Nineteenth century toilet. (Click on image to see full photo and explanation)

Topic 12: Public History and Cultural Policy

_Introduction

The subject of Cultural Policy in Public History is a complex one! There are many ways in which we could explore this subject. Within the constraints of a single study topic, we will need to limit our discussion to just a few facets of the subject. We will concentrate on formal government cultural policy developed at the federal level of government and we will take Public History at its most local level as our platform for observations on such policy. We will also look at what happened with the 1988 Bicentennial and what might (or might not) happen with the 2001 Centenary of Federation.

_{Definition of cultural policy}

What do we mean by "Cultural Policy"?

For our purposes, we can borrow with some minor modifications the definition offered by Jim McGuigan in Culture and the Public Sphere (London, 1996).

But what is cultural policy? There is more than one answer to this question. The narrowest answer is to say that it is about the administration of 'the arts', which should, of course, be of interest to cultural studies [and Public History/Historians]. The broader answer ..., however, is that cultural policy is about the politics of culture in the most general sense; it is about the clash of ideas, institutional struggles and power relations in the production and circulation of symbolic meanings [including museums, history books, commemorative events, etc.]. Such a perspective on cultural policy is inclusive, not exclusive: in fact, so inclusive that all the nooks and crannies that could be delved into cannot possibly be covered exhaustively in a single book. [Or in a single study topic!]

Obviously then, much of what we have defined and explored in this subject as Public History has been, or is being, shaped by cultural policies (and cultural politics) developed and implemented by government at local, state and federal levels. Indeed, some Public History is even subject to international policy arrangements. Places of recognised heritage significance, for example, are likely to be managed (and government funded) according to policy guidelines shaped by the Venice Charter of the International Committee on Monuments and Sites. More about this later.

_{Locating policy}

There is nothing especially unusual in this involvement of government policy in matters of Public History. As there are government policies for Public Health, so too there are government policies on cultural matters, such as education and broadcasting, but also including those aspects of culture we would define as "Public History". And, where there are policies one should also expect to find politics and with politics will come competing - and conflicting - views and values. For example, consider here Prime Minister Howard's criticisms of what he described as the "Black Arm Band" view of Australian History of the preceding Labor Government.

It is still not clear, however, what Mr. Howard proposes in its place. What we can say with some confidence about Mr. Howard's comments is that he appreciates the powerful role played by historical understanding in shaping and reflecting society's understanding of itself. Thus, Public History can be seen as an important tool in government programs of social and cultural engineering..

Some Public History initiatives though may develop and flourish oblivious to the cultural policy concerns of state and federal governments. This is not to deny a local level "cultural policy", formulated by local government or even informally expressed at grass roots. Indeed our work in the first weeks of this subject informed us that it is most likely that some manner of "cultural policy" will be in effect even if it is only the wishes of a powerful group within the community. Connection with government cultural policy, therefore, may only be of concern if and when government funding is sought.

That connection may have some interesting results for local Public History. If the government is interested in using history to influence public understandings of, for example, gender equity issues, then there are likely to be implications for funding requests made for local Public History initiatives. There is no doubt much merit in linking wider social issues to such local initiatives. To take our example, the history of gender equity can be placed in a local framework and the issue presumably made more familiar to that community. But, is there not also a risk in over-riding local understandings of the past - local values even - with a predetermined bureaucratically-defined national understanding? I call this the "Steamroller effect" of cultural policy - the risk that local uniqueness will be flattened into a national sameness in the service of a presumed greater "good".

At this point, you may like to read an overview of the history of cultural policy concerning Australian history in Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum (1995), p.p. 135-146. Professor Bennett shares my concerns about the adverse influence on local history by centrally-determined cultural policies, adding as well the problems engendered by cultural tourism.

On our forum, you might like to tell us your views on what Bennett has to say. How do you understand and respond to Professor Bennett's analysis? For example, do you agree with Professor Bennett that "the active involvement of working-class has not been maintained" because "heritage policy" has become linked to the "promotion of tourism"?

Professor Bennett makes observations about the policies of both the Australian War Memorial and the National Museum of Australia. He sees both of them as setting the agendas - "the rhetorics" - for Public History in Australia, the AWM in the past and the NMA in the future. What are these agendas? Are they really that significant at local level?

If you have access to Internet, visit the web-sites of these two institutions to find out more about their public policies and programs.

• Australian War Memorial
• National Museum of Australia

_{The 1988 Bicentennial and cultural policy}

In the above section, Professor Bennett and your lecturer are offering some reservations concerning official cultural policy in Public History. Perhaps though there are times when Public History ought to be guided to give way for a greater good. The Bicentennial may have been just such a time.

The Bicentennial in 1988 did not just happen spontaneously. It was the product of a bi-partisan parliamentary decision that identified the 1988 anniversary as a moment in Australian history worthy of note. Initially, the official policy on how the Bicentennial should be handled was somewhat "celebratory" - of middle class, Anglo-Celtic settler history and values.

However, this initial celebratory policy soon merged with, and was largely reshaped by, the Commonwealth Government's longstanding policy of "Multiculturalism". If you look at Bicentennial promotional documents from about 1981 to 1986 you will see that the promotional language changes over time - from emphasising the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 to congratulating Australians on the more recent development of a successful multicultural/multi-ethnic society. Appropriate slogans, such as "Celebrating a Nation" and "Living Together", appeared on thousands of buttons, posters and bumper stickers. The "nation" so celebrated and represented on posters and in promotional video clips was multi-racial and multi-ethnic. Ultimately, the Bicentennial evolved to serve as a capstone to a successful post-war migration policy and a couple of decades of officially-promoted multiculturalism, rather than as a commemorative celebration of 200 years of European settlement. (A comparison with the attitudes and activities of the sesqui-centennial in 1938 is most interesting.)

This is not to say that all Bicentennial activities throughout the country were multicultural activities or even sensitive to multicultural sensibilities. Certainly, in many communities, the year was commemorated with events and projects with Anglo-Celtic settler history as the focus. Note the plaques behind the Bathurst settlement cairn in the photo provided for our earlier topic on monuments.

But, major projects - especially those funded and directed by Canberra - certainly did develop in response to the revised policy. For example, the "First Fleet Reenactment" lost out to the "Tall Ships" as the official activity involving sailing ships. The re-enactment of the sailing of the First Fleet happened but only because of private effort and private sponsorship. There was no re-enactment of its landing, as in 1938; in 1988, the Fleet just arrived in the Harbor.

The Commonwealth Government's money and energy went into the "Tall Ships", a program involving sailing ships from nations around the world visiting Australia in 1988. With ships arriving from a number of "home" countries, the links with multiculturalism are obvious. But, the "Tall Ships" was less than original, having taken place in 1976 as part of the American Bicentennial. (If you would like to read more about this, or the Bicentennial in general, see Denis O'Brien, The Bicentennial Affair (1991). Note that this is an "official" history.)

Official policy for the Bicentennial evolved over a period of a few years. Policy direction began under a Liberal Government but was ultimately formulated by a Labor Government. It was shaped by other government policies, notably multiculturalism, and by pressures outside government, notably the ethnic community who could find little of themselves in a commemoration of the First Fleet. The Labor Government was especially responsive to the needs of multiculturalism and the wishes of the ethnic community. A lecturer more cynical than I might refer to electoral interests.

There was one community group, however, that could not find much common ground with the Bicentennial, no matter how it might be redefined. This was the Aboriginal community. No matter how you spelled it, "Bicentennial" still came out as "Invasion".

_{The Centenary of Federation (2001)}

We know from the earlier work we have done on the Aboriginal community and the Bicentennial that a dialogue at least was established in 1988 between that community and white Australia on fundamental questions of Australia's history. There are few Public Historians who do not regard this as a positive and healthy development. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the official policy for the commemoration of the Centenary of Federation in 2001 will from the outset give careful attention to the place of the Aboriginal community in that history. With its connections to "White Australia Policy" and the denial of citizenship to Aboriginal Australians, Federation History offers some challenges for those planning its commemoration.

At the time these notes were written (2000), one cannot be optimistic about the Centenary in 2001. The public mood in the late 1980s was generally positive towards the policy of multiculturalism, and the Commonwealth Government used the opportunity provided by the Bicentennial to promote its multicultural policy. Is there at present a similar positive attitude on the part of both government and wider community towards a policy of reconciliation? Is the government using the Centenary to promote a positive reconciliation policy?

One of the topics I would like us to discuss on our Tutorial Forum is the following statement. :

"As the Bicentennial was used to promote multiculturalism, so to should the Centennial of Federation, as matter of cultural policy, be used to promote reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. All other considerations of Public History at local level are of secondary importance in such matters and given such opportunities."

What do you think? On our Forum, I will introduce you to an interesting approach suggested by the Reconciliation Council - the concept of Shared History.

The second topic I would like us to discuss on our Forum concerns the challenge presented by the Centenary of Federation in attracting the attention and involvement of people and their communities. (Define "community" as you think appropriate!) The Bicentennial, with all its faults, did attract considerable popular interest. It was, after all, about "people". By comparison, the Centenary of Federation may be regarded by the public as a rather dull affair, more about federal government and politics than about people. To give the affair public validity, it may be advisable - as a matter of cultural policy - to seek the active engagement of Australians at local level. That is, the policy ought to be one that encourages the seeking, and celebration, of "Federation" at the community level. But, how is this to be done? And, indeed, should it be done? Is it the role of government to engineer such celebrations? What do you think?

(We may very well have a third topic for discussion. Can you see a potential contradiction, a clash, that may result from the implementation of both of my proposed policies? See you on the Forum!)

You may like to visit the Federal Government's Centenary of Federation website to see how their activities and plans relate to our Forum topics. This site has links to other relevant sites.

Click here to go directly to Tutorial link.

. A heritage policy problem for you to ponder.

_{Public History Definition}

Finalise public history definition this week.

_Tutorial

_{Media Watch}

CLICK HERE FOR ROBIN'S BOOKMARKS - This page provides links to websites of special interest to Public Historians. Get in the habit of checking it for new listings. You can provide URLs for this page as well.