This file is part of the following reference: Reardon, Judith (2003) The development of the discourses of mateship in Australia with special reference to the period 1885-1925. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/17558 The development of the discourses of mateship in Australia with special reference to the period 1885-1925. Thesis submitted by Judith Ann Reardon DipEd (Primary), BA, MA (Literature and Communication) in July 2003 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the school of Humanities James Cook University STATEMENT OF ACCESS I, the undersigned, the author of this thesis, understand that James Cook University will make it available for use within the University Library and, by microfilm or other means, allow access to users in other approved libraries. All users consulting this thesis will have to sign the following statement: In consulting this thesis, I agree not to copy or closely paraphrase it in whole or in part without the written consent of the author; and to make proper public written acknowledgement for any assistance which I have obtained form it. Beyond this, I do not wish to place any restriction on access to this thesis. Signature Date Abstract Mateship is widely considered to be an Australian convention that embodies egalitarianism in Australian culture. It is commonly thought of as a unitive convention that is most obvious in times of adversity. Yet while many Australians describe mateship thus, others call it a men’s creed. These two opposing descriptions – egalitarian and masculinist – are difficult to reconcile, and give mateship a paradoxical nature that is difficult to explain. Most studies of mateship do not attempt to explain this paradox, and merely reproduce the assumption that that while mateship is a significant Australian convention, it is exclusive to men. This study differs from others in that here, mateship is defined as a discourse that has two major discursive forms: one inclusive and representative of the egalitarian component of mateship; and one exclusive and representative of the masculinist component of mateship. These discourses are traced to their origins in the period 1788-1850 as a re-reading of “the label of difference” that held the convict population subordinated to the upper class. The discourses of mateship evolved as the means of self-help that supported people in their quest to reverse the subjection by “difference” and thereby to survive and prosper. It is argued that exclusive mateship gained its ascendancy over inclusive mateship during the nineteenth century when mateship became a surrogate religion for many Australians. The mateship discourse melded with Christianity, and when it did, it caused mateship to be an inclusive discourse with a masculinist nature in the same way that Christianity is inclusive, though women are subordinated to males through its central masculine god. Exclusive mateship is shown to have consolidated its dominance over inclusive mateship during the period 1885-1925 with the assistance of the men’s press, particularly The Bulletin under the editorial leadership of J. F. Archibald. Mateship, as it is commonly understood, is shown to be divided in itself, and while inclusive mateship is unitive, exclusive mateship is divisive. Exclusive mateship’s divisiveness causes social problems, and its impact upon the lives of women is explored. It is argued that exclusive mateship is maintained in its dominant cultural position by reading practices which, over the years, have become dominant, making mateship appear to be a convention that is important to Australianness, but nonetheless restricted to men. Acknowledgements This thesis became a completed reality with the patient guidance, kind encouragement and wise counsel of my supervisor, Professor Anthony Hassall. He has my heartfelt thanks for his support and my utmost respect for his teaching. Along the way, Jo Kellett Off-Campus officer of James Cook University Library helped with her efficiency, encouraging comments and ever-ready smile. Jo is the unsung hero of many ecternal students, and she has my sincere thanks. Many thanks also to the staff of the James Cook University Library, and the Graduate Research School who always responded to cries of Help with understanding and support. At the coalface though, those who have never wavered in their commitment to me and my work deserve more than thanks. My husband Ted, my children Jedidiah and Konrad have lived with me and my thesis and still love me. Table of Contents List of Illustrations 1 Statement of Sources 2 Introduction 2 Chapter One Literature Review 3 Chapter Two Mate and Mateship in Australian English 4 Chapter Three The Discourses of Mateship 5 Chapter Four The Origins of the Inclusive Mateship Discourse 6 Chapter Five The Origins of the Exclusive Mateship Discourse 7 Chapter Six The People’s Religion 8 Chapter Seven The People’s Problem 9 Chapter Eight The Culture of “Difference” 10 Conclusion 11 Works Cited 12 STATEMENT OF SOURCES DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary education. Information derived from the published or unpublished work of others has been acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given. Signature Date 1 Introduction The argument Mateship is undeniably an integral aspect of Australianness. In the first volume of the Federation edition of the Macquarie Dictionary, the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby described mateship as one of the four “virtues of the peculiar ‘egalitarian’ society which grew up [in Australia] in the wake of convict transportation” (viii). However, mateship is not so easily defined or understood because the words mate and mateship are used so inconsistently that the concept of mateship is ambiguous. In literary representations mateship appears to have various meanings, some of which contradict each other and negate the notion of egalitarianism. The one certainty about mateship is that it is a continuity that traverses Australian history from penal days to the present. That scope is broad for one thesis but it is necessary to investigate literature in this timeframe to trace the development of the discourses of mateship in Australia. Special reference is made to the period 1885-1925 because most commentaries point to this period as being the time during which mateship became accepted as an integral component of national discourses. According to customary usage, mateship is generally accepted as a universal spirit that incorporates into concepts of Australianness sentiments like “a fair go for all” (egalitarianism) and “loyalty to one’s mates” (fraternity). The sentiment of egalitarianism suggests that all Australians participate equally in mateship; but the concept of mateship as a loyal brotherhood negates egalitarian principles by excluding women’s involvement, and it is as a men’s creed that mateship is often represented, especially in influential historical works like Russel Ward’s The Australian Legend (1958) and T. I. Moore’s Social Patterns in Australian Literature (1971). Although it would seem obvious that mateship cannot be both universally Australian and exclusive to men, most mateship studies are based upon this assumption. This study will present a new analysis of mateship that differs from existing studies in three ways. Firstly, mateship will be analyzed as a complex convention that has multiple meanings. Two of these meanings will be shown to be central: egalitarian mateship will be 2 categorized here as inclusive mateship; and the mateship limited to select men’s groups will be categorized as exclusive mateship. Secondly, this study will contest the assumption that all men are automatically included in exclusive mateship and will argue that some men are excluded by exclusive mateship’s restrictive version of masculinity. Thirdly, this study will argue that instead of mateship being the uniting spirit of egalitarianism that tradition would have us believe, that uniting spirit only applies to one form of mateship, inclusive mateship, while the exclusive form of mateship has in fact been a divisive influence on relations between Australian women and men. Both representations of mateship are readily identifiable in Australian literature and society, and it will be argued that while the two forms coexist, one dominates the other causing cultural confusion and social divisiveness. It will further be argued that the exclusive form of mateship is a patriarchal discourse that endeavours to advantage males in society by institutionalizing in culture those power relations that favour the masculine. Participating in the masculine is, however, as David Buchbinder suggests, neither the right nor the privilege of all men (120). It will be shown that exclusive mateship not only subordinates the feminine, it also subordinates those men who are excluded from it. The divisiveness that exclusive mateship initiates is thus doubly potent in that while mateship appears to be a uniting spirit, it is only unitive in its inclusive form; the exclusive form of mateship is discriminatory and divisive. In order to separate mateship into its two forms, inclusive and exclusive, this study will argue that mateship should be understood as a discourse; and that inclusive and exclusive mateship are related but distinct discourses, which differ on the basis of who is empowered by each. Inclusive mateship has no selection parameters and therefore offers membership and access to power to everyone. In contradiction to this, exclusive mateship only admits a select group of men, and only continues to accept them as long as they obey its strict codes of group loyalty. Inclusive mateship is empowering without being selective, while exclusive mateship is empowering on the basis of selectivity. It will be argued that the inclusive and exclusive mateship discourses shared origins but diverged in their historical development. That development will be traced from the pre- 3 Australian meanings for the words mate and mateship to the meanings that were, and still are, applied to the words in Australian English.