Early Childhood in Postcolonial Australia

Children's Contested Identities

P. Srinivasan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781137392176
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137440358
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Comparative Education

Early Childhood in Postcolonial Australia is a critical narration of how Australian children use cultural markers such as, skin color, diet and religious practices to build their identity categories of "self" and "other."

C H A P T E R 1

---

Ganga: Our Beginnings, Our Context, Our Stories

The flowering of a truly national spirit in Australia is not an optional extra, but a major objective to be sought in the next few decades.

My personal ambition is that all Australians of all backgrounds will always be proud. . . . to say . . . “I am an Australian.”

—Grassby, 1973, pp. 8–9

In the following chapter, I set the context in which our contest for inquiring into our cultural identity stories began. I narrate how and with what I constructed my imagination, my pursuit to transform early childhood cultural identity practices with children and families, through my doctoral study. My study is a collection of stories that were exchanged in early childhood settings with young children, their families and the staff (early childhood educators), who educationally cared for the children. These stories reflect the everyday cultural realities and imaginations influenced by our real and yet imagined categorizations of collective identities for “self” and “other.”

CULTURAL IDENTITY STORIES: OUR REALITIES AND OUR IMAGINATIONS

I have always found it difficult to define what my cultural and national identity represented, especially due to my engagement with the histories of India. The land that had been fragmented and the united nation that it is now and yet remains fragmented in many ways. India as a modern nation was built by the colonizers, the “British Raj,” to rule the population that had historically been diverse in its ethnic, linguistic, and religious makeup; a nation that still stands divided after it became free of colonial rule in 1947 (Keay, 2000; Sen, 2005). India, since then, is united as a country, yet divided by its national identity, “Indian,” a reality, and yet an imagination when its multiple roots are traced. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to encapsulate and present the essence of “Indian” culture or what is being “Indian,” in a definite manner. After all, culture is a difficult term to define, because it is abstract and evolutionary, yet it has become central to most conversations in today’s society (Pang, 2001; Bennett, 2003; Rosaldo, 2006; Grant and Sleeter, 2007). The narratives in my study too were prolific with our cultural/ethnic/national identity conversations. This centrality of cultural narratives in today’s society became the focus of my study and hence this book, as current societies are situated within constructs of the modern nation-state. According to Appadurai (2006), the modern nation-state, despite being constructed on the premise of multiculturalism and inclusion, is imbued with divisional ideas of nation and nationality. After all, constructs such as nation and national identity are built on notions of national sovereignty based on ethnicity (Appadurai, 2006). In many ways, fervent nationalism is juxtaposed to multiculturalism, as sovereign nation and national identity constructs do prescribe and ascribe such solidarity to individuals’ collective identity. This then renders the development of fragmented multiple identities within one unified collective identity a difficult state to attain and accept, as specific ways of being and acting a specific collective or national identity is meticulously laid out. Anything outside what has been laid out always remains outside what has been conceptualized within those identity boundaries, unless these identity boundaries are repeatedly disrupted and reconfigured to result in boundless boundaries.

Although the creation of nation-states and national subjects has become today’s reality, it is laden with complexities, especially due to global mobility. Colonization and globalization are phenomena that have resulted in much inside/outside movements across modern nation-states. This has caused individuals and groups from varied cultural and religious groups with congruous or discordant interests to come together within a shared space, the nation. In fact, Hall (1996) declares that colonization and decolonization have resulted in postcolonial societies with a population that is made up of colonizers and colonized and many others who are linked sometimes by such histories. Therefore, there are constant arbitrations, negotiations and contestations between individuals and groups loyal to their collective identities, on claiming ownership of that illusive construct, the national subject, as this identity is being constantly disrupted and challenged with dynamic movements. With his phenomenon becoming more and more inescapable, the sociopolitical institutions of sovereign nations dedicate much of their political discourses to owning and claiming unified, definite boundaries for their state and the national subjects within these states. These political repertoires in most cases invariably result in defining these national subjects as the insiders, and therefore define the outsiders with certain unspoken, but loosely specified physical characteristics, such as skin color, facial features, and accent, in other words, “race” ideologies. Thus, in relation to modern nation-states, as problematic as it may seem, the sociopolitical systems intentionally and/or inadvertently perpetuate “race” ideologies to construct and establish one’s national, ethnic, or cultural identity. Hence, “race,” a mere social construct, a dominating imagination, has become a reality in many modern societies, as it is often linked with color, ethnicity, religion, and language (Merenstein, 2008). Therefore, biological markers such as skin color, hair, and other physical attributes used in “race” discourse are used in discourse of ethnicity indirectly, and thus, one way or the other, culture and ethnicity gets fixed and bound by one’s “race” (Gunaratnam, 2003). Taylor (2004) too contends that “race talk” has become a symbol of Western societies, leading to notions of citizenship, and it further centralizes the interactions of those who live within such societies around identity constructs such as ethnicity, nationality, culture, gender, class, and caste. In fact, conversational starters that aim to establish or mark one’s ethnic origin with physical features have become accepted “curiosities” in many so-called multicultural societies. Thus, in many ways, “race talk” or identity imaginations based on skin color, ethnicity, and culture have become today’s realities.

My study, our cultural identity contest began, and these identity imaginations based on “race” ideologies became very evident in the everyday narratives that were exchanged between children and adults in early childhood settings in Australia. Such identity exchanges became so central to our daily conversations in early childhood settings, that what began as a study of cultural identity enactments became a critical inquiry of our postcolonial realities and imaginations, the “race” categorizations of “Australian” and “not Australian.” Our realities and imaginations were colonized by national ideologies, deeply and undeniably connected to the color and culture of “whiteness.”

AUSTRALIA’S AUSTRALIAN: A POSTCOLONIAL REALITY AND IMAGINATION

Australia is a land with an overt colonized past and covert colonizing present, a postcolonial reality for some and an imagination for others. Many groups that are linguistically, culturally, and religiously different come together within the national boundaries of Australia, and this diversity is constantly widening with newer groups and individuals coming to live in Australia temporarily and permanently. The Australian population is diverse in its ethno-cultural makeup with indigenous peoples, colonizers, or settlers and later immigration. More than 29.2 percent of Australian population was born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). But, diversity and multiplicity is not a recent phenomenon in this land. Before colonial occupation, there were around 600 tribes living in this land, whose social organization was highly complex and linguistically diverse (Holmes et al., 2007), however with no national or political unity amongst the groups. Added to this complexity, there were also other ethnicities such as Chinese and Germans in the early 1800s living in this land along with many heterogeneous Aboriginal groups. After colonization, with “white Australians” (Catholics and Protestants of British and Irish origin) becoming absolutely dominant, ethnic minorities, such as Aboriginal Australians, Chinese, and Germans declined in numbers (Jupp, 1997). Thus, colonization and colonial occupation became a defining factor in the diminishing of social diversity with the centralization of “white Anglo-Saxon” as the dominant group. This group had absolute political power and control over not just this land now called Australia, but also its peoples. The establishment of Australian federation united the colonies to become one nation, Australia. But the “white” colonizers continued to rule and shape Australia and Australians’ identity.

The Australian Natives’ Association, one of the organizations that was instrumental in establishing the Australian federation in 1901, was made up of “white” men born in Australia (National Council for the Centenary of Federation, 2001) with no member from the Aboriginal population. However, the “native” status and the ownership hence claimed by this group of “white” men resulted in the establishment of this imagi(nation) on Aboriginal land, on Australia, and on the national subject, “Australian.” The establishment of Australian federation presented an imagined understanding for the “white men” of British and Irish origin who then governed Australia that Australia was now free of its colonial past. However, the “white men” still controlled its colonized borders with white supremacy, which was in reality still attached to its colonial past. Thus, with an image of having established a unique Australian identity that set them apart from their British origin, the identity of Australia was controlled by the “white fellas” born in Australia, and not by the “black fellas,” the original owners of this occupied land.

The Australian identity continued to be shaped by its current occupiers with overt racially discriminatory policies. The White Australia policy (1901) was drawn to overtly maintain the identity of Australia with “white Anglo Saxon,” English-speaking image. With heavy-handed discriminatory political measures, the political rulers protected the colonial roots of this nation from being colored by those within this land and from outside. Later, as Makkai and McAllister (1993) point out, the gatekeepers of “white Australia” liberalized their borders to other European migrants, to make Australia economically viable. Tavan (2004) adds that it was only around the 1960s when Australia faced severe criticism from non-European nations of the world, did it reluctantly reconcile to opening its doors to Asian refugees. After the abolition of the White Australia policy in the early 1970s, the Australian politics moved from colonial, discriminatory discourses that established white supremacy, to moderate, tolerant discourses of multiculturalism.

The then Whitlam Labor government openly declared the demise of the White Australia policy and the beginning of a new era of multiculturalism and acceptance of cultural diversity. Since then, most sociopolitical institutions in Australia have adopted policies that speak of acknowledging, respecting, valuing, and celebrating indigenous cultures and the cultures of fresh migrants. Within the Australian context and the context of many countries like Canada, United States of America, and New Zealand that share histories of colonial settlement on indigenous lands, the development of Aboriginal or migrant identity can be very complex. This sociopolitical context requires the construction of “self” in relation to one’s ethno-cultural identity within the discourse of nationalism. The resulting multicultural discourse encourages one to own the identity of his/her ethnic origin and become a national subject, thus demanding dual or multiple identities, a “migrant self” and a “national self,” in oneself. This creates and proposes a complex development of sometimes juxtaposed value systems, especially for Aboriginal and migrant Australians, as it automatically positions Aboriginal Australians and migrant Australians as having cultures outside what is considered as uniquely Australian. Examining and responding to such strategic negotiation of one’s identity in relation to arbitrating such juxtaposed value systems hasn’t received much attention in multicultural education (Grant and Agosto, 2006). Yet, all these identity arbitrations, such as national, migrant, and Aboriginal identity built around the national imagi(nation) of modern statehood is vociferously expressed by the sociopolitical institutions in the name of upholding national interest and security. Moreover, they also occupy the minds of today’s sociopolitical narrators. This national imagi(nation) stretches and penetrates all sociopolitical institutions, including the field of early childhood educational care and development, as modern nation-states commit themselves to developing such identities in young national subjects through pedagogical and curriculum guidelines.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

Early childhood is a stage during which identity ideas are exchanged and established with the use of social interaction using language. The conception of one’s identity or an understanding of what one is, the development of “self” is seen by many theorists as something that is innate, unique, and desirable to humans (Crisp and Turner, 2007), a distinguishing capacity that sets humans and animals apart. Early childhood, in particular, is seen as a critical period for the development of one’s identity, which is gaining a knowledge of who one is and affiliating oneself with social groups, defined by factors such as ethnicity, race, culture, gender, and class (Miell, 1995; Schaffer, 1996; Epstein, 2009). It is also a period during which social interactions with those around enables young children to construct understandings about the status of the group to which they belong in comparison with those to which they don’t. Therefore, although one’s identity development is regarded as innate and very human, it is also dependent on the identity messages that are available outside.

Education and educational setting is one such socially interactive medium that influences identity and more specifically cultural identity development. In Australia, since the advent of multiculturalism, educational settings including early childhood educational care settings have been recommended to embed national identity development along with curricular practices that promoted and supported Aboriginal and migrant cultures. Since 1980s, most educational settings in Australia had developed goals to adopt multicultural policies and practices as their priorities to enable all individuals to maintain their cultures and to educate everyone about Australian values. Their key aim was not just the socioeconomic progression of young Australians through education, but also education to eradicate racism and prejudice (see Australian Victorian Essential Learning Standards [AusVELS], Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2009; Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs [MCEECDYA], 2008). These documents recommend the promotion of a strong sense of cultural identity in children and families who have migrated to Australia, promote indigenous or Aboriginal perspectives, and overall epitomize the development of unified national identity as Australians. These overarching educational documents based on the realms of multiculturalism also influence the field of early childhood education in Australia. Drawing upon the early childhood theories of identity development and the above pedagogical recommendations, the Australian early childhood curricular guidelines (see The Early Years Learning Framework [EYLF], Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) encourage early childhood educators to engage in multicultural practices that are conducive to developing cross-cultural understandings whilst developing a sense of Australian citizenship. However, such multicultural educational discourse has been critiqued as being about maintaining the cultures of those that are seen as different from the centrally positioned “white” English speaking Anglo-Australian identity (Aveling, 2002; Leeman and Reid, 2006).

Studies conducted in Australian early childhood settings with very young children found that children from a very young age conceptualize and practice “race” categories and nationalistic discourses through their daily play behavior and interactions (see MacNaughton, 2001; MacNaughton and Davis, 2001; Skattebol, 2003). These studies also reveal that children as young as three to five years of age had hypothesized the physical attributes of the national subject “Australian,” using which they included and excluded children in their educational care settings. Moreover, “whiteness” or “race” discourse played a central role in defining this national subject “Australian,” and therefore, excluding the “non-white” as a “migrant other” was evident in children’s expressions. Yet, the studies also confirmed that most adults who educationally cared for young children found it difficult to respond to children’s discriminatory “race” discourses. Thus, children’s narratives of national imagi(nation) remained uninterrupted in early childhood settings, as they were heard and discarded as insignificant or left unheard by adults in those settings.

The above became the core around which my doctoral study, which later morphed as Ganga, began. With my son’s voice about our migrant reality and the “white” imagination in my heart, I set out to conduct my participatory action research with young children, families, and educators in early childhood settings. Still standing upon my postcolonial pedestal, a reality hidden underneath the mask of developmental and social psychology, I set out to inquire the role of benign “othering” in enacting cultura...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction: Who Am I? Who Is My Ganga?
• 1   Ganga: Our Beginnings, Our Context, Our Stories
• 2   Boundaries Speak: othering, Othering, øthering Australian / Not Australian
• 3   Complex(ion) Speak: I Am White, I Am Australian. Pookey Is Black, She Is Not Australian
• 4   Forbidden Fs Speak: You Know What Australians Think If You Say You Are a Muslim
• 5   Tongue Ties Speak: I Am Australian, I Speak Australian
• 6   Terra Strikes Speak: We Can’t Let Everyone in, This Is Our Country, Shouldn’t We Have a Choice
• 7   The “Whiteness Truth”: We Have to Do Something
• Epilogue: But Remember She Is Saying, “I Don’t Like Brown Skin, I Am White”
• Appendix: Ganga’s Key “Boundary Speakers”
• References
• Index