Government Emblems, Embodied Discourse and Ideology: An Artefact-led History of Governance in Victoria, Australia Katherine Hepworth Doctor of Philosophy 2012 ii iii Abstract Government emblems are a rich source of historical information. This thesis examines the evidence of past governance discourses embodied in government emblems. Embodied discourses are found within an archive of 282 emblems used by local governments in Victoria, Australia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They form the basis of a history of governance in the State of Victoria from first British exploration in 1803 to the present day. This history of governance was written to test the main contribution of this thesis: a new graphic design history method called discursive method. This new method facilitates collecting an archive of artefacts, identifying discourses embodied within those artefacts, and forming a historical narrative of broader societal discourses and ideologies surrounding their use. A strength of discursive method, relative to other design history methods, is that it allows the historian to seriously investigate how artefacts relate to the power networks in which they are enmeshed. Discursive method can theoretically be applied to any artefacts, although government emblems were chosen for this study precisely because they are difficult to study, and rarely studied, within existing methodological frameworks. This thesis demonstrates that even the least glamorous of graphic design history artefacts can be the source of compelling historical narratives. iv Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been written without the support of many people. Fellow students, other friends and extended family have helped in many small ways for which I am so grateful. These people are too numerous to mention. A few people have helped with an ongoing kindness and persistence that was invaluable. Thank you to my Supervisors, Dr D. J. Huppatz and Prof. Per Mollerup, for your continued encouragement, honesty and support. I have learned so much from you both. Special thanks must also go to Olivia Watchman, for the countless thoughtful things she has said and done to smooth the way for me over the years up to completion. Thanks also to my parents, whose support was felt and appreciated at the toughest times. Lastly, thank you to Dr Joanna Hickey and Dr Margot Schofield, for their pragmatic guidance on rolling with the waves of completing a doctoral thesis. v Declaration The examinable outcome contains no material which has been accepted for the award to the candidate of any other degree or diploma, except where due reference is made in the text of the examinable outcome; to the best of the candidate’s knowledge contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the examinable outcome; and where the work is based on joint research or publications, discloses the relative contributions of the respective workers or authors. Signed Katherine Hepworth Date vi vii Grammar and spelling The English grammar and spelling used in this thesis is Australian Standard English, as set out in Style Manual (1994, sixth edition) by the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts, Australian Commonwealth Government. Australian Standard English closely follows British spelling and grammar conventions, with some minor variations. Layout and typeface This thesis uses a modified version of the official thesis layout required by Swinburne University of Technology. External page margins comply with Swinburne University of Technology thesis guidelines. Within these pre-determined external margins, each page has been divided into two columns; the left column is reserved for the thesis text, and the right for thesis figures. The column devoted to figures is essential, given close relationship between the text and figures, and also the large number of figures. Without these figures, much of the text in this thesis would be unintelligible. The text throughout is 10/21pt set in Formata. viii CONTENTS CH TITLE Introduction, 1 i.1. Government Emblems, 16 i.2. Australian Governments, 23 i.3. Thesis Structure, 29 1. Literature Review: Methods used in histories of graphic design artefacts, 33 1.1. Connoisseurship Method, 51 1.2. Hagiographic Method, 63 1.3. Empirical Method, 69 1.4. Alternative Methods, 74 1.5. Limitations, 84 2. Methodology: Theoretical basis for a new method, 95 2.1. Investigating, 101 2.2. Forming History, 114 2.3. Incorporating Power, 125 2.4. Identifying Embodied Discourses, 140 3. Discursive Method: Outlining a new method and presenting results, 155 3.1. Collecting, 163 3.2. Pruning, 177 3.3. Describing, 192 3.4. Reviewing, 227 ix 4. Governing the Body: A history of imperial, liberal & exclusionist governance in Victoria, 235 4.1. Britannia, 243 4.2. Trade, 265 4.3. The Other, 287 5. Governing the Mind: A history of nationalist, Keynesian & neoliberal governance in Victoria, 309 5.1. Independence, 316 5.2. Progress, 333 5.3. Commercialisation, 349 Conclusion, 379 c.1. Scope, 383 c.2. Contributions, 388 c.3. Future Research, 393 c.4. Supreme Form, 396 References, 399 APPENDICES I Ethics approval and completion forms, 419 II Complete emblem sample, 423 x LIST OF FIGURES Introduction 2.4.2.E. Hierarchy of another embodied discourse i.1.A. Three different kinds of government technology, 152 emblem, 16 i.1.1.A. City of Waverley coat of arms, 17 3. Discursive Method: i.1.2.A. Borough of Queenscliffe seal, 18 Outlining a new method i.1.3.A. Cardinia City Council logo, 20 and presenting results i.1.4.A. Inaccurate year, 22 3.A. Steps in discursive method, 158 i.2.A. Australia with the State of Victoria 3.B. Discursive method in context, 159 highlighted, 23 3.C. Questions asked to encourage first order i.2.B. The three tiers of Australian government, with judgements, 160 the official name of each tier in brackets, 23 3.1.A. Collecting sub-steps, 163 i.2.2.A. The naming of Australia’s two main political 3.1.B. Finding criteria, 164 parties is potentially confusing, 27 3.1.1.A. Results of Finding, 166 3.1.2.A. Two Capturing and Cleaning processes, 168 1. Literature Review: 3.1.2.B. Digitally stored emblem after Capturing Methods used in histories and Cleaning, 168 of graphic design artefacts 3.1.2.C. Reversed emblem, 169 1.A. Method and ideology, 36 3.1.2.D. Emblem converted to BW format, 169 1.B. Differing qualities of design artefacts and 3.1.2.E. Printed emblem captured, 169 graphic design artefacts, 44 3.1.2.F. Printed emblem cleaned, 169 1.C. Common methods used in histories of graphic 3.1.2.G. Results of Capturing and Cleaning ordered design artefacts, 48 by source, 170 1.1.A. Narrative formation process using 3.1.2.H. Results of Capturing and Cleaning ordered connoisseurship method, 51 by colour profile, 170 1.2.A. Narrative formation process in hagiographic 3.1.3.A. Formatting properties, 171 method, 63 3.1.3.B. Vector image and raster image, 172 1.3.A. Narrative formation process in empirical 3.1.3.C. Three colour profiles, 173 method, 69 3.1.3.D. Results of Formatting, 173 3.1.4.A. Initial documentation for each collected 2. Methodology: emblem, 175 Theoretical basis for a new method 3.1.4.B. Results of Documenting, 175 2.1.A. Principles of investigating, 101 3.2.A. Pruning criteria, 177 2.1.1.A. Examples of first and second order 3.2.1.A. Irrelevant emblems, 178 judgements, 104 3.2.1.B. Results of Pruning irrelevant emblems, 178 2.1.1.B. Conditions contributing to the relativity of first 3.2.1.C. Pruned interim council logos, 180 order judgements, 106 3.2.1.D. Pruned interstate emblems, 181 2.1.2.A. Example of a facet group, 111 3.2.1.E. Pruned tourism-focused emblems, 182 2.2.A. Principles of forming history, 114 3.2.1.F. Pruned uncertain emblems, 183 2.3.A. Concepts regarding power, 125 3.2.2.C. Blurred emblems, 185 2.4.A. Concepts for identifying embodied 3.2.2.A. Emblems pruned because they were discourses, 140 technically unfit, 185 2.4.2.A. External and embodied discourses as they 3.2.2.B. Results of Pruning irrelevant emblems, 185 relate to artefacts, 147 3.2.2.D. Blurred but included emblems, 186 2.4.2.C. A hierarchy of the three kinds of attributes that 3.2.2.E. Obscured emblems, 187 make up a discourse technology, 150 3.2.2.F. Partial emblems, 188 2.4.2.D. Hierarchy of one embodied discourse 3.2.2.G. Too small emblems, 189 technology, 151 3.2.3.A. Emblems pruned for being duplicates, 190 xi LIST OF FIGURES 3.2.3.B. Results of Pruning duplicates, 190 3.4.2.A. Governance ideologies identified in Reading 3.2.3.C. Landscape duplicate emblems, 191 sub-step, 229 3.3.A. Describing sub-steps, 192 3.4.3.A. Links between governance ideologies and 3.3.1.A. Identifying and Grouping, 192 embodied discourse technologies, 230 3.3.2.A. Main division in the faceted classification, 194 3.4.3.B. Technologies embodied in the archive, 232 3.3.2.B. Hierarchy of external technologies in the faceted classification, 195 4. Governing the Body: 3.3.2.C. Hierarchy of embodied technologies in the A history of imperial, liberal faceted classification, 196 & exclusionist governance in Victoria 3.3.3.A. Linking facet group, 198 4.A. Early governance ideologies in Victorian 3.3.3.B. A technique facet group, 199 governance as they relate to embodied 3.3.3.C.