Australia as one of the major colonies of settlement, the Dominions of the British Empire built its ideology on not only a theory of a particular, specific Australian nationalism but instead on a wider ideology called Britishness. Britishness is what held together Britain and it colonies through the Boer War, World War I and World War II. Britishness is an ideology that takes its cues from a very large vat of sources, political, cultural, national and historical commonalities. Although Australia maybe halfway around the world it was still British because of it bonds with the mother country. Although the British Empire ended many of its features are still around today and they are celebrated as integral part of Australian identity. This includes the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Games, the celebration of Anzac day and other WWI related festivities. Australia does have a single identity built around its British legacy and connections but there are other factors to consider when thinking about how Australians identify in a complicated, globalized world.
Australia much like most other constituent parts of the former British Empire and especially those parts that played a meaningful role in creating its ideology of defense cooperation a large measure of their national identity is circumscribed not only by Britishness but also in opposition to it. That is what is argued by Australian historian Neville Meaney. Meaney argues that Australians do set themselves apart from the British in two ways. One that is unique to them and one that is shared with other parts of Britain itself. The “tests of nationalism” advanced amount to signifiers of difference such as accents, social constructs and cultural norms that can be seen as little more than differences that other parts of Great Britain have with each other. (Meaney 79) The other more important distinction is one which actually makes Australia unique, namely “Australians have a distinct national myth which has set them apart from other peoples and driven them towards achieving sovereign independence. (Meaney, 2001). Australian identity was originally delineated in the early period by Britishness. Australia and other colonies were indeed very happy to be part of the British Empire which allowed them to craft their nationalism on the basis of British “racial cultural heritage” (Meaney, 2001) The construct of Britishness was a particularly apt tool for the creation of identity especially in the colonies and that is why it became the primary organizing force for Australian colonists during the nineteenth and a significant part of the twentieth centuries.
The shift in Australian identity and the creation of a new national myth was precipitated by the 1967 decision by Britain to pull its defense forces out of “east of Suez”. Australia had always depended on British defense as a major part of the guarantee of its security and this bond was historically one that assured the connection between the two countries. Britain’s decision to give up its defense commitment “east of Suez” was not driven by some sort of ideological change but only by the need to cut spending which was precipitated by a sudden devaluation of the Pound Sterling. (Kristensen, 2005) This moment, and the decision by the Wilson government for Britain to abandon its commitments in Asia are usually considered as the end of British Empire and that is exactly how the news was received in Australia itself as well.
Australians responded to the announcement of British disengagement in Asia with “general wringing of hands and no end of discussion and debate about a national future without Britain.” (Kristensen, 2005 This forced the Australian High Commissioner in London, Sir Alexander Downer, a noted Anglophile to try and shore the Anglo-Australian relations. Downer made two very expressive statements about Britain leaving Asia. Downer claimed that it would be “the greatest tragedy in history if Britain was to become a European power” and second regarding the British decision to leave “east of Suez” garnered this response from Downer:
Downer reacted with anger and disbelief. An official at the British Commonwealth Office reported that Downer was “astonishingly emotional on the question” and “regarded it as a betrayal” that would completely destroy the Commonwealth. (Kristensen, 2005)
Downer went to warn the British government that this move would result “calamitous” on Australian opinion of Britain, the standing of the Queen and ultimately “in the not-so-long-run the British connection with Australia and New Zealand would be lost.” (Kristensen, 2005) This moment proved to be not only the end of the British Empire but also a seminal moment in Australian history and its nationalism and identity.
The period following Britain’s exit from Asia and the collapse of Britishness as a primary form of identity in Australia was dominated by a turn towards a new Australian myth that aimed to display a new kind of Australian identity and values. The Australian values on which this new ideology was built on an “Anglo-Celtic culture” which was derived from the lifestyle and ideologies of the founding generation of settlers, English and Irish, free and convict. (Moreton-Robinson, 2005, p.25) These values surrounded an ethic of “authority, work, freedom liberty, individualism, community, equality and gender that formed this core identity” (Moreton-Robinson, 2005, p.25). These values of the bush and of the early settlers came to replace Britishness with a “radical national myth.” (Meaney, 2001, p.89) This national myth was portrayed in movies like Gallipoli which made the Anzacs Australia’s national heroes.
The 1981 film, Gallipoli, by Peter Weir is one of the best showcases for the new Australian “radical national myth” Movies like Gallipoli and many contemporaneous works were deeply embedded with the themes of the “Australian Legend” signified by the Bushman. Take for example Mel Gibson’s character in Gallipoli which is made to be the Australian every man. He is Irish Catholic, joins the army in order to go on an adventure his mates, doesn’t care for the authority or the class pretensions of the British officers, he parties hard and is ultimately killed by British failures. (Meaney, 2001) As a matter of fact the Anzacs and Gallipoli are an indelible part of the creation of the Australian nation and identity in the era after the end of the myth of Britishness was liquidated by Britain’s exit of her responsibilities “east of Suez.”
The First World War and the Anzac experience at Gallipoli are one of the definitive moments in the creation of an Australian national identity that was unique and separate from the myth of Britishness. Australian culture finds a way to organize itself the around its contributions in fighting in World War I. Nationalism and identity are built on myths and signifiers and according to Donoghue and Tranter whenever Australia needs to signify “nation” as in moments of celebration they “we reach for those tried and true icons of the bush, the Anzacs and Ned Kelly. (The Anzacs, 2015, p.3) These national symbols and myths give a community shared experiences as do holidays. Australian’s shared history of the First World War and its celebrations such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day work to bind a nation together on the basis of shared history and memories. (Donoghue and Tranter, 2015) These are definitive moments that have been used to create a unique version of Australian identity as something separate and unique from its British roots.
Myths need heroes and in the case of the Australian national myth, the Anzac is portrayed as such. The Australian mass media has made the Anzac “into national heroes imbued with superhuman bravery and stoicism in the face of formidable enemies and atrocious conditions” (Donoghue and Tranter, 2015). The Anzac myth goes a long way towards defining what it means to be Australian but it is by no means the only important fact to be taken from the creation of a new Australian national myth and of a unique and indelible Australian ethic or character.
The 1981 film Gallipoli is one of the most evocative examples of the new Australian mythos put forward in a work of art that endeavors to reinforce Australian identity through the use of themes and imagery and as well as landscape. Weir’s Gallipoli is just one work that uses a “changing attitude toward the Australian landscape, the romanticization of the bush and bushman, and the emergence of local artists, painters, poets and writers interested in defining their new environment, contributed to the nation making process” (Haltof, 1988) The frontier and the frontiersman are two very important symbols in the creation of a unique Australian identity and Gallipoli is just one case of that imagery and symbolism being used as a method of mythmaking and the construction of national identity. The image of the bushman is an important part of the national myth but what is even more significant are the values attached to that figure.
One of the most important character traits of the bushman and of a great Australian hero is that of “mateship.” Mateship is an important part of the Australian bush mythology and “is embedded not only with working-class values but is constitutive of Australian male self-image (Haltof, 1988) Mateship is defined by Russel Ward in the Australian Legend as:
Comradeship and loyalty, resourcefulness and adaptability are as necessary to the one life as to the other. And just as the bushman liked, on principle, to emphasize his “independence” from his master, while sometimes on good terms with the individual squatter, so the digger, liked to be thought that he cared nothing for the officers as a class (Haltof, 1988)
The values of mateship and masculinity are very important to the Australian national myth which makes it a closed space for women. (Haltof, 1988) This in full display in Gallipoli as portrayed in the Archy and Frank’s friendship throughout the movie. Gallipoli is just one of the many displays of the creation of a new Australian identity through art in the period after the British left Asia and moved on from its connection with Australia. A nation is stronger for having its own myths and heroes and Australia could have done much worse than the bushman, the Anzac and the Boer and First World Wars.
Australian nationalism and identity has been in large part been delineated in two different time periods with the late 1960s being the point of division between the two eras. Australia’s identity was in earlier period defined by its Britishness and its connections to the British Empire. This form of nationalism depended on the strength of the ties of both nations as members of an “Anglo-Celtic” racial community and it worked on the strength of the ties and connections between the countries not only on political matters but also on cultural, social and familial bonds. Britain’s decision to quit its commitments “east of Suez” in the late 1960s created a crisis in Australian identity which resulted in Australia creating a new form of national identity and new national mythology.
This new mythology is best portrayed in Peter Weir’s 1981 film Gallipoli. Gallipoli is a display of all the facets of what is important for the new Australian identity, masculinity, mateship, the sacrifice of the Anzacs in the Dardanelles campaign and the meaning of the First World War in creating a new Australia which fought not only for the British Empire but for its own interests. Australia might have moved away from a racialized view of Britishness and towards a new identity ultimately rests on a conception of Australia as part of the British Empire defined through service to it in the Second Boer War and the Dardanelles Campaign.
References
DONOGHUE, J., & TRANTER, B. (2015). The Anzacs: Military influences on Australian identity. Journal of Sociology. 51, 449-463.
HALTOF, M. (1988). In quest of self-identity: "Gallipoli," mateship and the construction of Australian national identity. [Place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified].
KRISTENSEN, J. (2005). “In Essence still a British Country”: Britain's withdrawal from East of Suez. Australian Journal of Politics & History. 51, 40-52.
MEANEY, N. (2001). Britishness and Australian identity: The problem of nationalism in Australian history and historiography*. Australian Historical Studies. 32, 76-90.
