|
|
|
Book Review
| Marian Sawer and Barry Hindess, Us and Them: Anti-Elitism in Australia, Australian Public Intellectual Network, Perth, 2004. pp. vi + 286. $34.95 paper.
|
| I have worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for the last five years, first for Radio National and then for ABC TV. During that time, I saw the broadcaster battered by Jonathan Shier, Senator Richard Alston and by an increasingly hostile board. |
1
|
|
On my reading, the mood inside the ABC is divided. On the one hand there are many producers and presenters (particularly inside Radio National) who are wounded and bewildered by the persistent allegation that ABC is 'biased', 'left-wing' and a mouthpiece for 'chardonnay elitists'. These ABC staffers see themselves, in rather old-fashioned terms, as continuing the ABC tradition of 'civilising Australia'; of presenting high-quality reportage and discussion of arts and ideas in a way that reflects cultural diversity. Yes, they give airtime to environmentalists, gays, migrants, Muslims, Aborigines and unionists. And they also talk to ceramicists, school teachers, businessmen and farmers. Surely, they say, these aren't a single monolithic ethos. This is simply a reflection of Australia's diversity. Isn't it? |
2
|
|
The other reaction to the neo-liberal onslaught is outright defiance. This is particularly common among the journalists. We've seen it all before, say these old hands. Governments of all persuasions hate us — because we do our job. We're independent. We're tenacious. And we ask the difficult questions. This is nothing new. |
3
|
|
I came to admire the courage and integrity of the ABC staffers who stick to this line and continue to pursue political stories and to demand government accountability — without succumbing to the climate of menace and threat which has descended on the organisation. David Marr and the team at Media Watch were one visible example. But there are many others. |
4
|
In fact Marr has reviewed Us and Them in the JAS Review of Books, and confesses himself surprised that the book has brought so much 'intellectual horsepower' to bear in the issue of 'left-wing elites'. The collection left him feeling, he writes, that
the only way to really do justice to this subject is laughter ... What else can we do but laugh when the sages of New Ltd and the lords of talkback tell us that in this day and age only snobs worry about equity?
|
5
|
|
But I suspect that this exposé of 'elite theory' is written with such focus and urgency because all the authors are academics, whose intellectual habitat is being dismantled around them. In fact, a theme of this collection is the way the intellectual vigour of universities is being sapped by reduced funding, increased student fees and by the power of the right-wing think-tanks. |
6
|
|
Several essays unpack the concept of the 'new class' (a term now used by John Howard), and examine the way neo-liberal politicians and columnists use 'elite theory' to attack the Left and the welfare state, and to silence the voices of dissent, difference and tolerance. According to one favourite argument, the members of this 'new class' of left-wing elitists are traitors to their country: they actually hate Australia and most Australians, accusing normal folks of being a pack of racist, homophobic, environmental vandals who are too thick to stand up to the evils of American cultural imperialism. Two standout essays, one by Marian Sawyer and another by Carol Johnson, show how this rhetorical assault is indeed a global discourse. James Walter goes on to argue that the focus on a left-wing elite actually serves the interests of the real powerbrokers whose power is transnational. |
7
|
|
As several contributors point out, another favourite accusation is that the 'elites' are merely advancing their own self-interest. According to this view, the elitist who promotes (say) multiculturalism does so only because she wants to make a career teaching 'multicultural studies'. Or else she's angling for a gig on some Multicultural Commission where she can write meaningless reports and get paid a fat government salary. In fact, that's the core neo-liberal view of human conduct: even people who look as though they are altruistic are really just as selfish any free-marketeer. (Indeed, in the final essay, Barry Hindess gives a crystalline account of the way neo-liberals actually celebrate selfishness as the universal human drive.) |
8
|
|
A little oddly, this collection also contains a few essays on other kinds of elites. Michael Pusey describes how educated middle Australians resent those neo-liberals who have privatised and brutalised a society which was on track to becoming — well — civilised. It's a pithy and illuminating account. But the reader does need to be alert. While the heart of this collection is an account of right-wing 'elite theory', there are some authors here with other ideological agendas. |
9
|
|
This is a stimulating, persuasive and alarming collection which does a thorough job of explicating how the Right has worked to neutralise pluralism and dissent in their quest to make Australia a tougher, more individualistic and more narrowly materialistic place. But I couldn't help noticing that few of the contributors reinforced their analysis with a robust counter-argument. Clearly, the time has come to revive some very basic truths about critical thinking, the arts, equity and human rights. |
10
|
| | | | |
| University of Melbourne |
MICHAEL CATHCART | |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|