Ethnocentrism vs. Cultural Pluralism in Australia

Colonial Roots of Australian Ethnocentrism

The colonial expansion of European ideologies, cultures, and economies during the 16th and 17th centuries produced future generations of settlers positioned throughout the globe. Founded on the inherent premise that colonialism imposed cultural and racial superiority upon the natives of newly reached lands, the predominantly Caucasian descendants proceeded to develop fundamentally ethnocentric nations. This was true in contexts such as North America, Africa, the Caribbean, and Australia — all of which saw the widespread and often devastating permeation of white European exclusion and subjugation. Australia is the instance most relevant to this discussion, serving as a useful example of a nation today struggling to mend the deeply entrenched scars of ethnocentrism produced by its British colonial background.

Australia is particularly instructive for its illustration of both key concepts examined here. As an economic force in its region and a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Australia has been a key player in the process of regional and global trade liberalization. The result is that its economy has increasingly opened to other cultures, producing a domestic landscape that is ever more ethnically diverse and considerably more open to opportunity for those of racial, ethnic, or national difference from the traditionally hegemonic white British identity. This effect of opportunity equalization is cultural pluralism, wherein the nation's identity can be seen increasingly as diverse and less equated with a single hegemonic race and set of national descendants. And yet, evidence points to a history in Australia that has tended toward resistance to this development. According to Cox (1976), "it is noteworthy that pluralism, seen as preserving the immigrant's heritage, was preferred by virtually none of the subjects of a series of studies carried out in western Australia in the early 1960s" (Cox, p. 112).

Indeed, for its connection to the strains of colonialism — which have always been inherently racialist in their iniquities — Australia serves as a great window into the impact of historically entrenched ethnocentrism. With respect to the Aboriginal populations of the continent, evidence abounds that a colonial background founded on British and European dominance has perpetuated such a trend well into the present day. The exclusion of native populations from the civic growth, economic development, and cultural formulation of present-day Australia delivers a fairly precise definition of ethnocentrism: a force that uses presumptions of a singular cultural perspective to define complex systems such as moral imperative, religious predilection, political representation, and economic philosophy, with the outcome that those not conforming to presumed ideals in these categories are inherently and problematically excluded. This definition is given support by the "now classic account of the origins of ethnocentrism" provided by Adorno et al. (1950), whose authors "identify ethnocentrism as part of a larger 'sickness' which they call authoritarianism and identify it as a phenomenon of the ideological Right" (Ray, p. 89). It is on this basis that the present discussion takes the position that cultural pluralism is a positive trend and ethnocentrism a negative one, qualified as such based on rational views of governmental orientation and the preservation of human rights.

Economic Globalization and Consumer Pluralism

Australia's record on both ethnocentrism and pluralism is mixed. Evidence today, through the realities of globalization, shows that conditions are changing in important areas such as the economy. The practical effects of ethnocentric cultural propensities can be far-reaching, impacting broader systems such as political representation and the economy. This latter category is especially important, as the absence of inclusion can have particularly stultifying effects on those considered to be social others. The study by Elliot et al. (1999) discusses the presence of ethnocentrism in Australian consumer culture as a way of understanding how economic systems tend to reflect cultural and ethnic realities. Coming as it does in an era of emergent and optimistic trade globalization, the article measures trends to the conclusion that historical patterns of consumer ethnocentrism are fading in favor of a more pluralistic marketplace. Specifically, the article indicates that "although the respondents are moderately ethnocentric as measured by CETSCALE, in an actual product choice situation, they were found not to prefer local products. In fact, consumers not only evaluated the quality of the cars and jeans assembled and designed in foreign countries as superior, they also preferred to buy those products" (Elliot et al., p. 5).

This denotes a pattern in which the impact of ethnocentrism is eroding in the face of increasingly porous trade borders. The result is a more inclusive economic landscape in Australia that parallels what is occurring in many other industrialized nations previously dominated by local producers. As with the United States, the United Kingdom, and parts of Western Europe, Australia is finding that international trade liberalization generally involves the establishment of greater economic pluralism. This, in turn, tends to precipitate greater cultural pluralism. In this case, that is likely to mean the increasing cultural ascendancy and equalization of geographically proximal cultures such as those of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific islands, as ethnic representatives from those regions populate mainland Australia.

Aboriginal Exclusion and Public Health Inequality

Unfortunately, economic globalization does not fully address the issues facing Aboriginal groups in Australia, who are among the many native populations globally who were relegated to severely diminished circumstances under the subjugation of European colonial conquerors. As the most immediate challenge to claims of Australia's improved pluralism, this condition is well known to impact the Aboriginal populations native to the continent — populations much displaced and exploited since the initiation of English settlement over two centuries ago. As a result, Aboriginals today suffer an exclusion from occupational opportunities, educational institutions, and health facilities that impugns Australia's claim to true plurality.

The disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in terms of political, economic, and cultural representation has real and dramatic impacts in such telling areas as public health. Marmot's (2005) article underscores the currency of this issue and the potentially devastating outcome of a white, non-native ethnocentrism that continues to define Australia in many ways. Marmot contends that "a particularly telling example of health inequalities within countries is the 20-year gap in life expectancy between Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples — life expectancy is 56.3 years for men and 62.8 years for women — and the Australian average. The men in this population would look unhealthy in India (male life expectancy 60.1 years), whereas Australian life expectancy is among the highest in the world, marginally behind Iceland, Sweden, and Japan" (Marmot, p. 1100).

This troubling gap denotes the living conditions distinguishing two entirely separate experiences within the same nation. Unfortunately, this condition has persisted even as Australian policy has begun to move toward change. This suggests a longstanding failure of the federal government to recognize the needs of indigenous populations throughout Australia, and that more recently the subject has become a matter of undoing historical obstructions — largely rendered by an ethnocentric reality characteristic, the world over, of the descendants of colonialism. Though policy steps have been made toward resolving the serious imbalance between indigenous and English-speaking populations, the obstacles to successful actualization of such policy demonstrate the long-term impact of marginalization. These obstacles have made it particularly difficult to penetrate historical inequalities produced by cultural, geographical, and linguistic biases resulting from English settlement during the 18th century.