In her Relativities column in the Weekend Financial Review (subscription required), p. 28, called, 'Identity shifts marks new work view', Deidre Macken, adopts a cosmopolitan perspective that dislocates her social being from national identity and interests. She adopts the global city perspective of the world market to argue that the market forces of globalization have:

"...allowed regions and cities to establish their own relationships with the world, so that being a Sydneysider is something different to being an Australian."

Clearly Sydney as a global city has become disconnected from the rest of the country in a way that a provincal city such as Adelaide is not. But what does disconnected mean? Macken explains this in the following way:

"Demographically my home town is very different to my country. Its younger, more multicultural, better paid, better educated, more travelled and more disrespectful of traditions such as the monarch and flag."

Wll, some parts of Sydeny. There are other parts that are less educated, poorer, less well paid, less travelled and more moncultural than parts of Adelaide. But Sydney is a global city and Adelaide is a provincal one.

What are the implications of Sydney as a global city disconnecting from the country? According to Macken the charms of patriotism and nationalism have little appeal to her. They are something to be embarrased about. For a global being such as herself they are relics of history to be discarded. Macken says:

"I feel part Sydneysider and part Australian but less likely than ever to be stirred by the sight of an Australian flag on foreign soil. "

I interpret this as being against nationalism (whether civic or ethnic) and in favour of individuals who are 'citizens' of the world. Thats what being a Sydneysider in Macken's sense implies. She is announcing the end of the nation-state in favour of the global marketplace. Unlike her fellow citizens who reside in the rest of the country, Macken is post national and proudly so. According to Macken, those of us who live in the country and are bounded by the horizons of the country are stirred by the sight of the old national tradition of the Australian flag evoking patriotic emotions.

Being a Sydneysider, a global being, is living against historical tradition, the authority of long-standing national practices that have outlived their time, such as the monarchy. So we have tradition within closed boundaries versus the openendedness of cosmopolitanism or universalism. A national culture is a tradition in the sense that involves, change, diversity, conflict and not simply something fixed or static that is based on a core national character.

Macken's cosmopolitanism ignores the conflict within the country; ie, whether tradition in the form of local communities is opposed to the nationalism of the centre (Canberra), which is unresponsive to local traditions and practices that underpin Australian federalism. This opens up possibilities for a cultural pluralism within a sovereign state.

Secondly, the embrace of cosmpolitianism and dismissing tradition acts to displace the sense of the nation as a form of cultural belonging; as a way of belonging to a political community with its shared beliefs, common language and mutual commitment. Instead of belonging to a sovereign nation-state we have a free floating nomadic existence. My identity as an Australian forms my fundamental perspective on the world, provides me with a set of memories and aspirations, gives me a past and a future, and gives me a place in the world that I recognize as home.

Thirdly, being a global trotting Sydneysider on this account means asserting the global market over the nation-state with the identity of the Sydneysider one of being a producer or consumer in the global markeplace. This is a global identity that disconnects from being a citizen concerned with public issues and the public good within the boundaries of the self-determining, nation state. The state's legimacy depends upon its claim to represent a community defined by its culture.

So why disconnect? From what I can make out Macken's global perspective implies that the nation-state as a particular sort of political entity is more homogenous as a cultural group whereas Sydney is more multicultural. This implies that the nation contains minority migrant groups in such a way that it does not allow for the proper existence of cultural diversity of poly-ethnicity or culturally defined communities.

Is this so?

It seems to be an idealised account of Sydeny. It conveniently overlooks that a lot of what passes for multiculturalism in Sydeny is migrant sitting around in a ghetto and saying I'm not an Aussie; I see no reason why should I contribute, or fully participate in this society; and I am not part of the country. It is not my homeland.

What Macken's global perspective does not acknowledge is that cultural diversity is a problem for the nation-state. The state as a particular sort of political entity needs to address the homogeneity of the nation so that the dominant culture of the nation becomes more multicultural. Rather than the nation "containing" minority groups--as if one was the host and the other the guest---it should redefine the nation so that the nation involves cultural diversity.

Being a member of the nation involves both being Australian or Greek. My sense of self or identity as an Australian involves both and without either I will experience a sense of loss; a deep sense of dislocation and alienation. There is both a sense of belonging to this country and a valuing of the Greek cultural heritage of the migrant community. The problem is where a liberal state do this? Though it is meant to be neutal between different cultures or ways of life, the liberal state actually functions to protect and perpetuate one culture--the Anglo-Australian one.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference going post-national:

Comments

Posted by: Sophie | November 12, 2004 10:49 AM