'If a national literature is composed of the varieties of ways that inhabitants construct and represent their experiences over time, then Australia does not yet possess a national literature. Rather "Australian literature" is a sub-set of English literature which does not acknowledge the literary and cultural traditions of a third of the population. The philosophy behind "Striking Chords" is to move debates beyond the current artificial opposition between multiculturalism and Australian culture so that the latter is enriched by the inclusion of the former. Migration is, after all, part of the tradition of all non-Aboriginal Australians. "Striking Chords" is aimed at teachers at all levels of the educational sector who are interested in but puzzled by this new field and these new writers as well as at members of the general public who would also like to know more about these changes in our culture. It is not merely concerned with multiculturalism, although this is its departure and remains its main focus. It also encompasses the supposed split between writers and critics; community versus the so-called mainstream of writing; minorities within minorities; and gender, where the different ways in which men and women position themselves in these debates is of substantial interest. "Sneja Gunew is an Associate Professor at Deakin University. Kateryna Longley is a Senior Lecturer at Murdoch University.".' (Publication summary)
I would like to tell you a simple story. This story comes to me by way of Robert Bly, the American poet. Writers, he says, need to preserve their frogskins. Frog-skins, not foreskins; though writing can be something of a circumcision when forced into categories — some-thing between public ritual and private pain. To counteract this phallocentrism let me offer you the metaphor of writing as woman, not only as the re-pressed, but as the source. (Introduction)
Paul Carter analyses migrant names and their significance for identity.
'In Australia there have been for a long time two distinct yet connect-led public and intellectual debates concerning the significance of descent, belonging and culture. One revolves around the cleavage between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and especially the status of indigenous claims deriving from a history of colonisation. It is about land, health, heritage, housing, intellectual property, identity, education, 'stolen children', and much else as well. The other debate centres on the immigrant, and his or her challenge to Australian society at large. It focuses on the non-British immigrant and the notion of multiculturalism, and is about cultural diversity, ethnic politics, and immigration policy. In this chapter I develop the argument that these two debates can neither be conceptualised together nor maintained as fully distinct. As a result of the public debates on both indigenous and immigration policies triggered by independent member of parliament Pauline Hanson in 1996, they converged and interacted in the later 1990s to a greater degree than at any time in the previous two centuries. Yet their conversation remains uneasy.' (Introduction)
'In Australia there have been for a long time two distinct yet connect-led public and intellectual debates concerning the significance of descent, belonging and culture. One revolves around the cleavage between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and especially the status of indigenous claims deriving from a history of colonisation. It is about land, health, heritage, housing, intellectual property, identity, education, 'stolen children', and much else as well. The other debate centres on the immigrant, and his or her challenge to Australian society at large. It focuses on the non-British immigrant and the notion of multiculturalism, and is about cultural diversity, ethnic politics, and immigration policy. In this chapter I develop the argument that these two debates can neither be conceptualised together nor maintained as fully distinct. As a result of the public debates on both indigenous and immigration policies triggered by independent member of parliament Pauline Hanson in 1996, they converged and interacted in the later 1990s to a greater degree than at any time in the previous two centuries. Yet their conversation remains uneasy.' (Introduction)
