Living Diversity

LIVING DIVERSITY AUSTRALIA’S MULTICULTURAL FUTURE Professor Ien Ang Dr Jeffrey E Brand Dr Greg Noble Dr Derek Wilding © Copyright Special Broadcasting Services Corporation 2002 This work is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form, or by any means of process, without the written permission of the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation. Published by: Special Broadcasting Service Corporation 14 Herbert Street Artarmon NSW 2064 Australia Designed by gas creative Printed by Chippendale Printing Company Ien Ang is Professor of Cultural Studies and Director of the Centre for Cultural Research at the University of Western Sydney. She has a longstanding international reputation in media and cultural studies, and has written a number of influential books on television culture, including Watching Dallas (1985) and Living Room Wars (1996). She is also wellknown in Australia and internationally for her work on multiculturalism, ethnicity and cultural diversity. Her most recent book is On Not Speaking Chinese: Living between Asia and the West (2001). Jeff Brand is Associate Professor of Communication and Media and a Director of the Centre for New Media Research and Education at Bond University. He lectures in Mass Communication, Research, Communication Technologies and Interactive Media. Dr. Brand has served as a research consultant to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, SBS Corporation, and ENERGEX. He has been awarded industry research grants from The National Association of Broadcasters in the United States and Telstra in Australia. ISBN 0-9750116-0 Greg Noble is senior lecturer in Cultural Studies and a researcher in the Centre for Cultural Research at the University of Western Sydney. He has published widely on issues of multiculturalism, ethnicity and young people, and was one of the authors of Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime (Pluto Press,2000). Derek Wilding is the Director of the Communications Law Centre, based at the University of New South Wales and Victoria University. As Director of the CLC, he has contributed to a number of policy and regulatory reviews on media and communications issues. He holds qualifications in arts and law and a doctorate in media studies. Prior to the CLC, he worked with both the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Queensland University of Technology. LIVING DIVERSITY AUSTRALIA’S MULTICULTURAL FUTURE Professor Ien Ang Dr Jeffrey E Brand Dr Greg Noble Dr Derek Wilding Foreword This major research into trends in multicultural Australia was commissioned by the SBS Board with a view to using the outcomes to inform strategic decision-making on the development of SBS’s services. SBS’S EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESEARCH TOPIC SBS came to this project with an established and unique knowledge base about multicultural Australia. SBS has a network of formal and informal contacts with different communities that it uses to inform its programming decisions. For example, SBS Radio has broadcasters from the majority of cultures represented in Australia. SBS’s knowledge has been built in other ways. There is a rich body of qualitative knowledge recorded in SBS television and radio programming archives. Over half of the SBS staff is either first- or second-generation migrant from a country where English is not the main language spoken. SBS has drawn on social qualitative and quantitative research, academic research, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census to track trends in its audience base. The purpose of commissioning this research was to explore areas not addressed elsewhere, and to fill gaps in the existing knowledge. SBS commissioned the Communications Law Centre to do a preliminary literature review in which generational change emerged as a major theme. For example, there seemed to be a growing disconnection between the third-generation and its cultural roots, reflected in factors such as identification of cultural origin, changing social behaviour, the use of language, and marriage outside a person’s ethnic community. From this, terms of reference were then developed for the major research phase, and the external research group was appointed. SBS sought researchers from a wide range of disciplines, with a view to drawing on the unique expertise of some of the leading social researchers in Australia. This is a groundbreaking Report that shows a dynamic, evolving society where diversity is embraced as the cultural mainstream of Australia. ‘LIVING DIVERSITY: Australia’s Multicultural Future’ is a report of significant social and academic importance that will also help guide SBS’s future strategic and programming decisions. Nigel Milan November 2002 THE RESEARCH COMMISSIONING PROCESS An external collaborative project using a range of independent analysts from different disciplines was proposed. In order to enable the independent researchers to tap into SBS’s considerable knowledge and resources, the commissioning team within the SBS Policy Unit (Geoffrey Abbott, Julie Eisenberg, Simon Flores and Erin Walters) coordinated input from a consultant group of internal staff members. The information collected was provided to the authors of the report at various stages of the project. The internal group included Ken Sievers, Andrew Collins, David Ingram, Graham Butler, Mike Zafiropoulos and Paul Vincent. 2 LIVING DIVERSITY Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 9 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY Professor Ien Ang 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Civic engagement: reconciliation, globalisation and other issues 1.3 Immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity 1.4 Many Australias 1.5 Conclusion 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY Dr Greg Noble 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Living with others 2.3 Consuming other cultures 2.4 Everyday cosmopolitanism and cultural insularity 2.5 Conclusion – hybrid lives 11 12 16 20 22 25 25 25 30 34 37 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING Professor Ien Ang 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Cultural identity and heritage 3.3 Australia as home 3.4 Personal and social well-being 3.5 Conclusion 39 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA Dr Derek Wilding 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Use of ‘multicultural’ and ‘mainstream’ media 4.3 Differences in media use relevant to cultural background 4.4 The media and society – use of and attitude towards the media 4.5 Conclusion 51 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY Dr Jeffrey E Brand 5.1 Samples: the participants we included 5.2 Sampling techniques: how we accessed participants 5.3 The questions we asked 5.4 Administration 67 References CONTENTS 11 39 40 43 45 48 51 52 56 62 65 67 71 71 73 75 3 Executive Summary OVERVIEW This study gives us a glimpse of the ‘diversity within diversity’ of Australians’ engagement with multiculturalism, their senses of identity and belonging, the ways in which they engage with others of different backgrounds, and their uses of media in a multicultural society. The overall picture is one of a fluid, plural and complex society, with a majority of the population positively accepting of the cultural diversity that is an increasingly routine part of Australian life, although a third is still uncertain or ambivalent about cultural diversity. In practice, most Australians, from whatever background, live and breathe cultural diversity, actively engaging with goods and activities from many different cultures. Cultural mixing and matching is almost universal. There is no evidence of ‘ethnic ghettos’. This ‘mixing and matching’ is also evident in the ways people use media. NESB groups tend to use both mainstream and culturally-specific media, while, nationally, younger generations seem to easily balance mainstream and multicultural sources according to their particular needs or preferences. This means that most Australians live hybrid lives involving influences from many cultures. Only about 10% has negative views about immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity. Moreover, young people tend to have more positive views in this respect than older people – a clear indication that multiculturalism will be even more ‘mainstreamed’ in the future. This will be enhanced by the growing numbers of second- and third-generation NESB Australians in our midst. 4 Australians of all backgrounds are generally satisfied with their lives in Australia and call Australia home, but many of those of non-English speaking backgrounds do not feel a complete sense of belonging to Australia. Only about 30% of the second-generation NESB respondents in this study (who were born and bred in Australia) describe their identity as ‘Australian’. Several NESB samples strongly believe that the Australian media do not represent their way of life. This is also the case for Indigenous Australians. In sum, cultural diversity is a fact of life in Australia that most Australians are increasingly at ease with. In the authors’ view, this is good news for SBS as a broadcaster with a mandate to reflect diversity. At the same time, there is still a challenge for SBS to further foster and promote cultural inclusiveness through the representation of and engagement with diversity. THE CONTEXT This Report is the outcome of research commissioned by the SBS Board. The aim was to identify trends that might underpin strategic decision-making about how SBS can best serve its multilingual and multicultural Charter. Using a unique methodology, the Report fills a gap in existing research, by providing a way of canvassing similarities and differences within and between nonEnglish speaking background (NESB) samples and different migrant generations on a range of attitudes and behaviours. The study explores the characteristics of a cross-section of all Australians, and also the characteristics of specific language and Indigenous groups in their own languages and contexts. METHODS OVERVIEW The unique research model seeks to give people of different backgrounds similar opportunities to respond to similar issues, allowing comparison within and between groups of Australians. LIVING DIVERSITY KEY FINDINGS Seven sample groups: A national representative sample of 1,437 adults, five representative non-English speaking background (NESB) samples (406 Filipino, 401 Greek, 400 Lebanese, 401 Somalis, and 400 Vietnamese), and 56 Indigenous people (from 6 diverse communities – urban, regional and remote) were surveyed. Importantly, the samples do not aim to represent all NESB or Indigenous people. (For example, trends identified among the Greek sample do not automatically represent other large NESB groups, nor should all five NESB groups sampled in this study, when combined, be taken to represent all NESB Australians.) References such as ‘Greeks’ are intended by the authors as shorthand for Australians with a Greek cultural background. Questionnaire: A 90-item survey was conducted across the national sample and the five NESB samples. People in the latter could be surveyed in English or their language of ancestry. On expert advice, Indigenous communities were studied using focus groups and interviews. Rich data: Reporting of the findings is necessarily selective. With over 90 variables and seven sample groups, there are countless permutations of data. Nevertheless, the research team performed a very large number of analyses. Some findings were deemed less important than those reported here. Others findings were not sufficiently strong and some interesting findings did not fall within the scope of this report. The Report focussed on: • Australians’ attitudes to cultural diversity and related issues • Diversity in everyday life: people mixing in work and play • Australians’ sense of belonging to a country or culture • Media use in multicultural Australia EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY Australians have a solid civic engagement with diversity: The study looks at attitudes to immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity in Australia. In recent times, these issues (often treated as interchangeable) have been controversial. Media reporting would suggest an overall negativity to these issues. However, the report demonstrates largely positive attitudes to immigration, diversity and multiculturalism. Differences between different sections of the population are not categorical, but ones of degree. Most Australians are concerned about reconciliation: A majority of people consider reconciliation with Indigenous people ‘important’ to ‘very important’. Our NESB samples are much more supportive of reconciliation than is the national sample. Australians regard immigration as a having benefited Australia. Two-thirds of the national sample and higher levels in the NESB samples believe that immigration has been of benefit to Australia. This is a much higher figure that in a recent UK survey commissioned by the BBC. A minority of Australians are ambivalent or negative towards diversity: About one third of the national sample consider cultural diversity neither a strength nor a weakness to Australian society, suggesting uncertainty/ambivalence about its value; about 10% has negative views about immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity. Australians are qualified in their support for multiculturalism – yet engage strongly with a culturally diverse lifestyle: The majority of the national sample support multiculturalism and cultural diversity (respectively 52% and 59%), but to a lesser extent than they support immigration. NESB Australians more strongly support multiculturalism and cultural diversity. Among the second-generation NESB, support declines, although it remains above the levels in the national sample. 5 Education and youth are linked to positive attitudes to cultural diversity: Support for cultural diversity increases distinctly with education. It is also significant that in the national sample, the younger the age group the more support there is for multiculturalism (from 46% in the 55+ age group to 64% in the 16–24 age group), signalling a clear mainstreaming of multiculturalism in contemporary Australia and in the coming years. 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY Most Australians live and breathe cultural diversity: Canvassing issues of identity, and people’s daily social and working life, the survey demonstrates that, regardless of their background, people are actively engaging with food and leisure activities from many different cultures. Cultural mixing and matching is almost universal. Remarkable similarities between the cities and regional areas: Although fewer people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds live in regional areas, this does not seem to have resulted in any marked city/country divide in support for immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity. Australians from all backgrounds experience everyday cosmopolitanism: This occurs alongside their connections with their family and cultural traditions and the pattern occurs among people of all backgrounds – English-speaking and NESB, city and country. This comfort with multiple identities and connections helps explain the generally positive views towards Australia’s multiculturalism and cultural diversity which this Report describes. Australians experience ‘Diversity within Diversity’: Most Australians are living hybrid lives involving influences from many cultures. This study suggests it is not valid to assume that a person’s culture of origin comes with a set of distinct attitudes, or that stereotypes about lifestyle and belief can be drawn around particular cultural groups. Australians generally see their society as tolerant – migrants more so than long time Australians: Forty per cent of the national sample consider Australia a tolerant or very tolerant society. The figure is much higher across the NESB samples (47% Lebanese and 67% of Vietnamese for example). The secondgeneration of NESB, although still higher, is more akin to the national sample. Australia’s mainstream is likely to change: With young people and second-generation Australians of NES backgrounds expressing positive views on multiculturalism and cultural diversity, the new ‘mainstream’ of Australia in the future is likely to be even more accepting of diversity than is currently the case. 6 There is no evidence of ‘ethnic ghettos’: The picture that emerges is not one of enclosed ethnic communities, despite how the media might represent certain areas in Sydney such as Bankstown and Cabramatta. While many NESB Australians clearly put a high priority on cultural maintenance, this does not seem to prevent people from being socially active citizens with a broad range of cultural experiences. Some ‘long-time Australians’ (see page 10) aren’t engaging with diversity: There is some evidence, that a small minority of long-time Australians may be more culturally insular than those who are often decried for living in ghettos. Indigenous Australians experience diversity differently: There is also evidence that Indigenous Australians are not experiencing the same type of everyday cosmopolitanism of the mainstream elites. While many are ambivalent towards multicultural policies, most seem positive about living in a culturally diverse society, and take pride in the diversity within their own communities. LIVING DIVERSITY 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING Australians experience different senses of belonging: Most people are satisfied with their lives in Australia and call Australia home, but many of those of nonEnglish speaking backgrounds do not feel a complete sense of belonging to Australia. Australians of different backgrounds experience relatively high levels of personal satisfaction: Most Australians, including people of NESB, are highly satisfied with their lives (close to 80%). There is less satisfaction with Australia as a society, though NESB samples give slightly higher report cards to Australian society than the national sample. People of Muslim Lebanese (65%) and Greek (66%) backgrounds tend to be less satisfied than average. Somalis (85%), Christian Lebanese (80%) English-speaking migrants (83%) are more satisfied than average. Comments from Indigenous people also suggest a general satisfaction with life, with some provisos linked to historical and social disadvantages. There are nevertheless stark contrasts in how Australians identify themselves: While almost 60% of the national sample calls themselves ‘Australian’, fewer than 10% of the combined NESB sample groups do. Half the NESB respondents mention another nationality. This may suggest that ‘Australianness’ is still not generally perceived in a manner that recognises, and is fully inclusive of the cultural diversity of the Australian people. Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly call themselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander first – this forms the core of their cultural identity. The sense of incomplete belonging remains a challenge for SBS as a multicultural broadcaster: The incompleteness of cultural belonging presents a challenge for a multicultural broadcaster, charged with fostering and promoting cultural inclusiveness through the representation of and engagement with diversity. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA Most Australians use media in similar ways, regardless of background, but there are some interesting intercultural differences: For example: • In some aspects of media use, some of the NESB groups are more like the national sample than other NESB samples. This finding undermines the idea of a ‘mainstream’ block and an ‘ethnic’ block of viewers; • Lebanese participants are heavy users of pay TV; • Vietnamese participants are heavy users of SBS Radio; • Greek, Lebanese, and Vietnamese participants are all heavy users of LOTE radio programs, SBS Radio, SBS Television, and national music; and • NESB women are significantly lower users of the Internet. Most Australians watch subtitled films and most watch them on SBS: Almost two thirds of both the national sample, and slightly more of the combined NESB sample, report watching subtitled films. SBS is the major way that people access these films. NESB Australians are generally more interested in international news than national news – but there is a generational shift: There is a reversal of interest in local/national news and in international news between the national sample and the combined NESB sample. However, preference for national news increases with the second-generation, with a corresponding drop in preference for international news. Younger people are experiencing a resurgent interest in international news: When we break secondgeneration responses by age, instead of a gradual decline in interest in international news relative to age, there appears to be a resurgence of interest in international news among people in the 16–24 age group. 7 The Australian media are not seen as reflecting the Australian way of life: Large numbers of people in the national sample as well as the combined NESB sample believe the media does not represent their way of life. This is especially pronounced in the Lebanese sample, but there are also strong views in the Greek and Somali samples. Indigenous Australians are dissatisfied with the media’s portrayal of their way of life: Many Indigenous participants believe the media often actively misrepresent their lives. NESB groups are using a wide mix of media: Media use by the NESB groups shows a range of activities and engagement with both mainstream and culturally specific media, demonstrating the cultural mixing noted earlier. Younger generations balance multicultural and mainstream sources. The results suggest Australians generally are not passive media users but seek out alternative sources that might be relevant to their particular needs. The Research Group – November 2002 8 LIVING DIVERSITY Introduction When SBS was established in the mid ’70s as one important plank of Australia’s policy of multiculturalism, the notion of Australia as a multicultural nation was still new. In 2002, multiculturalism has become both more commonplace and more complex. It is well known that Australia is now one of the most culturally diverse societies in the world. Detailed knowledge about contemporary trends in multicultural Australia is crucial for SBS to decide how it can best serve its multilingual and multicultural Charter. The project brief was to conduct research that shed broad light on important aspects of Australia’s multicultural present and future. The themes to be explored included: • The relationship between cultural background (including language, cultural identity, migrant generation) and social attitudes and social behaviours (including use of media). • The extent to which there is a ‘mainstreaming’ of cultural difference and diversity in Australia. The Report fills a gap in existing research, by providing a way of canvassing similarities and differences between selected non-English speaking background (NESB) groups and different migrant generations on a range of attitudes and behaviours relevant to SBS’s role as a multicultural broadcaster. The study explores the characteristics of a cross-section of all Australians, and also the characteristics of five selected NESB groups, as well as Indigenous Australians. A unique research model was developed, seeking to give people of different backgrounds opportunities to respond to similar issues, thereby allowing comparison within and between diverse groups of Australians. This approach has never been undertaken in Australian multicultural research and provides the opportunity for a fresh exploration of key themes. INTRODUCTION A 90-item survey was conducted across a national representative sample of 1,437 adults and five representative NESB samples (406 Filipino, 401 Greek, 400 Lebanese, 401 Somalis, and 400 Vietnamese). People in the latter could be surveyed either in English or in the language of their country of origin. On expert advice, Indigenous Australians from six diverse communities (urban, regional and remote), 56 people in total, were studied using focus groups and interviews. The survey was conducted between March and May 2002. It is important to stress that the specific samples do not aim to represent all NESB people in Australia. Thus, trends identified among the Greek sample do not automatically represent other large NESB communities who arrived after World War Two. Nor should the combined total of all five NESB groups sampled in this study be taken to represent NESB Australians in general. As well, the relatively small but internally diverse Indigenous sample should not be taken to be representative of all Indigenous Australians. Further explanation of the methodology deployed can be found in Chapter 5. Reporting on the findings of such a large and wideranging survey is necessarily selective. With over 90 variables and seven sample groups, there were countless permutations of data. Nevertheless, as a team we performed a very large number of analyses. This Report focuses on: • Australians’ attitudes to cultural diversity and related issues; • Diversity in everyday life: people mixing in work and play; • Australians’ sense of identity and belonging; • Media use in multicultural Australia. Overall, the findings suggest that by and large, Australians of all backgrounds are increasingly at ease with the culturally diverse make-up of the society in which they live. In the following chapter we provide detail and nuance to this overall finding. 9 The survey took place after major national and global upheavals caused by the refugee crisis, September 11 and the ‘war against terrorism’, but before the Bali bombings of October 2002. While such events may or may not affect the attitudes, views and behaviours of particular groups – one thinks, for example, of those of Muslim backgrounds – we are confident that this Report provides us with a unique and revealing picture of some longer-term trends in multicultural Australia. Second-generation (migrants) – Australians born in Australia, who have one or both parents born overseas. Of the five NESB groups included in this study, secondgeneration individuals are almost exclusively of Greek or Lebanese backgrounds. The other three groups (Vietnamese, Filipino and Somali) have not been in Australia long enough to have many second-generation migrants among them in the age range included in this study (16 years or older). EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY Throughout this Report we use commonly known terms in quite specific ways. To avoid confusion or misinterpretation, we would like to provide clarification for the following terms: Long-time Australians – This term refers to the large group within the national sample who are fourthgeneration inhabitants or more. Note this does not necessarily mean that they are of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds (other individuals, such as Chinese or Lebanese can also be long-time Australians), though an overwhelming majority would be. NESB – non-English speaking background. This has been the most used official term in Australian multiculturalism to refer to migrants who were born in a country where English is not the main language. In this report, when we refer to ‘the combined NESB samples’, we refer to the total of all respondents from the five NESB categories surveyed (Filipino, Greek, Lebanese, Somali and Vietnamese). It should be stressed again that this composite sample should not be seen as representative of all NESB Australians. ESB – English-speaking background. In this report, ESB migrants or people of ESB refers to those respondents in the national sample who indicated that they, (one of) their parents or (one of) their grandparents were born in a country where English is the main language. First-generation (migrants) – Citizens or residents of Australia who were born overseas. Please note that these can be of both ESB and NESB. 10 LIVING DIVERSITY 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY one. Introduction In this chapter, we concentrate on the contours of multicultural citizenship in Australia. How do people of different backgrounds relate to some key issues such as reconciliation and globalisation? What do people consider the most important issues facing the country? Of central interest to this study is a close examination of people’s attitudes to immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity in Australia. In recent times, due to dramatic world events such as the Tampa crisis, September 11 and the war against terrorism, these issues – often treated as interchangeable – have been subject to much controversy. In engaging with audiences, it is therefore crucial for SBS to have an understanding of people’s views of these matters, and how they differentiate across different groups and sections of the Australian population. The overall picture is one of solid civic engagement among all groups. While there are attitudinal differences between different sections of the population, it needs to be stressed that commonalities across the different groups, especially in relation to attitudes to immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity, are more prominent. Differences between different sections of the population are not categorical, but ones of degree. Some of the most important findings are: 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY • A majority of the population of all backgrounds consider reconciliation with Indigenous people ‘important’ to ‘very important’. Remarkably, however, our combined NESB samples are much more supportive of reconciliation (80%) than the national sample (70%). The support of the Somalis is at a record high level of 93%. Second-generation Australians (71%) are much less likely than firstgeneration migrants (86%) to consider reconciliation important. • Immigration was most often mentioned by the national sample (37%) as one of the two most important issues facing Australia – probably a reflection of the time of the survey (when the issue of asylum seekers was at the centre of public debate). However, this high level of concern does not imply a negative attitude: 67% of the national sample believe that immigration has been of benefit to Australia. • In the national sample, the overall level of support for multiculturalism and cultural diversity is generally somewhat lower than that for immigration, though there is still majority support for both (respectively 52% and 59%). • Not surprisingly, support for immigration (80%), multiculturalism (80%) and cultural diversity (73%) is very high among NESB respondents, especially firstgeneration migrants. Interestingly, there is declining support for immigration (68%) and multiculturalism (75%) among the second generation of NESB respondents, but their support for cultural diversity remains steady (74%). These levels remain higher than for the national sample. 11 • There is no significant difference in levels of support for immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity between capital city and regional residents, but university educated people (especially postgraduates) are significantly more supportive than those without a university education. • About 10% of the population has negative views about immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity. • A large group of the national sample (33%) consider cultural diversity neither a strength nor a weakness of Australian society, suggesting a high degree of uncertainty or ambivalence about the value of cultural diversity. • In the national sample, the younger the age group, the more support there is for multiculturalism (from 46% in the 55+ age group to 64% in the 16–24 age group), signalling a clear mainstreaming of multiculturalism in contemporary Australia. Overall, this configuration of findings confirms a clear diversity within diversity. There is a high degree of fluidity and difference within each of the categories. In this sense, this can characterise the nation as layered and intertwining ‘many Australias’. The task for SBS is to respond effectively to this increasingly dynamic and pluralised diversity and perhaps seek to connect with those who are ambivalent about diversity. two. Civic engagement: reconciliation, globalisation and other issues RECONCILIATION Reconciliation with indigenous Australia has been a key issue on the national agenda for some time. However, we know little about how people of non-English speaking backgrounds relate to this issue: most public debate has been framed exclusively in terms of black/ white relations. We therefore asked our respondents the question: ‘How important is reconciliation with Australia’s Aboriginal/Indigenous people?’ 12 Almost 70% of the national sample responded ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Interestingly, in all five NESB samples a higher percentage did so: from 73% of Vietnamese to almost 93% of Somalis considered reconciliation important to very important. In addition, a significantly larger percentage of the national sample deemed this issue ‘not important’ or ‘not very important’ (19%) than any of the five NESB groupings (the highest being 10% of Lebanese and 9% of Greek, and the lowest 3% of Somalis). In other words, NESB migrants tend to consider reconciliation a much more important issue than the national population – a sign of strong awareness of the special place of Indigenous Australians in society. This is one of the most remarkable outcomes of this study, given the prevailing perception that reconciliation is mainly a ‘white’ issue. The relatively strong importance NESB people give to reconciliation becomes even more pronounced when we compare them with long-time Australians and migrants from other English-speaking countries. Only 58% of long-time Australians consider reconciliation ‘important’ or ‘very important’, while more than 68% of English-speaking background (ESB) migrants do, compared with more than 81% of NESB migrants. In other words, long-time Australians – that is, predominantly the Anglo-Celtic majority – are the least interested in reconciliation (although a majority still does consider it important). This is a curious finding, which deserves further interpretive exploration. It has been suggested in public debates that reconciliation is mostly a luxury interest of the urban ‘cosmopolitan elites’. Our data do not corroborate this assertion but paint a much more complex picture. When we look at the national sample, there is only a minor difference between capital city (64%) and regional (59%) residents who consider reconciliation important or very important. However, education levels do differentiate strongly. The most pro-reconciliation are those with a postgraduate education (76%) and a university/CAE diploma (68%). The least favourable towards reconciliation are those with completed high school (56%) and a TAFE/trade certificate (55%) – LIVING DIVERSITY that is, the large group of what may be called the lower middle class. The figure is higher (60%) for those with only primary schooling. Significantly, women (66%) consider reconciliation much more important than men (55%), and that opinion is shared by young people (70% of the 16–24 age group) compared with older people (59% of the 55+ group). Interestingly, the baby boomer generation (40–54 age group) is the least supportive (55%) of reconciliation. A majority of all the groups we examined considered reconciliation to be important. Returning briefly to the combined NESB sample, there is an interesting difference between first- and secondgeneration Australians. Support for reconciliation is apparently much higher among first-generation migrants (86%) than among the second-generation (71%). In other words, the children of migrants are much more similar to the mainstream population than their parents when it comes to attitudes towards reconciliation. Further research would be necessary to determine why this occurs. Obviously, reconciliation is a much more directly relevant issue for Indigenous people themselves. Views were very diverse; many Indigenous community members we consulted feel positive towards reconciliation, but others are much more cynical. “Something for non-indigenous people to feel like they are making an effort too, something for them to direct their energy to.” (Alice Springs) “Promotes pity.” (Sydney) “Love your enemies.” (Cairns) Overall, then, there is clear majority support for reconciliation in all sections of the non-Indigenous population, though stronger in some groups than in others. The relatively high support on the part of first-generation migrants stands out as a most surprising result. Figure 1. Importance of reconciliation withINDIGENOUS Indigenous Australia IMPORTANCE OF RECONCILIATION WITH AUSTRALIA Importance Neutral (Very) Important Don't know 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not (very) important 100 Sample Group 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY 13 GLOBALISATION Another topical, and controversial, issue facing Australia – and the world – is globalisation. We asked: “How much should Australia support globalisation?” Here, there is much less national consensus, with about 41% of the national sample in favour of globalisation and about 20% against. NESB groups tend to be somewhat more supportive of globalisation. Of the five NESB samples combined, 49% support globalisation, with Filipinos most in favour (59%). The Filipinos appeared to have the most global perspective of the five NESB groups featured in this study (they are also the group most likely to live overseas, as discussed later in Chapter 3). It is interesting to note that migrants in general tend to be more supportive of globalisation than long-time Australians. Indeed, our findings suggest that while only 38% of long-time Australians are of the opinion that Australia should support globalisation, 47% of migrants (whether of English-speaking or of nonEnglish speaking background) do. One could speculate here that the very experience of migration has provided many people with a more international outlook – a theme often discussed in academic literature on migration and global diasporas (e.g. Cohen, 1997). Migrants also tend to maintain contact with family and friends overseas, which is an incentive to have a more open attitude towards the world beyond Australia. (This tallies with the greater interest of NESB groups, especially first-generation migrants, in international news, as will be discussed in Chapter 4.) An indication of the complexity of the term is the fact that relatively large numbers of people were neither supportive nor unsupportive (more than 30% of the national sample), or said that they didn’t know (24% of Lebanese and 37% of Vietnamese). Among the Indigenous groups too there was some confusion about what ‘globalisation’ meant. When explained, views tended to be divided, with some emphasising the need to look after Australian interests first, while others considered it a fait accompli. “You have to be a smart player in a global world.” (Cherbourg) “Can’t blame battling families for buying Asian-made over Australian-made because it is cheaper. Globalisation promotes this.” (Port Hedland) “Aboriginal issues should be out there. Sounds like globalisation would ignore our issues.” (Sydney) MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUES To explore the civic engagement of people further, we also asked people to name two social issues they consider most important: “In your opinion, what are the two most important issues facing Australia today?” The table on the right gives an overview of responses on a selected range of issues. Of course, the word ‘globalisation’ has complex meanings. It seems reasonable to assume that for most, ‘globalisation’ is associated with international free trade and the promotion of a global economy. This, after all, is how ‘globalisation’ is generally talked about in public debate and the media. However, the greater support migrant groups give to globalisation may also reflect a broader, more cultural understanding of the word, in terms of the greater interconnection of different parts of the world (Tomlinson, 1998). 14 LIVING DIVERSITY Table 1. Most important social issues by sample Immigration Unemployment Health/Welfare Economy Multiculturalism/Awareness Education Environment Terrorism Defense/National Security Politicians/Gov’t/Politics Refugees/Illegal Immigrants Policing And Safety Drugs/Drug Abuse Youth Issues/Crime Theft/Robbery Racism Ageing Population/Aged Care Don’t Know National % 36.5 18.1 10.9 10.2 10.2 8.8 8.0 6.9 6.0 5.2 3.9 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 10.2 ‘Immigration’ was the single-most important issue mentioned in the national sample. A total of 37% of the national sample mentioned immigration, with unemployment (18%) being a distant second (only 7% mentioned terrorism and 4% mentioned refugees/illegal immigrants). Obviously, immigration was very much on people’s minds during the time of survey (April 2002), when issues around asylum seekers and people smuggling were very much on the political agenda. What is more interesting, however, is to compare the issues mentioned by the different sample groups. Among all five NESB samples, immigration rated highly, but much more highly among the Somali (55%) and Filipino (38%) samples, and much less highly as an important issue among the Vietnamese (13%), Greek (15%) and Lebanese (17%). Without further research, it is impossible to know how to interpret these differences, although obviously this high level of concern with immigration is in line with the national mood of the time. 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY Filipino % 37.7 16.3 5.2 16.7 11.6 8.9 2.0 5.4 4.4 4.7 5.4 10.3 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 – 10.8 Greek % 14.7 28.7 8.7 18.7 9.5 5.5 2.7 2.5 4.0 3.5 0.7 4.7 5.5 2.7 3.5 1.5 4.0 14.5 Lebanese % 17.0 6.8 7.0 9.5 14.0 8.3 2.0 3.3 5.3 1.5 2.8 10.3 7.5 5.5 7.0 4.8 – 14.8 Somali Vietnamese % % 55.7 12.8 39.0 25.8 13.4 6.8 9.4 25.8 – 11.3 8.6 15.5 2.8 1.8 4.8 5.3 1.5 3.5 – 0.5 2.0 2.8 4.6 4.5 0.8 8.0 – 2.8 3.3 2.8 0.5 0.8 – 0.8 2.3 20.8 Turning now to some of the other issues mentioned, we find that unemployment is a very important issue for Vietnamese and Greek respondents (26% and 29% respectively) and particularly so among Somali respondents (39%). The economy and education are mentioned especially by Vietnamese (26% and 16%, as opposed to national sample figures of 10% and 9%). The environment was mentioned by 8% of the national sample, but it was much less on the agendas of the NESB samples (approx 2% across the board). Interestingly, all groups mentioned the importance of intercultural awareness to a significant extent. More than 10% of the national sample mentioned the importance of cultural awareness and multiculturalism, while 14% of Lebanese did. It is possible that this relatively high percentage reflects the fact that people of Middle Eastern background have been the main targets of prejudice in recent times as a result of the backlash against Muslim Australians in the aftermath 15 of September 11 and other critical incidents. This is corroborated by the significant difference between Christian and Muslim Lebanese in this respect. While cultural awareness was mentioned as an important issue by 11% of Christian Lebanese, 17% of Muslim Lebanese said it was an important issue. Moreover, the Lebanese sample significantly more frequently mentioned racism as an important issue facing Australian society than any of the other samples (5%, with the national sample scoring less than 2%). Policing and safety issues (10%) and youth/crime (6%) also loomed relatively large in the responses of this particular group – perhaps a reflection of recent, highly publicised problems around ‘ethnic youth gangs’ in Sydney (where the majority of Lebanese Australians live). It would be an exaggeration to say, however, that this particular group is consumed by these issues. Education (8%), health/welfare (7%) and the economy (10%) are still mentioned more often. In other words, it would be wrong to suggest that the Lebanese (either Christian or Muslim) are a homogeneous community: as in any other ethnic grouping, there is great internal diversity. (This study does not record the impact of the intensified war against terrorism in Australia in the wake of the Bali bombings, which is a particular challenge to Muslim Australians.) Finally, it should be pointed out that a relatively large number of people could not mention any particular issue as important for Australian society. Ten per cent of the national sample responded ‘don’t know’, while 15% of Greek, 16% of Lebanese and 21% of Vietnamese didn’t know. This high level of response failure should not necessarily be interpreted as a lack of civic engagement, as it may be a product of the interview method. Of the Somali sample, which was interviewed face-to-face, only 2% couldn’t give an answer, suggesting that in a more personal context people may be more willing or able to express their views on a question like this. 16 Further research (e.g. a focus group to allow for more qualitative exploration) would be needed to gauge the level and nature of civic engagement among different groups – an important issue for SBS in its role as a public broadcaster with a special mission to cater for the needs and interests of multicultural Australia. three. Immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity IMMIGRATION Turning now to issues specifically related to immigration, we asked people: “How much has Australia’s migration program been of benefit to the country?” a clear majority responded that it has been of benefit, although the percentage is higher among the combined five NESB groups (80%) than in the national sample (67%). Sixty-three per cent of long-time Australians are supportive of immigration, compared with 76% of migrants (both ESB and NESB). People living in regional Australia (64%) are only slightly less supportive than capital city residents (69%). Only 10% of the national sample (and 13% of longtime Australians) responded negatively and can therefore be considered to be anti-immigration, while 22% (and 24% of long-time Australians) believed immigration has been neither of ‘benefit’ nor of ‘no benefit’. It is worth noting here that long-time Australians comprise 26% of the total survey sample. This outcome is of interest given the emotiveness of recent debate around immigration in the country, including the controversy concerning asylum seekers and refugees. (‘Immigration’, as we have discussed, was the number one issue mentioned by all samples as a key issue facing Australia. Considering the two results together, it can be concluded that this doesn’t imply a negative attitude towards immigration per se, simply that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.) LIVING DIVERSITY MULTICULTURALISM While immigration and multiculturalism are often considered together, they are two different issues which should not be conflated. A positive attitude toward immigration may not mean a positive attitude toward multiculturalism, and vice versa. In the period before multicultural policies were introduced in Australia, immigrants were expected to assimilate into the dominant culture. The establishment of multiculturalism as a policy framework in the 1970s replaced the concern with ‘assimilation’ with an emphasis on ‘cultural maintenance’ – the idea that it is desirable for migrants to hold on to their cultural identities and practices when settling into the country (for an overview, see Jupp 1998). national sample responded in the positive, indicating in principle support for multiculturalism. Nineteen per cent responded in the negative. Presumably these are the people who believe that there should be more emphasis on the need for migrants to integrate or assimilate into the mainstream Australian culture. A relatively large number, 29%, were equivocal on this issue. In other words, while a small majority of Australians does support multiculturalism, this support is not universal and many still need to be convinced that the opportunity for migrants with different backgrounds to maintain their cultural heritage will not be bad for the country. An important point of debate ever since has been the extent to which cultural maintenance among migrants – a key principle of the policy of multiculturalism – is a good thing for Australia. Hence, we asked our samples: “How much should migrants be encouraged to keep their cultural identity?” A positive answer to this question can be interpreted as support for multiculturalism. When asked about this, 52% of the However, a very interesting trend reveals itself when we look at how different age groups relate to multiculturalism. Our data show clearly that the younger the age group, the more positive people are towards the idea that migrants should be encouraged to keep their cultural identity, from 65% of the 16–19 age group to 44% of the over 65s in the national sample. This suggests that Australian society is moving increasingly towards a positive acceptance of cultural difference – a clear mainstreaming of multiculturalism. Figure 2. Immigration: benefit to Australia IMMIGRATION: BENEFIT TO AUSTRALIA Response Neutral Of benefit 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Of no benefit 100 Sample Group 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY 17 Not surprisingly, a far larger percentage of each of the NESB samples was of the opinion that migrants should be encouraged to keep their cultural identity: from 65% of Filipinos to more than 85% of Vietnamese and Somalis. Overall, 78% of NESB migrants believed that this should be the case (compared with 54% of ESB migrants and 48% of long-time Australians). This is to be expected, given that multicultural policies have always been presented as beneficial for NESB migrants, and in line with the similarly large extent to Figure 3. Multiculturalism: attitudes andAGE age MULTICULTURALISM: ATTITUDES AND Attitude % Responding Negative Positive 100 80 60 40 Over 65 56–65 46–55 36–45 26–35 20–25 16–19 Over 65 56–65 46–55 36–45 26–35 20–25 16–19 20 Age Group Figure 4. Multiculturalism: migrants andMAINTENANCE maintenance ofOF cultural identity MULTICULTURALISM: MIGRANTS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY Response Should keep cultural identity Neutral 100 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Should not keep cultural identity Sample Group 18 LIVING DIVERSITY which migrants consider it important to have knowledge of their family’s cultural background (see Chapter 3). A relatively high number of Filipinos (26%) are undecided on this issue, while almost 8% do not think migrants should keep their cultural identity. This may be related to the fact that a relatively large number are in mixed marriages. Seventy per cent of Filipino women in Australia are wives/partners of non-Filipino, mostly Anglo-Celtic men; hence, presumably, their greater need to adapt to the dominant culture (Marginson, 2001). Overall, we can conclude that there is a clear majority support for multiculturalism in Australia, especially among migrants. However, this support is less wholehearted than that for immigration. CULTURAL DIVERSITY While the common sense understanding of ‘multiculturalism’ is mostly associated as of relevance specifically to migrants, not to the nation as a whole, ‘cultural diversity’ is commonly understood as a more general and neutral term, describing a sociological characteristic of the entire society. In this sense, cultural diversity, as an effect of the social presence of many different cultural and ethnic groups across society as a whole, is a national issue that affects everyone, not just migrants. That is, a culturally diverse society is a society characterised by difference, by the coexistence of a heterogeneity of cultural practices and values. To what extent do people consider this cultural diversity a strength of Australian society? The responses to this question are interesting, especially compared with the previous questions, regarding migrant-oriented multiculturalism and immigration. Of the national sample, 59% responded that they consider cultural diversity a strength to Australian society, a significantly higher percentage than the support for multiculturalism (52%), but, interestingly, significantly lower than the percentage of those who considered immigration of benefit to the country (64%). In other words, more people were favourable towards immigration than towards cultural diversity. These divergent figures reveal the complex, somewhat ambiguous nature of people’s attitudes Figure 5. Cultural diversity strength of CULTURAL DIVERSITY AS Aas STRENGTH OFAustralia AUSTRALIA Cultural Diversity Neutral Strength 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not a strength 100 Sample Group 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY 19 towards immigration, multiculturalism, and the cultural diversity that emanates. Long-time Australians were comparatively least positive toward cultural diversity: only 56% of them consider cultural diversity a strength to Australian society. By comparison, the figure is 72% for NESB migrants, and 70% for ESB migrants. A large percentage of longtime Australians, 32%, is neither positive nor negative towards cultural diversity, while 12% is negative. Here again then, we see a distinct difference between established Australians and ‘new’ Australians. It is not surprising that all NESB groups are more positive about cultural diversity than the national sample, but there are remarkable differences between the different groups. While the Vietnamese overwhelmingly considered cultural diversity a strength to Australian society (84%), this was the view of only a relatively modest percentage (67%) of Lebanese and (65%) of Somalis. Interestingly, the percentage of Lebanese who did not consider cultural diversity a strength was the highest of all samples (14%, compared with 11% of the national sample). What these data indicate is that while cultural diversity does have majority support across the board, significant sections of people are yet to come to terms with cultural diversity, despite it being a fact of life in Australia, especially in urban centres. The complexity of feelings toward immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity can be gleaned from the community consultations with the Indigenous groups, whose overall attitude is definitely positive. “I love having people from different cultures here, it makes it a richer place for us all.” (Cherbourg) “The more people that come in, the more you understand each other, as long as they don’t do any harm.” (Port Augusta) “Cultural diversity is great. We would miss it if it wasn’t there.” (Alice Springs) 20 On the other hand, there was also some concern: “We all need to abide by the cultural laws within different countries so migrants should abide by Australian laws.” (Alice Springs) “People from overseas are allowed to bring their culture and religion with them when they come here and it’s only in the last couple of years we’ve been allowed our own culture.” (Sydney) four. Many Australias The combined responses to questions about immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity paint a complexly layered picture of the range of attitudes and feelings toward these important but sensitive aspects of Australian society. Overall, the results are heartening, in the sense that the overarching trend is one of majority support for all three issues. But to get a more differentiated understanding we need to dissect the figures further and put them in context. A recent British survey on attitudes towards race and immigration, commissioned by the BBC, provides some useful points of comparison with the Australian situation. The BBC Race Survey, held in May 2002, looked at attitudes among three groups of British people: Whites, Blacks and Asians (a customary categorisation in the UK, the latter two referring to the two largest groups of immigrants, i.e. West Indians of African descent and South Asians from India, Pakistan and East Africa). A few of the questions asked were very similar to the ones used in our study (see http://www.news.bbc.com.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/ uk/2002/race/). On the question, “Do you think that immigration has benefited or damaged British society over the past 50 years?” 30% responded ‘benefited’ (28% whites, 43% Blacks and 50% Asians), while 44% believed that immigration has damaged British society. By contrast, the equivalent Australian response was 67% of the national sample, and 80% of the combined NESB samples who responded that immigration is of benefit to Australia. LIVING DIVERSITY These results point to some major differences in social mood and belief in the two countries, although the much more in-your-face phrasing of the British questions may have contributed to the largely negative responses in that survey. What this comparison does suggest is that Australia’s record as a country of immigration with liberal multicultural policies has produced a comparatively favourable climate with respect to these issues. Nevertheless, immigration and multiculturalism have been controversial issues in recent times, especially as a result of Pauline Hanson’s effect on the nation’s political landscape since 1996. One influential interpretation has been that there has been a backlash against multiculturalism from ordinary white Australians, especially those living in ‘the bush’, creating what some call a ‘two Australias divide’ (Birrell & Rapson 2002). Basing their analysis on 1996–2001 immigration settlement data which show that most new migrants settle in Sydney and Melbourne, with only very few settling in regional Australia, the authors write: “It is tempting to speculate that these birthplace divisions are a significant component of the wider schism evident between metropolis and region in contemporary Australia. It is a commonplace that there is a distinct political divide between the Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne axis and the rest of Australia. (…) This difference, in turn, is manifesting in a cultural divide tied to immigration issues. Sydney and Melbourne contain the generators and transmitters of the multicultural and cosmopolitan ideals which are now so influential in intelligentsia circles. Rearguard resistance to these images is largely based in regional Australia.” (Birrell & Rapson 2002: 22). Immigration Multiculturalism Cultural diversity 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY Our findings give credence to a more nuanced picture. Breaking the national sample down into capital city and regional residents, we find the following responses to the key indicators: Capital city % Pro-immigration 69 Pro-multiculturalism 56 Cultural diversity is a strength 57 Cultural variety of food 73 Regional % 64 48 55 70 As we can see, there are indeed some differences, with a tendency for regional Australia to be somewhat less embracing of immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity. But the differences hardly add up to a dramatic schism. Rather, it is better to assume that there is a diversity of views both in urban and in regional Australia: instead of ‘two Australias’ there are ‘many Australias’. Indeed, it is interesting to note that on one well-known practical indicator of acceptance of cultural diversity, the enjoyment of cultural variety of food, regional Australia scores almost as highly as capital city residents! (We will discuss the culinary diversity more closely in Chapter 2.) One variable that does make a significant difference in attitudinal terms, is level of education. Our study confirms the oft-made claim that ‘multicultural and cosmopolitan ideals’ are largely to be found among the ‘intelligentsia’. As these figures suggest, a university education or postgraduate studies does result in significantly higher levels of support for immigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity: Primary % 56 47 51 Second % 67 49 55 Tafe/Trade % 66 46 57 Uni/CAE % 79 61 69 Postgrad % 87 68 75 21 In other words, there is an apparent divide between those with and without a university education. However, this conclusion should not be overdrawn. Even among those with lower levels of education, a majority support immigration and cultural diversity, while almost half support multiculturalism. Finally, we can look more closely at the NESB samples whose support for all three issues is, as we have seen earlier, much higher than in the national sample. It is interesting to see how support levels decline significantly among second-generation Australians. Only 68% of second-generation Australians consider immigration of benefit to Australia (almost the same as the national sample at 67%), as opposed to 81% among first-generation migrants. With regard to multiculturalism, the drop in support is from 84% to 75% (which is still much higher than the national sample at 52%). This is an intriguing trend that would be worth further study. Presumably, second-generation Australians tend to become less supportive of immigration and multiculturalism because it is mostly first-generation migrants who are (or have been) the beneficiaries of these policies. Whatever the reason, these findings suggest again that second-generation Australians occupy a position in between firstgeneration migrants and the national average. Immigration of benefit Multiculturalism Cultural diversity Globalisation Ist gen. % 81 84 73 60 2nd gen. % 68 75 74 50 National % 67 52 59 41 five. Conclusion Our findings paint a complex and highly differentiated picture of multicultural citizenship in Australia. People of all backgrounds are engaged with prominent social issues of relevance to Australia, but there are some interesting variations between different sample groups. 22 For example, the degree of support for reconciliation with indigenous Australia is much higher among the NESB samples than in the national sample. The majority of Australians are positive about the culturally diverse make up of Australia, though this is more the case for migrants (of both NESB and ESB) than for long-time Australians. There is also a consistent trend that people are more willing to support immigration (considering it beneficial to Australia) than multiculturalism (i.e. the policy that encourages migrants to keep their cultural identity). This suggests that while people may support immigration for economic reasons, the social effects of immigration – that is, an increasingly culturally diverse society – is something that a number of people, especially long-time Australians, tend to be less comfortable about. While only a small percentage believes cultural diversity is not a strength, a large group of the national sample (33%) has uncertain attitudes towards cultural diversity, considering it neither a strength nor a weakness. This suggests that there is a high degree of ambivalence about cultural diversity in Australia. An encouraging sign is the fact that, nationally, younger generations are far more positive about multiculturalism than older generations, which means that cultural diversity is gradually becoming a mainstream phenomenon. At the same time, secondgeneration Australians tend to be much more ‘Australianised’ in their outlook and views than their parents. As their numbers will increase over time, their influence in society may become much more marked, with uncertain social and cultural implications. The task for SBS is to respond effectively to this changing and increasingly differentiated landscape of multicultural Australia. SBS’s constituency is becoming much more pluralised, as various sections have different relations to cultural diversity and thus may have specific communications needs and expectations from the multicultural broadcaster. LIVING DIVERSITY Tolerance in Australia One of the most interesting findings from this study is how different groups perceive the extent to which Australia is a tolerant society. While only 40% of the national population considers Australia a tolerant or very tolerant society, all five NESB samples gave much higher marks to Australia’s tolerance levels, ranging from 47% of Lebanese to a whopping 63% of Somalis and 67% of Vietnamese. At first, this is a counter-intuitive finding: one might expect that these groups would have suffered considerable racism and prejudice in Australia given their very different backgrounds and appearance. However, it is possible that for many migrants who came to Australia mostly as refugees, Australia is a very tolerant country compared with their countries of origin. For example, many Somalis living in Australia are from tribes that suffered discrimination in their own country. Similarly, many Vietnamese in Australia are of Chinese origin and, for this reason, were forced to leave Vietnam. Another group that presumably would suffer from intolerance in Australia, especially in light of recent events such as September 11 and the gang rape incident in Sydney, are the Lebanese, especially Muslim Lebanese. Indeed, of this group, almost 18% consider Australia intolerant or very intolerant (compared with 15% of Christian Lebanese), but a much larger percentage, 44%, still do consider Australia tolerant or very tolerant (compared with 48% of Christian Lebanese). By contrast, all the Indigenous groups consulted agreed that Australia is a highly intolerant country, often referring to the persistent racism and ignorance they encounter. Yet many qualified this viewpoint saying it is dependent on place and on generation: younger people seem more tolerant that previous generations. “We’re just growing up so multiculturally now, and my generation is so much more relaxed.” Even more remarkable is the fact that the percentage of those who consider Australia an intolerant or very intolerant country is highest in the national sample: 22%. Those with a university education (27%) and a postgraduate degree (31%) have a harsher opinion of the level of intolerance in Australia than those with less high education levels (19% among those with primary school education consider Australia intolerant). By comparison, only 6% of the Vietnamese and 5% of the Filipino samples thought this was the case, while about 16% of Greek and Somalis thought so. Overall, only 13% of NESB migrants believed that Australia is a (very) intolerant country (and 20% of English-speaking migrants). In other words, there seems to be more concern about intolerance in mainstream Australia than among people of non-English-speaking backgrounds! We cannot interpret this finding in full without further study of the nuances of people’s perceptions of the meaning of ‘tolerance’. It would seem that the perception of tolerance (or intolerance) depends strongly on comparative experience and on one’s social expectations. Another conclusion could be that tolerance, especially towards migrants, 01. AUSTRALIANS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY 23 is not in short supply in Australian society, and that those of whom tolerance is most demanded – the mainstream population – are most concerned about what they see as lack of tolerance in some corners of the society. While tolerance is not the same as recognition or acceptance, it does imply a willingness to adapt to the presence of newcomers. However, the situation becomes more complex when we look at differences between firstgeneration and second-generation migrants (of both ESB and NESB). Second-generation migrants tend to find Australia much less tolerant than do their parents: Tolerance Intolerant Neither Tolerant National % 22 37 40 1st gen. % 16 33 51 2nd gen. % 22 42 37 In other words, second-generation migrants have very similar perceptions about Australian (in)tolerance as the national sample. This may mean that while first-generation migrants may feel ‘welcomed’ in Australia and are grateful simply to be here, their children, who of course were born and grew up in Australia, have higher aspirations and, therefore, are less likely to accept real and perceived intolerance. Second-generation migrants – whose numbers will increase dramatically in the coming years – are more critical of Australia than recent newcomers. 24 LIVING DIVERSITY 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY one. Introduction In this chapter we move to the realm of social life and the practice of cultural diversity. We focus on the interactions between people and their actual engagements with cultural diversity in a multicultural society like Australia. The chapter tries to capture the evolving and interactive nature of cultural diversity, against prevailing assumptions that ethnic identities are fixed and static. We asked questions about intercultural relationships, interethnic socialisation at work and home, and questions about tastes in food, film and music that represent the extent to which people take up the various cultural resources offered to them in a culturally diverse society. We wanted to see also if there were significant differences in this take-up between ESB and NESB groups, and between different NESB groups, and in terms of generation, and so on. Overall, this chapter suggests that we should not be too quick to equate the reasonable desire for cultural maintenance with the creation of enclosed ethnic communities: engaging in strategies of cultural maintenance does not prevent people from being socially active citizens with a broad range of intercultural and cross-cultural experiences. A brief summary of the findings is as follows: 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY • There is a degree of cultural mixing and matching going on, as people augment the resources they derive from their ancestry with those they appropriate from ‘mainstream’ Australian life, and from their engagement with the culturally diverse worlds in which they participate. • An everyday cosmopolitanism is present in Australian society, alongside the following of cultural traditions, which mark the everyday life of people of all backgrounds. • There is some evidence, however, amid Australia’s newfound cosmopolitanism, that some long-time Australians may be more culturally insular than those who are often decried for living in ‘ethnic ghettos’. two. Living with others INTERCULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS Australia has among the highest incidence of interethnic marriages in the world. Between 1996 and 1998, 52% of marriages in Australia were ‘mixed’ in the sense that they involved people from different countries of origin (whether overseas-born or secondgeneration); while 37% of all marriages are between people of ES background (long-time Australian, UK, Ireland or NZ) and NES background. While there is variation between different groups (Filipino women are more likely to wed long-time Australian men, for example), interethnic marriage has increased markedly 25 – 33% – over the past 25 years. Overseas-born Australians on average marry someone from their own birthplace (30%) as often as they marry long-time Australians (30%), and are more likely to marry someone from a different, overseas birthplace (40%) (ABS, 2000). We asked our participants if they had been or were still in a relationship with someone from an NES background. While only 18% of the national sample said ‘yes’, the incidence was typically much higher among the five NESB sample groups, ranging from 57% for Filipinos to 82% for the Vietnamese group. For Greek, Lebanese and Somali respondents the incidence of being in a relationship with a person of English-speaking background was fairly constant at around 22%. It was much higher for Filipinos (34%) but extremely low for the Vietnamese (4%). Those who had had or were in a relationship with a person of non-English speaking background were asked if they were of the same cultural background. Of the 18% who said ‘yes’ in the national sample, 47% said these people were of the same cultural background, while the figures varied for the five ethnic groups: ranging from 85% for Filipinos to 98% for the Somalis. Another way of putting this is to show what percentage of those in relationships, past or present, had had relationships outside their ethnic group: Filipinos (43%), Greek (29%), Lebanese (27%), Somali (24%), Vietnamese (8%). In other words, there is a strong tendency to form relationships with those from the same cultural background, especially among the Vietnamese, but there is also a substantial proportion of people who had had relations outside their cultural background – about a quarter for the Greek, Lebanese and Somali groups, and a very high proportion among Filipinos. The incidence of interethnic relationships and marriages increases with continuing migration and longer residence in a country (Parimal and Hamilton, 1997). Second-generation Australians are less likely to marry someone from their own birthplace group than their parents (20%) (ABS, 2000). This was replicated in 26 our study, where the incidence of forming a relationship with someone outside your ethnic group rose from 6% in the first generation to 32% in the second generation. Such patterns reflect most profoundly the development of interculturalism over time. This trend towards increased interculturalism becomes even more pronounced when we differentiate between different age groups. In the combined NESB samples, we find that if people are in a relationship with a person from a non-English speaking background, they were more likely to be from a different cultural background if they were in the 16–24 age group (27%) than in the over 55s (2%). This suggests that the young are much more at ease with having intercultural relationships than older people. Khoo et al. (2000: 127–8) also found considerable variations in patterns of in- and out-marriage among second-generation groups: in-marriage was low among those of English-speaking or Western European backgrounds compared to those of Italian, Greek and Lebanese ancestry. But they pointed out that the latter was explained by a combination of factors rather than some simple notion of ethnicity per se – the size of the group, the degree of cultural maintenance, geographical concentration, language and religion, and that these were also shaped by education and economic factors. They also found low rates of in-marriage among Indian and Chinese groups – in contrast to the higher rates found elsewhere for Vietnamese groups. Research indicates that the incidence of relationships with those of other cultural backgrounds was also high for Indigenous groups: in 1996, 64% of couples in this group included a non-Indigenous partner (Taylor, 1997). INTERCULTURAL SOCIAL CONTACT We also asked participants to comment on the extent of their mixing with those from other cultural backgrounds in their social life and at work. They were asked to indicate to what extent they socialised with people who have a different cultural background. The following results emerged: (see figure 1) LIVING DIVERSITY These figures suggest that there is a great deal of intercultural mixing occurring. This seems roughly comparable across groups, and between NESB groups and the national sample. The exception here is the very high figure for the Filipino sample (67%). This may be largely due to the fact that Filipino women are more likely than other women to be in interethnic relationships. What is significant to note here is that, apart from the Vietnamese group, the NESB samples are more likely than Australians at large to socialise with people from a different cultural background; in contrast to common assumptions about ethnic ghettos and ethnic segregation. If we break down the national figure we get an even more interesting picture: while 59% of NESB migrants have ‘a lot’ of social contact with people from other cultural backgrounds, only 44% of those from Englishspeaking migrant backgrounds do, and only 28% of long-time Australians. This means that those of English-speaking background live in a markedly less intercultural Australia than do their NESB compatriots. Nevertheless, there is uneven development. People in regional areas are least likely to have much social contact with people from different cultures (29%), probably because they have less opportunity to do so. Education does not make a significant difference nationally: people with primary school education (34%) are almost as likely as people with postgraduate education (41%) to have regular intercultural social contact. However, in the combined NESB samples, education levels do make a difference: 66% of NESB people with postgraduate education have much intercultural social contact. This means that highly educated people of non-English speaking backgrounds are at the vanguard of intercultural social mixing. Why this is so, is worth further study. It could be that this is because highly educated NESB people are more integrated into mainstream culture (for example, as a result of their professional status), or because they have more cultural capital (in terms of skills, English language proficiency, and so on) to interact easily with people from different backgrounds. Figure 1. Socialising with different cultures SOCIALISING WITH DIFFERENT CULTURES Degree of Mixing Average A lot 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not much 100 Sample Group 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY 27 Age and generation also make a difference. Within the combined NESB groups, the second generation is more likely to socialise with others (59% say ‘a lot’) than the first generation (47%). Furthermore, young people (aged 16–24), both nationally and NESB, are much more likely to have ‘a lot’ of social contact with people from different cultures (57% and 67% respectively) than the over 55s (30% and 46%). This is further evidence of the progressive mainstreaming of cultural diversity and intercultural relations among the younger generations today. Figure 2. Cultural mixing by AND age and sample group CULTURAL MIXING BY AGE SAMPLE GROUP Attitude % Responding National sample NESB samples 100 80 60 40 55+ 40–54 25–39 16–24 55+ 40–54 25–39 16–24 20 Age Group Figure 3. Socialising with same cultures SOCIALISING WITH SAME CULTURES Degree of Socialising Average A lot 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not much 100 Sample Group 28 LIVING DIVERSITY We also asked participants to indicate to what extent they socialise with people who have a similar cultural background. Here are the results: (see figure 3) This indicates that while there is a high degree of intercultural activity, there is also a lot of interaction occurring within ethno-specific groups. Again, apart from the Somalis, who, by nature of their recent arrival and small size, are perhaps more close knit than other groups, the NESB groups no more ‘keep to their own’ than the mainstream. We can’t assume, therefore, that investing in forms of cultural maintenance occurs at the expense of intercultural interaction. Rather, NESB Australians are putting greater effort into both. When we break down the national sample, we see that long-time Australians are much more likely to ‘keep to their own’ (80% say ‘a lot’) than the NESB component (58%), again confirming the idea that long-time Australians live in a more culturally homogenous world. It is important to note however, that long-time Australians (see page 10) comprise only 26% of the entire survey population, and that the majority of Australians are engaging with cultural diversity. DIVERSITY AT WORK The participants were also asked about intercultural social contact at work. We asked them: “In your work, how much contact do you have with people who have a different cultural background from yours?” Here are the results: (see figure 4) From these figures there seems to be a high degree of intercultural mixing in workplaces across Australia, especially among members of the five NESB samples. Nationally, too, a majority (56%) has contact with people from different backgrounds at work. This is, of course, hardly surprising, given that the cultural diversity of the workforce is a fact of life in Australia. While diversity at work is largely association of an involuntary nature, it is nevertheless important to stress that the workplace is perhaps the key site for the lived experience of cultural diversity in Australia. This is important because the workplace may also be a key site for the development of friendship networks, leading to further intercultural contact. Figure 4. Contact with different socialBACKGROUNDS backgrounds at work CONTACT WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL AT WORK Degree of Contact Average A lot 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not much 100 Sample Group 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY 29 It is, of course, statistically logical for ethnic minorities to experience greater intercultural workplace contact with people of other cultural backgrounds than members of the English-speaking background majority. Nevertheless, the results do suggest significant variation in experiences of intercultural interaction at the workplace. Indeed, the breakdown of the national sample shows that while English-speaking migrants (64%) are not far behind NESB migrants in saying they have a lot of intercultural workplace contact (68%), long-time Australians are significantly less in contact with culturally diverse others at work (50%). In other words, long-time Australians are more likely to work as well as live in culturally homogenous environments. Moreover, it is not surprising that people living in regional Australia have much less intercultural contact at work than city residents: while, nationally, 66% of city residents has intercultural work contact, only 44% of regional residents do. However, as with some of the other indicators already discussed, age and education do make a difference. With regard to age, again we find that, nationally, the younger the age group, the more work contact people have with people from different cultures: from 65% of the 16–24 age group to 43% of the 55+ age group. Such differences do not occur in the NESB samples: in their case, all age groups have very high levels of intercultural work contact (between 71% and 83%). In other words, while NESB Australians across the board are more routinely engaged in intercultural relations at work, for the mainstream population it is a relatively new experience – the result of increasing ‘normalisation’ of workforce diversity in the past few decades. Overall, the higher the level of education, the more there is work contact with people from different cultural backgrounds, from 64% of the national sample with university education (83% of the combined NESB samples) to 49% of the national sample with primary school education (61% of the combined NESB samples). SBS might find interest in this confirmation of the workplace as a meeting point for different cultures as it seeks ways of engaging people with the reality of multicultural Australia. 30 three. Consuming other cultures Interviewees were also asked about their tastes in film, music and food, to establish to what extent various groups were engaged in cross-cultural consumption; that is, use of cultural goods and traditions normally associated with another ethnicity. Several scholars have pointed to the rising incidence of cross-cultural consumption in an increasingly globalised world, particularly among young people, as commodities, people, capital and images rapidly traverse national and cultural borders (Mitchell, 1996; Howes, 1996). FOOD One set of questions was about food. Some commentators have criticised the fetish we have with the consumption of exotic food, suggesting that it is a superficial aspect of multicultural society which conceals socio-economic inequalities (Castles et al. 1988). Hage (1997) has argued that this consumption is largely motivated by a desire for ‘cosmopolitan’ status distinction among middle class whites at the expense of real intercultural interaction – a kind of ‘multiculturalism without migrants’. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition of the social and cultural importance of food in creating cultural meaning, social bonds and senses of personal identity (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997). While it is important not to exaggerate the significance of the consumption of exotic food, it is nevertheless an interesting marker of cultural ‘hybridisation’, that is, the circulation and diffusion of diverse cultural artefacts, commodities and traditions in Australia. We asked our samples how much they enjoy food from other countries to gauge the extent to which Australians of different backgrounds have embraced culinary diversity. About 72% of the national sample responded that they enjoy eating food from other countries, with almost no difference between city (73%) and regional (70%) residents. This means that culinary cosmopolitanism is very much a mainstream practice. Perhaps not surprisingly, this is the case especially among more highly educated Australians: LIVING DIVERSITY while only 58% of those with primary education enjoy culinary diversity, 86% of those with university education do. This lends some support to Hage’s theory of ‘cosmopolitan distinction’ among mainstream Australians. By contrast, it is striking that our NESB samples reported much less enjoyment in eating food from different countries. The NESB groups seem not to have a strong taste for the food of other cultures. However, across all samples, second-generation NESB respondents are more likely to enjoy different foods a lot (74%) than the first-generation (38%) – reflecting a remarkable process of generational change in consuming culinary diversity. Also, the second generation has a higher proportion of those with higher education qualifications (38% compared to 31% of the first-generation) – the socio-economic group most likely to pursue cosmopolitan distinction – but this seems less important in explaining the major shift above than generational change overtime. Looking at particular language samples, the Filipino sample had the strongest result (65%) which corresponds with their high level of intercultural workplace interaction and intercultural relationships. The Lebanese and Vietnamese respondents were least interested in culinary diversity (29%). At the same time, very large majorities of all five NESB groups included in this study enjoy eating food from their own country of origin (from 85% of Filipinos to 94% of Lebanese). In other words, NESB Australians tend to be much more ethnocentric when it comes to food than Anglo-Australians. This culinary ethnocentrism cannot be interpreted simply as a lack of acceptance of cultural diversity. Indeed, it may be another indication of their incomplete sense of belonging in Australia: eating the food they know may be a compensation for their sense of alienation from the mainstream culture. Or perhaps, put more positively, eating one’s own food may be an important occasion for celebrating one’s cultural identity and for ‘ethnic bonding’. These, of course, are speculations that warrant further qualitative study. Figure 5. Enjoying from otherCULTURES cultures ENJOYING FOODSfoods FROM OTHER Degree of Enjoyment Average A lot 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not much 100 Sample Group 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY 31 But the reality is always more complicated than simple conclusions allow. About a third of the NESB samples did respond positively to this question. If we break down the figures into the original five categories, for example, we see that almost as many Greek respondents reported that they do not enjoy cultural variety of food very much (25%) as enjoy it a lot (27%). A possible explanation here is generational difference: as a group that has been a long time in Australia, second-generation Greek Australians (especially those that are increasingly successful in education and work) may be developing ‘cosmopolitan’ tastes while their parents and grandparents remain faithful to traditional food as a strategy of cultural maintenance. This mainstreaming of culinary diversity as an accepted aspect of Australian culture is most pronounced when we look at the different age groups. In the combined NESB samples there is a clear increase in the percentage of people enjoying different kinds of food among younger age groups: from only 23% in the 55+ age group to 61% in the 16–24 age group. Interestingly, in the national sample the story is different: the highest level of enjoyment (80%) is to be found among the young adult 25–39 age group, presumably the cohort most likely to indulge in eating out (compared with only 72% of the 16–24 age group, which may still be too young to fully embrace the culinary delights of multiculturalism). Of course, it can be argued that culinary cosmopolitanism cannot by any means be equated with an acceptance of the more serious aspects of cultural diversity. On the other hand, a growing acceptance of culinary diversity should not be simply dismissed as superficial; it may in fact operate as a cultural lever towards a more comprehensive acceptance of the heterogeneity of Australian culture and society. As one of the Indigenous participants said, “It’s really recognised in people food to tell you the truth (sic) – that’s the first step to experiencing different cultures.” (Alice Springs) 32 MUSIC Questions about taste in music similarly revealed a range of processes going on. We asked respondents whether they listened to music from particular countries or cultures, and then asked them to nominate which countries. Unsurprisingly, while 22% of the national sample indicated they listened to music from nonEnglish speaking countries, the figures for the NESB groups were much higher, especially for the Vietnamese (81%), Lebanese (73%) and Greek (72%) groups. The Somali (48%) and Filipino (31%) groups were in between these. While this includes music from the country of ancestry (CoA), there was always a small but noteworthy proportion that listened to Englishspeaking background music (presumably mainstream popular music) and music from NESB countries other than the country of ancestry. Figure 6 shows the spread of those who did listen to music from specific countries. In other words, there is a small but important consumption of music that is neither mainstream English language popular music nor ‘traditional’ or popular music from the homeland. The movement between these three categories is a remarkable facet of intercultural Australian social life. SUBTITLED FILMS This interculturalism is found more strongly in filmwatching, where the vast majority in all groups responded that they watch subtitled films. In the national sample, we found that capital city residents (68%) are somewhat more inclined to watch subtitled films than regional residents (59%), as well as men (68%) more than women (61%). Age and education again make a significant difference. While 68% of the 16–24 age group watch subtitled films, only 58% of the 55+ age group do. Not surprisingly, those with university (74%) and postgraduate (86%) education are far more likely to watch subtitled films than those with lesser education levels (52% of those with primary school). LIVING DIVERSITY While the original question asked interviewees if they watch films “in a language they do not speak”, the figures suggest that this second part of the question was ignored by some respondents, because the figures at first glance are extraordinary: the national sample (64%), Filipino (66%), Greek (58%), Lebanese (56%), Somali (63%), Vietnamese (76%). We suggest this was taken by many respondents to include films in their language of ancestry. What we can say, when we break down the figures on film-viewing by the language the film is in, is that again there is a small but significant number of people watching subtitled films in neither English nor their language of ancestry. Among the Filipino group, there were 47 responses (12% of the entire Filipino sample) that indicated films were watched in a language other than English or Tagalog (although this included 30 who watched films in Spanish); there were also 27 responses (7%) in the Greek sample, 31 (8%) in the Lebanese group, and 31 (8%) in the Vietnamese sample (although this included 24 in Chinese). We can take these various pieces of data to suggest that there is a mainstreaming of cross-cultural consumption in Australian society. There is a clear trend towards cultural cosmopolitanism among the younger, more highly educated professionals living in the cities. However, it would be an exaggeration to consider this group a separate ‘class’: in all sections of the population a majority engages in culinary diversity and in watching films in languages other than English. Among NESB people there is less cross-cultural consumption (measured in terms of eating diverse cuisines, listening to music from different cultures, and watching subtitled films in another language than the ‘mother tongue’), which is understandable given that these groups are, in cultural terms, already faced with the task of getting used to mainstream Australian culture. Nevertheless, even among these groups cross-cultural consumption is on the rise, especially among the second generation and the young. Figure 6. Enjoying differentCULTURES cultures ENJOYING MUSIC music FROMfrom DIFFERENT Source of Music NESB countries other than CoA Aus/UK/US 100 80 60 40 *includes other Middle Eastern Countries = 25% 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY Vietnamese Somali Lebanese* Greek Filipino Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek 20 Filipino % Responding Country of Ancestry (CoA) Sample Group 33 four. Everyday cosmopolitanism and cultural insularity The overall extent of cross-cultural consumption and the intercultural relations people engage in at home and at work imply a more complex picture of daily life in multicultural Australia than the traditional assumptions about enclosed ‘ethnic communities’ and a static ‘mainstream culture’ allow. It is important to point out that in a culturally diverse society like Australia, the opportunities available to people mean that we can’t simply talk about cultural maintenance or assimilation as mutually exclusive processes. Many long-time Australians take up the diverse cultural goods made available by cultural diversity. Similarly, migrants and their children take up elements of the prevailing Australian ways of life and maintain the diverse traditions and practices they have brought with them, and create new traditions and associations. One of the results of this is a kind of everyday cosmopolitanism – an openness to cultural diversity, a practical relation to the plurality of cultures, a willingness to engage with others (Hannerz, 1990: 238). Australia is often described as one of the most culturally diverse societies in the world, but this is often taken to mean that there is an array of discrete cultures that make up a cosmopolitan mosaic. Cosmopolitanism, then, is usually seen to be an effect of the presence of NESB people whose cultures are savoured by the ‘mainstream’ population; it is rarely seen as an experience of NESB people themselves. Importantly, this cosmopolitanism is usually seen as an attribute of elites in contrast to the presumed narrow-mindedness and parochialism of the ordinary mass of people – the kind of status distinction Hage (1997) describes. Similarly, there have long been concerns voiced by the ‘mainstream’ that some groups of migrants tend to ‘keep to themselves’, forming tightly knit communities or ‘ghettos’. In two important ways, then, the cosmopolitanism of elites rests on the ‘localism’ of others (Hannerz, 1990: 248). However, in an increasingly 34 globalised world, more and more people partake of an everyday cosmopolitanism which is not the preserve of elites, a practical orientation in which engaging with people and goods from other cultures is an everyday experience, and through which we assimilate those people and goods into our own lives. The study reveals some aspects of this everyday cosmopolitanism among NESB groups, a cosmopolitanism that is usually ignored. Moreover, it exists alongside varying degrees of cultural insularity, as different groups of people engage in different combinations of cultural maintenance and assimilation of elements of the mainstream and other cultures. One indicator that is worth pointing to, for example, is the small but important number of people who speak another language which is neither English (the dominant language of Australia and hence a language of necessity) nor the ‘mother tongue’ (that is, the dominant language of cultural ancestry). While bilingualism is a necessary facet of everyday life in Australia for many migrants and Australians of nonEnglish-speaking background, the linguistic profile of these groups is far more complex than is recognised. Of the combined NESB sample groups, 18% of the responses indicated that the participant spoke a language other than English or the mother tongue: 19% for the Filipino sample, 11% for the Greek, 10% for the Lebanese, 33% for the Somali and 17% for the Vietnamese (these indicate responses, not people, given that any one participant may have multiple responses). Many of these indicate complex colonial, religious and cultural legacies of the homeland: 12% of Filipinos speak Spanish; 6% of the Lebanese group speak ‘other European’ languages, predominantly French, we presume; 14% of Somalis speak Arabic and 4% speak ‘other African’ languages; while 8% of Vietnamese speak Chinese and another 6% speak ‘other Asian’ languages. These people represent a complex and important cultural resource – multilingualism – often not fully acknowledged in contemporary debates about multicultural Australia. LIVING DIVERSITY The high figure for the Somalis may be due primarily to their greater educational capital, but it is also due to their complex cultural histories. In contrast, few of the Indigenous respondents could claim to have anything more than ‘broken’ or Aboriginal English. Some knew a handful of words in their local dialect, but after decades of being moved about and the banning of the teaching of Indigenous languages, it may not be surprising that these languages are fast disappearing. It is a stark reminder how ‘assimilation’ of a dominant culture can also mean assimilation to that culture in a negative sense, and how it can be a one-way process: “Aboriginal people know the white people’s way and it is time the white people learnt the Aboriginal people’s ways. We know their way, we live it everyday.”. (Alice Springs) In addition, many of the Indigenous respondents rejected a simple view that Indigenous communities were homogenised. Many made the claim that their communities were already diverse: “In our Koori community we have multiculturalism. We have 62 tribes or clan groups. We are a diverse people.” (Sydney). “We have always been part of a multicultural society because there have always been differences. We are Kooris and Murris and Nyoongers etc.” (Sydney elders) Overseas travel, on the other hand, was not an option available to most Indigenous respondents. All the NESB groups, however, were more likely to have travelled overseas in the past three years than the national sample (40%): Filipinos (67%), Greeks (41%), Lebanese (41%), Vietnamese (50%), with the exception of the recently arrived Somalis (36%). Long-time Australians were much more likely not to have travelled overseas in the past three years (67%) than either English-speaking migrants (43%) or NESB migrants (51%). 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY Long-time Australians were also less likely to have overseas contact than migrants. When asked, “Are you in regular contact with anyone living overseas (by phone, letter or Internet)” 4% of longtime Australians said ‘no’, while only 19% of Englishspeaking migrants and 17% of NESB migrants said ‘no’. A very large majority of migrants maintain contact with relatives in their or their parents’ country of birth (93% of ESB migrants and 91% of NESB migrants). We also asked first-generation migrants whether they had returned to their country of birth since they came to Australia. A very high proportion did so: Greek (90%), Filipino (83%), Vietnamese (73%), Lebanese (67%), and Somali (13%). This means that, with the exception of the Greek and Somali groups at either end, NESB migrants are not that dissimilar to migrants from English-speaking countries (74%), suggesting that NESB migrants are not significantly more likely to make return visits to their country of birth than English-speaking background migrants. There is, then, strong evidence for the claims made about a dominant diasporic orientation to the country of birth among migrants, but this is by no means the basis for some simple claim about ghettoisation, or a lack of engagement in Australian society. Involvement in cultural and social organisations – those activities that relate most directly to cultural maintenance – is not great. The Somali sample – the most recent arrivals and hence the group with greatest need for such organisations – had 25% of respondents involved in such organisations. This is the case for only 20% of the Filipino and Greek sample, 12% of the Lebanese and 11% of Vietnamese samples. Involvement in community activities is complicated by issues of language – the language of ancestry is the dominant language in community organisations for the Vietnamese (71%), like the Somali (90%) and Greek (60%) groups, while for the Filipino (32%) and Lebanese (45%) groups, it isn’t. This suggests that such activity is a more intense experience of cultural maintenance for the first three. At the same time, the lower level of organised community 35 participation among NESB groups suggests that the majority of people of non-English speaking backgrounds do not rely on such activity to get on with their lives in Australia. The Vietnamese group seems to have the greatest investment in cultural maintenance; perhaps they may even be the most insular of all NESB groups in this study. They are the least likely to socialise outside their cultural group, and they exhibit the lowest levels of English language usage. With the exception of the Somalis, a more recent arrival, they were the most likely to speak the language of ancestry at home – 91%, followed by the Lebanese (79%). Their participation in social activities stands at 24% of responses, compared to the Filipino group (43%), whose length of residence is comparable. However, they also demonstrate that simple claims about cultural maintenance have to be qualified. This limited involvement in organised activities, for example, extends to cultural and social organisations – those activities that relate most directly to cultural maintenance. As we saw above, only 11% of the entire Vietnamese sample were involved in these activities, much less than the Filipinos, but comparable to the Lebanese and to the national sample (7%). This may suggest low levels of social involvement, but it doesn’t indicate a group consumed with cultural maintenance. The fact that the language of ancestry was the dominant language in community organisations for the Vietnamese suggests that such activity is a more intense experience of cultural maintenance. Likewise, language of ancestry was still very much the language of family, but its use with neighbours suggests that the geographical concentration of the Vietnamese is twice that of other groups which have been here for some time: 10% spoke their language of ancestry with neighbours, compared to the Greeks (5%). 36 Moreover, the image of insularity is complicated by the fact that the Vietnamese sample is least likely to be in contact with someone from their country of origin (79%, compared to 90% for the Lebanese), and they are no more likely to travel to their country of origin than the national sample. This suggests that they don’t typify the idea of the ethnic ghetto focused more on the homeland than the country of settlement. Another interesting case here is the Greek sample, who also have a very high investment in cultural maintenance, even though – or because – they have been here longest of the sample groups. As indicated above, the Greek sample included some of those who most strongly disliked and liked the food of other cultures: this is significant not just for the generational difference at work here, but because of what it suggests of the older generation, since the vast majority of the Greek sample have been in Australia for more than 30 years (93%). In other words, use of the mother tongue, for example, may be less a result of necessity, as one can presume with the recently arrived Somali group, and more a deliberate strategy of cultural maintenance. The combination of cultural maintenance and adaptation to mainstream ways is something all NESB groups grapple with. This apparent paradox is seen with Indigenous groups too. Sport, like country music, plays an important social role in Indigenous communities. It is important for developing relationships within the community: “What brings Indigenous people together is sport, and sport is the key factor especially for young people.” (Alice Springs) But it is also important because, as one Cairns participant said, it encourages multicultural integration. Needless to say, both sport and country music represent Indigenous appropriation of elements of the dominant western culture, which they have adopted and adapted for their own purposes. LIVING DIVERSITY For the NESB population, dominant ethnic enclaves do not occur in Australia, despite how the media represent certain areas in Sydney such as Bankstown and Cabramatta. A recent report stressed that Australia’s varied immigration program produces substantial dispersal and prevents enclaves (Megalogenis, 2002:19,22). The tendency for ethnic groups to concentrate in one neighbourhood tends to be a transitory phenomenon related to chain migration: the typical situation in the cities is one of ethnic mixing (Castles, 1999). Nevertheless, there is still a strong perception of ethnic segregation. While there is some evidence for strategies of cultural maintenance producing a limited take-up of the cultural variety of Australian life, there is also strong evidence of NESB cosmopolitanism. Sadly, it is the former that has captured the social imagination, not the reality of the balance between maintenance and adaptation. In comparison, the evidence for cultural insularity and the absence of cosmopolitanism among long-time Australians is worth noting. When we distinguish between migrants from English-speaking backgrounds and long-time Australians, we note that the latter have a much less enthusiastic take-up of the resources of cultural diversity. Only 5% of long-time Australians have a language other than English, compared to 26% of ESB migrants. As we saw, long-time Australians are much less likely to socialise with people from other cultures, and they are less likely to listen to music in a language other than English (17%) and watch films in a language other than English or country of ancestry (5%) even compared just with English-speaking migrants (25% and 31%). Long-time Australians are also the least positive about cultural diversity, with only 56% considering cultural diversity a strength of Australian society (compared with 72% of NESB migrants and 70% of ESB migrants). 02. PEOPLE MIXING – EVERYDAY DIVERSITY IN WORK AND PLAY This suggests that if there is a problem of cultural insularity in Australian society, it is because long-time Australians live in a more culturally homogenous environment and have not participated in (or felt included in) the diversity multiculturalism offers. While long-time Australians are more likely to enjoy the cultural variety of foods in Australia, this is evidence for the ‘multiculturalism without migrants’ Hage (1997) describes: that is, people who consume exotic difference but have relatively little direct intercultural contact. Five. Conclusion – hybrid lives The everyday cosmopolitanism we have just described helps us understand the generally positive views towards Australia’s multiculturalism and cultural diversity reported in Chapter 1. The intercultural interactions which frame daily life help produce a strong sense of satisfaction with Australian society and an increasing openness to cultural difference across the board. The NESB population routinely enters into intercultural relationships at home and at work, while the mainstream population tends to be involved more in cross-cultural consumption, which, in some cases, means a ‘multiculturalism without migrants’. Yet despite the evidence of cross-cultural consumption and an emergent cosmopolitanism among NESB groups, it is worth reflecting that, as we will see later in Chapter 3, few respondents saw themselves as having ‘hyphenated identities’, preferring instead to describe their cultural identities in terms of their country of origin. The Greek sample adopted hyphenated identities most (30%): that is, they described themselves as either Australian-born Greek (23%) or Greek-born Australian (7%). Yet the response was much less among the other groups: Lebanese (19%), Filipinos (13%) and Vietnamese (7%) (the Somalis haven’t been here long enough to use hyphens). 37 We don’t have to see this as a contradiction. Given the high numbers of those who still identify as of the nation of ancestry, especially in the first generation, we should recognise that such forms of identification are not irreconcilable with strategies of cultural adaptation and the up-take of cosmopolitanism. Indeed, we should recognise that NESB migrants have multiple relations to the various identities and relations they experience in Australia, and move between hybrid and essentialised forms of identification as they need (Noble and Tabar, 2002). Moreover, they do this without challenging the social fabric of multicultural Australia. The evidence here suggests that NESB Australians are creating hybrid lives as they go about their daily tasks, whether or not they articulate these as hyphenated identities. In so far as the multiculturalism Australia has adopted over the past 30 years recreated the nationality of origin as a marker of ethnicity, it is no wonder that first-generation migrants have not felt the need to adopt hyphenated identities, and it is no wonder that few feel included in the national identity of their country of settlement. As we will see in the following chapter, this process of integration occurs over generations. Two things may pose more of a challenge to the long-term survival of multiculturalism in Australia. First, there is the relationship between a proportion of long-time Australians and the cultural diversity that Australia’s history of immigration has delivered. Not only is there a tendency for these Australians to live in a more culturally homogenous environment, there is also much less engagement with cultural difference that is characteristic of cultural cosmopolitanism. This is the case especially for older groups and those with lower levels of education. It is towards this group that SBS may wish to pay special attention in the coming years. 38 The second factor is the relationship between Indigenous Australians and multicultural policies. While we have seen generally positive responses to cultural diversity among the Indigenous population and some evidence of their own engagement with cultural diversity, it is important to stress that Indigenous Australians do not always share the same access to and use of the cultural resources that are available to mainstream Australian society. As a result, alongside an endorsement of cultural diversity: “I love having people from different cultures here, it makes it a richer place for us all.” (Cherbourg) there is also some resentment toward the mainstream acceptance of and state support for multiculturalism: “They are getting more stuff than the black fellas.” (Port Augusta) “They have prayer rooms for Muslims, but they’d never do something like that for us.” (Port Augusta) The cultural diversity so valued in Australia has not always been extended to the Indigenous inhabitants. As noted by one participant from Port Hedland, once named ‘the most multicultural town in Australia’ because of the contribution made by Chinese, Japanese, Irish and Afghani people: “[I’ve] got all these wonderful cultural backgrounds, but I only know the Aboriginal, because that is all we were allowed to be.” (Port Hedland) Such a comment suggests that for Indigenous Australians, everyday cosmopolitanism and cultural diversity is a more ambivalent experience than for either mainstream Australians or people from migrant backgrounds. LIVING DIVERSITY 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING one. Introduction Having looked at people’s civic attitudes and cultural practices, we now wish to gain some insight into Australians’ feelings about matters of identity and belonging in Australia. We particularly wanted to find out how people of non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) – in our case, the five categories of Filipino, Greek, Lebanese, Somali and Vietnamese – relate to Australia in comparison with the national population, as a society to live in and as a nation in the world. To what extent do they feel at home in Australia? How do they see their cultural identity? And what are their levels of personal and social well-being – how satisfied do they feel about their lives in Australia? The picture emerging from the findings is complex. Again, there is a rich tapestry of diversity within diversity in the way Australians feel about Australia and their own place in it, but overall there were the following trends: 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING • There is a stark contrast in how people describe their cultural identity. While more than 60% of the national sample call themselves ‘Australian’, fewer than 10% of the combined NESB sample groups do. Instead, 49% mention another nationality (e.g. Greek, Somali, Filipino, Vietnamese, Lebanese) as their cultural identity. Eleven per cent of Lebanese call themselves ‘Middle Eastern’ while 23% of Vietnamese call themselves ‘Asian’. This suggests that ‘Australianness’ is still not generally associated with the cultural diversity of the Australian people. • Second-generation NESB Australians are much more likely to call themselves Australian than their first-generation parents. This confirms the frequently made claim that integration into Australian culture and society happens over time. However, this second generation (who were born in Australia) is still less likely to call themselves Australian (31%) than in the national sample (61%). • Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly call themselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander first – this forms the core of their cultural identity that overrides all others. • An overwhelming majority (89%) of the national sample – representative of the national population – consider Australia ‘home’. While a majority of the combined NESB samples feel the same, significantly fewer (61%) call Australia ‘home’ than in the national sample. For Indigenous Australians, there is no question that Australia is their home country. 39 • Most Australians, including people of NESB, are satisfied with their lives in this country, reporting high levels of personal well-being (approximately 80% across the board). People tend to be somewhat less satisfied with Australia as a society (approx 71% of the national sample), though interestingly, the NESB samples give slightly higher report cards to Australian society than the national sample (76%). However, people of Muslim Lebanese (65%) and Greek (66%) backgrounds tend to be less satisfied than average, while Somalis (85%), Christian Lebanese (80%) and English-speaking migrants (83%) are more satisfied than average. In short, this study suggests that while most Australians – of whatever background – consider Australia ‘home’, report high levels of personal well-being and are satisfied with life in Australia, NESB Australians still do not have a complete sense of cultural belonging to Australia. While they are mostly happy to be in Australia, they do not necessarily see themselves as of Australia. As the multicultural broadcaster, the role of SBS in fostering and promoting cultural inclusiveness through the representation of and engagement with diversity continues to be of crucial importance. two. Cultural identity and heritage We get a complex picture of people’s sense of belonging when we ask them to describe their cultural identity. Almost 60% of the national sample described themselves simply as ‘Australian’ (and 74% of longtime Australians). This can be taken as an indication of the comfortable sense of belonging experienced by Australia’s Anglo majority population. In sharp contrast, only 10% of Filipinos, 14% of Greek, 14% of Lebanese and a miniscule 3% of Vietnamese described themselves as ‘Australians’. Instead, large numbers of people of NESB backgrounds included in this study describe themselves in terms of the nationality of their country of origin: almost 35% of people of Filipino background call themselves ‘Filipino’, 51% of people of Greek background call themselves ‘Greek’, 40% ‘Lebanese’, 55% ‘Somali’, and 64% ‘Vietnamese’. In addition, almost 11% of Lebanese call themselves by the broader, geopolitical/racial category ‘Middle Eastern’, while more than 23% of Vietnamese call themselves ‘Asian’. Figure 1. Cultural identity: CULTURAL IDENTITY: SELF self-description DESCRIPTION Australian-born NESB Overseas-born Australian Nationality other than Australian National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese Other National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese Australian National Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali Vietnamese % Responding Culture Asian/ Middle Eastern/ African 100 80 60 40 20 Sample Group 40 LIVING DIVERSITY Seven per cent of Somalis call themselves African, while almost 30% call themselves ‘Muslim’ (but only 2% of Lebanese did so). In other words, a large majority of people of NESB surveyed describe their cultural identity as something other than ‘Australian’. (see figure 1) Interestingly, however, our data also suggest that sense of Australian identity increases significantly over time, especially over the generations. When we distinguish between first-generation and secondgeneration NESB Australians, we see that while only 8% of first-generation migrants of NESB describe their cultural identity as ‘Australian’, the figure is 31% for the second-generation in our combined NESB samples. While this is still less than half of the percentage in the national sample (which reflects the fact that the majority of the population is of AngloCeltic background), it suggests a progressive level of integration of NESB migrants into Australian culture and society, although not completely. These findings confirm the often-made observation by commentators that ‘Australianness’ is still generally defined as ‘white’ in the national imagination (Hage, 1998). Qualitative research among young people of Asian and Middle Eastern background in Western Sydney has also suggested that these young people often perceive Australian culture in a stereotypical manner which does not include them: blond hair, blue eyes, surfies, laid back, barbecues, beer drinking, and so on. This is despite the fact that most of these young people do see themselves as Australian in a civic (though not cultural) sense (Butcher and Thomas, 2001). In other words, mainstream definitions of Australian cultural identity still tend to ignore or overlook the social diversity of the overall population and the wide range of cultural backgrounds they should represent. At the same time, NESB groups attach great importance to the maintenance of cultural continuity through kinship connections. This is demonstrated by responses to the question, “How important is knowledge about your family’s cultural background to you?” Figure 2. Knowledge of family’s cultural background KNOWLEDGE OF FAMILY CULTURAL BACKGROUND Importance Neutral (Very) Important 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not (very) important 100 Sample Group 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING 41 A majority of the national sample considered this to be ‘important’ or ‘very important’ (62%), but people from all five NESB backgrounds in this study tended to find it much more important than nationally: 86% or more of all Filipinos, Greek, Lebanese, Somalis and Vietnamese (figure 2). The fact that knowledge of family background is especially important for migrants becomes clear when we look at differences between long-time Australians and migrants in general. While only 55% of long-time Australians give importance to knowledge of family background, 72% of migrants of English-speaking backgrounds do. In other words, cultural maintenance is relatively important for all migrants, though more important for NESB migrants than for ESB migrants. Interestingly, the earlier non-Indigenous Australians settled into this country, the less important knowledge of cultural background tends to be. Seventeen per cent of long-time Australians did not consider this knowledge important at all; 10% of ESB migrants thought the same but this view was shared by only 4% of NESB migrants. The reasons for these differences are probably complex, ranging from the need for cultural anchorage in circumstances of social dislocation brought about by the migration experience or social marginalisation, to the feeling that a sense of belonging in the ‘new’ society is harder to come by – as we have seen earlier in this chapter. Knowledge of one’s cultural background may then be an important way of maintaining a sense of cultural identity. In all samples, women tend to find it more important than men to have knowledge of their family’s cultural background: 56% of men and 67% of women in the national sample; 86% of men and 89% of women in the combined NESB samples. Knowledge of cultural background was considered extremely important by all Indigenous participants in this study. 42 “I think it is one of the most important things for Aboriginal people in order for us to survive.” (Sydney) “If you don’t know where you come from you don’t really know who you are, your history. It gives you strength.” (Cherbourg) “Your cultural identity is where you get your sense of belonging.” (Port Augusta) Overwhelmingly, Indigenous people in our community consultations described their cultural identity firstly as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. For many there seems to be a sense of inevitability about this: “In Australia you are constantly reminded that you are Aboriginal.” (Cherbourg) “You’ve got to have a strong identity, got to have a strong feeling/knowledge for who you are because it becomes so emotional when people around you are making racist comments.” (Alice Springs) Many of those who reported having mixed heritage did not identify with the non-Indigenous part of their background. “I’ve got Chinese background but I don’t identify with it. Being Aboriginal is such a force in my life, you don’t have a choice.” (Sydney) “I’ve got all these wonderful cultural backgrounds, but I only know the Aboriginal, because that is all we were allowed to be.” (Port Hedland) “We all have lots of ethnic backgrounds in us, but when filling out forms, always first I put down “Aboriginal.” (Alice Springs) At the same time, many of the discussions around cultural identity in the Indigenous groups were qualified by the view that there is no such thing as a uniform ‘Aboriginal’ person. Aboriginal cultural identity is itself about diversity. “In our Koori community we have multiculturalism. We have 62 tribes or clan groups. We are a diverse people.” (Sydney) LIVING DIVERSITY three. Australia as home There is, overall, a big difference between firstand second-generation Australians in this respect. While 58% of first-generation NESB respondents consider Australia ‘home’, the figure is 84% for second-generation NESB respondents. In other words, Australian-born children of NESB migrants are far more likely than their parents to call Australia ‘home’, though still not as likely as the national sample (89%). To assess the extent to which people feel a sense of belonging to Australia, we asked them to indicate, “how much do you consider Australia to be your home?” (figure 3). A total of 89% of the national sample responded that they consider Australia their home. The figure is significantly lower for all five NESB samples, though still high. Sixty-one per cent of the combined NESB samples responded that they consider Australia home. The Somalis – the most recent migrant group included in this study – feel least at home in Australia. Almost 35% said they do consider Australia home, but a roughly equal percentage (37%) was somewhat less certain, considering Australia home but less emphatically. The recency of their arrival may explain this response: most of them are first-generation migrants and therefore, understandably, less settled in Australian society. These trends are confirmed by responses to the question, “how likely are you to live overseas in the future?” (figure 4). Of the national sample. 77% answered ‘not or not at all likely’ indicating a strong sense of rootedness in Australia as one’s home country. This is much less the case for the NESB groups, although a majority (64% of the combined NESB samples) still does not consider living overseas a likelihood. However, more secondgeneration (69%) than first-generation respondents (62%) indicated that they were likely to stay put, suggesting a progressive trend towards feeling settled in Australia. Figure 3. Australia as ‘home’ AUSTRALIA AS HOME Response Do consider 100 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Do somewhat consider Neutral Do not consider Sample Group 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING 43 Of the five NESB samples, people of Greek background feel the most settled in Australia, with more than 81% indicating that they are not likely to live overseas in the future. One reason for this may be the relatively advanced average age of the Greek population more than 50% is 56 years or older compared with about 25% in the national sample). It is a general trend among all sample groups that the older the age category, the less likely people are to live overseas. More than 94% of over 65s in the national sample considered it ‘not at all likely’ that they will live overseas in future. By contrast, the 20–25 age group is the most mobile, with 34% reporting that they are ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to live overseas in the future (compared with only 13% of the overall national sample). Clearly, and not surprisingly, today’s younger people are more internationally oriented and more mobile. Of the five NESB groups included in this survey, the least settled population are the Somalis – consistent with the fact they are least likely to call Australia ‘home’. Fewer than 40% think they will stay in Australia, while more than 30% think they are likely or very likely to live overseas in the future. Apart from the fact that they are the most recent group to settle in Australia, and therefore perhaps less used to the idea that they might indeed stay in this country, an additional reason may be that the Somalis are also a very young population: compared with the national average (68% of our Somali sample is in the 16–35 age range compared to 33% of the national sample). Interestingly, the Filipino sample also seemed to be less settled than average: fewer than 55% of them said they were likely to stay in Australia. More than 20% were uncertain, while almost 13% – the highest percentage of all groups except the Somalis – said they were likely or very likely to live overseas in the future. This greater anticipation of transnational mobility may have to do with the relatively young average age of the Filipino sample (43% is in the 16–35 age range), combined with the relatively high percentage of tertiary-educated Filipinos (63% against 31% in the national sample), suggesting a higher prospect of participation in a global professional workforce. It is a national trend that the higher the education level, the more people say that they are likely to live overseas. While only 11% of those who Figure 4. Likelihood of living overseas future LIKELIHOOD OF LIVING OVERSEAS INinFUTURE Likelihood Uncertain (Very) Likely 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not likely 100 Sample Group 44 LIVING DIVERSITY completed high school said so, this was the case for 19% of those with a tertiary degree and 29% of those with a postgraduate education. four. Personal and social well-being A relatively high percentage of Filipinos mentioned the United States as the country where they would most likely live if they were to live overseas (29%) although the Philippines is still mentioned most often (almost 50%). Apart from offering work opportunities for the more highly educated, it is also possible that many Filipinos are attracted to the US because of the large Filipino diaspora there, suggesting the existence of family connections with Filipino Americans. This level of acceptance of Australia as home – that is, as the country where one belongs – is corroborated by responses to two other questions we asked regarding people’s sense of satisfaction with their lives. We asked our samples: “Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” The results are remarkably positive and similar across the board. While 81% of the national sample was satisfied or very satisfied, 79% of the combined NESB samples said the same. Similarly, the Vietnamese (of whom only 13% indicated they were likely to live overseas), nominated the US is the most attractive alternate country, probably for similar reasons: while 45% said they would live in Vietnam if they were to live overseas, more than 6% mentioned the US. There is, of course, a large Vietnamese diaspora in the US, and both the Philippines and Vietnam have a long and complex historical relationship with American foreign policy and influence. In the national sample, too, the US was the most frequently mentioned country as the most likely destination for overseas relocation (24%), with the UK second (22%). Overall, however, it can be concluded that the overwhelming majority of the population is not contemplating relocation overseas – suggesting a strong national sense that Australia is the country one calls ‘home’. This is especially the case also for Indigenous Australians: “I love Australia and it’s where I was born and I’d like to travel overseas but I could never see myself living overseas permanently.” (Cherbourg) “I wouldn’t trade it for another country, it’s just home and you are free and you can go anywhere, SA, NSW.” (Cairns) 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING There are no significant differences in levels of personal well-being, either in the national sample or the combined NESB samples, in terms of level of education, location (capital city or regional Australia) or gender. But there are some interesting differences between different age groups. In the national sample, the over 55s are relatively more satisfied with their lives (86% of the national sample) than younger Australians (79% of the 16–24 age group). Interestingly, the reverse is the case for the combined NESB samples: here, younger age groups tend to have slightly more personal satisfaction with their lives than older age groups (81% of the 16–24 age group versus 76% of the 55+ age group). This may be understood in light of the fact that older NESB Australians are more likely to be first-generation migrants (and thus less integrated in Australian society and less able to speak English, reducing their quality of life). Younger migrants may also be more capable of adjusting to living in a new country. Of the five NESB groups, the most satisfied are the Filipino sample (85%), while the Greek, Lebanese and Vietnamese are, relatively speaking, somewhat less satisfied, though the majority still are: in all three groups about 75% reported satisfaction. Almost 8% of Lebanese said they were not satisfied with their lives, the highest of all the groups included in this research. 45 The reasons for this are worth further study, especially in light of the recent reported upsurge of antiMuslim/anti-Arab feeling in the aftermath of the gang rape trials in south-western Sydney, the Tampa crisis and September 11. However, at the time of our survey (April 2002), there was only a slight, non-significant difference in the level of personal dissatisfaction between Christian and Muslim Lebanese. Furthermore, it has to be emphasised that the majority of Lebanese, both Christian and Muslim, did report high levels of personal well-being (77% and 74% respectively). It is illuminating to compare the level of personal well-being with the level of perceived well-being of the society. We asked about the latter by asking the question: “Thinking now NOT about your own life but about the situation in Australia generally, how satisfied are you with life in Australia?” (figure 5). First of all, it should be pointed out that overall levels of satisfaction with Australian society are significantly less than levels of satisfaction with one’s own personal life. Seventyone per cent of the national sample is satisfied with Australian society, while 8% of the population is dissatisfied with the condition of life in Australia. More than 21% is neither dissatisfied nor satisfied. Here again, we found no significant differences in terms of age, gender, location or education. It is perhaps somewhat surprising to find that of the five NESB groupings, the Somali group reported to be the most satisfied about Australian society (85% is satisfied or very satisfied). This may result from the refugee background of this group and their relatively fresh memories of exile. Compared with the war-torn country they left behind, many Somalis may feel especially fortunate to live in an ordered, prosperous and peaceful society such as Australia. The Filipinos and the Vietnamese are also highly satisfied with Australian society (about 75%). The figures for the Lebanese sample do not differ much from the national average: 72% is satisfied while 9% is dissatisfied. Significantly, however, there is big difference in this respect between Christian and Muslim Lebanese: while 80% of Christian Lebanese reported a high satisfaction with Australian society (much higher than the national average), only 65% of Muslim Lebanese did, while 12% of them are not satisfied (as opposed to 6% of Christian Lebanese). Clearly Muslim Lebanese tend to Figure 5. Personal well-being: satisfactionWITH with OWN own life PERSONAL WELL-BEING: SATISFACTION LIFE Satisfaction Neutral Satisfied 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Not satisfied 100 Sample Group 46 LIVING DIVERSITY feel less comfortable with Australian society than most other groups. It has to be pointed out, however, that the Greek sample also rated lower than average here: only 66% are satisfied with lifein Australian society. The reasons for this are worth further study. Overall, it is intriguing that migrants tend to have higher satisfaction with Australian society than longtime Australians. While 69% of long-time Australians are satisfied, the figure is 76% for the combined NESB migrant groups. However, the most satisfied are the Figure 6. Societal well-being: satisfactionWITH with life Australia SOCIETAL WELL-BEING: SATISFACTION LIFEinIN AUSTRALIA Satisfaction % Responding Not satisfied Satisfied Neutral 100 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National 20 Sample Group Figure 7. Societal well-being, Lebanese SOCIETAL WELL-BEING, LEBANESE Satisfaction Neutral Satisfied 80 60 40 Muslim Christian Muslim Christian Muslim 20 Christian % Responding Not satisfied 100 Sample Group 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING 47 English-speaking (presumably mostly British) migrants: 83% of them reported satisfaction. In other words, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Muslim Lebanese and Greek), migrants – that is, relatively new settlers in the country – tend to be more favourable about the general situation in Australian society than long-time settlers. This may have to do with the fact that compared with other countries life in Australia is perceived as good (the so-called ‘lucky country’ factor). Long-time Australians mostly do not have this comparative experience and therefore may tend to be more critical of their own society. Despite criticisms of the treatment of Indigenous people throughout Australian history and in the current environment, Indigenous people, too, were overall positive about Australian society, especially in comparison with other parts of the world. “This is a very lucky country and we are a very lucky people even though we are downtrodden.” (Sydney) “The problems we have here are nothing compared with overseas.”(Sydney) However, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t criticism as well: “Because we haven’t seen other countries sometimes it doesn’t feel like we live in a lucky country. The opportunities aren’t here for us. Where’s the car, the house, the holiday? I feel stuck, like I can’t get out of this groove.” (Port Hedland) In other words, their satisfaction with Australian society is mostly relative. Nevertheless, most Australians, of whatever background, find Australia – by and large and for whatever reasons – a good country in which to live. This may explain the strong sense of ‘home’ many attach to Australia. 48 five. Conclusion Overall, Australians are generally satisfied with their own lives as well as with life in Australian society. This is also the case for Indigenous Australians and Australians of non-English speaking migrant backgrounds, a clear majority of whom consider Australia ‘home’. The least settled group are the Somalis who, being the most recent migrants and mostly refugees, are one of the most marginal and disadvantaged migrant communities in the country. At the same time, even they tend to have a great sense of personal well-being and are, compared with the other groups studied, highly satisfied with life in Australia, perhaps precisely because of the contrast between prosperous and peaceful Australia and their own war-torn homeland. Despite this, most NESB groups still do not feel a complete sense of belonging to Australia. This is perhaps most starkly evidenced by the fact that relatively few of them describe themselves as ‘Australian’. This is the case even for secondgeneration NESB Australians – an indication that the dominant image of the Australian is still that of the stereotypical Anglo-Celtic Aussie. These findings suggest that there is a paradox in contemporary Australia. On the one hand Australia is obviously a plural society with an increasingly diverse population, most of whom thrive well in their lives. On the other hand, Australian culture is still not as open and inclusive as it could be: it is still strongly dominated by a core, Anglo-Celtic culture from which people of other cultural backgrounds are marginalised. In essence, some of these people experience themselves as in Australia, but not of Australia. Their sense of belonging is incomplete. LIVING DIVERSITY In this light, SBS, as Australia’s multicultural broadcaster, continues to have a very important role to play. By actively engaging diversity and by representing diversity as an integral aspect of Australian culture and society, SBS encourages people of NESB to belong more to Australia. More generally, SBS is in a unique position to cultivate both a common sense of belonging and a willingness to respect and cherish deep cultural differences among all Australians. The task of fostering a shared sense of belonging is all the more important to enhance social cohesion and intercultural understanding in the dynamic and complex 21st century Australia. Intergenerational change An important indication for the dynamic and evolving nature of cultural diversity is the extent to which there are intergenerational differences in outlook, attitudes and tastes. Modern society is rapidly changing, so it would be logical to expect such differences across all sections of the population. However, our data suggest that these changes are much greater amongst NESB groups than the national average. We asked our samples, “How different is your way of looking at the world from that of your parents?” The results are telling: (very) similar (very) different National % 21 50 Filipino % 16 58 Greek % 12 69 Lebanese % 31 42 Somali Vietnamese % % 10 14 68 62 In all the NESB groups (except the Lebanese) the percentage of those reporting intergenerational difference is significantly higher than the national sample, of whom about half reported such difference. (The exception of the Lebanese would deserve further study. Our data suggest there is no significant difference between Christian and Muslim Lebanese in this respect.) One possible reason for this much greater level of intergenerational change amongst the NESB population might be the very fact that these groups have had to adapt to the dominant Australian culture (including learning English and adopting elements of the ‘Australian way of life’) upon their settlement in Australia. Another reason might be the experience of migration itself. Changing countries always involves a certain level of disruption and discontinuity, and therefore – presumably – a shift in one’s perspective on the world. Support for this thesis is provided by comparing the results for long-time Australians, ESB migrants and NESB migrants. 03. IDENTITY AND BELONGING 49 (very) similar (very) different Long-time Australian % 25 46 ESB migrant % 19 61 NESB migrant % 18 68 These are very stark figures. Both ESB and NESB migrants share the disruptive experience of migration (though this experience is obviously more dramatically disruptive for those of non-English speaking backgrounds). As a result, many more NESB migrants experience a world of difference between themselves and their parents in comparison with long-time Australians, who did not have to go through a similar experience of physical and cultural displacement. Similar trends were found in responses to a similar question related to media taste: “How different is your taste in media in comparison with your parents?” Long-time Australian % (very) similar 24 (very) different 48 ESB migrant % 16 61 Filipino % 13 57 Greek % 17 69 Lebanese % 31 43 Somali Vietnamese % % 8 22 69 63 These data suggest that the frequently expressed assumption that ethnic groups are homogeneous communities is wrong. There are major generational differences within each NESB group, both in terms of their world view and in terms of their media tastes. Indeed, one can conclude that migrant groups are more internally diverse than the mainstream population. 50 LIVING DIVERSITY 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA one. Introduction In earlier chapters we saw that a large proportion of the population is at ease with the culturally diverse make-up of contemporary Australia and, in general, there is support for cultural diversity, immigration, and reconciliation. But we have also seen differences between the national sample and the combined NESB sample in relation to a sense of national belonging. In this chapter we examine the place of the media in the lives of our survey participants. We are interested in how people use the media and how they view its role in society and its relationship to their own lives. We are especially interested in whether the availability of a range of culturally diverse media sources has any relation to people’s understandings of contemporary multicultural Australia and their place within it. Our analysis of media use and attitudes adds to the developing theme of complexities in the operation and evolution of contemporary Australian multiculturalism. 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA This chapter demonstrates that: • there are some continuing points of difference in the use of ‘multicultural’ media, but there is also a practice in the general population of engaging with some media sources that offer a high level of cultural diversity; • specifically, large numbers of people watch subtitled films (64% of the national sample and 64% of the combined NESB sample) and watch SBS Television at least weekly (66% of those in the national sample who received a watchable signal, and 79% of the combined NESB sample); • there are some significant differences in media practices among different language groups (for example, Lebanese participants were heavy users of pay TV, whereas Vietnamese participants were heavy users of SBS Radio), and in some aspects of media use a number of groups were more like the national sample than the other NESB samples; • this finding undermines the idea of a ‘mainstream’ block and an ‘ethnic’ block of viewers; • there are generational differences in the NESB group that also suggest a blurring of the mainstream and NESB categories, but there are also some continuing similarities between generations (such as interest in international news), suggesting that neither is there a totalising shift across the generations away from engagement with cultural heritage; 51 • there are notable similarities between the national sample and the NESB sample in attitudes towards the media, as distinct from the ways in which the media are used; • there was a predictable reversal of interest in local/national news and in international news between the national sample and the combined NESB sample; preference for national news increased with second-generation (32% compared to 22% for first-generation), with a corresponding drop in preference for international news (43% for secondgeneration compared to 55% for first-generation); • however, when we break down these secondgeneration responses by age, we see that instead of a gradual decline in interest in international news relative to age (with older NESB people more interested and younger people less so), there appears to be a resurgence of interest in international news among people in the 16–24 age group; • Greek, Lebanese, and Vietnamese participants were all heavy users of LOTE radio programs, SBS Radio, SBS Television, and national music; • women from the NESB sample were much more likely than other categories to be excluded from the ‘new media’ opportunities offered by Internet use; • large numbers of people in the national sample as well as the combined NESB sample were of the belief that the media do not represent their way of life; this was especially pronounced in the Lebanese sample, but strong views were also recorded in the Greek and Somali samples; • among the Indigenous participants, it was thought that at times the role of the media extended to active misrepresentation. A number of measures were used in this study to assess media use, with an emphasis on programming for a culturally diverse audience. For this reason, the participants were asked about their engagement with radio programs and films in languages other than English, subtitled films, non-English language programming on pay TV, recorded music in languages other than English, source of world news, and use of SBS Television and SBS Radio. 52 Alongside these questions about use of broadly ‘multicultural’ media sources, participants were asked to nominate their favourite television network and then to nominate the TV network that most realistically represented their day-to-day life. The study was also interested in how many people subscribe to pay TV, and how this influences responses. Other sections of the survey provide complementary data on attitudes and values associated with immigration, reconciliation and other issues; for some key indicators, this data was cross-checked with the results of the media questions. A review of core demographic characteristics, including a comparison of media use based on generation with media use based on age, was also performed. In this survey we did not seek information on specific viewing habits relating to radio and television programs offered by SBS or other networks. Our inquiry relates to cultural practices and values and, accordingly, the results cannot usefully be compared to industry ratings or to in-house audience surveys. two. Use of ‘multicultural’ and ‘mainstream’ media The survey results demonstrate a readiness to access a range of audiovisual media within both the national sample and NESB samples. When asked unprompted to nominate their favourite leisure activities, our overall sample nominated 40 distinct activities – everything from organised sport to sleeping. Importantly for this study, watching television was a popular leisure activity for large sections of the sample – the fourth most popular activity for the national sample and the third most popular activity for the combined NESB group. A snapshot of selected media measures shows both similarities and differences between the samples: (see Table 1) LIVING DIVERSITY Table 1. Aspects of media use and attitudes Media activity Watch TV as a leisure activity Have pay TV News preference: local news News preference: national news News preference: international news Never used the Internet Media do represent my way of life Media do not represent my way of life Media taste is similar to parents Media taste is different from parents National sample % 7.0 25.5 21.1 42.5 28.3 38.8 12.9 49.2 22.6 49.7 NEWS PREFERENCE There was a predictable reversal of interest in local/national news and in international news between the national sample and the combined NESB sample. The table demonstrates that much larger numbers of the NESB sample showed more interest in international news than in local or national news. Given the difference is so great (over 25%), and since the earlier chapters demonstrated that it is incorrect to suggest that there are large numbers of Australia’s migrant population who have their interests and aspirations fixed firmly on their ancestral homeland, it is useful to ask whether there are any demographic or generational differences that influence this interest in international news. While the numbers of respondents in the thirdgeneration category are too small for accurate analysis, numbers of second-generation respondents (though still smaller than first-generation) comprise a useful sample size. In relation to news preference as well as to other aspects of media use, a comparison of first- and second-generation responses produces a marked variation. 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA NESB sample % 17.3 33.4 10.8 23.1 53.9 48.6 25.3 42.6 18.1 60.0 Similar low numbers of both first- and secondgeneration NESB respondents were interested in news about their local area (11% for first-generation and 12% for second-generation). However, preference for national news increased with second-generation (32% compared to 22% for first-generation), with a corresponding drop in preference for international news (43% for second-generation compared to 55% for first-generation). However, when we break down these secondgeneration responses by age (and again, the number of respondents is smaller, though still useful for analysis), an interesting development can be seen. Instead of a gradual decline in interest in international news relative to age (with older NESB people more interested and younger people less so), there appears to be a resurgence of interest in international news among people in the 16–24 age group. Whereas 32% of second-generation respondents in the combined NESB sample cited a preference for international news, this increased to 53% in the 16–24 age group of second-generation NESB respondents. Importantly, this pattern can also be detected in the pool of NESB respondents from all generations in the combined NESB sample, and in the national sample. 53 These results (see figure 1) suggest that there is a growing interest in international news among young people in contemporary Australia. The average response for all NESB second-generation respondents (and, specifically, for the youngest age bracket) saw this group placed between first-generation NESB and the national sample in relation to: • their interest in national news about Australia (where the national sample has the highest level of interest); • their interest in international news (where firstgeneration NESB has the highest level of interest). This finding suggests that the interests of secondgeneration respondents do not correspond with either those of their parents or those people who make up the national sample. In searching for other factors that influence an interest in international news, we see that both location and education are relevant. Although there is little difference in the combined NESB group between city residents and regional residents, there is a difference within the national sample: whereas 34% of city residents prefer international news, only 21% of regional residents prefer international news. There are corresponding responses for local news of 16% for city and 28% for country residents. Thus, living in the country does not affect interest in international news for NESB respondents, but for the national sample, country residents were much more likely to be interested in local news. We should of course take into account here that most NESB respondents live in cities. Different levels of education produced different results for the national sample, whereas answers were reasonably consistent for NESB respondents. Answers concerning interest in international news were all in the range of 52% to 55% for NESB respondents with levels of education varying from primary school to university. In contrast, there was a marked increase in interest in international news with education levels in the national sample: 20% of people with primary level education, 26% for people with secondary, and 36% for people with university education. Interest in local news decreased accordingly: 26%, 21%, 17%. Figure 1. Interest in international newsBY byAGE age INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL NEWS Sample Combined NESB sample Second-generation combined NESB sample 100 80 60 40 Note: 16–24 second-generation NESB sample contains relatively small numbers 54 55+ 40–54 25–39 16–24 55+ 40–54 25–39 16–24 55+ 40–54 25–39 20 16–24 % Responding National sample Age Group LIVING DIVERSITY MEDIA REPRESENTS YOUR WAY OF LIFE The national sample and the NESB sample were more closely aligned in relation to attitudes to the media and their media tastes in comparison to their parents. As shown in the table above, more NESB respondents were prepared to say that the media represent their way of life – a result that fits with the higher levels of satisfaction generally noted among the NESB sample in Chapter 3. But large numbers of people from both groups felt that the media do not reflect their lives (49% for the national sample and 43% for the NESB sample). There was no real difference relative to age, gender, or location in terms of the large numbers of people stating that the media do not represent their way of life. However, similar to the generational change in relation to preference for national and international news, there was a marked difference between first- and secondgeneration NESB respondents in their views about the media reflecting their lives. Whereas 40% of firstgeneration respondents thought the media did not reflect their way of life, 52% of second-generation respondents thought this. Consistent with this, among the second-generation respondents, only about half (14%) the number of first-generation respondents (27%) were prepared to say that the media do reflect their life. MEDIA TASTE COMPARED TO THAT OF PARENTS There was little difference between the samples in the number of people who stated that their media taste was similar to their parents. Large numbers of both the national sample and the NESB sample considered that their media taste was different from that of their parents, with the figure being as high as 60% for the NESB respondents. However, when the combined NESB sample is analysed for specific generational differences on this question, we find that it is a common view among both first-generation and secondgeneration that their media tastes are different to their parents: 60% of first-generation respondents and 60% of second-generation respondents reported either a four or five score on this issue. 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA Although a higher response is noted in the 25–39 age bracket of second-generation NESB respondents (63%), the response from 16–24 year-olds was still high at 54%. Hence, the data suggests that it is wrong to assume that there are very strong shifts in taste across specific migrant generations but not across nonmigrant generations. USE OF MULTICULTURAL MEDIA While the comments above relate to media sources in general, there are equally interesting results reported for use of what we might call ‘multicultural media’. Some of the key results of this survey on media use are set out in Table 2. Table 2. Multicultural media use National sample % Watch subtitled films 63.6 Watch SBS TV at least weekly* 65.5 Listen to LOTE programs on radio 28.8 Listen to SBS Radio** 14.3 SBS as favourite TV station 9.7 Media activity NESB sample % 63.7 78.8 53.3 44.2 26.4 *Percentage of people receiving a watchable signal (3,003 respondents of the total of 3,441). Note: Refer section three of methodology for TV sampling methods **Capital city respondents only Of all these activities, it appears that the two most ‘mainstream’ activities are watching SBS TV and watching subtitled films since the variance between the NESB sample and national sample is substantially less than it is for the other activities. These more mainstream activities relate to media sources that are not exclusively language- or culture-specific; that is, they are accessible to groups other than those whose language is the subject of the program or film. In categories of multicultural media use, such as LOTE films and programs and SBS Radio use, the variance is as much as 20% and 30% between the national group and the NESB group. 55 An initial look at the use of ‘multicultural’ media sources shows that a high 64% of the national group and 64% of the NESB group indicated that they watch subtitled films. The data showed that this interest is maintained in the language groups across first- and secondgeneration respondents, with a slightly higher proportion of second-generation respondents (69% compared to 64% for first-generation) indicating they do watch subtitled films. The frequency responses reversed this, with more first-generation respondents being very regular viewers (12% compared to 4% for daily use; 23% compared to 12% for every few days). Overwhelmingly, SBS was the most popular source for subtitled films, with 74% of the national sample and 78% of the NESB sample citing SBS as the most popular source. Although there was some departure from this at a generational level, the results were still very high with first-generation at 79% and second-generation at 68%. There are slightly higher figures for secondgeneration for cinema as a source of subtitled films (10% compared to 3% for first-generation) and for pay TV (10% compared to 6%), although both these figures are low. Both groups are interested in accessing subtitled films on video or DVD (12% for first-generation and 10% for second-generation). The age analysis of second-generation NESB respondents shows that the younger respondents recorded fewer positive answers for watching subtitled films (56% for 16–24, compared to an extremely high 81% for 25–39). They also indicated that they watched less often, with 11% watching every day or every few days, compared to 15% for those in the 25–39 age bracket. There was a difference based on gender in both the national sample and the combined NESB sample, with fewer women indicating that they watch subtitled films. In the national sample, 61% of women answered that they watch subtitled films, compared to 68% of men. In the NESB sample, there was a 10% difference, with 59% of women watching subtitled films, compared to 69% of men. 56 These results on sources of subtitled films do not suggest that there is any significant move to media sources other than SBS: the results simply show a lower, though still high, level of interest on the part of second-generation NESB respondents. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this difference is the positioning of the national sample in between NESB second-generation and NESB first-generation (68%, 74%, 79%). This result is an interesting comment on the acceptance of subtitled films across the population. three. Differences in media use relevant to cultural background Before turning to the results for media activity among the NESB sample groups, it is useful to look briefly at the broad range of leisure activities cited. In relation to the major category of sport, there was a marked differentiation between the groups, with competitive sports being roughly twice as popular among people in the national sample (37%), compared to those in the Greek, Vietnamese and Lebanese samples (16%, 18% and 20% respectively). While some of these results are based on very small numbers of respondents, they are still of interest since all participants were asked this question. In fact, in many cases it is the very low responses that are most interesting. Some of these interesting variations were as follows: • interest in pubs, clubs, and casinos was far less among the Lebanese (2%), Vietnamese (1%) and Somali (nil) samples, compared to the national sample (4%), Filipino sample (6%) and Greek sample (11%); • a similar variation existed among the groups in relation to eating out/dinner parties, with the national and Filipino samples (8%, 8%) higher than the Lebanese, Somali, and Vietnamese samples (5%, 1%, 4%), and participants in the Greek sample being almost twice as likely to nominate this leisure activity (15%); LIVING DIVERSITY • the Vietnamese sample was much more interested in listening to music as a leisure activity (10%) than the other groups (national 4%, Filipino 6%, Greek 4%, Lebanese 1%, Somali 1%); • shopping was of less interest to those in the national, Greek, and Somali samples (2%, 2%, 5%) than those in the Filipino, Vietnamese, and Lebanese samples (8%, 9%, 12%); • reading was popular among all samples (national 19%, Filipino 13%, Greek 13%, Lebanese 23%, Vietnamese 19%), although this preference was especially marked among those in the Somali sample (41%); • the Indigenous participants indicated involvement in sport and community events, but several sample groups also cited storytelling as a favourite activity. When television and radio use are assessed as leisure activities, the Somali sample was notable for its interest in listening to the radio (7%), compared to other groups (national 2%, Filipino 3%, Greek 5%, Lebanese 5%, Vietnamese 4%). Although the Lebanese sample was notable in nominating watching television as a leisure activity (28%), all of the NESB groups were ahead of the national group in citing television as a leisure activity (Filipino 13%, Greek 12%, Somali 14%, Vietnamese 20%, national 7%). A generational analysis based on all sample groups shows that watching television as a leisure activity was more popular with first-generation participants (19%) than with second-generation participants (9%). There was little difference among age groups in relation to radio as a leisure activity, but younger respondents in the NESB sample appeared less interested in TV as a leisure activity (12%) than older respondents (25–39, 17%; 40–54, 21%; 55+, 19%). INTEREST IN PAY TV The interest in television exhibited in the Lebanese sample was consistent with the group’s investment in pay TV (54%). Similarly, figures for pay TV subscription were generally higher in the NESB groups (Greek 42%, Filipino 32%, Somali 26%), in comparison with the national group (26%), with the exception of the Vietnamese sample that was substantially lower (13%). The Indigenous group from Cairns commented that most people subscribed to pay TV, preferring ABC and SBS for news. Interestingly, these relationships of difference were generally consistent for uses of pay TV, as well as for ownership or subscription. In looking at some of the ways in which pay TV is used for accessing culturally diverse programming, the following pattern emerges: Table 3. NESB samples and pay TV use Lebanese Greek Filipino Somali National Vietnamese Have pay TV % 54.0 41.9 32.2 26.2 25.5 12.5 Pay is favourite TV station % 28.3 19.7 10.8 3.5 8.1 1.5 Normal source of world news % 23.3 14.5 10.1 1.8 6.4 1.0 Normal source of subtitled films^ % 13.0 9.1 6.8 – 4.7 5.0 Watch LOTE programs on pay TV* % 86.1 76.4 42.5 41.9 45.1 34.7 * These samples are based on % of those who have pay TV; they contain very small numbers ^ General pay TV response only; some specific channels were also cited 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA 57 The high level of interest demonstrated by the Lebanese sample and the contrast to the Vietnamese sample can be represented in terms of the number of participants who recorded these results. In sample groups of the same size (400 participants), the following results were reported for pay TV use. (see figure 2) Apart from the difference in the use of pay TV between these two samples, one of the interesting aspects is that there is a common low response for pay TV as a source of subtitled films. Subscribers seem to be seeking unsubtitled programming in their own language. Figure PayFOR TV use for Vietnamese and Lebanese samples PAY TV2. USE VIETNAMESE AND LEBANESE Have Pay TV Watch programs on Pay TV in LOTE Watch subtitled films on Pay TV Pay station is favourite TV station Lebanese Vietnamese Lebanese Vietnamese Lebanese Vietnamese Lebanese Vietnamese Persons Responding Use of Pay TV Pay TV is main source of world news 250 200 150 100 Lebanese Vietnamese 50 Sample Group Figure PayBY TVGENERATION use by generation PAY TV3. USE Use of Pay TV Pay TV as source of world news Pay TV as location of subtitled films^ 100 80 60 40 *% of those who have Pay TV ^% of those who answered ‘yes’ to watch subtitled films 58 2nd gen. 1st gen. 2nd gen. 1st gen. 2nd gen. 1st gen. 2nd gen. 20 1st gen. % Responding Watch Pay TV in other languages* Pay TV as station reflecting Australian society Generation LIVING DIVERSITY Finally, the following generational analysis of pay TV responses suggests that although pay TV was much more common among second-generation participants (45% compared to 32%), there is not a substantial increase in the personal commitment to pay TV among second-generation viewers. (see figure 3) The Lebanese, Greek, and Vietnamese participants were all heavy users of national music. The table below shows that this same combination of participants exhibited marked characteristics in relation to use of the Internet. USE OF OTHER MEDIA Turning from pay TV, it is instructive to look at other sources of subtitled films and the use of other media for culturally diverse programming. As noted above, 74% of the national sample and 78% of the NESB sample cited SBS as the most popular source of subtitled films. This common reference to SBS as the primary source of subtitled films by the respondents in the combined NESB sample as well as by the largely English-speaking respondents in the national sample, provides an interesting comment on the role of SBS in providing a service for a broad crosssection of the community. Among the Lebanese respondents, a larger number of Muslim participants indicated that they view subtitled films (61%, compared to 47% for Christians). When questioned on the location of subtitled films, more Muslims (74%) nominated SBS than Christians (63%). Video/DVD as a source is more popular than cinema with all groups except the Greek sample and the national sample, where the two sources are similar in popularity. This shows that Greek, Lebanese, and Vietnamese participants were all heavy users of LOTE radio programs, SBS Radio, SBS Television, and national music, but all three groups also reported large numbers of people who had never used the Internet. The results from the Indigenous samples also showed a high level of commitment to Indigenous television networks, but mixed responses on use of the Internet. Again, however, a generational analysis produces interesting points of distinction. Listening to radio programs in languages other than English was a point of distinction between the generations in the combined NESB sample, with far fewer secondgeneration participants than first-generation participants indicating that they listen to radio programs in LOTE (52% of first-generation compared to 32% of second-generation). Consistent with the declining use of languagespecific programming, there was a marked decrease in frequency of viewing subtitled films daily or every few days among second-generation respondents (16%) compared with first-generation (35%). Table 4. Uses of other media Filipino Greek Lebanese Somali # Vietnamese Watch subtitled films % 65.5 57.9 55.8 62.9 76.3 Watch SBS TV weekly* % 71.1 79.4 70.4 91.5 81.7 Listen to radio in LOTE % 26.6 58.0 65.7 51.0 82.8 Listen to Listen to SBS national Radio^ music % % 29.1 59.2 45.3 92.2 41.8 63.4 16.6 65.3 79.1 87.3 * percentage of those who receive a watchable signal. Note: Refer section three of methodology for TV sampling methods ^ capital city respondents only; # there are currently no Somali language programs on SBS Radio 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA 59 In contrast, second-generation respondents recorded much higher levels of use of the Internet either daily or every few days, with a 20% difference between second-generation (57%) and first-generation (34%). Regarding specific uses of the Internet that might intersect with the role of broadcasting, we found in the Greek, Lebanese and Vietnamese samples that news, entertainment, and education attracted small numbers of people. (see figure 5) Figure UseINTERNET of the Internet among NESB samples USE OF4.THE AMONG NESB SAMPLES Use of Internet Use Internet daily/ every few days % Responding Never use Internet 100 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 Sample Group Figure UsesINTERNET of the Internet among NESB samples USE OF5.THE AMONG NESB SAMPLES Use of Internet Education Entertainment 80 60 40 Note: responses for information as distinct from news were higher 60 Vietnamese Lebanese Greek Vietnamese Lebanese Greek Vietnamese Lebanese 20 Greek Persons Responding News 100 Sample Group LIVING DIVERSITY Among the Lebanese respondents, similar numbers of Muslims and Christians used the Internet (57% of Muslims and 61% of Christians had never used, and 18% of Muslims use daily compared to 17% of Christians). However, more Christians reported that they used the Internet for work (20% of those who indicated that they use the Internet, compared to 6% of Muslims). Figure 6. Internet by sample gender INTERNET USE BYuse SAMPLE AND and GENDER Use of Internet % Responding National sample: use daily National sample: never used Combined NESB sample: use daily Combined NESB sample: never used 100 80 60 40 Men Women Men Women Men Women Women Men 20 Gender Figure Media representing MEDIA7.REPRESENTING YOURyour LIFE life Response Media do not represent your life 100 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Media represent your life Sample Group 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA 61 While the differences evidenced among the language groups are important, it should also be noted that gender is a significant variable in use of the Internet. In both the national sample and the combined NESB sample, fewer women reported daily use of the Internet, while more women than men reported that they had never used the Internet. This graph (see figure 6) shows that women from the NESB sample were much more likely than other categories to be excluded from the ‘new media’ opportunities offered by Internet use. The difference is particularly stark between men in the national sample, where those who use the Internet daily is about the same number as those who never use it, compared to NESB women, where the number who have never used the Internet is 30% larger than those who use it daily. four. The media and society – use of and attitude towards the media Several of the survey questions allowed some examination of the participants’ attitudes towards the media. One of the opportunities presented by the survey for exploring attitudes to the media and their role in people’s lives was the question whether people think that the images they see in the Australian media represent their way of life. (see figure 7) Large numbers of people in the national sample, as well as the NESB samples, were of the belief that the media do not represent their way of life. This was especially pronounced in the Lebanese sample, but strong views were also recorded in the Greek and Somali samples. Only in the Filipino and Vietnamese samples were more than one quarter of the participants prepared to say that the media represent their way of life. Table 5. Media attitudes and use Aust media reflects reality (mean 1<5) Favourite Network TV station most reflecting your life % Pay TV 25.0 SBS 20.3 Watch SBS daily or every few days* % 55.0 Lebanese 2.2 % Pay 28.3 Greek 2.6 Nine 20.2 Don’t know 33.4 SBS 19.2 67.5 Filipino 3.1 Nine 22.2 Don’t know 24.6 Nine 15.5 55.8 Somali 2.4 SBS 66.5 SBS 71.8 83.8 National 2.5 ABC 25.1 ABC 27.8 Don’t know 26.7 47.7 Vietnamese 3.2 SBS 23.8 Don’t know 40.5 SBS 18.8 67.1 *of those who receive a watchable signal. Note: Refer section three of methodology for TV sampling methods 62 LIVING DIVERSITY Interestingly, these lower levels of dissatisfaction with the media representing respondents’ ways of life were matched by the results from an earlier question asking participants how tolerant they think Australian society is. While the Greek, Lebanese and Somali samples all recorded around 15% for not very tolerant (1 or 2 on a scale of 1–5), the Vietnamese and Filipino samples recorded 6% and 5% respectively. Responses to the questions on attitudes to the media can be placed alongside the responses to favourite and most used media sources. (see table 5) Of the NESB groups, the Lebanese sample recorded the lowest use of SBS TV (55%) and the highest level of use of pay TV (28%). They were also the strongest in their view that Australian media do not reflect reality (mean 2.2). Apart from the Greek sample, all groups made a connection between their favourite TV network and the one that most reflects reality. For the Greek sample, the station most reflecting reality was SBS (8 percentage points ahead of the Nine Network), with the three most popular stations recording identical scores (pay TV 20%, SBS 20%, Nine 20%). Given the high results on the issue of the media not representing respondents’ ways of life and the connection between favourite television station and that which best presents reality, we could infer that the participants like those stations which they believe most reflect their own reality. This correlation between approval for a television network and its perceived capacity to accurately reflect aspects of the lives of its community is highlighted by the results from the focus groups with Indigenous participants, where popular programs (such as Bush Mechanics or ICAM) were also those which were perceived to be more realistic: “Would love to see shows about how Aboriginal people live now … ordinary everyday suburban people.” (Cherbourg). 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA The need for positive stories that balance sensationalist accounts of Indigenous stories, for example, was noted by several Indigenous groups. Participants from the Alice Springs group commended the work of the local Indigenous station, CAAMA, and put the view that the mainstream media should take a greater role in demonstrating the lives of Indigenous Australians to non-Indigenous people. It was thought that at times the role of the media extended to active misrepresentation: “Using TV and realistic in the same sentence doesn’t make sense.” (Sydney – community) “The radio stations tell people that these things didn’t happen and people take notice”. (Sydney – elders) The importance of realistic portrayals extended beyond accurate reporting for its own sake: “CAAMA uses media to maintain culture and tradition – it’s an educational tool.” (Alice Springs) This aspect can be analysed further by looking at responses to the specific question about media taste compared with parents’ taste. (see table 6) All groups indicated strong levels of difference in taste from their parents, although the Lebanese sample (43%) was below the national sample (50%), and there was 25 percentage points difference between the results for the Lebanese sample and the Somali sample (69%). The Lebanese sample recorded the highest levels of similarity to media tastes of their parents (31%), along with the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the media’s representation of reality. The Vietnamese and Filipino samples were the reverse: lower levels of dissatisfaction with the media representing reality, but high levels of difference in media taste from their parents. 63 Table 6. Attitudes to the media Media taste similar to parents* % 31.4 16.6 13.2 7.9 22.6 22.0 Lebanese Greek Filipino Somali National Vietnamese * Responses of 1 or 2; Media taste different from parents^ % 43.3 69.4 57.4 68.5 49.7 62.8 Australian media do not represent your life* % 60.6 47.5 26.4 50.7 49.2 26.1 Australian media do represent your life^ % 16.2 20.3 30.1 23.0 12.9 38.1 ^ Responses of 4 or 5 Finally, the degree of comfort with new technology revealed different patterns, with the Greek sample marked out from the other samples as significantly less comfortable. Among the Lebanese respondents, there were large differences in relation to being comfortable with new technology: 65% of Muslims were comfortable or very comfortable with new technology, compared to 46% of Christians; and only 24% were uncomfortable or very uncomfortable, compared to 42% of Christians. Consistent with the difference between first- and second-generation noted above are the responses on degree of comfort with new technology, with 62% of first-generation respondents recording a 4 or 5 score (on a scale of 1–5) on being comfortable, compared with 81% for second-generation. Although the Indigenous participants indicated varying levels of comfort with new technology, most felt that the Internet was an important tool and worth learning. Figure 8. Comfort with TECHNOLOGY new technology COMFORT WITH NEW New Technology Uptake Comfortable 80 60 40 Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino National Vietnamese Somali Lebanese Greek Filipino 20 National % Responding Uncomfortable 100 Sample Group 64 LIVING DIVERSITY Conclusion The media use of the selected NESB groups shows a range of activities and engagement with both mainstream and culturally specific media; that is, their media use demonstrates the same cultural mixing that we noted in earlier chapters. Younger generations show a preparedness to balance multicultural and mainstream sources. People are sceptical about the media even though, on the whole, they are relatively optimistic about life in Australia. On the part of the largely English-speaking participants in the national sample, there was also some degree of cultural mixing with large numbers of people watching subtitled films and SBS Television. On one interpretation, the viewing of subtitled films and SBS Television could be equated with eating food from a range of cultures: it is the easy option for the mainstream since it often does not require ‘going into’ another community or culture. But there is a significance to be seen in these national trends. First, while any one of these activities alone might represent a superficial manifestation of cultural diversity, it is misleading to isolate them and conclude that a current of pseudo-cosmopolitanism washes over Australia. Second, these practices need to be viewed together and in the context of large numbers of people being in favour of multiculturalism and cultural diversity, and very few people being anti-immigration. These results show that there is degree of cultural maintenance and a degree of cultural mixing, with resources such as SBS being crucial to ensuring this for both NESB second-generation people and for long-time Australians. 04. MEDIA AND MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA 65 Pay TV case study: Lebanese respondents Lebanese participants recorded the highest results on the issue of media tastes being similar to parents with 31% recording a 1 or 2 out of five response. The national sample was the next highest group on 23%. It also recorded the highest responses for dissatisfaction with the media: at 61% for a score of 1 or 2 on the media not representing the respondents way of life, the Lebanese participants outranked even the most recently-arrived group, the Somalis. Only 12% of the Muslim Lebanese respondents reported a 4 or 5 response for this matter, with 70% reporting a score of 1 or 2. The corresponding Christian Lebanese responses were 21% and 54%. Alongside this level of dissatisfaction with the media is the take-up rate for pay TV, which at 54% is over 10 percentage points higher than the next group (the Greek sample at 42%), and source of world news which at 23% is also almost 10 points higher than the Greek sample. The most popular response for the television station most reflecting Australian society was pay TV at 25%, with SBS recording 20% and the next highest response being Channel 10 at 11%. Finally, pay TV was overwhelmingly the most popular TV station, recording a result of 28%, exceeding the Seven and Nine Networks by almost 10 points (18%), with SBS scoring 14%. The tendency to nominate pay TV as the favourite TV station was exhibited in both the Christian and Muslim respondents (28% and 31% respectively). While participants in the Lebanese sample were the highest users of pay TV, they were the lowest of all groups in viewing subtitled films at 56%. Although the Lebanese sample was the least interested in subtitled films, the responses for pay TV as a source of subtitled films are in fact so low among the other groups, that the Lebanese sample still ranks the highest among the NESB groups with 48 viewers. In contrast, almost half of the participants in the sample (196 out of 400) reported watching films in Arabic on pay TV at least weekly. From these results it would appear that free-to-air television, including SBS, does not serve the interests of the Lebanese sample sufficiently to prevent a migration to pay TV. This can in part be explained by the transfer of the TeleLiban service from SBS to TARBS in 2001. 66 LIVING DIVERSITY 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY Goals This study was designed to draw conclusions about multicultural Australia not only by exploring the characteristics of a cross-section of all Australians, but also by exploring the characteristics of specific NESB and Indigenous groups in their own languages and contexts. This exploration of multicultural Australia was based upon questions that, while as objective as possible, also were designed deliberately to avoid the measurement of stereotypes. Analysis of the data was performed by a team of independent quantitative and qualitative researchers to produce interpretation of the data that was not only quantitatively accurate, but also qualitatively rich with context-driven snapshots of culture. To achieve these goals, participants in seven sample groups were asked the same sets of questions using an omnibus survey of over 90 measures. This chapter reviews the methods used for a national survey, five language surveys and Indigenous interviews. Details provided here include sampling methods, survey, administration methods and the analyses performed on the data to produce the results presented in this report. 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY one. Samples: the participants we included Seven sample groups of adults informed this study: A national sample of 1,437, five NESB samples including 406 Filipinos, 401 Greek, 400 Lebanese, 401 Somalis, and 400 Vietnamese, as well as 56 Indigenous. The national sample was collected to provide a representative benchmark for the Australian population as a whole. Obviously this sample would contain a representative proportion of long-time Australians (most, though not all of whom would be of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds). However, it would also contain a large number of people from migrant backgrounds including first-, second- and thirdgeneration migrants. It also would contain many people whose first language is not English. However, because this national sample would not contain sufficiently large numbers from any one NESB group, it would not allow meaningful comparisons between different generations within those groups, and the numbers of persons in any one group would be too small to permit meaningful comparison between people from different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, six additional sample groups were identified to provide information about the experiences of people of different migrant backgrounds in Australia whose first language was not English, and of Indigenous groups whose background and cultural experience would differ from the larger heterogeneous population. 67 Figure 1. Sample group design 1,437 National 406 Filipino 401 Greek 400 Lebanese 401 Somali 400 Vietnamese 56 Indigenous It is important to note that the samples were not selected to represent all non-English speaking background people living in Australia. For example, trends identified amongst those of Greek background would not be translated into other large NESB groups, nor would results collated for all five NESB groups be taken to be representative of all NESB Australians. The sample groups were identified to shed light on some trends and themes that are suggested by other research. Moreover, they were chosen to provide useful insights for use in framing past and future research. It was important for the research model that people in the separate samples shared a cultural background, in other words that their connection be linked back to a common country of origin. This is not to suggest that countries of origin represent homogenous cultures. For example, the Lebanese sample contains (at least) two distinctive religious groups, Christian and Muslim. Similarly, there is considerable diversity within Indigenous Australians, particularly between urban and non-urban. 68 Most of the NESB groups selected for this study were mid- to large-sized to ensure that we could gain a reasonable sample from them. The exception is the Somali group which we could access because of the community’s geographic concentration and strong intra-community connections. For the five NESB sample groups, the aim was to provide a cross-section of different types of groups using such indicators as recency of arrival, degree of integration, size, geographic spread, language retention, different continental origin and so on. The individual sample groups selected were Filipino, Greek, Lebanese, Somali, Vietnamese, and Indigenous. Characteristics of the groups that make them distinctive include the following: LIVING DIVERSITY Greek sample • large group (126,571 first-generation in 1996) • well established adult second-generation • widespread in Australia with a concentration in Victoria (almost half) • suitable for national sample • low formal education levels in first-generation • high language retention among second-generation (68% in 1996) • high rate of Australian citizenship • European Filipino sample • mid-sized group (92,902 first-generation in 1996) • fast growing group over the past 20 years (85% arrived since 1981) • peak of immigration in 1987–1988 • not surveyed by SBS • high number of women (spouse sponsored, 70% or more married to non-Philippines-born men) • two distinct types of families – Filipino and Filipinos married to non-Filipinos • relatively recent arrivals (though spread) • high English proficiency • mostly Catholic • Asian Somali sample • recently arrived • not surveyed by SBS • small group • large number of humanitarian program migrants • relatively small geographic spread (Sydney, Melbourne) • African 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY Lebanese sample • mid-sized group (70,000 first-generation in 1996) • two main religions (Christian 29%, Muslim 55% in 1996) • range of recent arrivals and long-term migrants • different waves of migration (steady growth 1966–1996) • low employment levels • concentration in NSW (72% in Sydney) • high language retention (90% spoke Arabic at home in 1996) • Middle Eastern Vietnamese sample • large group (150,941 in 1996) • large number of arrivals at a similar time (post 1975) • second-generation now reaching adulthood (almost all were under 25 in 1996) • high concentration in urban areas (Sydney, Melbourne) • high family migration • extremes of educational levels • Asian Indigenous sample • urban and rural • rarely included in studies of this type • not surveyed by SBS • strong association with SBS These groups provided depth to this study. Table 1 outlines the basic characteristics for each sample group determined by this research. 69 Table 1. Primary sample characteristics National Filipino Greek Lebanese N 1437 N 406 N 401 N 400 N 401 N 400 N 56 N * Sex Female Male % 58 42 % 59 41 % 59 41 % 62 38 % 44 56 % 58 42 % 57 43 % 51 49 Age group 16 – 19 20 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 Over 65 % 6 8 19 22 20 12 13 % 10 13 21 29 18 6 2 % 3 5 18 10 14 24 26 % 7 12 27 23 13 11 7 % 7 20 41 21 6 2 4 % 5 7 26 33 17 6 5 % – 21 13 26 9 13** – % 7 10 19 20 17 12 15 Education None Primary Secondary (lower) Secondary (higher) Tafe/Trade University Post Graduate n/a % 0 1 25 29 14 25 6 1 % 0 1 7 18 12 59 4 1 % 0 40 19 16 8 14 3 1 % 2 18 25 23 9 21 2 1 % – 11 12 28 19 23 3 5 % 0 8 26 34 7 23 2 1 % – – – – – – – – % 0 31*** 40 20 22 12 5 1 Employment Full-time Part-time Retired/Pension Home duties Other, n/a % 40 17 21 11 11 % 57 13 6 7 17 % 28 12 42 10 8 % 26 9 20 32 13 % 30 8 5 22 35 % 39 13 12 20 16 % 37 7 – 11 45 % 51 19 – – 30**** Technical Response rate Margin of error % 26 2.6 % 29 4.9 % 25 4.9 % 21 4.9 % – 4.9 % 43 4.9 % – 13.1 % – – Sample size Somali Vietnamese Indigenous ABS * N=14, 589, 445, Aged 16 and over at 2001 ABS Census of Population and Housing (minus overseas visitors) ** All those over age 55 *** Includes up to year 10 (Education and Work, 2001, 6227.0 table 8) **** Includes Retired, Home Duties and Other categories (Education and Work, 2001, 6227.0 table 12) 70 LIVING DIVERSITY two. Sampling techniques: how we accessed participants Cultural Perspectives Pty Ltd managed the sampling and data collection process. Each sample group was constructed with modestly different techniques as a matter of necessity. Nevertheless, the operational goal for each sample was to ensure that it was representative of the population from which it was drawn. NATIONAL SAMPLE The national sample was constructed using an Area Probability Sampling technique by which samples were generated within states and territories to ensure proportionate representation within each. Using the electronic White Pages, a random number seed generated a list of candidate telephone numbers. These were contacted by NCS Pearson, a market research organisation. The response rate was 26%, calculated by obtaining the proportion of the adults contacted who were eligible to participate and who completed the survey. NESB SAMPLES The Greek, Lebanese and Vietnamese sample groups were constructed entirely through a naming analysis of the electronic White Pages. These were then sampled using a random number seed by which each sample was randomly generated. The Filipino sample was constructed mainly through this method, and as well as through community organisations that were contacted for access to additional names. Advertising was placed on the Filipino community website. The Somali sample group was contacted through two community organisation groups, one in Sydney and the other in Melbourne. A convenient sample of participants was generated for this sample group. NCS Pearson, Sydney, conducted the Greek, Lebanese, Filipino and Vietnamese surveys. 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY The Somali surveys were conducted by four field researchers working for the Somali Community Incorporated of Victoria. The response rates for these groups were: Filipino, 29% Greek, 25%; Lebanese, 21%; and Vietnamese, 43%. The response rate for the Somali sample was 80%, attributable to the face-toface method of administration compared to telephone administration for the other groups. THE INDIGENOUS SAMPLE It was inappropriate, given the enormous dispersion and diversity of the Indigenous population in Australia, to construct a random sample equivalent to the other sample groups. Thus, the Indigenous sample was constructed by visiting six rural and urban locations around Australia, each for two days, including: Alice Springs (NT), Port Hedland (WA), Cherbourg (QLD), Sydney (NSW), Cairns (QLD) and Port Augusta (SA). Community consultations were organised with local community members. A number of ‘key informant’ interviews were also conducted with elders, representatives from Indigenous organisations and other social networks. The consultations were organised and facilitated by the local researcher, with the support of Cultural Perspectives consultants, who were present to take notes and to co-facilitate where appropriate. three. The questions we asked The questionnaire features nine major sections. Each of these focused on at least one of the key issues of the study, including: Languages spoken, family background, participation in community activities, overseas and cultural contact including food and travel, attitudes toward contemporary social issues, life satisfaction in Australia, preferred leisure activities, media preferences and attitudes, and demographics. This questionnaire was used for all sample groups with only the Indigenous sample group being assessed with a modestly different form to suit the interview style. 71 Four questions on languages spoken, other than the language in which the interview was conducted, were asked of participants. A subset of one of these explored the context of language use with different people in the participants’ social environment: “Who do you normally speak this language with?” and asked which language the participant speaks at home. Family background questions included birthplaces of the participant and of their parents, the linguistic background of grandparents, the year of migration (as applicable), importance of family background knowledge, whether in a relationship with a person from a different culture, and the presence of children. Participants were asked whether they participated in organised community activities and those who did were probed about the types of community organisations in which they were involved. For those who said they spoke a language other than the one in which the survey was conducted were also asked which language they spoke for each type of community organisation. They were then asked whether they had regular contact with anyone living overseas, in the country where they or their parents were born, and what types of people they communicated with (for example, siblings, friends, work contacts and so on). Everyone was asked whether they had travelled overseas in the past three years and those who were born overseas were also asked how many times they have returned to their country of birth. Finally, for this subsection, participants were asked four questions about how much, if at all, they enjoyed eating foods from different cultures. Two questions explored socialisation with people from different cultural backgrounds, both in and outside work. 72 Two sets of questions explored attitudes toward contemporary social issues. The first asked participants to identify the “two most important issues facing Australia today.” Answers were not cued and the list of possible issues to mention was long. The second set focused on particular issues related to globalisation, tolerance, cultural diversity, maintenance of cultural identity, reconciliation and the national migration program. These questions measured attitudes on a 1-to-5 scale. Using another set of 1-to-5 attitude measures, five questions explored life satisfaction in Australia including: “On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is ‘not satisfied’ and 5 is ‘satisfied’, thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Other questions explored satisfaction with Australian society, differences in the participant’s world view compared to that of his or her parents, the extent to which the participant considers Australia home and, “how likely are you to live overseas in the future?” Personal tastes and preferences were assessed with two groups of questions. The first asked participants to nominate two of their favourite recreational activities. These were not prompted but often met with responses such as sport, shopping, eating out, media, gardening and so on. The second asked participants, “Who do you admire the most? There are no limits on who you can choose.” Again, responses were unaided and ranged from sport and media celebrities to historical political figures and family members. LIVING DIVERSITY Media preferences were then explored at length. This group of questions included attitudes toward the media, favourite television and radio stations, subscription (or not) to pay TV services, news and current affairs preferences, ‘world music’ tastes and preferences, viewing of subtitled films and films in other languages, radio listening in languages other than English, SBS Radio listening, SBS Television viewing, and Internet use. It is important to note that recall measures of media behaviour often lead to inflated estimates. Nevertheless, the trends we observed were consistent with research collected by diary and other means in other research. Demographic questions measured employment, self-described cultural identity, education, religious affiliation, and age. The sex of the participant was recorded at the close of the interview. The questions in this section were gathered to compare sample information to nationally gathered statistics as an indicator for the quality of generalisations made from the study sample to the population. VARIATIONS IN MEASURES FOR THE INDIGENOUS SAMPLE GROUP The surveys were parallel for the national, Filipino, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese and Somali samples. However, a short one-page version of the questionnaire was administered to each of the 56 Indigenous participants in the Indigenous sample. This page was designed to proximate some of the key areas in the quantitative questionnaire. four. Administration The national sample and four NESB samples (Filipino, Greek, Lebanese, and Vietnamese) were contacted by telephone. NCS Pearson fielded the survey using Surveycraft, a commercial application for computerassisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The application manages sample information, including the numbers to dial in the sample frame, it presents the survey in a clear format for interviewers to read from a computer screen, manages complex question order and records responses as alphanumeric data thereby improving sample and data management accuracy. Sixty-six interviewers were used across the national and specific NESB samples. Somali participants were interviewed in person and by telephone in Melbourne and Sydney by members of Somali Community Incorporated of Victoria. The sample of 401 was constructed using a convenience sample technique using quotas for age, gender, education and location. Four interviewers skilled in survey methodology and who speak English as well as Farsi were selected. For this sample group, the convenience sample used multiple methodologies suitable to the Somali Community as determined by the Somali Community group representatives. In-person interviews took place with single participants (separated from peer and other groups to avoid influence) at public locations frequented by Somali-background residents including restaurants, ethnic schools and community organisations. Indigenous participants responded to a one-page self-completion questionnaire administered and completed at the time of the group discussion. A small number of participants chose not to fill in the questionnaire and many left sections incomplete. 05. HOW WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY 73 All data collection took place between March and May 2002. The national sample was surveyed from 8–13 March and again from 29 April to 1 May 2002. Four NESB samples were conducted in March and April as follows: Filipino sample from 8–21 April; Greek sample from 20 March to 18 April; Lebanese sample from 21 March to 21 April; Vietnamese sample from 15 March to 11 April. The Somali sample was surveyed 20 March to 10 April. The Indigenous sample from 8 April to 10 May according to the following dates for each of the six locations used: Cherbourg 8–9 April, Port Augusta 10–12 April, Alice Springs 11–12 April, Port Hedland 16–19 April, Sydney 27 April and 10 May, and Cairns 9–10 May. The telephone surveys were conducted for the national and Filipino, Greek, Lebanese and Vietnamese sample groups Sunday through Saturday and across three dayparts beginning at 10:00 a.m. and finishing at 8:00 p.m. in the time zone of the household called with up to three callbacks for each number. ANALYSES AND REPORTING The data were exported from Surveycraft to an SPSS data file and analysed using SPSS Version 11.0 for Windows. All analyses were unweighted. Primary analyses included univariate descriptives with frequencies, proportions and medians for nominal and ordinal measures. Interval measures were treated with descriptives including means and standard deviations. Bivariate analyses were computed to make comparisons across sample groups and among measures. These included cross-tabulations using standard statistical tests such as Pearson’s Chi-Square for nominal and ordinal measures and one-way analyses of variance for interval and ratio measures. Where the response option ‘Unsure’, ‘Don’t Know’ or ‘No Answer’ was available to and selected by participants, it was coded as missing data and not included in the analyses unless otherwise noted; in most cases this response was not read to the participant and accounted for less than 1% of the data for each measure. 74 The margin of sampling error for frequency data presented in this report for the mainstream national sample is ± 2.6%, for each of the language samples, ± 4.9% and for the Indigenous sample, ± 13.1%. Reporting of the findings in this document is necessarily selective. With over 90 variables and seven sample groups, the combinations and permutations of data were practically endless; clearly, many future analyses are possible. Nevertheless, the research team performed a very large number of comparative analyses and, in many cases, the findings were deemed either less important than those reported here, or did not demonstrate substantially important results. In other cases, important findings were reserved for future reporting because they did not fall within the scope of this report. Importantly too, many of the findings presented in this report are new. Others confirm what is already known or has long been believed, but not empirically demonstrated. SPECIAL CALCULATIONS Residential postcodes were used to gauge location in relation to capital cities and regional areas. To achieve this, we conservatively set the border around capital cities at 200 postcodes from the CBD postcode. For example, the Brisbane CBD is 4000, postcodes between 4000 and 4200 were coded ‘Capital City’ while all other postcodes from 4201 to 4999 were coded ‘Regional’. This computation, while not pure, provides a gross estimate of proximity to the capital city centre. The strength of this method is that it allowed a ready standard to be applied to each state and territory. The limitation of this method is that it fails to account precisely for degree of urbanisation. LIVING DIVERSITY References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000) Australian Social Trends 2000: Family – Family Formation: Cultural Diversity in Marriage. (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Census of Population and Housing 2001 (http://www.abs.gov.au) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Education and Work, Australia 2001 (http://www.abs.gov.au) Beardsworth, A. and Keil, T. (1997) Putting Sociology on the Menu Routledge, London. Birrell, B. and V. Rapson (2002) ‘Two Australias’, People and Place, 10.1: 10–27. Butcher, M. and M. Thomas (2001) Generate: Youth Culture and Migration Heritage in Western Sydney. Centre for Cultural Research UWS and the Migration Heritage Centre NSW, Sydney (http://www.uws.edu.au/generate) Castles, S., Kantzis, M., Cope, B. and Morrissey, M. (1988) Mistaken Identity Pluto Press, Sydney. Castles, S. (1999) “Immigration and social cohesion”, Immigration and multiculturalism: Global perspectives. Melbourne, Vic: Committee for Economic Development of Australia, 1999. 35–46. Cohen, R. (1997) Global Diasporas: An Introduction. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Hage, G. (1997) ‘At Home in the Entrails of the West’, in H. Grace et al., Home/world Pluto Press, Annandale: 99–153. Hage, G. (1998) White Nation. Pluto Press, Annandale. Hage, G. (2002) ‘The Differential Intensities of Social reality’, in G. Hage (ed) Arab Australians Today Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, pp.192–205. Hannerz, U. (1990) ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’, in M. Featherstone (ed) Global Culture Sage, London: 237–252. Howes, D. (ed)(1996) Cross-Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. London: Routledge. Jupp, J. (1998) Immigration. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Khoo, S.-E., McDonald, P., Giorgas, D. and Birrell, B. (2002) Second Generation Australians: Report for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, DIMIA, April. Margison, M. (2001) ‘Filipinos’, J. Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia od the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Megalogenis, G. (2002) ‘New Faces, Old Frictions’, The Australian, 13/14 July:19,22. Mitchell, T., (1996) Popular Music and Local Identity, Leicester University Press, London. Noble, G. and Tabar, P. (2002) ‘On Being Lebanese Australian’, in G. Hage (ed) Arab Australians Today Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, pp.129–144. Parimal, R. and Hamilton, I. (1997) “Interethnic marriage: identifying the second generation in Australia.” International Migration Review 31.1: 128–142. Taylor, John (1997) “Policy implications of indigenous population change, 1991–1996.” People and Place 5.4: 1–10. Tomlinson, J. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge. REFERENCES 75 76 LIVING DIVERSITY This unique study provides us, for the first time, with a nation-wide glimpse of the ‘diversity within diversity’ of Australian multiculturalism. The study also uncovers how Australians of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds see their sense of identity and belonging, the ways in which they engage with others of different backgrounds, and their uses of media in a multicultural society. Findings from a large national sample were complemented by special samples of five non-English speaking background categories in Australia (Greek, Filipino, Lebanese, Vietnamese and Somali) and a sample of Indigenous Australians. Overall, the study has found that cultural diversity is a fact of life in Australia. Most Australians – of whatever backgrounds – are living diversity.