Multicultural Papers

♦ \

GREEK :

A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL IN MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA

by

J.J. S m o lic z

This paper was delivered at the annual conference of the National Union of Greek Australian Students (NUGAS) held in in January, 1983.

These Occasional Papers on aspects of Australia’s multicultural society are published to stimulate discussion and dialogue. The 1 opinions expressed in these papers need not represent those of the publishers. o Z T Z n The Clearing House on Migration Issues, 133 Church Street, Richmond, 3121, welcomes contributions to this series from individuals or i g s c organisations. t MULTICULTURAL Clearing AUSTRALIA PAPERS House Already Published MAP 31 $2,50 MIGRANTS IN THEIR HOMELAND: A STUDY OF RE-IMMIGRATION on by Ersie Burke MAP 32 $3,00 MIGRATION LAW: Migration A TIME FOR CHANGE? by S.A. Ozdowski MAP 33 $2.00 RACIST PROPAGANDA AND THE Issues IMMIGRATION DEBATE by Lorna Lippmann MAP 34 $2.50 POPULAR CULTURE, KNOWLEDGE A documentation unit of the Ecumenical CONSTRUCTION, AND AUSTRALIAN Migration Centre (Incorporated) ETHNIC MINORITIES by Peter Lumb IT PROVIDES Australia-wide unique information- documentation resources on MAP 35 $3.00

• the cultural background of the main ethnic groups; MEDITERRANEAN WOMEN IN • the immigration experience in Australia and around the AUSTRALIA: AN OVERVIEW world; by Gill Bottomley • current issues (welfare, education and bilingual education, employment conditions, political and religious MAP 36 $3.50 participation, legal aspects, intergenerational differences, etc.) faced in inter-ethnic relations; IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND • discrimination, prejudice and race relations; HUMAN RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA • ethnic and community organisations and services; by Baden Powell • government and community programs and policies. MAP 37 $3.50 OFFERS an extensive collection of published and unpublished documents, Australian and overseas periodicals and reprints. DETERMINANTS OF ETHNIC GROUP VITALITY IN AUSTRALIA PUBLISHES by Alan Hodge • Migration Action, the only Australian periodical on ethnic relations; • CHOMI-DAS, a quarterly bulletin of documentation and abstracts; • Reprints of articles, papers and reports of interest to the MAP 38 $2„00 community and selected groups; • Kits for workshops, seminars, meetings; : A QUESTION OF on selected topics. Bibliographies SURVIVAL IN MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA OPEN for consultation by the public during weekdays from by J.J. Smolicz 1.00 p.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays to Wednesdays; 1.00 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursdays; 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Fridays. ISBN 909274 23 1 As space is limited, groups of 4 or more must book in advance. A photocopier is available. ISSN 0155-4409 Multicultural Australia Paper no. 38 is published by and available from: Clearing House on Migration Issues 133 Church Street, Richmond, Vic., 3121 Phone (03) 428-4948

133 CHURCH STREET i - JAN 1985 RICHMOND VIC AUSTRALIA 3121 TEL (03) 428 4948 GREEK AUSTRALIANS; A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL IK MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA

Greek-Australians have been living in this country for a long time now, and although the majority came after the last war, certain families can trace their settlement to the early decades of this century. For many years Greek-Australians have been called "migrants", to distinguish them not so much from "older settlers", as from people of British origin, some of whom were more recent arrivals than the , but who have usually little difficulty (if they so desire) to acquire the un-hyphenated Australian label. The latter applies to virtually all children of British migrants.

A good illustration of the ease with which people of English origin can become accepted as just "ordinary Australians" is illustrated by a recent newspaper report on the visit of Prince Charles to Australia. A reporter, T. Agars (1933, p. 3), investigated the response to what he called the Prime Minister's "proclamation that Australia is heading down the road to republicanism", by getting a "clear and accurate assessment of how the dinkum Aussie feels" on this issue. As the place of his "investigation" he chose the Adelaide suburb of Elizabeth which is well known for its high numbers of immigrants from England. His first "dinkum Aussie" respondent turned out to be a "Cockney" who reaffirmed that "Australia is a part of the Empire and that's the way it should stay". A second representative of the "dinkum Aussies" from Elizabeth was an "England-born" youth who felt that "It would be sad if we parted from England the King and Queen". His "dinkum Aussie" girlfriend concurred: "I am English, a royalist and a traditionalist...". It is not the reporter's monarchist conclusions, based on his interviews with the "loyal burghers of Elizabeth", that matter in this instance, but his equating of English migrants with "dinkum Aussies" and representatives of the Australian population as a whole.

This differential treatment of minorities is particularly galling when one considers what Australians of Greek ancestry are often called, and the way even grand-children of immigrants from are often labelled as "third generation migrants". This, of course, is a totally absurd notion, since people born here are not migrants of any kind but Australians who, by retaining aspects of Greek culture and identity, are Greek-Australians. Hence the appropriateness of the name: National Union of Greek-Australian Students (NUGAS) which unites Australian students of Greek ancestry in this country. This name signifies that we all belong equally to this country, and that our adherence to the culture of our ancestral home does not make us any less Australian than people who have arrived here from Yorkshire or Belfast.

Overarching values

But if some of us feel and act as Greek-Australians, while others do so as Polish-Australians, while still others view themselves as English-, German-, Dutch-, or Aboriginal-Australians, will this not fragmentalize the country and endanger its social and cultural cohesion? Well, that "cohesion" has never been as clear cut and absolute as has been idealized in the mateship and egalitarian myths about the Australian past. Nor is cohesion necessarily a virtue in itself since, as Michael Novak (1982) has argued, there is a revulsion against the uniformity of the modern world. Furthermore, as Mr. Justice Kirby (1982) Ins pointed out, excessive stress on nationalism and cohesion can carry with it dangers of conformity, and even some totalitarian overtones. It is not an accident that total­ itarian regimes almost invariably regard "cohesion" as their aim, while "pluralism" is looked upon as a dangerous deviation. It is also an acknow­ ledged part of Australian history that people of English ancestry have had a close identification with the language, culture, laws and customs of their native country, without this being questioned as un-Australian and divisive. If people of British ancestry cam take legitimate pride in British-derived institutions, such as the Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, it is also legitimate for Greek-Australians to remind their British counter­ parts of the Greek origins not only of our notion of democracy itself, but of our science, and of the Western ideal of the integrity, autonomy and freedom of the individual. This has often been taken for granted, but represents a vital aspect of our common European inheritance and the hallmark of our civilization. As the former President of the Hellenic Republic, Mr. Constantine Tsatsos, has argued, these qualities:

stem from a concept of mam held in common by Europeans, a concept of the fundamental imperative of man's autonomy, outwardly expressed through the freely democratic organization of a society in general and inwardly through intellectual freedom; a concept which, by the route of free thought, free scientific knowledge and free artistic creation, arrives ultimately at a common attitude toward ... [the fundamentals of life].

If one recognizes the Greek origins of this common heritage, the English achievement would appear as its articulation within certain specific channels. From this perspective, the Australian type of parliamentary democracy is just a variant on the common European theme, with certain unique features of its own. The same can be said about ©ur legal system, including the principles of the rights of the individual and their protection against the encroachments of the state or any other monopolistic agencies.

Such discussion of the origins of our values shew that, as Australians, we already have a great deal in common; it shows that there are many values that we share, and to which we can refer as the overarching values for all Australians (Smolicz, 1979). These extend not only to democracy and freedom of the individual, but also to our special kind of economic system (that is partly based on private enterprise and partly upon State initiatives), and to our legal institutions which, as Mr. Justice Kirby (1982) has pointed out, should be flexible and able to meet changing social and cultural needs.

The English language is another such overarching value, as the common means of communication for all Australians. This is, however, never meant as a substitute for the native languages of non-British Australians but as an addition to Greek, Italian, Spanish, Gerfnan, Polish and Filipino, as well as to some fifty surviving Aboriginal languages that, in all, over a million Australians learn from their mother's lips and regard as their home or ethnic community language (Commonwealth Department of Education, 1981). Such bilingualism in English and another Australian community language, is, therefore, already a fact of life in this country. What is needed, however, is further public recognition of this social reality, as well as educational reinformcement of bilingualism in order to make it as acceptable, and as normal, a part of Australian life as the plurality of religions, educational systems and life styles that already form an accepted pattern in this society.

The example of linguistic diversity, as seen in the ability of some Australians to speak Greek and English, shows that overarching values for all Australians may complement the core values of the various ethnic groups. This demonstrates that there is no intrinsic and inevitable conflict between the overarching values of the whole country on the one hand, and ethnic - 3 -

values on the other. In some instances these values are parallel to one another, and can be used on different occasions. Thus one may speak, read and write excellent Greek and English (and many people do achieve this feat), without one language interfering or "harming" the other, or affecting the child or adult in performing his other functions of life. A further instance of such cultural coexistence is the celebration of both birthdays and "name days" (on the dates of patron saints) by Greek, Italian and .

In other instances, the various majority or minority ethnic values may amalgamate to produce some new synthesis (such as a pineapple pizza!). In still other cases, ethnic values, as practised by various groups, may legitimately differ from one another, as well as from those of the majority group, without undermining the unity of the country or its overarching framework of values.

Solidarity and collectivism of Greek life

One such difference, in the case of Greek culture, is the special bond that unites Greek families, and the spirit of solidarity and collectivism that represents one of the most characteristic features of Greek life. In this respect the Greek tradition differs from the more individualistic orientation of Australians who derive their family models from Northern Europe, particularly Great Britain.

Such diversity of family patterns represents part of Australian multi- culturalism which makes allowance for variation within a consensus framework provided by several aspects of our political or economic life. This also allows for the possibility of mutual interaction, in the sense that Greek family traditions can act as a model of inter-dependence for Anglo-Australians. On the other hand, the British virtues of individualism and independence may in some instances appeal to younger Greek-Australians who might like to preserve some aspects of their traditions, while at the same time modifying other features to meet the changing conditions of life in Australia.

In this paper I propose to examine further this special distinction between Greek and Anglo family traditions in Australian life, namely their respective collectivism and individualism, by reporting some of our research on this theme which was carried out between 1979-81 at the University of Adelaide (Smolicz, 1983; Smolicz and Piesiewicz, 1983; Piesiewicz, 1983). We have undertaken this research partly to obtain empirical evidence on a subject that is more elusive and less easy to demonstrate than the difference between, say, the Greek and English languages. Such empirical studies are often necessary to help people with largely mono-cultural experiences understand that cultural differences may be as real as are those of age, sex, or wealth. Language differences are no doubt the most manifest forms of diversity, since Greek can in no way be regarded as a dialect of English (or vice-versa). Attempts are often made to play down family differences by an appeal to cultural universals which portrays them as "much of a muchness". Even where such family differences are acknowledged they are sometimes presented as a transient phenomenon by taking the individualist model of a nuclear family as a "modern" standard, and explaining the collectivist model as some archaic and disappearing feature of a pre-industrial rural past. Hence, the persistence and strength of the Greek family bonds need to be examined in order to determine the extent of their continued vitality in the Australian setting. - 4 -

A questionnaire was devised to examine Greek and Anglo-Australian children's attitude towards collectivism/individualism in various family, social and peer group situations, but in this paper only questions relating to the family will be considered. The questionnaire was administered to 318 Greek- and Anglo-Australian students (aged from 15-17 years) whose ethnicity was defined by parents' birthplace. The students came from six state high schools (which contained both ethnic groups) and two Greek community Saturday schools (which were attended only by Greek-Australian students).

The questions were presented in the form of statements about certain specific everyday situations with which the individual could either agree or disagree on a five-point scale. For each question, the individual was not wily asked to indicate his own attitude towards the situation, but also what he thought his parents, Greek-Australians, and Anglo-Australians (in general) thought about it.

Examples of family situations examined.

(i) Once I get a reasonable job, I should leave home and become independent of my family as quickly as possible.

In relation to the orientations of collectivism and individualism, a "no" answer was deemed to indicate a collectivist attitude, while a ''yes" answer was taken to represent an individualist attitude.

The patterns of answers supported the hypothesis of greater collectivism among the Greeks, as seen through the eyes of both the Greek and Anglo- Australian children. The parents of both were perceived to hold the same attitudes. The great majority of the Greek-Australian children gave a "no" answer to the suggestion that they should leave home and become financially separate from the family (84 per cent). This view was seen by the Greek children as being even more firmly held by the Greek community in general and the child's own Greek parents (all answers were over 90 per cent "no" to leaving home), in contrast, almost half of the Anglo-Australian children would be prepared to leave home (53 per cent "no" answer).

Although both Anglo- and Greek-Australians saw the Greeks as the more collectivist of the two groups, the Greek respondents considered the Anglo- Australians to be more individualist than the Anglos themselves did. In turn, Greeks thought themselves to be more collectivist than the Anglos acknowledged. When the statement was rephrased in the termss "Once I get a reasonable job, ray family would expect me to leave home and become independent as soon as possible", the proportion of Anglo-Australian children who viewed their own group as given to family collectivism was 58 per cent; this proportion went up to 67 per cent when they estimated the collectivism prevailing among the Greek group. Among the Greek- Australian children, on the other hand, as many as 94 per cent considered that their own (Greek) group would exhibit collectivist behaviour, while only 37 per cent expected Anglo-Australians to behave collectively. Hence there was general agreement on the greater collectivism of the Greeks, but the Greeks perceived the gulf which separated them on this issue from the dominant culture in the country as being greater than the Anglo- Australian children thought possible. - 5 -

(ii) Once I start earning an income and remain at home, I should pay board to my parents.

The nature of relationships within the family, especially the nature of "gift exchange and mutual reciprocity" is best illustrated by the above statement which probed the immediate and formal financial recompense which the child was expected to provide to his family when he first started earning.

To the direct question of whether the child should pay board to his parents when he starts earning an income, while still remaining at home, 70 per cent of the Greek students replied "no". This was in contrast to only 8 per cent of Anglo-Australian children who said "no" to this question indicating that over nine tenths of them would be prepared to pay board, and regarded it as normal type of behaviour in the family. The different responses of the two groups of students over this issue is statistically significant. When the students were asked to judge their parents' expectations in this matter, in the Greek case, the negative reaction to paying board was increased to 85 per cent (i.e. the great majority of the Greek-Australian children did not expect their parents to ask them to pay board). In contrast, just under 90 per cent of the Anglo-Australian children expected their parents to ask for board (only 12 per cent gave a "no" answer).

It is also interesting to compare the perceived notions on this issue that each ethnic group had of the other. The majority of Greek children (61 per cent) expected the Anglo parents to- require payment of board ("yes" answer). However, this figure was still lower than that given by the Anglo-Australian children as an estimate of board acceptance by either their own parents (88 per cent) , or by the Anglo group in general (85 per cent). Obviously the Greeks did not realize the extent of "monetary individualism" amongst the Anglo-Australians, or the general acceptance by the majority group of the belief that one should pay for the necessities of life, even to one's own parents. In summary, Greek children not only judged their own group as being more collectivist; they also saw the Anglo-Australian group as being less individualist than did the Anglos themselves.

Anglo-Australian children also judged that parents in the Greek group were less likely to accept board than those in their own group. To put in percentage terms, Anglo-Australians expected 60 per cent of Greek parents to take board, as opposed to 85 per cent for their own group. This was, of course, still a far cry frccm the Greeks' own estimate of their own group's "yes" answers to paying board, which amounted to no more than 15 per cent, or their lower expectation of the corresponding "yes" answers for the Anglo parents (61 per cent) than the Anglo children thought appropriate (85 per cent).

This last datum confirms the view that certain features of culture (in this case the ethos of either individualism or collectivism in family life), are so deeply internalized, that neither group appears able fully to appreciate that such a basic tenet of social life could be different in another culture. Only cultural interaction might help each group to recognize both the extent of the differences that already exist, and the motivations that lie behind "gift exchange" in other communities.

In this connection, it would 3eem that in the Anglo culture, paying board almost takes on the significance of a symbol that ensures that the child is not a "sponger", but can "pay his way" in life. The payment to the family is thus a preparation for independent life as an adult where one has to pay for services rendered by others. It does not mean, however - 6 -

that the Greek child is fed, clothed and expected to provide nothin# in return. It siinply means that the nature of reciprocity is different and that it can be delayed into the future, so that the child is expected to repay his parents in a variety of informal but vitally significant ways, such as care during their old age. The nature of such repayment is generally non-financial, since direct monetary exchange smacks of contractual formalism and lack of trust, a procedure thought appropriate for strangers, but unacceptable in the family circle that is linked together by ties of blood and common fate.

(lii) After I am married, I should not live with my mother in the same house, even if she were widowed and left alone. The best place for her would be an old people1s home where she could be with people of her own age.

This statement was intended to test the students' attitudes to the formation of a three generation family. It added a rider about the mother being a widow and therefore left alone, and tempted the respondent into acceptance of separation by putting forward a rather doubtful hypothesis about people preferring to stay within their own age group.

The collectivism of the Greek family is clearly demonstrated by 86 per cent of the Greek children answering "no" to this question, and giving an almost identical estimate of their parents' response to it. The majority of Anglo children also gave a negative answer to displacement of the mother into the old people's home, although the proportion who disapproved of the statement (66 per cent for the child and 68 per cent for the perception of his parents' view) is lower than that given by the Greek children. The proportion of Anglo children who estimated the Greek group to be collectivist on this issue (61 per cent) was slightly lower than the percentage who viewed their own family in this manner (66 per cent). Both these figures were higher than that for the Anglo group in general (40 per cent) . The proportion of the Greek children who viewed the Anglo group on this matter as collect- ivistic, was even lower at only 31 per cent. In summary, Greeks are generally acknowledged by both sides to be more collectivist in respect to the mother's residence, but they see themselves as even more inclined in that direction than the Anglo-Australians' expectations of them.

Conclusions

It would seem, then, that Anglo culture is concerned with preparing the individual to take his place in the formal structure of his society. This is in contrast to the Greek culture which is essentially concerned with preparing the individual to take his appropriate place, first and foremost, in the family network. This implies that Greek society at large should be used to serve the individual as members of a family. Hence the contrasting enculturation patterns in the two cultures, and the Anglo concern to "free" the individual at an early age, so as to allow the external system to allocate his place through processes involving secondary personal relations.

The research reported here indicates that the collectivist Greek family structure displays certain cultural features that differentiate it strongly from the Anglo type of family relations. The second important finding is that there are no signs that his cultural difference is dissolving in - 7 -

Australia, or that second generation Greek-Australians are abandoning the family traditions of their own group in favour of those evolved in Britain. This does not mean that Greek family tradition is static and that the younger generation is wholly unaffected by the mores of the dominant group. A degree of cultural interaction is undoubtedly taking place, but what our results demonstrate is that the Anglo-assimilation process, so much advocated by the majority group in the 1950s and 1960s, has failed - at least in the realm of family relations. (At a more theoretical level, it points against the "convergence" theory of cultural development, since "modernity" and technological progress in Australia has not led in this case to the homo­ genization of life styles. Research on Polish families under communist rule in also shows that family bonds remain strong despite the change in social structure, the drift from the country to the cities and the industrial development that has occurred in that country since the war (Turowski, 1972).

Core values of Greek culture

In relation to the continuance of Greek culture in Australia, as well as the integration of Greek-Australians into the fabric of Australian society, the question can now be posed as to which Greek cultural values need to be main­ tained to ensure the survival ofthat culture in this continent, and what modifications are likely to occur in the course of time?

The erosion of Greek values in Australia and their replacement by those of the Anglo-majority would have resulted in cultural assimilation (although not necessarily in the structural absorption of the Greek migrants, since social discrimination may continue even against a culturally assimilated minority that can be distinguished as "different" by some physical features or residual cultural fragments from the dominant group). It can be stated in the clearest possible terms that the assimilation outcome has not occurred, and is unlikely to occur in the future (Smolicz, 1981, 1983).

The opposite of assimilation would eventuate in the case of outright separatism that would occur if the Greek group kept itself utterly separate from the majority and searched for ways to preserve the specific political, legal and even economic structures that it brought from Greece. There is no sign of a desire on the part of Greek-Australians to seek such ghetto- style separation since it would only serve to undermine their chances of occupational and social advancement and arouse suspicion and resentment on the part of the dominant group.

The question then arises as to which values need to be preserved as specifically Greek, while the group remain firmly embedded within the multi­ cultural setting of Australia and its overarching values.

Our study on the Greek family shows clearly that Greek-Australians wish to preserve their traditional values in that area and that, although these are likely to be modified in the course of time (and indeed many have already been partly affected), one cannot envisage at this point of time their complete convergence with the Anglo-values of individualism and the specific emphasis on individual autonomy. (There are also few signs to suggest the opposite, namely the alteration of Anglo-values to match more closely the Greek stress on family collectivism, although such mutual interaction cannot be excluded, and it is likely that it may increase in the future). 8

It would seem, however, that there are other Greek core values that will have to be maintained to prevent Greek culture being converted to a mere sub-cultural variant on the majority theme. (The majority group is accustomed to social class sub-cultural differences, as well as to the differences between town and country, but all such variations occur within the overall Anglo-cultural mould and, if ethnic cultures were to be reduced to the level of such variations, they would lose their unique cores and retain mere trappings, or those aspects that are easiest to preserve and that are most palatable to the majority).

In addition to family structure, two such core values suggest themselves in the study of Greek life in this country, and they are and Greek Orthodox religion. A simple test to apply to determine what constitutes such a core is to ask oneself whether one would still be acceptable to the Greek community if one had forsaken one's family; lost, or never acquired, the ability to use the Greek tongue; or changed one's religious affiliation to some other faith (Islam, Buddhism, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism)? (It is one thing to be a non-practising Orthodox, and another to actively embrace some other, possibly antithetical religious faith).

It would seem that the loss of any one of these values would to a greater or lesser extent undermine one's continued membership of the Greek group in Australia. (One must remember in this connection the traditional Greek concern for the opinion of their fellow countrymen, which appears to be encapsulated in the saying, often repeated by parents as a warning to their more "adventurous" children - "But what will people say?" Ibis must be understood in the sense that "people" refers here only to Greek people, and that the opinion of other outsiders is quite irrelevant). This concern for acceptance by one's own ethnic group, and one's loyalty through a sense of belonging to it, whether in Australia or in the homeland, can help to maintain core values and ensure their transmission to the next generation.

It is a matter for debate and further study whether language, religion or family structure should be given the pride of place. These values are, in any case, integrated, since family cohesion helps to preserve both language and religion, while in the absence of the common ethnic tongue family unity would suffer and church services become less meaningful.

In fact Clyne (1982) claims that religion which is unique to a given group can only help with language maintenance if the church services are conducted in that tongue and if parish activities also provide an avenue for the use of the ethnic language: this undoubtedly appears to be true in the case of the Greek Orthodox faith.

In many groups, such as the Polish or the Baltic ones, as well as the French in Quebec, core values are mainly linguistic. This could also be argued for the Greeks, although I understand that in the past Orthodox religion was used as the "litmus paper" of nationality. (Apparently, in the 1830s and subsequent decades, disputes about population between the Greeks and Turks were often settled through religious affiliation and Orthodox populations were classified as "Greek" almost irrespective of what con­ stituted their "primary" or home language). There is also little doubt that the Orthodox church's'Uniqueness" and its structural independence from any other Australian church helps to maintain its traditional role as a preserver and marker of ethnicity. (The three core values are discussed here in reference to Australia, since in Greece itself one would eilso have to take into consideration the love and special attachment to the land of Greece and its intrinsic identification with the Greek people - 9 - which almost matches the religious-inspired identification between the Jews and the land of Israel. Indeed, that attachment to the beauty of the Greek landscape, its islands and their vivid colours of blue and white stand out in the memory of many Greek-Australians making them yearn for a "return home", which may never materialise, but constitutes a bond that was first immortalised by Homer in his Odyssey.

The transmission of these core values seems necessary to preserve the "authentic" Greek ethnicity in Australia. The term "authentic" was first used by Fishman (1966) to distinguish between those ethnic groups in the U.S. that preserved their language and/or other cores, as opposed to those which only clung to cultural residues such as food, folklore and certain artifacts. This type of "residual ethnipity" seems to be one possible outcome of a surreptious assimilation process that could continue even under the guise of "multiculturalism". The danger of residualism is that it implies that the "cultural stream" gets steadily shallower and values steadily more diluted. The threshold between stable multiculturalism with viable ethnic cultures that retain their cores, on the one hand, and ethnic cultural residues on the other, may then be readily crossed. This can occur at the second or third generation. The return road back to authentic ethnicity is, however, much more difficult, as has been shown in the U.S. even during the ethnic revival of the last two decades. (It is extremely difficult to revitalize the language once it has been lost).

This does not mean that advocates of 'authentic' ethnicity should berate or despair of their fellow "ethnics" or their children, if they lose some or even most of their core values. On rare occasions even cultural residues can act as "anchors" of ethnicity and help to revive it at a later date. People retaining only cultural residues based upon some symbolic identifica­ tion with the homeland of their ancestors may still act in a way as to favour their ancestral group and its interests. In this way such "symbolic" or "residual" ethnics can prove of advantage to the ethnic group as a whole, especially if they can exert influence within important institutions of the country. But such symbolic Greek-Australians, valuable and sympathetic as they may be, cannot assure the group of its cultural survival and transmission of what it considers as the vital elements of its cultural life. Every viable ethnic group has a nuclear heartland of members, as well as acme more or less sympathetic residuals. Continuance of this ethnic heartland is indispensable unless multiculturalism is but a dream, or a temporary sop to ethnics, as a prelude to their assimilation.

In the case of the Greek group, family and religion seem to be firmly entrenched in its life in Australia, and they appear to be reasonably "safe", at least with those marriages that have been contracted within the group. Indeed, mixed marriages, as research shows have, with a few notable exceptions, a disastrous effect upon culture maintenance, so that marriage within the group can almost be regarded as a core value in those groups that have succeeded in maintaining themselves as minorities for extended periods of time. In Australia the Greek group shows one of the highest indications of in-group marriage (Price, 1982), and this trend appears to be strengthened by the church affiliation, since marriage outside the group would almost invariably involve a partner of another faith. (This cohesive force of a distinct religion is lacking among, say, the and Italians who possess various kinds of "ethnic parishes" and hold ethnic services, but whose clergy is hardly in a position to admonish its members against mixed marriages if these involve co-religionists of other ethnicity). - 10 -

With family and religion more secure than in most other groups, Greek- Australians face nevertheless the difficulties experienced by all those minorities that rely upon language as one of their main guarantors of authentic ethnicity. Australia has learned how to be a religiously plural society, but it is still only learning how to become a linguistically plural one. And it is still uncertain whether linguistic diversity will ever be fully accepted. (Linguistic pluralism has never flourished in Great Britain, where Celtic languages have been reduced to near extinction despite attempts at Welsh and Irish revivals).

Yet, it would seem that the Greek language is a principal core value of the Greek group, and that religion and family may not be enough to ensure a viable and intellectually stimulating cultural continuity. The Greek community has shown its concern in this regard by having evolved the most extensive network of part-time ethnic schools in Australia. Greek- Australians have been assiduous in pressing their claim for recognition of Greek as a Matriculation (H.S.C.) subject and for the introduction of Greek to the greatest number of Australian day schools and tertiary institutions.

In many ways such efforts have been successful but much remains to be done. In fact, the viability and continued existence of the Greek tongue in Australia is still in the balance, in the same way as is the case for other ethnic community languages, such as Italian, Polish or Latvian. If the public schools system, universities and colleges prove responsive to the community demands, this should lead to a stable multiculturalism in Australia, involving maintenance of Greek cores within the overarching Australian values. Denial of linguistic rights could lead to linguistic assimilation and residualism or, alternatively, to a rise in day schools and the "ethnicization" of education. Such fragmentation and separation is not a desired aim of most Greek- or other ethnic Australians, but the foundation of four Greek day schools already seemsto point to the fact that such an outcome cannot be totally excluded.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agars, T., (1983) "The Royal Visit", Sunday Mail, (Adelaide) 20th March.

Commonwealth Department of Education. (1982) Towards a National Language Language Policy (, A.G.P.S.)

Clyne, M. (1982) Multilingual Australia (River Seine Publications ).

Fishman, J.A. (1966) Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton.

Novak, M. (1982) "The New Ethnicity, the Cosmospolitan Ideal, the Pluralistic Personality", Second Annual Address, Australian Institute of Multi­ cultural Affairs, Melbourne, pp. 1-7.

Mr. Justice Michael Kirby, (1982). "Comments" on "Multiculturalism for all Australians" (Issued by Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs), Discussion Paper of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. - 11 -

Piesiewicz, J. (1983) "A Study of the Cultural and Social Values of School Children of Greek and Anglo-Australian Background, with Special Reference to the Ideological Orientations of Collectivism and Individualism". Master of Education Thesis, University of Adelaide.

Price, C. (1982) "The Second Generation", paper presented to the Second Conference on Ethnic Politics in Australia, Australian National University, Canberra.

Smolicz, J.J. (1979). Culture and Education in a Plural Society. (Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre).

Smolicz, J.J. (1971a) "Core Values and Cultural Identity", ynd Racial Studies., Vol. 4, No.l, pp. 75-90.

Smolicz, J.J. (1981b) "Cultural Pluralism and Educational Policyi In Search of Stable Multiculturalism”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 121-145.

Smolicz, J.J. (1983) "Meaning and Values in Cross-Cultural Contacts", Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 33-49.

Smolicz, J.J. and J. Piesiewicz (1983) "Greek-Australians and Anglo- Australians: A Comparative Study of Attitudes to Family and other Primary Social Relationships". (Unpublished study).

Turowski, J. (1972) "Polish Family and the Theory of Nuclear Family". Polish Sociological Bulletin 25-6.

**********