Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture
Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990
The Media of Publishing
Edited by Albert Moran

Cultural Policy Theory and Practice: A New Constellation

Alan Mansfield

REVIEW: Institute for Cultural Policy Studies (ICPS) - Griffith University Occasional Papers, 1988
No 1. "Arts Funding and Public Culture" Donald Horne (Cost: $7.50)
No 2. "Tourism Down Under: Tourism Policies in the Tropics" - Jennifer Craik (Cost: $7.50)
No 3. "Out of Which Past? Critical Reflections on Australian Museum and Heritage Policy" - Tony Bennett (Cost: $7.50)
No 4. "The Promotion of Press Diversity: Options Available to the Australian Government" - John Mathews (Cost: $4.50)
No 5. "The Stone Laurel: Race Gender and Class in Australian Memorials"- Chilla Bulbeck (Cost: $5.50)
[All plus $1.50 postage and handling]

No-one seriously interested in cultural policy issues in Australia can afford to ignore this important new venture from the Griffith University Institute for Cultural Policy Studies (ICPS). ICPS have published a number of Occasional Papers to date and more are in preparation. This review will briefly discuss the first five papers.

Before addressing the papers listed above, however, it is useful to make some points about the general enterprise. This series is a significant intervention into cultural policy studies for at least two reasons. The first is the wide range of theorisation of the field of cultural policy itself. The ICPS definition includes

.. arts funding and administration, broadcasting and media policy, copyright legislation, education policy, film policy, gender related policies, language policy, literary policy, museum and heritage policy, popular culture and tourism. (Editorial sub-committee statement).

Perhaps it would have been interesting for the series to have started with a discussion of the definition of cultural policy, and the theory of culture that necessitates the inclusion of all of these (and other) areas, rather than the somewhat 'safe' paper on a chestnut of cultural policy - arts funding - from Donald Horne. Far too often cultural policy issues are interpreted rather too narrowly as 'communications policy' issues, that is, related to the arts, film, and media/broadcasting. The broader definition given by the Griffith Institute rectifies this and, by including gender-related issues, education policy, popular culture and so forth makes the political significance of what is at stake in cultural policy debates impossible to ignore. As well as this it makes clear the pervasive impact of cultural policy initiatives in all areas of life at the most 'mundane' level. This Gramscian foundation augurs well for the future of the venture and should be encouraged.

The second reason for applauding the ICPS initiative is related to this wide-ranging definition of cultural policy issues. It is the desire of the ICPS to encourage contributions from different positions in relation to the specified fields of cultural policy. Contributions to the series are invited from "academics, cultural policy planners, administrators and others" (Editorial sub-committee statement). This development is also well worth encouraging. Clearly any attempt at intervention in cultural policy debates needs the input of practitioners, administrators, producers and consumers in order to be effective.

This series of papers then is not only an important part of the research and publication program of the ICPS but a significant contribution to cultural policy debates across Australia.

Donald Horne's "Arts Funding and Public Culture" is the first of the papers in the series. The paper is an edited version of Professor Horne's inaugural lecture at the Institute for Cultural Policy Studies at Griffith on 17th October 1987. Horne is clearly well qualified to open up such a new venture, as he is a high profile commentator and critic in the field of cultural analysis. He has published a large number of books in the field, The Public Culture 1 being only one of the most recent. Horne's paper tackles questions about what kind of artistic ventures and cultural activities should receive public moneys, the mechanisms to distribute such moneys, and, more generally, the role of the arts in the creation and development of an informed, critical "public culture" in Australia. Horne's short inaugural paper is followed by three pages of question and answer discussion.

As both Tim Rowse and Max Gillies (cited by Rowse) have pointed out, Donald Horne is very much a 'word man' 2, and the first half to a third of his paper, a section entitled "Culture in Modern Societies", is dedicated to explaining the meaning and relationship of words like 'high culture', 'folk culture', 'mass culture' and 'public culture'. Those who know Donald Horne's work will neither be surprised nor enlightened by this section. Clearly it is necessary to situate any discussion of arts funding in a larger vision of the cultural ordering of society: in a very short talk Horne attempts to do precisely this. He often chooses apparently appropriate terminology ( "pre-industrial society", "ruling class culture", "hegemony", "counter-hegemonic coalition") and cites most definitely some of the significant architects of contemporary cultural theory (Antonio Gramsci, Stuart Hall, Todd Gitlin).

The mobilisation of these theorists and their conceptual apparatus does not however always come up with the goods. In discussion of the Gramscian concept of hegemony, as well as informing us that Gramsci wrote "rather obscurely" (what would Horne make of Althusser or even Lacan?), Horne feels it necessary to point out that we (a typo that should have read "I"?) don't quite understand what Gramsci meant by this word. He goes on to tell his audience that "probably ... the general idea ... happened to come to Australia, at the same time as the rather pessimistic ideas of the Frankfurt School so that the two became confused". 3 This is in the context of making a serious and provocative point about whether one uses Gramsci's model of ideology and hegemony to explain the way things are and always will be, or as an optimistic theory about the potential for social change. Horne's assertion is that in Australia Gramscian theory is pessimistically read because of its confusion with Frankfurt theory as an explanation of social reproduction at the expense of an account of social change. This is clearly nonsense. Hegemony has been theorised by most Australian cultural theorists, and indeed by most European and American theorists also, as a matter of struggle and indeterminacy. Struggle is the very core of hegemony. As Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Tony Bennett, Bob Connell, John Docker, John Fiske and others remark, the very usefulness of the Gramscian schema is that it explains the uneven development of society in a non determinist fashion. This significant aspect is among one of the most important reasons for some interesting work currently being done in cultural theory on the relations between Gramscian Marxism and certain poststructuralist writers, notably Michel Foucault. 4 If Horne is making the point that there are some dangers in the particular appropriations of the reproductionist aspect of Gramsci's theory, then he should not only say so, but he should support his argument. His concentration on witticism and the 'style of the critic' not only does not do this but does a great injustice to the theorists whose work he cites and others he does not cite. The modality of his explanation of the complexity and subtlety of Gramsci's writing, particularly in relation to hegemony, reveals more about Horne's self-conception and position as the father of Australian cultural studies than it does about Gramscian or any other theory. His dismissal of working-class consciousness - "I find it very difficult to believe that we are going to be liberated by a growing extension of working class consciousness" 5- not only underestimates the positive and constructive efforts of working class people and organisations in contemporary Australia, but also simply substitutes Donald Horne and his merry band of (middle-class) 'knowing tourists' in the place of a revolutionary party. Donald Horne and his clever words are still "standing ahead and slightly to the side of the people", a political issue with which Tim Rowse finishes his commentary on Horne's work.

Horne remains so fixated on the redemptive possibilities of the middle class, with its greater capacity for critical irony about public culture, and so convinced of the superiority of that class's 'cultural' program over the Labour Movement's 'economic' horizons, that he cannot see the potential and the necessity of other social forces in the Australian renaissance he has always urged. 7

Horne does make some interesting comments in his talk and as an inaugural lecture from a distinguished and prolific researcher of the Australian cultural policy scene (a kind of lore of the father) the talk serves to open up some very important questions and debates. This reviewer was, however, left with a sense of disappointment. The same disappointment has been shared by others, manifested intuitively in Gillies' mockery, and elaborated explicitly by Rowse. The pronouncement mode of the father is used by Horne to compress a complex cultural and political history of the changing relationship between class and culture into a rather simplistic matter-of-fact accounting which provides an unexamined benchmark for later, more specific, pronouncements. Politics for Horne, as Tim Rowse notes, "remains a curiously remote spectacle from which intellectuals, in Horne's celebration of their acuity, remain detached". 8 Rowse compares Horne's notion of the critic with the knowing tourist evoked in The Great Museum.

This might seem to some a rather ungenerous assessment of Horne's paper. I repeat, Horne has given much to discussions of cultural policy and cultural criticism in Australia. However several of the cultural policy papers produced so far in this series (and generally the enterprise of the centre) are trying to change this rather typical relationship between the academy and the cultural arena, between the academic or cultural critic and the cultural consumer or producer. In this context then it seems important to point up Horne's failure to theorise his own place within his subject matter and some of the consequences of his precis of cultural histories. "To compress patterns of political rhetoric down to a basic vocabulary that gives a simple view of what the world is, and what matters in it", 9 it is crucial to note that the world is many things to many people, and whenever we ask what matters we always need to ask "matters to whom?"

In his paper John Mathews discusses a proposal for an Australian Press Diversity Board, preferably established as a national body to encourage diversity in the media. The Board, Mathews remarks, would be funded by a tax on the media industry, either through a levy on advertising expenditure or on newspaper turnover. This revenue would be used to fund new ventures, subsidise certain existing publications, and establish public support ventures, for example a distribution campaign. Mathews discusses this proposal in relation to the weaknesses in the current Australian regulatory framework, and a commentary on overseas precedents for the promotion of media diversity. Mathews is not the first or the only person to comment on the extreme concentration of ownership in the Australian media. Questions of the ownership and regulation of the mass media have, then, a particular salience to Australia. In the light of recent legislative changes and technological developments such issues have become even more important. Mathews begins his paper by noting the widely acknowledged link between press concentration and the restriction of political options. He quotes Mr J.G. Norris, who chaired Australia's only inquiry into press concentration, as saying

the consequences of undue concentration are a loss of diversity in the expression of views upon matters of public importance, and the possibility that a very few individuals may influence the outlook of large numbers of people by selecting and presenting news in such a way as to project a particular view of the world or to support a particular policy. 10

Whilst I do not feel that this is an appropriate place for a discussion of the mechanics of the proposal Mathews discusses, I should like to raise a few general points. The first, and perhaps most significant, is that Mathews' paper would have wider appeal if he had spent a little more time examining the "widely recognised" links between press diversity and political potential. Upon first reading Mathews' paper, I was reminded of Henry Mayer's essay on press diversity. 11 While Mayer does not provide any answers, he does at least problematise common simple numbers-game arguments - less owners or newspapers equal less diversity. In order to consider the question of press diversity in as much as it relates to political potential some understanding is needed of the relationship between press and other forms of media, some understanding of the relationship between mass media and other ways of making sense of the world (a question made more problematic by some of the commentaries of recent poststructuralist writing on issues perhaps first most explicitly discussed by the Frankfurt School theorists), and most importantly some understanding of what diversity might mean and for whom within the context of western social democracies. That is, it is necessary to consider in some larger manner questions of ideology and of institution and subjectivity.

Whilst not producing this as a critique of Mathews, (his is one of the shortest papers of the series) I do understand it to be the larger project of the Institute for Cultural Policy Studies and their series of occasional papers. It is, as I understand it, the significant displacement of older constellations, the significant regrouping around different sets of premises and themes, in the institutions' practice and goals. It is for me what is so good and exciting about the series. To invite contributions to debates on cultural policy from academics, cultural policy planners, administrators, broadcasters etc across the fields of education policy, film policy, language policy, museum and heritage policy, tourism etc is not enough. Such "multidisciplinary" practices are a new and vital start to the larger goal of a more interdisciplinary enterprise. That is, producing a new constellation from the bringing together of these many things, using the knowledge of an administrator or questions in the field of education policy to interrogate, add to or develop questions in other areas or of other practitioners. As an individual paper Mathews' discussion of press diversity clearly does not do this, nor indeed does it strive to. However, as a paper in the series put out by the ICPS which does aim to do precisely this and looks very likely to succeed, it is an important contribution.

It would be encouraging to think that the ICPS planned more papers around questions of media ownership, regulation and diversity. There are many important discussions to be produced here. Whilst most of us poor folks in the "west" are not exactly heartbroken over the loss of our local current affairs program State Affair, neither are we ecstatic about Seven's networking of Hinch into our living rooms. The enforced intrusion of Hunch's high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou drivel has caused great debate in the letters pages of the local press. This particular local inflection of a larger national debate is also reflected in the local-boy-made-good characterisation of Alan Bond who is discussed below. There is great scope for investigating questions of media diversity in relation to questions of regionalism and localism. Kerry Stokes recently made an interesting comment in this regard. He said that his recent move into the press world was influenced by a suspicion that the increasing practice of networking television across Australia left a gap in the discussion and debate over local and regional issues in many areas. He saw increasingly the press as taking up this space left by television.

Cultural policy can be significantly understood as being motivated by the state's conception of and its attempt to construct a sense of national identity. The papers by Craik, Bennett and Bulbeck all in different ways develop and illustrate this point. The issues discussed concern tourism and tourist policy, monuments and the politics of monumentalisation, and questions of the past (whose past and which past?) in relation to museum and heritage policy.

Paper No 2 in the series is Jennifer Craik's "Tourism Down Under". In her cultural analysis of tourism Craik suggests that much tourism planning and policy is misguided, following a path of short-term economic gain. Craik argues that rather than planning for the high spending, luxury seeking international jetsetters, her study of the Barrier Reef reveals developers should be catering for more budget and medium-cost domestic tourists. This path of short-term economic gain is often at the cost of local communities and local environments. The same is often true of museum and heritage policy - in Craik's paper as with Bennett's there is a cultural eco-politics. Both papers raise the issue of the preservation of the environment at a series of levels.

Craik's paper looks at some of the reasons for these problems with tourism policy. The difficulties are not simply the result of bad or inadequate planning but rather a number of significant political and disciplinary commonsenses. As Craik argues,

accounts expressing the potential benefits of tourism are not simple statements of fact, but reflect very specific philosophies which circulate as 'commonsense' about tourism, economic growth and tourist behaviour. These philosophies ... are in need of interrogation. 12

Her interrogation of the traditional policy context of predominantly economistic, scientific and quantitative tourism research notes the state of the academic disciplines upon which such research relies. The commonsenses of these disciplines concerning the scientific method and a particular notion of subjectivity has serious consequences for tourism research. These consequences range from a failure to address questions of regional and national rivalries and bitter intra-market competition, to the fact that the tourist industry may well be consolidating the labour position of disadvantaged groups. She states for example "international experience shows that most labour generated by tourism within the destination locality is seasonal, casual and menial. Skilled labour is imported and exported as needs dictate". 13

Living in Fremantle I have found Craik's paper of particular interest. Since Alan Bond's America's Cup victory and before, Fremantle residents have been subjected to continual tourist development strategies, a phenomenon which one local explained to me as the "glasshouse effect". Certainly the good ship Endeavour has not been Alan Bond's only gift to Fremantle. The tourist development of Fremantle has produced dramatic structural changes to the town which are not simply explained by rising residential and industrial property prices. There have been displacements of sections of the local population and of course those displaced are those often without any or little economic bargaining power. There have also been conflicts with other local areas competing for the tourist dollar.

An investigation of the cultural politics of tourism makes the links between tourism, history and legitimacy quite clear. There are then important connections between some of the issues raised by Craik and those raised by Bennett and Bulbeck. That such politics are in need of investigation is clear even when we look at established areas of tourist activity. The Great Southern area of the south of Western Australia has been a traditional tourist destination for the Perth metropolitan area. A recent report by the Adpower advertising agency for the Great Southern Tourist Directorate supports much of Craik's argument. In order to be more effective in capturing the tourist dollar the Great Southern area was renamed the Rainbow Coast. This report explains that the name Rainbow Coast "must be forced upon them (residents of the area) quickly and cleanly so they accept it as a fait accompli and there is no time for minority negative opinions to gain weight and influence the silent majority". 14 The counter-hegemonic potential of the chosen icon of the rainbow does not seem to have occurred to the planners. The overruling of local/indigenous people and their specific relationships to the land by a chauvinist metropolitan outsider has clear parallels with other forms of displacement in Australian history connected with different understandings of the land. Both Aboriginal and environmental groups make use of the rainbow icon (rainbow serpent, rainbow warrior). This connection is made all the more significant when one sees the way in which white Australian/Aboriginal conflicts such as that of the Brewery Site mentioned below often position Aboriginal people and their relationship to the land within a conservationist or environmentalist ethic. Perhaps these and other counter-hegemonic potentials provide the space for a possible 'rainbow worrier' effect!

Tony Bennett's paper on museum and heritage policy provides important theoretical ground for any attempt to consider cultural policy and questions of the past. This paper is important not simply because of the proximity of the Bicentennial (first Australia, then France) but as he and Chilla Bulbeck make clear, attempting to recover, recreate or present "the past" is a central activity in the understanding and construction of a present. Bennett, in this context, specifically refers to the Foucauldian notion of counter-memory. Bennett points out in his paper that "since the 1970s there has been a significant expansion in the scope of the national past as embodied in museums and heritage sites. There have been many new museums with still more projected, while thousands of heritage sites have been listed as part of the national estate." ~ As well as mapping out a brief and suggestive history of these developments, Bennett provides a critical discussion of the importance of these developments. One of Bennett's central arguments about the devices used to "back-project the Australian past" revolves around the need to consider the textual properties of museum and heritage sites.

During 1989 in Perth a group of Aboriginal people including Lennie Colbung and Bob Bropho camped on the outskirts of Perth next to an old building known as the Swan Brewery site, at the foot of Kings Park. This group was camped there trying to prevent Premier Dowding's state government from disturbing the Wagyl spirit by redeveloping the Old Brewery site into an Aboriginal museum and cultural centre which would house a collection of Aboriginal art from numerous parts of Australia (whilst no-one would doubt the West Australian significance and importance of the Berndt collection, stored in boxes in a basement of UWA, the collection which the government wishes to display in the proposed cultural centre has a controversial and disputed status to say the least) . The long-running struggle is complex and has been so badly handled by the state government that Mr Gerry Hand (then the Federal minister handling Aboriginal affairs) intervened to sort the matter out. (He then intervened more recently and revoked his initial intervention, to un-sort the matter out).

There have been many twists and turns in the argumentation but several things can be noted. Firstly the issue raised something of a paradox. The state government wanted to present and celebrate something of the Aboriginal heritage and past. It was a group of Aboriginal people who were and still are fighting strongly to stop this. Clearly then there are different conceptions of the past and much at stake in attempts to present the past. Bennett's paper develops much of the theoretical apparatus we need to understand this conflict.

By focusing his thesis on museum and heritage policy Bennett outlines the second thing to note about the Brewery issue. There is a great deal of conflict over the difference between a site of importance, a site of significance, a sacred site, a registered sacred site, etc. The legislation does not help solve many of these problems. It is not simply a matter of checking up the register of the WA Museum, nor indeed is it simply a matter of asking Aboriginal people. There has been a very acrimonious public debate between Mr Bob Bropho and Mr Ken Colbung about the importance of the site.

Thirdly the conflict has drawn an enormous amount of public attention and the letters pages of the local newspapers have displayed the racism, romanticism and in some cases support of the white population of Western Australia for Aboriginal people. Whilst initially much of the public debate concerned preservation of Aboriginal culture, the old Brewery building itself has now become defined as a historical site and at least some of the debate concerns preservation of white colonial history. Not only has the issue revealed much about white conceptions of Aboriginality and of the relations between white and black in Australia, but it has also revealed much about conceptions of history and the past at work. Further, it has revealed a great deal about differences or at least relations between Aboriginal and white conceptions of the past.

Fourthly the issue raised then and still raises now the question of whether the state government is bound by its own Heritage Act. Mr Dowding whilst Premier argued that his government wasn't. All four of these issues clearly have a much wider significance and applicability. For the people who have been camped at the site during 1989 until their forcible eviction Bennett's challenge to traditional museum and heritage policies is extremely important. Bennett's challenge to an originary and singular past and his plea for a consideration of a politics of the textualisation or realisation of this past is crucial for any attempt to solve or even understand the Brewery issue. For both Peter Dowding and Bob Bropho "the past is inescapably a product of the present that organises it".' Whatever happens to the Old Brewery site, and there have been many suggestions, Bennett's thesis holds.

If the Old Brewery building is produced as an example of Western Australia's colonial heritage and the brewery building is "restored to its original condition", we end up with Borges' problem of facsimile. As Bennett says, "How can the outcomes of such projects avoid meaning differently from the originals to which they aspire?" 17 If the Brewery site is "preserved", which may or may not include knocking the Brewery building down, Bennett's thesis is still valid:

The situation is the same even where heritage policy aims at preserving historic sites in their current form ... for the simple act of extracting a site from a continuing history of use and development means that a frame is put around it, separating that site from what it was prior to the moment of its preservation ... not a thing may have been removed or rearranged. Nonetheless, the meaning is decisively altered. 18

Bennett's paper which contains as he says "a little history" makes a number of very interesting points about the changing nature of the Australian "public historical sphere", "the space of national-historical representations". There is a particularly interesting discussion of Australia in relation to Britain which suggests the Australian public historical sphere as being rather more fluid than England's past which is "petrified, frozen" l9. Bennett points out that it was not until after the First World War that Australia had even a rudimentarily developed public sphere. This is contrasted with both Britain and France. For example the National Trust was established in Britain in 1895 whereas the Australian Council of National Trusts was not established until 1965. Bennett remarks "It was common, in the 1880s and 1890s, for social commentators to argue that there was little or no history in Australia worthy of preserving or commemorating". 20 He suggests a very interesting reason for this. "What was lacking, in other words, was not real historical events but a mould through which such events might be cast into representations that would be consistent with the largely Eurocentric lexicons of nationalism and history which governed public perceptions of such matters." 21 He points to a double bind in this process: "The events and figures of the post-settlement period either lacked sufficient representational weight to support an Australian past ... or, if weighty enough, were not able to be represented as sufficiently or uniquely Australian". 22 Bennett sees Gallipoli not as Australia's entry into "real history" but as a marker in the movement from this double bind. Bennett's paper argues a number of predominant tendencies in the recent formation of an expanded Australian public-historical sphere. Firstly an increasing movement from the double bind structure, that is, Australia's past has become more autonomous and self-referring. Secondly this more Australianised past has been considerably elongated, "pushed further and further back into deeper indigenous times". 23 The Brewery Site controversy mentioned earlier is an interesting if complex example of this process. This point might have been developed more fully by Bennett. Certainly the work of Paul Carter is evocative of what might be gained from a spatial and temporal investigation of Australian history. 24 The work of Carter and others suggests that much of what Bennett argues about white Australia in relation to the European lexicons of nation and history has had similar constraining effects on white Australian conceptions of Aboriginal history and community. Again the Brewery Site is a salient point of investigation.

Clearly there is much to be investigated here. This point is made more crucial when Bennett notes that the Australian public-historical sphere has tended to become ever more inclusive, "enfolding into its own history the histories of groups and communities which had previously received little recognition in officially sanctioned versions of Australian history". 25

Chilla Bulbeck's paper on Australian memorials investigates something of this more inclusive historical sphere and more pointedly something of the politics of the "enfolding" process. Bulbeck's paper, No 5 in the series, is an inquiry into memorials which represent counterhegemonic views of Australian history. The data for this analysis of memorials to Aboriginals, workers and women comes from a 'National Register of Unusual Monuments', a project endorsed by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The paper is divided into three sections: one on changing representations of race, one on heroes of the labour movement, and one on memorials to women. The analysis of these three particular categories of memorial explores ways in which counterhegemonic views of Australian history can be represented, and challenges the views of Donald Horne and Ken Inglis that "memorials must conform to an internally non-contradictory image of society". The paper, then, is very much about the complexity and subtlety of the process of hegemony. It is very important that Bulbeck sees hegemony as a process of struggle. She notes that "strategies for incorporation are different in each of the categories", 27 and further that these strategies of incorporation change over time. Bulbeck examines the policy implications of a hierarchisation of memorial forms. The paper argues that "these discontinuous historical voices are incorporated into monument construction through a pluralism which nevertheless maintains a hierarchy of monuments". 25 More specifically

monuments to women, workers or Aborigines are often less impressive and less centrally located than those to the great men who made the nation. Additionally these monuments are more often utilitarian, taking the form of gardens, drinking fountains or seats, if they are not simple informative plaques on cairns.

The paper looks at these modalities as well as the subjects chosen for the monuments and the bodies which initiate the building of such memorials. All three of these points are important to the argument of the paper. In the section on race, for example, Bulbeck examines the changing nature of Aboriginal subjects represented in memorials. She also notes how these subjects are represented in terms of what kind of monument is built, what sort of language is used on such monuments, and who does the writing. This latter point is discussed not only in terms of the original sponsorship idea for the monument but also in terms of the rewriting of such sites of social inscription. One clear example of a process of re-writing would be feminist campaigns of graffiti on war memorials, what Bulbeck discusses as "illegitimate defacement". She also notes a "legitimate defacement" where a monument might have a plaque attached to it. This plaque "like graffiti, provides a second and disjunctual reading for the spectator which the monument does not resolve ... it comes as close as possible to recolonising the space of the monument itself without eradicating that monument". 30 One of the monuments cited by Bulbeck, a monument in Fremantle to Panter, Harding and Goldwyer, the so-called Maitland Brown monument, has recently been the subject of an 'authoritative defacing'. As Bulbeck notes, the monument describes how these three individuals were "attacked at night by treacherous natives". 31 The monument is in fact a tribute to Maitland Brown who went on a murderous pogrom of Aboriginal people. The La Grange people, descendants of the Aboriginal community concerned, are to put up a plaque on the monument telling a rather different tale. This is a powerful example, then, of a mechanism for the critical rewriting of memorial history Bulbeck discusses. That is, encouraging groups to engage with monuments already erected to tell their own stories in relation to these.

This paper has a large quantity of data presented in it and takes up many complex issues of cultural policy. There is not the space to deal with many of the questions raised. I can only recommend that you read the paper for yourselves it is extremely interesting in terms of the material presented and in terms of the analytical possibilities that this allows. One point I should have liked to see more developed is the notion of a 'Register of Unusual Monuments' itself. An examination of the category 'unusual' might have provided some thoughts on what constitutes a subordinated community. Nevertheless Bulbeck's paper discusses the modalities of ideology in relation to monuments and thus of the public-historical sphere very well.

Bulbeck's paper and others in this series are clearly publications which are part of a much larger research enterprise and it will be interesting to see the ideas they present in a more detailed and expanded form. Having taught a course on Australian cultural policy at Murdoch University I can personally vouch for the usefulness of these papers. My students and I have been given valuable help in attempting to come to grips with cultural policy issues in Perth and Fremantle as well as in an Australian context. Poststructuralist cultural theories, although they are often interesting, sometimes seem rather ethereal, while issues of cultural policy run the risk of being examined only in a narrow, vocational context. We have been excited by the possibilities demonstrated by the series for applying cultural theories to specific cultural policy issues. All of the papers in the series have been helpful. In thinking about one of our own local media barons, we began to speculate on the possible uses of Bond's gift to the nation - a process of self-monumentalisation - being constructed by shipwrights and gawking tourists in Fremantle at the moment. Perhaps this slice of Australian history could be used to sail to a now-popular tourist destination in the Cook Islands should Mr Keating ask too many embarrassing questions about who has paid whose tax bills. How will Bond media record this slice of the Australian present? How will it circulate in the public culture?

... A number of other titles are in production and include: Denise Meredyth on English classrooms in Australia; Jeff Minson on men and manners; Sally Stockbridge on rock music; David Saunders on law; and James Walter on tertiary education in Australia. For further information or orders write to: Administrative officer, ICPS, Division of Humanities, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111.


1. Donald Horne, The Public Culture (Sydney: Pluto Press, 1986).

2. Tim Rowse, "Culture as myth Criticism as Irony: The Middle-class Patriotism of Donald Horne". Island Magazine no. 37 1989, p.12.

3. Donald Horne, "Arts-Funding and Public Culture," ICPS, Griffith, 1988 (Paper No I ), p.3.

4. Some important work is being done in this regard by the Newtown Semiotic Circle in Sydney.

5. Horne Op. cit., p.3.

6. Michel Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 207.

7. Rowse, p.22.

8. Rowse, p. 12.

9. Donald Horne cited in Rowse, Op.cit. p. 12.

10. Mr J. G. Norris cited in John Mathews "The Promotion of Press Diversity: Options Available to the Australian Government", ICPS, Griffith University, 1988 (Paper No. 4), p. 1.

11. Henry Mayer, "Rethinking Media Diversity', Regional Journal of Social Issues, 12 May 1983.

12. Jennifer Craik. "Tourism Down Under: Tourism Policies in the Tropics," ICPS, Griffith, 1988 (Paper No. 2), p.2.

13. Craik, op.cit. p. 4.

14. Adpower Advertising, "Marketing Advertising and Promotional Report for Great Southern Tourist Directorate," Perth, 1988, p. 6.

15. Tony Bennett, "Out of Which Past? Critical Reflections on Australian Museum and Heritage Policy " ICPS Griffith, 1988 (Paper No. 3), abstract.

16. Bennett, p.1.

17. Bennett, p.1.

18. Bennett, p.1 .

19. Bennett, p.5. One must be careful here to note the distance between the terms British and English. Somewhat surprisingly Bennett glosses over the tension between these terms. The possibility of imagining new paths of national development is alive and well in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and even perhaps in certain parts of England. Britain's history is often thought of as petrified and frozen when Britain's history slides into the history of England's stately homes. Of importance here is the success of Mrs. Thatcher's fond imaginings of herself as Elizabeth I - England's glorious imperial past becoming the mechanism for domestic homogeneity where homogeneity equals the Anglicisation of Britain.

20. Bennett, p.6.

21. Bennett, p.6.

22. Bennett, p.7.

23. Bennett, p.4.

24. Paul Carter, The Road To Botany Bay, An Essay in Spatial History, Faber and Faber, London, 1988.

25. Bennett, p. 4.

26. Chilla Bulbeck, 'The Stone Laurel: Race, Gender and Class in Australian Memorials," ICPS, Griffith 1988, abstract.

27. Bulbeck, abstract.

28. Bulbeck, abstract.

29. Bulbeck, p.3.

30. Bulbeck, p. 10.

31. Bulbeck, p.6

New: 27 March, 1996 | Now: 15 March, 2015