Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

From cuisine to separatist multiculturalism

By David Flint - posted Tuesday, 2 August 2005

The policy options which have applied to immigrants coming to Australia have ranged from assimilation, through “soft multiculturalism” (which in this sense is no more than a superfluous post-modern code word for tolerance, or in the Australian argot, a “fair go”), to an extreme form of “separatist multiculturalism”.

To all reasonable Australians, assimilation has always meant no more than the expectation that migrants embrace the language, the core values and the institutions of the nation, particularly the rule of law, representative democracy, equality and freedom of speech.

It has never meant that migrants should abandon their cuisine, languages and culture. Australians have always learned and borrowed from these. And migrants are usually received with tolerance. Of course there have been and are exceptions as there always will be. Courtesy and tolerance can never be prescribed by legislation. But the elites had to put their stamp on what Australians had already achieved. So they searched for something new. And they found it.


Professor Emmanuel Todd is a widely published French historian and anthropologist. In Le Destin des Immigrés, Seuil, Paris, 1994, he observes that, rather than seeing racial and sexual differences as secondary matters, the ideology of multiculturalism was introduced to emphasise difference over homogeneity. Assimilation became a negative term. He writes that from the 1960s American academics - with a naive and perhaps devastating enthusiasm and at times working with both British and Australian colleagues - exported this new ideology to the world.

Yet as Professor Todd points out, the multiculturist wave spread over the European population of the United States at the precise time that there was “terminal homogenisation” of ethnic cultures in the US. Terminal homogenisation is when there is little left of any knowledge of foreigners’ cultural differences apart from perhaps their cuisine - and that is often reduced to one lone typical dish. In this soft and benign form, and if we were being mischievous, we could call this “cuisine multiculturalism”.

Unfortunately, multiculturalism was to take a more radical form, one which the population was not likely to endorse.

It is not uncommon for those with policy agendas judged unpalatable to the electorate to coat these under a word or term which is imprecise and can therefore have innocuous meanings and connotations, as well as meanings which have significant consequences on society.

One such word is “reconciliation”, which could mean little more in obligation than a walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on a sunny Sunday morning, and saying “sorry” with impunity, as inner city urban dwellers can.

Another word is “republic”, which in its minimalist form claims to mean no more than an increase in the independence we already enjoy, as well as creating the Australian head of state constitutional monarchists assert we already have. Others saw the 1999 version as a move to increase the powers of politicians.


Yet another word is “multiculturalism”, which is presented as meaning little more than tolerance of newcomers and interest in different cuisines, but which also incorporates an agenda for radical change.

When such a word enjoys the imprimatur of the academy, as it usually does, the great and good are almost guaranteed to join in what is in effect an aristocratic rather than a popular consensus for the underling agenda for change. This process has the additional advantage of providing to at least some of those involved a further assurance of their moral superiority over the masses.

As we have seen, in its soft form multiculturalism suggests no more than the proper toleration of pluralism within our democratic tradition. Such soft multiculturalism is a superfluous description of what Australians had already achieved before the elites decided to brand it, and transform it into a policy, sometimes even for political advantage. There was no need for the elites to take credit for this from the ordinary Australian.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

91 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment 91 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
 The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes
 Prorogue then intimidate
 The ‘Utegate’ affair and the constitution
 ETS: emissions trading scheme or energy tax swindle?
 Information and media manipulation par excellence

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy