Abstract
This paper explores the complex dynamics surrounding Australia Day, a national holiday marked on January 26, which has become a focal point of contention in contemporary Australian society. We analyze the contrasting perspectives on this day, particularly the divergent views held by non-Indigenous Australians and First Australians (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples). Drawing on the literature of collective memory, we investigate how historical narratives are constructed, contested and utilised in shaping national identity and values. Through an examination of social representations of history, we illustrate how collective memories can serve to reinforce dominant group identities while marginalising alternative narratives. This paper argues that the ongoing debates surrounding Australia Day reflect broader issues of historical recognition, accountability, and the implications of collective memory in contemporary intergroup relations.
Introduction
Australia Day, celebrated annually on January 26, commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in 1788, marking the beginning of British colonization. Officially recognised as a national holiday since 1935, Australia Day has evolved into a celebration characterised by community events, festivities, and national pride. (Pennay & Bongiorno, 2019) However, this date is also a source of significant controversy, particularly among Indigenous Australians, who refer to it as “Invasion Day”, “Survival Day” or “Day of Mourning.” The stark contrast in these commemorative practices raises critical questions about how collective memories are constructed in the present and how these memories shape national identity and historical recognition.
The concept of collective memory refers to the shared understandings and interpretations of the past that inform a group’s identity, values and norms. (Halbwachs, 1992) These memories are not static; they are actively constructed and contested within the social context. The tension surrounding Australia Day epitomises the struggle between dominant historical narratives and the lived experiences of marginalised groups. This paper seeks to elucidate the mechanisms through which collective memories are formed and the implications of these processes for contemporary commemorative practices.
Collective Memory and National Identity
Collective memory serves as a crucial foundation for national identity. It encompasses the shared recollections of a group’s past, which are integral to defining social norms and values. In the case of Australia, the dominant narrative surrounding Australia Day emphasises themes of national pride, achievement and unity. This perspective often overlooks the colonial violence and dispossession experienced by Indigenous peoples. (Kleist, 2017)
The construction of collective memory is influenced by various factors, including political discourse, education, and media representations. Dominant groups often shape historical narratives to serve their interests, leading to selective interpretations of events that reinforce a positive self-image. (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) In Australia, the glorification of colonial history is evident in official commemorations, which tend to minimise the injustices faced by Indigenous communities.
The Role of Historical Negation
The phenomenon of historical negation plays a significant role in shaping collective memories. Historical negation refers to the dismissal or minimisation of past injustices, often employed by dominant groups to absolve themselves of accountability for historical wrongdoings. (Sibley et al., 2008) In the context of Australia Day, the narrative promoted by some segments of society frames colonialism as a benign process that led to the development of a prosperous nation, effectively sidelining the experiences of First Australians.
Prime Minister John Howard’s refusal to issue an official apology to Indigenous peoples during the Reconciliation Convention in 2001 exemplifies this tendency. By characterising colonial violence as mere “blemishes” on an otherwise glorious history, Howard sought to maintain a positive national identity while deflecting responsibility for past injustices. (Riggs & Augoustinos, 2005) This selective memory serves to reinforce the status quo and perpetuate systemic inequalities faced by Indigenous communities.
Contestation of Collective Memories
Contrasting with the dominant narratives are the voices of Indigenous Australians and their allies, who actively contest the historical representations that underpin Australia Day celebrations. For many Indigenous peoples, January 26 symbolises the beginning of a traumatic history marked by dispossession, violence and cultural genocide. The movement to change the date of Australia Day reflects a broader demand for recognition, justice and reconciliation.
Protests held on Australia Day by First Australians highlight the need for a more inclusive and accurate representation of history. Activists argue that acknowledging the legacy of colonialism is essential for fostering understanding and healing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. (Bond, 2015; Korff, 2021) This perspective aligns with research indicating that collective acknowledgment of historical wrongdoings is vital for promoting intergroup reconciliation and social cohesion. (Brown et al., 2008; ?ehaji?-Clancy et al., 2011)
The Importance of Historical Recognition
Research has shown that recognising the impact of historical injustices can lead to greater support for reparative actions and policies aimed at addressing systemic inequalities. (Starzyk & Ross, 2008) In Australia, acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonialism is crucial for promoting meaningful change and fostering a more equitable society. The push for a date change for Australia Day is not merely a symbolic gesture; it represents a call for a broader reckoning with the nation’s past and a commitment to addressing the injustices faced by Indigenous peoples.
In contrast, the continued celebration of Australia Day on January 26 without recognition of its implications for Indigenous communities perpetuates a narrative of historical erasure and marginalisation. As noted by Liu and Hilton (2005), how a country represents its history significantly influences contemporary intergroup relations and the actions taken in the present.
Conclusion
The contrasting perspectives surrounding Australia Day exemplify the complexities of collective memory construction and its impact on national identity. The dominant narratives that celebrate colonial history often overshadow the experiences of Indigenous Australians, leading to significant social tensions and calls for change. Acknowledging the legacy of colonialism is essential for fostering reconciliation and addressing the systemic inequalities faced by Indigenous communities.
As Australia grapples with its history, the ongoing debates surrounding Australia Day serve as a reminder of the importance of collective memory in shaping contemporary society. By critically engaging with historical narratives and promoting inclusive representations of the past, Australia can move toward a more equitable future that honors the experiences of all its peoples. The path to reconciliation requires not only recognition of past wrongs but also a commitment to addressing the ongoing impacts of colonialism in the present.
References
• Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared Beliefs in a Society: An Approach for the Study of Social Beliefs. New York: Psychology Press.
• Bilali, R. (2013). National Identity and the Armenian Genocide: The Case of Turkey. Journal of Genocide Research, 15(3), 271-290.
• Blight, D. W. (2009). American History: A New Perspective. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Bond, C. (2015). Australia Day: A Day of Mourning or Celebration? The Conversation.
• Brown, R., González, R., Zagefka, H., Manzi, J., & Cehajic-Clancy, S. (2008). Minority Perspectives on the Past: The Role of Collective Guilt in Conflict Resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 351-368.
• ?ehaji?-Clancy, S., Brown, R., & González, R. (2011). The Role of Collective Guilt in Promoting Reconciliation: The Case of the Srebrenica Genocide. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(5), 755-775.
• de Saint-Laurent, C., & Obradovi?, S. (2019). The Social Representation of History: Implications for Identity and Intergroup Relations. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1120-1141.
• Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). The Role of Group-Based Guilt in the Responses to Historical Injustice. Social Justice Research, 16(2), 109-126.
• Figueiredo, C., Pires, P., & Kuo, A. (2015). The Distance of the Past: Temporal Perception and Attitudes toward Redress. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 476-493.
• Halbwachs, M. (1992). On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hirschberger, G., & Imhoff, R. (2016). Historical Memory and National Identity: The Case of the Holocaust in Germany. European Journal of Personality, 30(2), 139-150.
• Hirst, W., & Manier, E. (2008). Towards a Psychology of Collective Memory. Memory, 16(3), 183-198.
• Kleist, J. (2017). The Politics of Memory in Australia: Commemorating the Past. Australian Historical Studies, 48(1), 1-20.
• Korff, J. (2021). Australia Day: Indigenous Perspectives and the Push for Change. National Indigenous Times.
• Kurti?, T., & Ross, M. (2010). Historical Silence: The Role of Commemoration in Shaping National Identity. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 607-622.
• Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the Past Weighs on the Present: Toward a Model of Historical Negation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 795-810.
• Liu, J. H., & Turner, J. C. (1999). The Social Identity Perspective: Intergroup Relations and Collective Memory. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 629-645.
• Maddison, S. (2012). The Politics of Recognition: Indigenous Rights in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 77-93.
• Pennay, D., & Bongiorno, F. (2019). Australia Day: A Historical Perspective. Australian Historical Studies, 50(2), 143-159.
• Peetz, J., & O’Brien, A. (2010). The Role of Collective Memory in the Construction of National Identity. Journal of Social Issues, 66(4), 735-750.
• Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2000). Self and Nation: Categorization, Collective Memory, and Social Identity. Social Identity, 4(1), 1-25.
• Riggs, E. M., & Augoustinos, M. (2005). The Politics of Apology: The Role of Collective Memory in Indigenous-Non-Indigenous Relations. Journal of Australian Studies, 29(2), 57-69.
• Sahdra, B. K., & Ross, M. (2007). The Role of Collective Memory in Shaping Group Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 634-647.
• Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2008). Historical Negation and Opposition to Social Change: The Case of M?ori Rights in New Zealand. Political Psychology, 29(4), 557-573.
• Starzyk, K., & Ross, M. (2008). The Role of Collective Memory in the Support for Reparations: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 353-367.
