1 Introduction

Multiculturalism is a historical necessity for Australia based on its own social make-up. In 1770, the English navigator James Cook arrived on the east coast of Australia and claimed the land for England. On January 26, 1788, the British began to establish a colony in Australia. At this point, Australia began to establish close ties with Britain. As of March 2024, the total population of Australia is 27.12 million people, of which 51.1% are of British and Irish origin, about 43.9% of the residents believe in Christianity, and the rest of the population believe in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaism, while 38.9% of the population has no religious belief or unknown religious belief. Therefore, as far as Australian society is concerned, racial diversity is an objective factor in the formation of multiculturalism, and the liberal thought advocated jointly with European and American countries is the internal ideological and political basis for the formation of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism itself has very complicated connotations. However, according to Sev Ozdowski, a scholar from the University of Sydney, multiculturalism is a social contract involving the sharing of rights and wealth among different cultural groups, which is based on the equal social status and opportunities of different cultural groups. Thus, the policy of multiculturalism can be considered as the ideal institutional choice for the activities and governance in the public sphere of a culturally diverse society. However, it is precisely because of the over-ideal nature of this policy that it does not develop in accordance with the preset direction in practice. Among them, one of the most influential factors for this policy is the problem of white centralism which has not been ignored for a long time in Australian society. This problem has seriously affected the implementation of the multicultural social contract, and has led to the current bubble of multicultural policies in Australian society, that is, multiculturalism policies have not really improved the well-being of all Australian citizens, but have become a brand of false political correctness.

2 The Cognitive Deficit in Constructing National Identity in Contemporary Australians

The study aims to address the question of what kind of national identity should be constructed in contemporary Australian society, which is also the ultimate goal of multicultural policy. The complexity of building an Australian national identity is highlighted by the fact that many Australians or their parents were born abroad, leading to diverse cultural influences. Ariane and Emiko’s research identifies five key challenges to forming a national identity: the diversity of original cultures, questioning what it means to be Australian, the influence of multiple cultures, the ongoing learning and blending of these cultures, and the importance of meaningful social group identity. These points suggest that while multiculturalism shapes the image of Australians, there is also a need to understand why being Australian is important and the value of citizenship. Addressing the cognitive deficit in understanding Australian citizenship is crucial for constructing a national identity. If this gap is not bridged, the national identity will remain unstable, like a house without a solid foundation.

2.1 The Reason for the Formation of Cognitive Deficit ---- the Erosion of Liberalism

At the beginning of this study, it is emphasized that the reasons for adopting multicultural policies to construct national identity in Australia are mainly objective and subjective. Objectively, it is inevitable because of the diversity of national cultural composition. Subjectively, it is due to the influence of liberal culture. So this raises the question of how liberalism relates to multicultural identity and, in general, to Australian national identity. Is this connection good or bad? For these two problems, scholars in the past did not construct a clear causal logic chain. This may be because most scholars who study Australia come from the West, where liberalism is the dominant ideology, so they naturally don’t see anything wrong with it. However, objectively speaking, liberalism does cause the cognitive defects of Australian people in the aspect of national identity, because the essence of liberalism is actually mutually exclusive with the construction of a unified national identity, especially in Australia, a society with complex ethnic composition, which further brings difficulties to the construction of national identity.

2.2 The Mutual Exclusion of Western Liberalism and Australian National Identity

Western Liberalism is a political and economic theory that emphasizes individual freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and the market economy. Although, to a certain extent, liberalism has indeed brought social progress in issues such as economic development and protection of human rights, it has also brought some negative effects, especially in terms of national identity. European and American Liberalism advocates individual freedom and democracy, but under the current social environment in Australia, blindly advocating democracy and freedom will undoubtedly further intensify the cultural differences between different ethnic groups, which will eventually lead to the emergence of “new racism”. The concept of “new racism” was first proposed by American scholars John B. McConaghay (1975) and Joseph C. Hough Jr (1968). In short, it is no longer to openly promote racial differences, but to turn to culture, using cultural differences as an excuse for discrimination and space for development. According to the research of the Australian scholar Laksiri Jayasuriya (1998), the “new racism” does not change the nature of racism at all, but it no longer identifies group differences according to racial and biological factors, but emphasizes cultural and racial differences. In fact, this is a clear contradiction with the construction of a common Australian national identity, and it is also why I firmly believe that Australia’s current excessive promotion of European and American liberalism will hinder the formation of a correct nation-state perception of Australians, and thus affect the formation of a correct national identity in Australia

2.3 Possible Steps for Constructing Australian National Identity

To construct a robust Australian national identity, it is essential to develop an ideological framework that is uniquely Australian, while acknowledging the influence of European and American ideologies. This does not mean that Australians should completely discard these foreign ideologies, as doing so would be unrealistic. Instead, Australia must adapt and integrate these ideas into a new set of values that reflect its own cultural, historical, and social context. This involves creating an identity that is not simply a copy of American or British national identities, but one that is tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of Australia. It requires a thoughtful synthesis of global influences with local realities, fostering a sense of unity and belonging that is authentically Australian, resonating with all its citizens regardless of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds. This process will help Australia establish an inclusive and distinct national identity, celebrating its diversity while maintaining a cohesive sense of nationhood.

3 Class Solidification of Multiculturalism

Analyzing the objective social system issues stemming from Australia’s multicultural policies reveals a complex landscape. Scholars like Kurti (2013) in “Multiculturalism and the Fetish of Diversity” and Jayasuriya (2007) in “The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics” have critiqued the policy’s emphasis on diversity and its impact on national identity. Contrarily, some, such as Galligan and Roberts (2007), view multiculturalism as a tool to attract immigrants rather than preserve their cultural identities.  Fundamentally, these discussions often center on whiteness, with policy implementation being dominated by white Australians or those adhering to white centralism. This leads to an unequal distribution of resources, as seen in the overrepresentation of white individuals in key industries like public utilities, government, media, and education. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that immigrants, particularly in education and similar sectors, do not achieve equal representation, which affects their influence in policy discourse. By 2022, migrants made up only 27.3% of Australia’s total employment, with the majority in the private sector, limiting their policy-making power. This contributes to class monopoly and differentiation, solidifying social system issues and marginalizing the voices of ordinary citizens.  Thus, the multicultural policy, constructed by these dominant groups, essentially upholds white centralism and perpetuates its “othering” of ethnic minorities, further destabilizing the Australian social system. Understanding this requires recognizing the pervasive influence of white-centralism in Australia.

3.1 The Root of White Centralism

According to Plato’s idealism in his Phaedo, the real entity is not a physical body, but an eternal form of the idea, which can be seen as one of the origins of dualism in Western philosophy.  Descartes is famous for his mind-body dualism which further develops dualism in Western philosophy. It is these two ideas that have shaped the thinking of the Western world today, and the root of white centralism just lies in the metaphysical dualism of western philosophy. This binary opposition leads to discrimination and exploitation of non-white groups by white people in terms of skin color and language. For example, Rousseau once discussed how human thought is shaped by language from the perspective of language with the metaphysical philosophy of dualism. Meanwhile, white centralism has a historical origin in Australia. Although such racist words have been regarded as derogatory words by Australian people after the “White Australia Policy”, people cannot get rid of the idea of dualism fundamentally and the emergence of new racism. White centralism remains an underlying problem affecting Australian society. The idea is still ingrained in the minds of some Australians. Therefore, many people choose to hate such racism not because they are conscious of the problem. When their own interests are violated, they will unconsciously give up their vigilance against such racist ideas, and then become supporters of similar racism. The existence of white centralism will eventually bring some subtle influences to Australian society, and one of the most serious results caused by this subtle influence is the solidification of social class.

3.2 The Relationship Between White Centralism and Class Rigidity in Australian Society

The relationship between White Centralism and the stratification of Australian society can be divided into three aspects: historical policy perspective, race and class perspective, and social mobility perspective. The establishment of the white-centered class originated from the perspective of history, culture and policy. Australia’s colonial history led to the adoption of White Australia policy. It was an act designed to protect white Australians and preserve the identity of the British nation. The existence of the Act contributed directly to Australia’s decades-long problem of racial and cultural homogeneity. The Act not only restricted non-European immigration but also exacerbated racial discrimination through the convenience of the system, making the concept of white supremacy rooted in Australian society and gradually difficult to completely eradicate. Secondly, from the perspective of race and class, the issues of race, class and gender in Australian society have been intertwined since the colonization. In many cases, class and gender issues can also exacerbate race issues, and race issues can also involve some discussion of class and gender. As a result, the discussion of gender inequality and income disparity in Australian society today cannot be completely decouple from the issue of race. From a positive point of view, this has indeed aroused people’s discussion and attention on racial issues from all aspects and angles, but from a negative point of view, it has also made the racial issue in Australia easy to be provoked, and any contradiction in the society may be intensified by people to the root of racism, which is easy to cause social polarization. Finally, the restriction of social mobility brought about by white centralism also leads to the solidification of social classes. By maintaining a social order dominated by white society, white centralism restricts the social mobility of non-white groups, which is mainly reflected in immigration policies, such as the low proportion of skilled immigrants. While there has been a significant year-on-year increase in skilled migration in Australia today, the number of Temporary skilled migrants still accounts for the lower to mid-range of Temporary visas.

（FIG.1 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/jobs/jobs-australia/2021-22-financial-year#key-statistics）

At the same time, the restrictions on social mobility in education, employment and other fields can also be proved by the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics above. The employment rate of immigrants is not even 30% of that of the whole country, let alone that immigrants are not all white people, but also people of other ethnic groups. That’s a much smaller percentage. As a result, inequality in these fields has further exacerbated the class rigidity of Australian society. In the end, the weight shift of minority groups’ discourse power happened.

4 The Weight Shift of Minority Groups’ Discourse Power Under Class Solidification

Social discourse power was first proposed by French philosopher and social thinker Michel Foucault in his speech Discourse and Order (1981). Therefore, the proposition of “discourse is power” has been attached importance by people. In social communication, discourse is not only a symbol of thinking and a tool of communication, but also a means and purpose of people’s struggle. Therefore, in Australian society, whether ethnic minorities can seek more social welfare for themselves depends on the size of their voice in society. The proportion of social voice obtained depends on how many ethnic minorities can enter the core industrial sectors of Australian society. The previous article has listed the Australian industries that most Australian immigrants can enter. Statistics show that Australian immigrants and ethnic minorities do not have much political and social voice in Australian society. At the same time, even if the minority groups in Australian society do control a part of the voice, their voice is not enough to completely change the status quo of ethnic minorities and immigrants in Australia, on the contrary, they will even implement some public policies that treat ethnic groups as parallel rather than multi-level for the sake of management and political convenience, that is, homogenization management. As a result, the complex and diverse gender, class and other issues existing in racial groups cannot be correctly understood and paid attention to, which will undoubtedly aggravate the survival dilemma of Australian citizens of different races, and further affect the establishment of a common identity in Australia.

4.1 Minority Homogeneity Management ---- Aboriginal Health Policy Issues in Australia

Indigenous Australians are definitely one of the most marginalized groups in Australian society, and their health issues have been repeatedly highlighted by the United Nations Human Rights Council. After the White Australia policy was abolished, the Australian government showed its attention to this issue and introduced a series of policies. Policies to address indigenous health issues are now considered to be national policy in Australia. In order to promote the effective implementation of the “Health Plan”, the Australian government set up the National Indigenous Health Equality Council in 2006. Meanwhile, the Australian Human Rights Commission announced the leadership team on its website. There is a phenomenon of minority leaders in this leadership team. However, the health problems of indigenous Australians have not been greatly improved as a result. This is mainly due to the fact that ethnic minority leaders are still subject to the mainstream political system and ideology in Australia, and do not have or do not have the ability to give full play to the cultural voice of their ethnic minorities, thus ignoring the need for more detailed and targeted management of indigenous health issues. The Health Plan focuses on the three main areas of health, education and employment, alleviating seven specific policy issues, including life expectancy, infant and child mortality, enrolment of four-year-olds in remote areas, enrolment rate, literacy and numeracy skills, secondary education coverage and employment rate. The plan achieves a result of management homogenization by integrating the sources of funds, establishing the community management security service system and formulating the same laws and regulations. However, although homogenized management presents a coordinated and efficient phenomenon in scope and system operation, it does not pay attention to the differences and integrity of different indigenous cultures, as well as the particularity and complexity of indigenous issues. Australia’s official report from 2015 to 2017 found that indigenous health issues have not been significantly improved. The initiative of indigenous peoples in their own health has not been valued and stimulated, thus the “health program” has entered a state of stagnation.

4.2 The Result of Class Solidification

Homogenized management adversely impacts Indigenous Australians by exacerbating class solidification and perpetuating inequality.  This approach leads to unequal resource distribution, culturally inappropriate services, and reduced engagement with health and education, further entrenching class divides.  The disregard for Indigenous cultural diversity results in policies that fail to address health disparities and social issues effectively.  Indigenous communities’ marginalization in the political system fosters disempowerment and a lack of trust, hindering their participation in initiatives seen as imposed rather than collaborative.  Economic disparity is also a consequence, as limited access to employment and education opportunities entrenches poverty.  To break this cycle, a paradigm shift is needed, focusing on culturally sensitive management, community-led initiatives, and supporting Indigenous self-determination to improve health and well-being.

5 The Dynamic Development of Australian Social System Under the Multicultural Policy

The Australian social system needs to find a new breakthrough. Although multiculturalism policy has caused the problems of the Australian social system to a certain extent, if a reasonable premise of Australian national identity is established first, a reasonable multicultural policy can be further developed on this basis. Thus, it can alleviate a series of problems caused by the solidification of social class in Australia. Therefore, the future dynamic development of the Australian social system under the multicultural policy still depends on the construction of the Australian national identity. The construction of national identity is the foundation, the policy of multiculturalism is the superstructure, and the perfect development of the Australian social system is the result of the dynamic action of the two. If the cart is put before the horse, the result will be the erosion of the foundation, and the collapse of the foundation will bring about the collapse of the whole society.

5.1 Deconstructive Perspective on the Harm of Class Solidification to Australians 

The construction of Australian national identity and multiculturalism has been misguided, leading to a detached and illusory sense of nationhood. This is worsened by “new racism,” White Centralism, and class solidification in social and immigration policies. The resulting national identity is both superficial and problematic, failing to represent the true diversity of Australia. While the government promotes multiculturalism and shared values like freedom and equality, the challenges of fostering intercultural harmony and respecting diverse identities remain. Immigration policy, deeply impactful on individuals, must be managed to embrace Australia’s diversity and build an inclusive national identity. Policies without a strong national identity foundation can lead to social issues for all Australians, including both minorities and the majority.

1) Immigration Problem Under the Policy of Multiculturalism

Firstly, those who have a voice in Australian society will use this multiculturalism policy based on a false sense of national identity to attract large numbers of overseas immigrants. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy is in a slump, and countries urgently need to restore their economic capacity. This requires the introduction of a large amount of labor productivity. In the face of such major national issues, a country always gives priority to economic and industrial development as the main contradiction, and puts cultural issues in a secondary position. The same will be true of Australia, even if the ethnic diversity of its society is already particularly acute. Most Australians fail to recognize the deep root causes of multiculturalism and will, as most academics sceptical of multiculturalism fear, go further and further down the wrong path, thereby increasing the burden of cultural diversity in Australian society. However, it is clear that the issue has a greater direct impact on Australia’s migrant and minority groups than on Australian society as a whole.

2) The Racial Trauma of Multiculturalism Policies on White Australians

Analyzing the social system problems caused by the lack of Australian national identity under the multicultural policy from the perspective of deconstructivism, people will find that in the context of the lack of Australian national identity, the seemingly opposing white Australian group and the Australian ethnic minority group face different problems. But the results were close. Just because ethnic minority groups are inherently vulnerable, their harm is more obvious and visible, but this does not mean that white Australians who appear to be in a position of strength are not affected at all. In such a social atmosphere for a long time, they will also be affected by racial trauma, especially in the middle and lower class white groups and some mentally immature white teenagers. The symptoms of racial trauma mainly include three aspects: physical, psychological and social. From a physical and psychological point of view, this bubble of national identity based on cognitive loss will bring them chronic psychological stress, which will gradually cause them to suffer from anxiety, depression, hostility and avoidance. On a societal level, systemic racism can lead to confused, conflicted emotions. If young people, at an early stage of mental maturity, realize that their membership in the white group may unconsciously create ethnic segregation and discrimination in a pluralistic society, and to some extent benefit from it, they may have moral doubts about their own identity and value. This may further lead to their corruption, skipping classes, dropping out of school, and even drug abuse, which in turn forms a certain scale of social problems. Therefore, if multiculturalism is not promoted under the premise of building a clear national identity, the policy will not only have little effect on the marginalized minority in Australia, but also indirectly affect the white Australian group, which will cause a larger scale of social system problems.

6 Conclusion

Due to the metaphysical dualism in Western philosophy, white centralism persists in Australia, leading to a cognitive deficit under liberalism that hinders national identity formation. This lack of identity nullifies multicultural policies, allowing new racist ideologies to emerge and causing class hardening, affecting both ethnic minorities and white Australians. It’s infeasible to overemphasize multiculturalism without a clear national identity or to ignore identity construction in favor of multicultural policies. This makes the discussion of Australia’s social system, whether democratic or autocratic, less significant. According to social contract theory, a stable social system requires a general will, not just a vague popular will. Without a common national identity, any form of government will struggle to manage public affairs equitably, leading to the exploitation of marginalized groups. Thus, Australia must first establish the foundation of its national identity to develop a reasonable multicultural policy and address social system issues effectively.

References

[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/jobs/jobs-australia/2021-22-financial-year#key-statistics

[2] Australian Human Rights Commission

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/close-gap-part-4-acknowledgments

[3] Churchill, Brendan; Baltra-Ulloa, Ann Joselynn; Moore, Robyn (2015). Difficult conversations: race, class and gender in White Australia. University of Tasmania. Chapter. https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/534714

[4] Descartes, René. “Discourse on Method; and, Meditations on First Philosophy.” Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1993.

[5] Frankenberg, R. (1997). Growing up white: Feminism, racism and social geography of childhood. In, L. McDowell & J. Sharp (eds.), Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings, pp. 224–252. Arnold.

[6] Foucault, Michel. “The Order of Discourse.” Trans. Ian McLeod. In Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader. Ed. Robert Young. London: Routledge, 1981. 48-78.

[7] Galligan, Brian, and Winsome Roberts. The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics. Oxford University Press, 2007.

[8] Kurti, Peter. Multiculturalism and the Fetish of Diversity. The Centre for Independent Studies, 2013.

[9] Levey, Geoffrey Brahm, editor. Political Theory and Australian Multiculturalism. NED-New edition, 1, Berghahn Books, 2008. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qdbr2. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

[10] Laksiri Jayasuriya，“ Old Racism，New Racism ”，Australian Quarterly, vol.70，no.5 , 1998．

[11] Martin, J., Arunachalam, D., Forbes-Mewett, H. (2023). White Australia: Nationalism and National Identity. In: Identity and Belonging Among Chinese Australians. Migration, Minorities and Modernity, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47862-8_2

[12] O’Keeffe, P. (2024). Australian Identity: Multiculturalism, ‘Mainstream Australia’ and White Fragility. In: Power, Privilege and Place in Australian Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1144-4_2

[13] Plato. Plato’s Phaedo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.

[14] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Books, 2004.

[15] Virgona, Ariane, and S., Emiko. "Polycultural Identity Experiences: A Qualitative Exploration in Australia." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2024.

[16] 韩俊红."澳大利亚原住民健康问题研究:社会事实与政策困局."思想战线 43.03(2017):38-45.

[17] 钱志中."澳大利亚多元文化主义政策的历史选择与动态演化."世界经济与政治论坛 .06(2014):155-167.

[18] 赵昌,and 张秋生."论多元文化政策下澳大利亚民族认同建构的困境——兼论华人的文化融入问题."世界民族 .04(2017):37-46.