Is multiculturalism in Australia a government policy to promote equal access and social justice, or is it indirect social control of the ethnic and mainstream communities to make the first happy in their expectations, and the latter tolerant in their attitudes? To examine the concept in this light in a more specific context, I have used the Lao community as a case study in this paper. In trying to make multiculturalism acceptable to the society at large, the Australian Government has stressed that the policy "is not about providing special services to migrants but about providing equal access to government services for all residents of Australia who may face barriers of race, culture, religion or language" (Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989: vii). Like many other migrants and refugees, members of the Lao community face barriers when settling in Australia. This analysis is based on my own experience and observation as a refugee from Laos who has been closely involved in the Lao community, but it is not an empirical study.
GOVERNMENT AND MULTICULTURALISM
There are many definitions of "multiculturalism", ranging from food varieties, different cultural forms and traditions, English skills and levels of qualifications, to access to services and equity in service provision as government policy for people in Australia, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, gender, religious and other factors.
The concept of `multiculturalism' in Australia seems to change over time. The principles of multiculturalism drawn up in 1977 by the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council and the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs refer: social cohesion, cultural identity, equality of opportunity and access; and equal responsibility for, commitment to, and participation in society. A later version of multiculturalism by the Australian Government's Office of Multicultural Affairs in 1989 defines it with new elements such as encouraging the maintenance of cultural identity, the achievement of social justice for all residents, and economic efficiency for the nation. The three levels of government in Australia, to some extent, have incorporated these elements into their policies relating to multiculturalism.
It is important to note that Australia has adopted different social policies throughout its immigration history, moving from the policy of assimilation after the Second World War to integration in the 1960's, and now to multiculturalism. The latter is characterised at each level of government by:
1. Commonwealth Government: the Access and Equity (A&E) program, with its strategy of providing government services appropriate to the needs of people of non-English speaking background (NESB) in 1985. In 1989 this was extended to include all groups who may face barriers in accessing services arising from race, religion, language or culture, including Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
2. State Government: the Ethnic Affairs Policy Statements (EAPS) program as found, for example, in the State of New South Wales (NSW). It was introduced and share the same meaning with the Commonwealth Access and Equity program, except for its narrower focus on State government responsibilities.
3. Local Governments: the Local Government Ethnic Affairs Policy Statements (LEAPS), a management plan developed by local councils or municipalities. This management plan aims to ensure that all council services and functions are accessible and appropriate to all residents, regardless of their ethnic or linguistic background. In its initial stage, the program was launched in 1988 as a pilot program, and only 13 local councils in NSW out of almost 1000 councils in Australia had taken part in it. By the end of the pilot phase in June 1989, only four councils had adopted LEAPS.
THE LAO COMMUNITY
The Lao form a small part of the Australian population which today consists of people who come from more than 140 countries. The first wave of Indochinese refugees came to Australia in 1975 from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia at the end of the Indochina War while many more others have settled in the United States, France, Canada and a number of other countries. By 1991, there were 149,593 Indochinese in Australia, comprising 0.8% of the Australian population of 16,850,540 (1991 Australian Housing and Population Census). Of the Indochinese, the Vietnamese made up 122,304; the Cambodian 17,643 and the Lao (of all ethnic backgrounds) 9,646 persons. The Lao is thus the smallest of the three Indochinese communities in Australia, and has been referred to as a "forgotten community" due to its low public profile. The Vietnamese community, being much bigger and having many more needs, is also more vocal in their demands for government and other services, compared to the Cambodian and Lao communities.
According to the 1991 Australian Census, only 46 Laotian people came to Australia before 1971. The biggest group of 3930 arrived between 1971 and 1985, 751 between 1986 and 1987, 502 in 1988-1989, and 367 between 1990 and 1991. Age distribution, like most emerging communities, indicates that the Lao community is predominantly young, with close to 90% of the Lao residents in the State of New South Wales seeing themselves as Buddhists, 6% as Catholics, 4% Baptists and a very small number as practising Confucianism or Animism.
According to a Census conducted in Lao People's Democratic Republic (LPDR) in 1985 under the auspice of the United Nations, the 3 major official groupings of the population consisted of 68 minorities. Another source claims a higher number of up to 101 ethnic groups (Phouminrd, 1993). In 1991, the size of the country's population was given as 4,173,000. This is made up of: (1) Lowland Lao, the dominant group consisting 31 sub-groups; (2) Highland Lao, slope-dwellers consisting of 31 ethnic groups; and (3) Hilltop Lao, with 47 smaller minorities. It is difficult to know how many ethnic groups from Laos now live in Australia, although the Lowland Lao predominate with smaller numbers of minorities such as the Hmong, Thai Dam, Thai Pouan, Pu Thai, Lao-born Chinese, and Lao-born Vietnamese.
Despite these varied backgrounds, Australian residents from Laos and their many sub-groups form a minority within the broader society. Because of this minority status and the lack of information on them, they tend to be identified together as members of "the Lao community" by government agencies, WITHOUT distinction as to their ethnicity, language and cultural differences. In an attempt to implement Access and Equity policies at the Federal level, or the Ethnic Affairs Policy Statements program at State level, government departments have tried to provide services to members of the Lao community as if they form a single linguistically homogenous group. The most common strategy has been the provision of interpreters and bilingual workers in relevant government departments, but in the dominant lowland Lao language only.
Before looking at this issue further, however, I would like to consider in more detail how the Lao themselves have coped with their settlement in the new country.
COMMUNITY AND CONFLICTS
How do Lao people in Australia form themselves into a community? And what is this community? According to Bell and Newby (1971: 21), the concept of community "has been the concern of sociologists for more than two hundred years, yet a satisfactory definition of it in sociological terms appears as remote as ever ... However, `community' was thought to be a good thing, its passing was to be deplored, feared and regretted". Hillery (1971: 28-29) found that there were 94 definitions of the term "community". Most of these definitions include, in order of increasing importance, the following components: area, common ties and social interaction. Despite these many meanings, there is a positive delineation of the degree of heterogeneity: all of the definitions deal with people.
Ferdinand Tonnies (in Bell & Newby, 1971: 23-25), the founding father of the theory of community, postulates in his book Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (Community and Society, first published in 1887) that in Gemeinschaft (community), human relationships are intimate, enduring and based on a clear understanding of where each person stands in society. A man's `worth' is estimated according to who he is, not what he has done: personal status is ascriptive, rather than achieved. Tonnies further states that the community makes for solidarity relations among men, a theme which over the years has laid stress on one factor for its basis - the territorial factor, the place, the locality. Opposed to the concept of community was Gesellschaft (variously translated as 'society' or 'association') which contains three central aspects: blood ties, place (land) and mind with their sociological relation to kinship, neighbourhood and friendship. Together, they were the home of all virtues and morality.
Neuwirth (1969:148-149) argued that the ecological approach conceived communities as given social-ecological systems and analyses are limited to descriptions of their demographic, subcultural, or institutional characteristics. Ecological variables assume importance only if, for instance, the choice of residential area by community members is an expression of their social power. Communities are defined in terms of the solidarity shared by their members, which forms the basis of their mutual orientation to social action. Solidarity is, however, not seen as a function of ecological residence, but rather as a response to `outside' pressures. It is manifested in those relationships and communal actions which are relevant to the members' positions within the larger society or relative to other communities.
This concept of the community fits well with the aspirations of the Lao community whose members often see themselves as a group with bonds based on blood ties, spatial locality and spiritual affinity. These elements allow for the establishment of kinship, neighbourhood and friendship. They usually constitute the `hot issues' which people like to use to explain personal and social tensions within the Lao community. Concepts such as `solidarity', `cohesion', and `unity' are often discussed with the clear implication that Lao people should stick together as a community in the sense of `Gemeinschaft' in order to find their own position within the wider society.
Does this mean, then, that there are no conflicts within the Lao community, as defined here? Is there any conflict of interest between those who are concerned with divergent activities which may sustain members of the community together but may also cause competition and eventual tensions? Since the Lao settled in Australia in 1975, there have been many instances where conflicts between individuals or factions competing to build their own power base within the community have erupted into the open, whether in welfare, cultural activities, political membership, or religious affiliation. The more conflicts there are, the more splintered the community, so that the one original Lao community organisation and Buddhist temple in Sydney in 1978, for example, have given way to more than 10 smaller associations and 3 temples by 1993. The level and incidence of community conflicts in the Lao community have now reached the stage where concerned sections of the community propose the establishment of a structured council or an umbrella/peak organisation as the only option to bring back the community together. The current conflicts are divisive, and are interpreted by most people as a sign of digression rather advancement.
One the other hand, the more optimistic Lao people see these conflicts as healthy, because they can, if properly handled, make the community stronger and more competitive within itself and the society at large. It is argued that the competition among welfare organisations, for instance, can lead to better services for clients. The competition among the young people can result in better efforts in education. The competition between the religious and laymen institutions should prompt them to look at reviewing their current responsibilities, resulting in new options which better suit both parties in the new social, political and economic environment in Australia. People with a positive view of conflicts also argue that social tension can serve as a means to progress or change. Given the ethnic and regional diversity in the Lao community, there is a need for varieties in aspirations and community activities. Sometimes, government-funded services which target `Lao community' as a whole do not necessarily reach all Lao people. The services have been filtered, for one reason or another, before they get to the people who really need them. However, to achieve the objective of converting unhealthy conflict to a healthy one, appropriate resources and skills are required in steering, monitoring and consulting the community. The problem is that good will, essential resources and skills to harness conflicts productively are lacking.
The use of a socio-ecological model of community to deal with conflicts in the Lao community may, however, be insufficient, and the Weberian theory of community may need to be applied. According to Weber (Neuwirth, 1969:149), the competition of economic, political, or social interests is viewed as the source of community formation (Gemeinschaftbildung) and communal relationships. These relationships are treated as social relationships which enable these interests to be monopolised and usurped. He states that competition for economic interests, power, and social esteem can eventuate in community formation only if the number of contenders increases relative to available opportunities. Under these circumstances, it is to contenders' advantage to limit their numbers. In order to achieve this objective, one segment of the competitors may seize upon an easily ascertainable and differentiating characteristic of any potential and actual contenders -such as local or social descent, racial or ethnic origin, lack of property or educational qualifications - and use it as a pretext for excluding them from competition. Such joint efforts, if successful, constitute communal action This type of communal maneuvering and action has existed extensively in the Lao community.
Weber (Neuwirth, 1969:150) goes on to say that "once communal relationships have been formed, the community members will tend to monopolise economic, political and/or social advantages". The process aiming at such monopolisation is called `community closure'. Such closure may be achieved to varying degrees ranging from the total exclusion of outsiders to the admittance of certain new members who fulfil specified conditions . Weber's concept of community closure is clearly evident in the Lao community, as new organisations are formed with new interests and their own criteria for membership admission. Those who do not share in the broad visions of the new organisations, or who are already members of other groups, may find themselves unwelcome. This is a process common to many human communities as the number of people increase and their needs or interests become diversified, or as competition for power become intense. A community would normally start with the formation of a single organisation as a means for mutual help for its members and for asserting their own identity in Australia. However, this may soon expand to the establishment of a welfare/community centre, a place of worship, a social/sports club and many other miscellaneous activities.
DIVISION IN THE LAO COMMUNITY
All communities experience some degree of conflicts and division, due to many the variables discussed previously. The Lao community is of no exception. The division stems from historical, social and ecological reasons. Among them, we can include: (1) the geographical division of Laos into physical and cultural regions which build parochial differences between them; (2) the contrasting cultural and political influences of neighbouring countries depending on various parts of the nation.
As a land-locked country, Laos has five neighbours - China, Mianma, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. The country or various portions of it have been colonised at various times by its neighbours and mostly recently by France, a process which has exposed the Lao in different regions to different cultures or varieties of traditions. This cultural variation has served to enhance division among the Lao people. Traditional social division between those who are born into a noble class and those who are the "common people" has also kept the society well stratified. This has been further reinforced by differences in economic resources and wealth differentiation between various parts of the country, thus further dividing people into different classes. This is not to mention the fact that the country itself is inhabited by many minorities with their own distinctive ethnicity, languages and cultures, as pointed at the beginning of this paper.
These class and ethnic differences have been carried over to Australia by the refugees who migrated from Laos. The forced displacement was rather sudden and often painful, with many Lao people finding themselves unprepared for their new role as exiles, stripped of their former privileged class positions. This has lead some of them to form their own associations as a means to reclaim their power base. It has also made for changes in certain spheres of Lao traditions in Australia such as the administration of religious institution by laymen. Temple projects in the new country are often started by lay community service groups, with some government funding. This means that the lay committee of the parent body like to continue the control of the temples, much against the wishes of many Buddhist monks who would prefer to look after their own religious affairs without the direction and interference of lay people as was traditional in Laos. The fact that monks now come under a lay management committee is seen as a down-grading of their social positions as members of a higher and formerly well-respected hierarchy.
The national slogan in Laos prior to 1975 was: (1) the Nation, (2) the Buddhist Religion, (3) the Monarchy, and (4) the Constitution. As these entities are seen in that order of importance, some monks have taken the opportunity to claim that their order was put even in front of the monarchy. In Australia, however, the order of hierarchy has shifted : (1) Nation - Australia, and (2) the Australian Constitution while religion no longer form part of a national slogan, and the State is separate from religion. Many Lao Buddhist monks and their followers find the new situation difficult to cope with, especially when reinforced by the presence of a lay management committee. There has been a number of disputes, in Sydney and in Adelaide, between monks and lay members over this issue. The problem remains unresolved, and further adds to the number of conflicts in the community as it continues to grapples with the controversial dichotomy between "Sangha"(sacred) and "laymen" ("secular") dichotomy.
In general, immediate change in social structure, however significant, does not always bring about change in social attitudes. If the latter could occur, it would be a more progressive form of change. The problem can be exacerbated if we are not sensitive to what lies underneath the covert appearance of the community. Many of the conflicts in the Lao community may be interpreted as a result of role diversification or reversal and its consequent power/status struggle between the parties concerned. In my view, the division has been part of the structure of the Lao people, as with other human societies. It would be incorrect to deny its existence, or to stress that it is peculiar to the Lao community. The main issue is to examine the consequences of this social division and to see whether it has benefited the Lao people rather than seeing the latter as casualties of inequality in access to resources in Australia, an issue which multiculturalism is designed to address.
SOCIAL MOBILITY
If multiculturalism has helped maintain harmony between different ethnic communities in Australia, has it achieved other objectives such as improving social ane mobility through "economic efficiency" with the nation's citizens? Social mobility is probably one of the most interesting dynamics in the Lao community. Like many ethnic people, the majority of Lao people have two identities: one is being Laotian by ethnicity, and the other being Australian by citizenship. They are also very likely to belong to two different Australian social classes. For instance, a Lao person who works for a government department or a big private company may identify with the Australian blue-collar class. The very same person, within the Lao community, may be regarded or see him/herself as a member of a small group of elites or an upper middle class. An elderly unemployed Lao man may be considered as belonging to an underprivileged class, but because he may possess scarce skills such as those of a ritual expert, he is respected in the community and will, therefore, be well respected as if he belongs to a considerably high class in his own ethnic group.
These are some of the reasons which explain why migrant and refugee people in Australia may find themselves isolated from the wider Australian society, despite their experience of difficulties within their own communities. Social mobility, however, is not a static concept. Frankenberg (1969:238-239) has advanced the ideas of `cosmopolitans' and `spiralists' to explain social mobility. The cosmopolitans are the ones who differentiate themselves from the rest of the group, these are especially young people of second generation who identify themselves with Australian lifestyle. The `spiralists' are those who are well educated and may try to identify themselves strongly with the dominant community. They are certainly seen as being different from the rest of the group. Some of them may leave the group altogether to attempt a complete Australian lifestyle. This has also taken place with members of the Lao community. Among Lao people, the evidence of `social redundancy' in Frankenberg's term is very strong. Social redundancy refers to the situation where one person plays many social roles such as management committee member, ethnic school teacher, interpreter, seminar and function organiser and so on. It is not uncommon to see the very same person in the Lao community wearing many different hats. This has helped many to attain social mobility in terms of gaining better employment and higher social status within their own groups.
Many factors affects the social mobility of Lao individuals. Belonging to a particular class may be conscious or unconscious. Some obvious elements which may have an effect on class determination and social mobility of Lao individuals are:
The above factors play important part in determining who belong to what class or categories of social classification in the Lao community. The more positive the factors which can be applied to an individual, the better the prospects for him or her to be socially mobile. Regardless of how members of the Lao community maintain their social classes or moving up and down the social hierarchy within their own or the community at large, it is clear from the factors discussed above that multiculturalism has not yet allowed migrants and refugees in Australia to benefit greatly from it as many are still restricted in their abilities to move freely across different classes or economic strata. To a large extent, their social and economic position in society is still being determined by their birth place and ethnic background rather than by their educational and skills levels.
MULTICULTURALISM AND LAO COMMUNITY
Nearly two decades after their arrival in Australia and with the Australian Government's policy on multiculturalism aiming to help their integration into the community, how far have the Lao progressed as citizens of Australia and contributors to its culture and economy? Officially, they are still seen as an emerging community which is progressing rather slowly, mostly looking inwards and being pre-occupied with creating and trying to resolve differences among its members. "Multiculturalism" whose ultimate aim is to promote `economic efficiency' for the nation (as mentioned at the beginning of this paper), has so far only skimmed the surface in its laudable attempts to encourage all Australians to maintain, develop and utilise effectively their skills and talents, regardless of their racial and cultural backgrounds. Given its short existence, the policy has yet to reach the grasss-roots level in its implementation. The Lao have obviously made their share of contributions in making multiculturalism work through participation in ethnic schools (to help maintain the Lao language), in cultural events (through Lao traditional dance shows and music), the practice of Buddhism and construction of temples, or cooperation in government and community activities of various kinds. This is the outcome of multiculturalism for the Lao community, from the perspectives of its own contributions to the society at large and to the manifestation of multiculturalism at the broader stage of national life.
On this basis, the first dimension of multiculturalism seems to have been achieved by the Lao in establishing their own `cultural identity' in Australia in order to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion. There is, however, the danger of overidentifying with one's own cultural identity and this can lead to serious conflict among the ethnic groups or to factions within them in their competition for power and resources, as been discussed here in relation to conflicts within the Lao community. Similar frictions are found with many other groups, both within and between these groups, with some being more severely affected than others. On this front, multiculturalism has been playing a very successful role in keeping conflicts between different ethnic communities under control, thus serving as an effective means of social control in Australia. It helped make peace and harmony prevail during the Gulf War in 1990, and continues now to keep potential problems between the different communities from the former Yugoslavia at bay, following the breaking-up of the latter.
Multiculturalism, however, has not reached the level where intra- community conflicts within the same ethnic group have been actively dealt with. Where such conflicts simmer underneath the veneer of group solidarity and harmony, it is difficult for multiculturalism to be used as a means to address them. Where such conflicts are brought into the open, it has been difficult to find a solution through the appeal to multiculturalism. For this reason, the Lao community has not really benefited from the policy in its attempts to resolve differences among its members so that it continues to be affected by internal differences and factionalism. This has considerably delayed its progress in Australia: there is no willingness to cooperate because people are too free to oppose each other.
The second dimension of multiculturalism, social justice, refers to the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of social or economic barriers based on race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth. This is an area which has not made much stride. Many Lao have experienced little social mobility through this aspect of the Australian Government's policy on multiculturalism. Whatever economic and social mobility they have made, has been more through personal efforts and internal social filtering within the Lao community, as discussed above. The full impact of social justice through multiculturalism in terms of improvement in employment access and social acceptance has yet to be felt by small groups, especially minorities among many other minorities like the Lao in Australia. However, this may be because multiculturalism has been in existence long enough for its impact to be felt in major spheres of Australian life, especially in the private lives of its citizens.
CONCLUSION
The Lao have made many small positive steps in their new life in Australia. Their characteristics such as humbleness, non-aggressiveness, and silence in the face of injustice serve to bring adverse results to the community when they have to compete in the society at large. Most Lao people have two identities, that is Lao at one level and Australian at another. Those from minority groups from Laos like the Hmong, often experience three identities: Hmong, Lao and Australian. In terms of access and equity, the services provided directly by the Government or funded to the community sector, may not reached them effectively, due to the many complex social layers which exist in the Lao community. There is no easy solution to the problem, and the problem is not unique to the Lao.
This paper is not intended to propose solutions, but only attempts to discuss the Lao community in the context of the multiculturalism. It is also hoped that the discussion will provide a picture of where the Lao fit in the larger host society, how they function as community in this larger framework and within the confines of its own groupings. The process and progress which are happening in the Lao community are based on many factors. A most significant one would be the local social and political structure. Multiculturalism will not be a complete success until it reaches the stage that all Australians do not see it as a special treatment aimed at certain groups in order to keep them under control, another way by the Government to say "you can be yourself and you are encouraged to be yourself, but if you want to succeed you have to be like us".
Bell, C. and Newby, H.,
Frankenberg, R. J.,
Local Councils: Service in a Multicultural Society, A
Training Kit for Local Government, NSW
Department of Local Government (Year of publication not
indicated).
Multicultural for all Australians: Our Developing
Nationhood, (Canberra: Australian Council on
Population and Ethnic Affairs, May 1982)
Neuwirth, G.,
The NSW Reference Group on Local Government and Ethnic Affairs,
Local Government Ethnic Affairs Policy Statements
(LEAPS), A guideline for Local Councils, May
1987.
Office of Multicultural Affairs, National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia: Sharing Our Future (Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service, 1989)
Office of Multicultural Affairs, Access and Equity: Evaluation
Report 1992, (Canberra: Australian Publishing
Government Service, 1992)
Phoumindr, K.
Community Studies (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1971)
Communities in Britain: Social Life in Town and
Country, Hammondsworth: Penguin , 1971
A Weberian Outline of a Theory of Community,
British Journal of Sociology 20, 2, 1969
"Ethnic Composition in Laos", Lao Studies
Newsletter, No. 2, August 1993.
| About Lao Studies Society | *** | Membership | *** | Note for contributor |
Lao Study Review Volume 1CONTENTS
(Under construction) |
Lao Studies Review Volume 2CONTENTS
|