UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND WORKING-CLASS WRITING AND AMERICANISATION DEBATES IN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA: 1950 – 1965 Ian Herbertson (BA Hons.) A Dissertation submitted for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Southern Queensland 2006 CERTIFICATION OF THESIS I certify that the ideas, experimental work, results, analyses, software and conclusions reported in this thesis are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for any other award, except where otherwise acknowledged. ________________________ __________ Signature of Candidate Date ENDORSEMENT: _______________________ __________ Signature of Principal Supervisor Date _______________________ __________ Signature of Associate Supervisor Date CONTENTS Introduction: Writing, Theory and Society 1 Chapter 1: America as Reality and Perception 31 Chapter 2: Myths of Affluence 70 Chapter 3: Working-class Consciousness and Social Change 120 Chapter 4: Pop, Teds and Working-class Lads Who Stayed Home 171 Chapter 5: Young Australian Workers and Bodgie Temptations 218 Chapter 6: Working-class Youth Subcultures: Resistance and Exploitation 254 Conclusion: Back to the American Future 304 Works Consulted 316 1 Introduction Writing, Theory and Society ‘Work’ is not a topic that much concerns contemporary novelists or fires the creative imagination. Today, writing about work is primarily done by investigative reporters like Elizabeth Wynhausen, whose Dirt Cheap: Life at the Wrong End of the Job Market (2005) is a striking – if rare – under-cover exposé of what ‘economic reform’ really means for menial Australian workers. There is certainly no literary equivalent now of the British and Australian novels, appearing in the 1950s and 1960s, preoccupied with the relationship between changing patterns of work and working- class experience: the lived transformations of traditional class and family ties; the impact of new consuming habits and popular cultural pursuits; the political situation of ordinary working people, and shifts in their attitudes and values. These British and Australian novels generally assumed that reorganisations of the working coal face or factory floor extended into the private sphere, informing or producing the stressful personal dramas played out in communities and at the kitchen sink. This thesis argues that these novels were elements of a broader dialogue in the 50s and 60s: one in which work and working-class life were significant subjects, articulated in a range of complementary discourses that were interlocutory – economic and political analysis, sociology, nascent cultural theory, popular newspaper commentary and literature. Consequently, a main objective of this thesis is to reveal how these representational forms or disciplines converged in the period 1950–1965: to examine their common themes and interests, and their collective 2 responses to questions concerning working-class life. The thesis argues that all these forms or disciplines shared the view that the condition of the working classes, in both Britain and Australia, crucially mattered to the overall social architecture of the time. It also argues that they all regarded the presence of America, the era’s pre-eminent global force, as central to such questions; and that America was complexly understood as an idealised political concept, a power-house of popular cultural production, and a very real engine of socio-economic change. Dynamic shifts in British and Australian workers’ economic, political and cultural lives in the 50s and 60s were both directly and indirectly influenced by American supremacy. This thesis argues, though, that while many aspects of cultural theory we are familiar with today were then embryonic and still unfolding from the scattered observations of intellectuals and commentators living through the period’s changes, this did not mean there was a lack of sophistication in attempts to grasp the meanings of the social transformations taking place. On the contrary, where the process labelled ‘Americanisation’ was concerned, the fluid and developing nature of approaches to understanding cultural change at the time actually contributed to thinking about the phenomenon on a broad front. An important manifestation of this was that it was more common to find the notion of intentions preserved in the period’s assessments of America’s complex interconnections with local cultures, classes and economies than is the case today. In the 50s and 60s, British and Australian writers entertained the possibility that there might actually be far deeper American influences at work in the everyday lives of workers – beyond or beneath the superstructural, popular-cultural attractions that have preoccupied recent critics. By the early 50s, a field of argument was established, involving questions of class, power, culture and economics: a field expressing the 3 common anxieties that consumerism and suburban living transformed working peoples’ consciousness and sense of community, and that America was actively and intentionally promoted to working-class communities as the key model for social change and new arrangements of living. In contrast to recent cultural critiques, which generally assess American influence in terms of popular culture, British and Australian debates in the 50s and 60s were moved by the common assumption that Americanisation had to be understood as a series of complex interrelationships between the cultural, the social and the economic. In both countries, the economic and social philosophies of John Maynard Keynes and Ernest Beveridge were crucial to the unwritten compacts between traditionally competing interests, forming the basis of the welfare-state capitalism developed after World War Two. The Right settled for Keynes-Beveridge inspired state intervention in economic management and a commitment to full employment; the Left accepted its role within the overall framework of capitalism. As central works by the architects of British and Australian post-war welfare states reveal – Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money (1935) and Beveridge’s Full Employment in a Free Society (1944) – the endorsement of money- making and a healthy private economic sector was undisguised. Their aim was to ameliorate capitalism, not overthrow it. Both saw America’s high levels of consumption as something to emulate, and their ‘third way’ economic management was designed to extend consumerism to a greater proportion of the population. Some redistribution of private income and state-based intervention to achieve higher levels of employment were necessary, but the overall aim was to stimulate consumption – particularly among the working class. In developing mechanisms to stabilise capital, Keynes and Beveridge crucially accepted the likelihood that America would remain 4 economically hegemonic, and their intention was to foster and work with that hegemony. In recent decades, when cultural studies has engaged with the topic of Americanisation the idea of ‘intention’ has become almost anathema; and there is a reluctance to debate the concept in the economic, political and class terms of the 50s and 60s. One explanation for this narrowing of the Americanisation debate is the success of theory itself, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. In the 50s and 60s, cultural theory was more obviously an ‘organic’ outgrowth of lived experience and a product of very public discussions about social change as it was unfolding. In the latter twentieth century, as poststructuralisms and postmodernisms cascaded, there was a sense that theory became almost disembodied: a discrete intellectual pursuit, disconnected from the society it claimed to describe or analyse. In the theoretically dense atmosphere of the early 90s, Andrew Milner wrote that Raymond Williams was right to suggest that theory had a vital role to play in transforming society. Milner added, however, that to affirm this was to break decisively with postmodernist cultural forms and their variously structuralist, poststructuralist, post-marxist, and poststructuralist feminist theoretical limitations. Milner shared Williams’ scepticism about the type of ‘pseudo-radical’ intellectual practice which could unproblematically accept the complete blurring of ‘minority culture’ and ‘mass communications’. The older modernisms and minority institutions which once ‘threatened to destabilise the certainties of bourgeois life’ had become a new ‘“post-modernist” establishment’ that accepted the deep structures of human inadequacy and transferred its deep structures into effectively popular cultural forms, in film, TV and fiction’. Thus, postmodernist intellectuals paradoxically looked for resistances to this culture in its own mass media artefacts (Contemporary Cultural 5 Theory 122-123). Critiques of power were displaced by celebrations of pleasure; fantasies of resistance and empowerment superseded the imperative to examine the productive capacities of culture industries. This theoretical turn to populism was blatantly impatient with the very idea of manipulation; and its imaginary public was endowed with endless aptitudes for decoding, appropriating and reworking anything consumer-capitalism produced (Jameson Late Marxism 142). Dick Hebdige’s Hiding in the Light (1988) and Philip and Roger Bell’s Americanization and Australia (1998) usefully illustrated how this utopian impulse in cultural theory decisively shifted the direction