Marshall is a good way of approaching this I think. Half a century later, our media saturated lives have changed what the varieties of citizenship entail, but it's still relevant. From memory Marshall talked about the right to participate to the full in cultural heritage, which puts Macquarie Fields on a par with Aboriginal Australia. Neither see themselves reflected in either imagery or policy in any positive light.

The importance of Marshall and citizenship is in participation, which is where I see our communications channels, or vectors, being a big part of the problem. Participation is now more mediated than ever before. There's no such thing as reportage of a riot or a street march without some talking head passing judgement on those involved and the issues they're trying to raise. There is a lack of authentic voice.

" These could be tolerable...if people felt they had some ownership".
Are we talking about that whole move toward disempowerment that has been the hallmark of politics for the last fifteen years, particular since the Howard ascendancy ( remember his "empowerment" nonsense that bred W.........s, welfare-bashing,anti- environmentalism and anti- intellectualism, baby bonuses, religion and racism as drug-like sops to the Hansonist petit- bourgeoisie? ).
As a middle aged blue-collar I accepted years ago that Porsches and the Inner city were out bounds. I even crawled around ashamed at uni for half the time I was there, when I finally got that chance. In the end I've retreated to a defensive position that says, I meet my basic needs and maybe contribute to and see emerging a better world.
Some things I've learned to accept, from the export of manufacturing offshore and even welcome, like the ( partial )emancipation of women.
Other things are harder- even intolerable.
E.g, disempowering.
Of the latter I can think of nothing more striking as an example, than woodchipping and Old Growth; in fact the entire example of forestry in this country since Beddall overruled Faulkner over forest coups in 1994.
That is, as the most obvious example of many, of the unrelenting dominance of irrationality over common sense.
This is worsened by the sense from example after example since, that no matter the quality of rational argument, the most intrinsically innane proposition will always be automatically forgrounded, as though by a law of nature.
Life is a funny thing. But for that pithecine refugee from the nineteenth century and single digit IQ's; Lennon, turning up on Latteline to bray about his Gunns triumph, I probably wouldn't have thought of this site, so perhaps there is hope yet?

Paul,

Did you deliberately type Latteline? That's hilarious. It so is Latteline. Having said that, I watch it every night I can keep my eyes open long enough.

I'd never paid much attention to Lennon as an individual before that broadcast. Does he always have so much difficulty restraining himself from picking his nose? There were definite indications of some kind of nasal obsession going on.

"I even crawled around ashamed at uni for half the time I was there, when I finally got that chance." Me too. Still am. I'm an impoverished lefty intellectual I guess. I try to make up for it with haughty insolence, but it's no match for a Gucci satchell and Magli pumps.

In contrast with your description of acceptance Burchell thinks that the crime and rioting in lower class suburbs is a creative way of getting by and getting ahead when there are no other options available. It's kind of like the Chopper Read argument. The main area where I find agreement with Burchell is that the concerns and worldviews of such people have nothing in common with those of the inner city Porsche driving types, which is basically what you're saying as well.

Lefty elitist urbanites have abandoned the blue collar working class, which is also true to a large extent. He's gone for the Howard culture wars divide to boost his argument, whereas I gather you would point out that old growth forests are as important to working class people as they are to lefty elitists. I think that's also true, and that the whole thing is far more complex.

Burchell could certainly be more subtle about arguing his point, but I think it's still true to say that elitist lefties with the ability to be heard have abandoned the (white) disenfranchised. How can you be all concerned about the erosion of democracy and Iraqi civilians but at the same time ignore the right of a bunch of your fellow citizens to participate fully in their own society?

It's a reasonable question.

Lyn, hullo.
Am just home from that crude bluecollar festival of oneupmanship called the South Australian footy grand final. Once again we went through our adversaries like a dose of salts. Eight grand finals, six premierships since the beginning of the century.
Sounds impressive when I say "beginning of the century" doesn't it?
Sort of Fed return verandahs , oak-leaf iron work, leadlighting and a big fig tree somewhere.
You and I sound very similar. I was brought up in the outer northern Adelaide suburb where my ( finally ) winning team comes from; Elizabeth. Am the wrong side of fifty, so my values were formed in the fifties, 'sixties and 'seventies. And YES, I beleive environment SHOULD be important to working class people, for probably fairly similar "complex" reasons to those you have worked out.
As it says in the that third paragraph quoted in the excerpt, working class people are not necessarily wallflowers at all; we are in fact resourceful and resilient if we've been brought well by our betters.
We have a sense of proportion sometimes learnt in relative adversity, if not the same adversity of those of previous generation who really did do it hard. And that sense of value relative to waste is partly what informs attitudes towards both material and cultural capital for dinkum " working people".
Something like the forests of Tasmania is not just extant as a plaything there for a quick buck for greedy sybarites and their mates. It is a resource and arguably belongs to a "community" as much as a spoiled few. Coming from my background I just can't cope with the wastefulness of these people, because I sense relative to my learned experience, that we are trashing something that could be worthwhile and we'll regret losing. My sense of this belongs to my coming from a backgound where things are finite, can be scarce and wastage has a cost.
I learnt on the dole, for example, what it can be like for a fortnight if you go out and live it up rashly on payday. And with reasonable times lately I just get the feeling that there is a recognisable carelessness relative to "reality" kicking in and becoming widespread throught western society. I mean, did you watch Insight the other night, concerning the problems of the mortgage belt. I mean, what are we letting ourselves in for?
Back to the environment, maybe some of the Indigines are right. They suggest it "owns" us, also. If that's true, in what ways must we account for
what we do, and our profligate attitudes, to our "owner" should a some sort of "reckoning" time come due one day?
In the mean time I may try get a better idea what this gut Burchell is really into. Keep muddling him with Scott Burchill, the ir commentator.

Paul,

Interesting point you raise about waste, class and time.

I didn't come along until the 60s and we were probably a lower middle class suburban family, but my parents and school both drummed into me the difference between needs and wants.

My father was instrumental in getting that message out to recreational anglers - don't take more than you need to feed you and your family. He promoted tag and release competitions instead of the old ones that saw literally mountains of fish left rotting while the winners had their photos taken for the local paper.

He started a campaign to put pressure on the authorities to quit pumping garbage into the water. We had stickers everywhere saying 'you're the solution to water pollution'. Every family outing ended with an emu bob - we picked up our own rubbish as well as other people's.

Limiting what you use, avoiding waste and preserving what we all have was very much the personal responsibility of everyone.

I don't know that that was ever common, but I grew up watching my old man and his mates change the thinking in the domain of sport fishing in one generation. It took a bit longer to hit the commercial industry, but it happened in the end.