the homogenization of India's culture. Although this is only one example of how global media has been altered to maintain cultural diversity, Glocalization is still living in the shadows of the all mighty Globalisation.

"Globalisation is about the export of a monoculture. It is the death of human Diversity"(Ricklefs 1998:B1).

I like to believe that no matter how much mass media is strangled by western societies and their large multinational corporations, that cultural diversity will always be protected by the concept of thinking globally, but acting locally.

Reference: Croteau, D Hoynesm W Milan, S 2012, 'Median/Society, Industries, Images, and Audiences, Fourth Edition' Globalization and the Future, Sage publications, California, pp.335-336.

Lets Consider Everyone

"Globalization refers to the growing interconnectedness of different parts of the world, a process which gives rise to complex forms of interaction and interdependency"(Thompson, 1995:149)

This second installment for my blog involves a more specific look at the scholarly definition of globalisation posted above. The question too be asked is what is missing from this definition? Although I agree with Thompson in that interconnectedness between different parts of the world does give rise to complex form of interaction and interdependency he has not highlighted the issue of global hierarchy.

While the technologies of the world have been evolving at a rapid pace over the past few decades, many countries have jumped the gates much faster than others and due to economic difference poorer countries of the world have been left in the shadows. With new forms of media such as Facebook, Twitter and online news, the ways in which the people of the world can interact with one another and gather information is extremely impressive. But when discussing the definition of globalisation, is it fair to exclude talks about how some third world countries haven't even got the simple resources to harness such technological mediums? I don't think so. Thompson definition is missing the consideration of these less fortunate countries which are not growing like other more built up areas of the world. So what do you think, does this definition of globalisation fit the criteria? Or is it too broad, not considering the world on a global scale?

Pre-game Run Down. What is Globalisation?

To kick off this blog once and for all, lets define globalisation. Many people in today’s modern society would have heard of the word, but continue to think twice about its meaning. To understand globalisation, one must reflect on the different interrelated processes and contexts of the subject. I have personally identified these topics to include the international growth of the economy and relative world organizations. The physical flows of people from country to country, Cultural expansion and dissipation, and finally the increased spread of modern technologies.
Although it is evident that these processes link with one another to form the basis of ones definition of globalisation, we must also consider association globalisation has with cultural imperialism and westernization.
The cultural dominance of countries such as the United States (US) is the best example of how physical, cultural and economic flows of smaller, less developed countries are affected by globalisation.

“Globalization is uneven” (Nederveen 2004)

 Westernization has seen poorer countries rely much more on the super powers for jobs and information. Therefore this results in the media and big corporations such as Nike and Coca-Cola too indirectly encouraging smaller countries of the world to follow western ideals and destroy their own cultures. “Globalization does not refer to a global level playing field or to symmetric or equal international relations” (Nederveen 2004). In saying this, the financial gain that some of these countries inherit due to job opportunities given to them by superpowers of the world are very beneficial to their quality of life.

It is through this example of cultural imperialism that one can understand the concept of globalisation and how it can be defined. Is globalisation a positive or a negative influence on our world? Yes and no. But that is for you to decide.
 
 Reference: Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, 'Globalization: consensus and controversies', Globalization and culture: global melange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp.7-21.