This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 22 November 2014, At: 18:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Australian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjau20

At the round tableRobin TrotterPublished online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: Robin Trotter (1999) At the round table, Journal of Australian Studies, 23:62, 139-149, DOI:10.1080/14443059909387513

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14443059909387513

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

h a n c o c kh i s t o r y

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

Robin Trotter

W K Hancock's Australia (1930) has been treated as a seminal work on Australiansociety from 'Invasion' to 1930,1 whilst a contemporary review aptly described it as'an economic and social survey' that used historical illustrations 'to explain theforces and influence which are shaping our destiny'.2 Since its first appearance,Australia has been the topic of analysis and comment. Writing in Meanjin in 1968,Bob Connell claimed this work had become an historiographical resource that providedthe 'main themes for almost every interpretation of Australia and Australian historythat has been written since'.3 Connell identified its dominant historical themes asland conquest, development of sectional conflict and the emergence of nationalismand a democratic order. Focus on rural interests at the expense of urban developmentand the construction of nationalism and democratic reform as part of a workingclass ethos are regarded by Connell as weaknesses in the work. One could add tothese omissions a sketchy treatment of Aborigines and women in Australian history.

On the book's cultural side the dominant themes include: claims for a nationalegalitarian ethos, a view of politics as non-doctrinaire struggles over benefits bestowedby a welfare state, stress on developmentalism and the levelling nature of theAustralian ethos and an attack on the incompetence of local leadership. Despitethese gaps, its poor analysis, lack of evidence and a number of contradictions, Connelladmits the strengths of the work are its synthesising of traditions and themes, asense of dynamics of Australian society and historical process, and an appreciationof economics in understanding historical and contemporary events.

A more critical view is Tim Rowse's 1976 discussion of Hancock's 'Liberalism'."Hancock's equation of Australian civilisation with nationhood is, for Rowse, an'attempt to express the contingent needs of a class in crisis, in a language andframework of universal historical "necessity"' whilst his ideological orientation istoward defending 'British interests in particular and Australian capitalist interests ingeneral'.5 Hancock is described by Rowse as a 'curious maverick' who was theproduct of a 'fervent radical liberalism', an 'intellectual Australianism', and a disdainfor 'strident conservatism of right wing populist groups'. This contrasts with thepro-imperial and anti working-class stances Rowse has also identified m Australia.To explain these contradictions, Rowse examines shifts in professional theories ofeconomy from those focusing on social amelioration and economic optimism, to amore scientistic approach, an approach reinforced through the contingency of theeconomic crisis. Rowse does bring into consideration both intellectual and socialcontexts of production however in focusing more on economic contexts there is atendency to overlook the importance of intellectual contexts such as those exploredbelow and that, I suggest, were critical to the production oí Australia.

In his 'reflections' on Hancock—his life and work—KosmasTsokhas highlightsthe importance of imperial studies in Hancock's contributions to history. AlthoughTsokhas largely ignores Australia, he does note characteristics of Hancock's lifeand writing that are critical to my re-appraisal. He refers to Hancock's concernwith the 'erosion and disintegration' of the empire,6 preference for rural over urban

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

life and a strong 'anti-suburbanism'7 and belief that 'the dominions asserted theirautonomy to a considerable extent because of the political values and institutionsthey inherited from Britain, and refashioned in different times and places'.8 InNineteenth Century and After vol xciv, 1933, Hancock noted 'the tendency ofsocial and political developments in England to follow a course already mappedout in Australia'.9 This argument he had rehearsed m Australia. In the 1930 textHancock also seems to have been exploring the notion that the 'periphery was asactive and powerful a force on the development of the empire as was themétropole'.10 Tsokhas notes that Hancock, although he might 'admire' marxistsfor asserting the primacy of economics, was strongly opposed to 'economicdeterminism', his own position being, as I propose below, more inclined toward an'environmental determinism'."

The intention of this article is not to question or refute these insightful interpretationsof Hancock and his writing, but rather to augment the existing views on Australiawith a reading of the intellectual contexts of its production. I do this by drawing onresearch on the Round Table movement undertaken by Leonie Foster.12 By gainingaccess to confidential records, Foster has been able to reveal often surprisingmembership and authorship of, until now, anonymous Round Table journal articles.Her research has revealed the presence of an influential network of intellectual elitesin Australia since the first decade of the twentieth century and one which was onlyfinally put to rest in 1984—a network which, at its peak, was prominent in or closeto the corridors of power and even in decline, has, according to Foster, left anideological and historiographical legacy.13

The Round Table was established at the end of the nineteenth century. It was anexclusive and secretive organisation headquartered in London but went on to establishbranches throughout the British empire. Its area of interest was the empire and anyissues pertinent to its health and continuing existence. Although the movement wassmall, it conducted its campaign through regular meetings of local groups, generatingand disseminating debates through the Round Table journal. Due to the journal'spolicy of anonymity and its small circulation as well as the movement's secretiveoperation, most commentators have chosen to ignore the influence of the Round Table.

The following discussion also draws on Lionel Curtis' The Problem of theCommonwealth (1916) report prepared for the Round Table on the problem of:'how a British citizen in the Dominions can acquire the same control of foreignpolicy as one domiciled in the British Isles'.14 The crucial issue underlying thisproblem, according to Curtis, was whether the dominions were to becomeindependent republics or remain within the commonwealth. In Australia theimmediate threat of republicanism had largely been routed, nevertheless, otherbogies lurked; an external threat was posed by Japan's militarisation andexpansionist policies, there was a perceived internal threat in the form of socialist'red raggers', and there was widespread unease about the Américanisation ofAustralian society. These perceived threats to Australian security and culture, itis suggested, were hidden factors that shaped Hancock's Australia project.

Initially I will look at the production ofAustralia within the context of the RoundTable intellectual network that had at its base an 'ideology of Commonwealth'. Ithen move on to look at the links between elements of this ideology and Hancock'sinterpretation of Australia past and present. This is substantiated by revealing the

141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Country and Calling

close relationships between Hancock and other 'Men of the Round Table'. Inaddition, an alternative interpretation will be proposed for one aspect of Foster'sargument in High Hopes, that is that the Australian Round Table placed Australia'sinterests ahead of those of the empire. Finally, it will be argued that cultural productionis shaped also by specific historical contexts. This will entail a brief excursion intosome historical events surrounding the production of Australia. The 1920s havegenerally been portrayed as a time of prosperity and growth—the pre-depressionboom years. This orthodox historiographical concept of the 1920s also depicts thedecade as one of economic, political and social conservatism. However, an alternativehistoriography suggests that economic problems and political and social unrest existedbeneath the rhetoric of progress, peace and prosperity.

In positing an ideology of commonwealth as the organising principle of the RoundTable movement, this study is informed by Gramsei's concept of ideology as a systemof ideas coalescing around a 'unifying principle' to construct a unified set of values.15

In this case the 'unifying principle' is identified as the idea of a commonwealth ofnations with the complementary ideological elements being, inter alia, specificformulations of the meaning of family and nationalism, belief in white supremacy,social darwinism and an organic concept of society. This ideology of commonwealthprovided the impetus to the activities of the Round Table movement and to theproduction of both Curtis's book and Hancock's Australia and, later his Survey ofthe British Commonwealth Affairs.16

Briefly, the Round Table appears to have taken over the agenda of the nineteenthcentury Imperial Federation League which had been a public and vocal advocate ofimperial federation and the British ideal, both concerns that were losing public supportas the Empire went into decline.17 An additional factor behind the league's demisein Australia was the fact that federation was in the air. Thus the league's dissolutionin 1893 reflected a shift in the structure of world power and local political events.The Round Table movement differed from its precursor in that it was a covertorganisation that directed its efforts toward a small but powerful audience. It alsohad its own motivating force—that of Lord Milner and a group of officers who hadbeen involved in political moves culminating in the union of South Africa. Thedesire to protect the British empire and belief that this could best be done through aunion of self-governing dominions underlay the group's formation and activities.The group's interest in imperial matters is evident from its involvement in variousimperial conferences, intervention in the Irish constitutional crisis and policy decisionsin respect to India and numerous dominion issues.

From the London base, the Round Table sent its envoy, Curtis, out to the dominionsduring 1909 and 1910. Curtis was armed with copies of the 'Green Memorandum',a document which outlined the movement's aim of imperial unity and plans for animperial federation. Whilst in Australia, Curtis organised private meetings withinfluential men across the spectrum of economic, business, academic and publicspheres and, although it was generally Round Table policy to exclude politicians, hedid make personal contact with a number of political leaders — Senator Walker,John Watson (formerly a Labor PM), and Alfred Deakin, as well as meetings withvarious state Labor and Liberal Party groups. He also gained the special support ofthe governor of NSW — Lord Chelmsford. The result of this visit was theestablishment of Round Table groups in each Australian capital.

142

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

Curtis aimed for a broad cross section of prominent men yet each Australiangroup had its distinctive pattern of membership. In Sydney there was a strongcontingent of academics (Professors Peden, MacCallum, David, Holme and Wilson),a high proportion of Australian born and a strong labor orientation. The Melbournegroup showed a strong link to the Imperial Federation League with a lone laborsympathiser (F W Eggleston), and a high proportion of academics and publicservants. Whilst few invitations for the Melbourne group went out to men involvedin pastoral or rural interests, this was not the case in Adelaide where Curtis'scompanion, John Dove, selected men associated with pastoral interests and recruiteda much smaller representation from both the legal and academic fraternities. NoLabor sympathisers were invited to join in South Australia. No academics wereincluded in the foundation membership in Western Australia. This group containeda rather mixed bag — a pastoralist, several bankers, legal men, the AnglicanBishop of Perth and a trade union official and workers' advocate in industrialdisputes. In issuing invitations for membership, Curtis and Dove maintained theRound Table pattern of involving leaders and decision makers. Thus, as theAustralian introductions were arranged through a system of clubs and personalfriendships the resulting groups were inevitably formed from members of a particularsocio-economic strata and existing elite networks.

Hancock's involvement with the Round Table was twofold; first as a member ofthe Round Table in England and Australia; and secondly through a close personalfriendship with Lionel Curtis. Hancock first become involved with the Round Tablewhen studying at All Souls, College at Oxford. Foster argues that Hancock was'beguiled by the human warmth and shrewd indoctrination of Curtis, whoseassociation with Oxford and All Souls was life long'.18 A close friendship developedbetween the two men and through Curtis's influence Hancock was invited to jointhe Round Table in 1923. The two friends would attend London meetings together,afterwards joining other members for long debates and then finally they would returnto Curtis' flat for the night.19 On his return to Australia in 1926 Hancockjoined theAdelaide group and when he again went back to England in 1934 to take up a postat the University of Birmingham he rejoined the parent Round Table. Hancockterminated his membership because of his opposition to a move towards appeasementof Hitler by some members of the group.20 This extended membership is indicativeof a strong commitment to the Round Table by Hancock yet is also typical of RoundTable membership patterns.

Evidence of the strong friendship between these two men and the influence theolder man had on Hancock, is a comment made by Hancock in 1937:

Of course, sons develop characteristics and attitudes distinct from those of their parents,but the real relationship is not shaken off. I wonder if you see this relationship of me toyou in my volume (Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs). It is there. Your thought isthroughout the centre of reference, even when the reference is critical.21

A comparison of the Australian Round Table membership list22 with Hancock's'recommended list for reading' in Australia shows a high correlation.23 Part 1covering 'Foundations', Hancock refers his readers to the works of Ernest Scott,Edward Shann, Griffith Taylor, S H Roberts, R C Mills, Walter Murdoch, B Higgins,V S Clarke and Myra Willard. It is now known that Scott, Shann, Taylor, Roberts,

143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Country and Calling

Mills and Murdoch were Round Table membersand that Higgins maintainedcorresponding contact with the parent body as well as keeping himself informed oflocal activities. Economists to whom Hancock refers his readers were nearly allRound Table members: F W Eggleston, R C Mills, C H Wickens, and F Bland;whilst on political subjects the writers recommended were again members ofthatselect group: G V Portus, Meredith Atkinson, J G Latham and F W Eggleston. Anindication of the areas considered irrelevant to the Round Table project was theexclusion of literary and artistic figures. Hence, it could be conjectured that thesketchy treatment given to literature and art in Australia reflected Hancock'spriorities as well as those of the Round Table. Moreover, ideological differencesmay have been a major reason for the exclusion of any artistic fraternity from theRound Table network.

Professor Ernest Scott was a foundation member of the Melbourne group and aclose friend of Alfred Deakin who, although not a member, also maintained acorrespondence with Curtis and an interest in the Melbourne group and its activities.As professor of history at Melbourne University, Scott was also to have a powerfulinfluence on a whole generation of historians through his teaching and writings.Hancock was one of these students and in his autobiography, Country and Calling,recalls how Scott's enthusiasm and teaching methods instilled in him an exhilarationfor modern history. He also found'that my master was also my friend'.24 Anotherteacher at Melbourne University who, Hancock says, 'left a permanent mark uponmy mind' was Professor Harrison Moore.25 Moore, a Round Table member, wasalso a legal writer, constitutional advisor to both the "Victorian and federal governments,delegate to the League of Nations Assembly and member of the DominionsLegislation Council.26

Hancock's first position after completing his studies at Melbourne University wasas an assistant lecturer at the University of Western Australia under Professor Shannwho lectured in both history and economics. Shann's Round Table involvement wouldhave grown out of his membership on the executive council of the "Victorian branch ofthe Imperial Federation League. He was also one of the seven major economistsadvising the Commonwealth Bank in 1931 over the battle of the plans. He was afrequent contributor of anonymous articles to the Round Table journal and also producedpamphlets for the public and commercial interests covering business trends and economicand financial issues.27 In Country and Calling, Hancock pays homage to Shann's'pioneer book' Economic History of Australia as well as his commitment to hisprofession, his students and his university. Here again, Hancock made a personalfriend: 'He told me that I struck sparks from him. It was he who struck sparks fromme. And all the time he was thinking of my future far more than his own' .28 It wasShann who urged Hancock to submit for a Rhodes scholarship.

We now know that those teachers and lecturers who had most impact on Hancockwere also Round Table members. At the same time, the intellectual field on whichHancock drew in writing Australia also included a broader network of academicswhere again a strong contingent of Round Table contributors can be identified.

The basis of Curtis's agenda can be identified as a concern with the commonwealthand belief that the commonwealth stood for self-government; it was 'the greatestinstitution in the world for enabling men to realise the duty of governing themselves' .29

In this model the route to freedom was through self-government and throughout this

144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

book Curtis kept returning to this refrain. The model also provided for individual,separate, unique national communities:

Nationalism implies community or potential community of race, and consanguinity isnever impossible to peoples who live within one frontier. But if nationalism is to berealised it must also mean a steady progress towards a certain community in thethings of everyday life.30

Nor were these 'national communities' expected to duplicate the English 'system',its 'social policy' or its characteristic 'types'. In respect to the system, Curtisperceived a system based on unity in diversity:

The British Commonwealth... has succeeded by consciously abandoning the idea ofuniting (its territories) as parts of one nation. Its whole system is based upon theassumption that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are each free todevelop a nationalism of their own distinct from English nationalism, as Englishnationalism itself is distinct — a system — so comprehensive that there is roomwithin it for many nations to develop, each in harmony with the utterly differentclimatic conditions under which they live.31

He acknowledged the importance of disparate social environments with distincthistorical determinants:

They must each have governments of their own answerable to their several publicopinions, in order that the social policy of each may be moulded by the social expe-rience of each, which is radically different from that of the others.32

And he foresaw the emergence of distinct national 'types':

The inhabitants of all new countries aspire to produce a distinctive nationality oftheir own and are eminently right in doing so ... The world is richer for the varietyoftypes ... The spread of the British Commonwealth over so large a share of thevacant territories of the world has not meant and cannot mean the spread of theBritish nation.33

Throughout Australia Hancock built up an image of the Australian 'type'. Heargued that the '98%' British nationality have, through a confusion of stocks andclasses, produced an Australian type closer to the average Briton than could befound anywhere else.34 However, it was in the Australian character where adistinct national type became evident. Hancock's Australian was good tempered,even handed, disliked refusing favours, was matter of fact, distrustful of fine phrases,understood hard realities yet was incurably romantic in politics.35 He wasintellectually la2y.3S He accepted middling standards in morals, manners, knowledgeand the arts and in science looked for practical ends. He was hedonistic, enviousof those better off and thought himself better than the next person.37 On the otherhand he was intolerant of oppression, sympathetic to the underdog and preparedto pull down the powerful.38 His political concept of democracy was a simplisticdemand for a 'fair and reasonable' justice, and he relied on the state to administerthis justice through individual rights.39

145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Country and Calling

Curtis too stressed the effects of environment and history in determining nationaltypes:

Certain great principles of life, such as the principle of self government, will, as timegoes on, become more and more a common inheritance of mankind. But side by sidewith this spread of ideas, which gradually become more generally applicable to hu-man society everywhere, will be seen the development of national types appropriateto different countries, to their various climates and to the several histories of thepeople inhabiting them.*0 [emphasis added]

An analysis of Australia reveals an 'environmental determinism' underlyingHancock's portrait of the Australian character, although historical events are alsocredited with shaping national characteristics.

From 'Invasion' to the present, geographical factors of land formation, climate,rainfall, distance and natural resources, have fixed the 'economic frontiers'. Theyhave also variously shaped the economic development of the states that have, inturn, determined different political histories. For example, South Australia, Hancockclaimed was best suited to 'yeomen' settlement and wheat cultivation, so this colonyavoided the bitter land struggles that prevailed in other colonies, especially NSWwhere the land was more suited to large runs and squatter monopolies. This landmonopolisation by a squattocracy generated class conflict, culminating in a classstruggle between squatters and the landless majority that manifest itself in a politicalform. From this politicised land struggle, and the perceived Englishry of the squatters,Hancock argues, 'Australian nationalism took definite form' and created a style ofdemocracy entwined with nationalism.41

Hancock's 'environmental determinism' is also evident in his concern at an unequaldistribution of natural resources between the states that shaped diverse economicstructures and was further entrenched in federation, ultimately resulting in the erectionof tariff barriers. In this construction, Australian's protectionist policies, which areidentified as underlying causes for the economic problems emerging in the late 1920s,were themselves determined by Australia's unique geographical features. These samegeographical features Hancock also credited with having shaped the Australian's attitudeto the state. The harsh environment called for collective action to attain mastery ofthe continent, however isolation, drought and the continent's vastness precluded thisstrategy. Settlers' needs, as well as the state's drive to increase population and growth,were met through state intervention in the programs for immigration, land settlement,railway construction, and water storage and circulation.

Along with the environment, specific events in Australian history were identifiedby Hancock as critical to the formation of a unique national character; the importationof chartist ideals and their entrenchment through the land struggles; the gold rushesthat brought into the colonies a new vigor and sped up democratic processes; andthe development of 'collectivist manifestos' through trade unions and the LaborParty. In his chapter on foreign policy, Hancock raised points that closely parallelCurtis's agenda. Under 'policies of security' pursued by Australia, Hancock discussedthe white Australia policy and a 'Geographical policy' aimed at excluding potentialenemies from nearby islands. Together these policies would:

146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

Keep Australia 98% British. We will not permit any strong Power to establish itself inour vicinity. We ourselves must hold the islands which cover our continent. But weourselves are a small nation, a weak people. Our security becomes a liability, not onlyupon ourselves, but upon the whole British Empire. In so far as we realise this liabilityand shoulder the responsibilities which it imposes, we are a nation. In so far as wedeny the liability and shirk the responsibilities, we remain a colony.42

Hancock was critical of the emphasis Australia placed on the Pacific area and quotedProfessor Toynbee: 'that the world as a whole had become what only Europe hadbeen before — that is, a one and indivisible field of international action'.43 Nor didHancock support the suggestion that Australia should turn to the United States asimperial ties were loosened. Instead he asked: 'Could the U.S give to Australia thesecurity which she now enjoys in virtue of her honorary co-operation with her fellowmembers of the British Commonwealth?' and concluded that Australia's:44

Habits, her interests, her sympathies, and her honour, all combine to keep her withinthe British Commonwealth ofNations... [this] means, first of all that Australia is a freecountry with unfettered rights of self government, a national status recognised byforeign nations, and a distinct personality in International Law.45

In this chapter parallels are apparent with Curtis's concept of commonwealth as aunion of self-governing nations, united through a common interest in determiningtheir destinies in war and peace. Thus, Hancock in Australia both re-presentsCurtis's concept of commonwealth whilst actively constructing Australia within thisconceptual framework as a bulwark to perceived internal and external threats.

In establishing the intellectual network within which Hancock produced^iis/rij//a,Foster's account of the Round Table has been drawn on extensively. However, inrespect to the Australian Round Table, she states that it was not composed of archconservative imperialists, dedicated to promoting unpopular notions of the imperialfederation, if necessary at the expense of Australian interests; it comprised, instead,an elite network of prominent men in positions of power or opinion shapers thattransposed Curtis's order of priorities because 'they believed that, when forced tomake a choice, their duty and service were first to their own society, and then to theCommonwealth'.46 It would appear that here Foster is confusing empire andEngland. Referring back to Curtis, it will be seen that he clearly differentiatedbetween Britain and the empire using the term 'Commonwealth' to differentiatebetween concepts of empire and concepts of a union of self-governing nations:'Britain is not the Commonwealth, but merely a part of it'.47 Curtis accepted thatpeople of the dominions, even those with British blood and British traditions, 'wouldrenounce the Commonwealth sooner than their rights of self-government if ever theywere forced to choose between them' .4S Therefore, it seems apparent that AustralianRound Table members were not 'transposing Curtis's priorities' but were, in fact,fulfilling his expectations of nationalist elites.

Although Australia was two years in its writing, the 1920s could be considered asthe period of its production. However there is a degree of circularity in looking intothis period for evidence of determinants of production when the work in questionhas become the historical reference point for that period. The strategy to evade this

147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Country and Calling

'dead end' is to firstly look at the orthodox interpretation and then counter this byexamining events from an opposing perspective.

Contemporary issues on which Hancock focuses were issues having an historicalcontinuity—national security (protectionism and the white Australia policy), federalversus state powers, population, (desirable size and quality), and state intervention(wage fixing systems, immigration policies, state socialism). Through popularisingand establishing an historical validity for these concerns, Hancock's views havebecome the dominant view of the 1920s.

First, despite his tendency to equivocation, in the writing of Australia Hancockemerges as anti-protectionist, arguing that the economic limits of tariffs had beenreached and protection was threatening economic prosperity; anti-centralist andadvocate for a system of 'checks and balances' to ensure equal distribution of statepower. Hancock's position can also be seen as anti-state socialism on economicgrounds and a claimed mediocratic administration. He is anti-immigration and arguesfor natural growth that is attuned to economic prosperity and environmental factorsand also argues strongly for the 'policy of immigration exclusion' (the white Australiapolicy) for security reasons and to fulfill responsibilities to the British empire toretain '98%' British population.

Although Hancock takes economic conditions into consideration these becomesubsumed to political forces in his analysis. On one hand Hancock can claim that inAustralia 'there is no class except in the economic sense'49 whilst also making thecase that Australian nationalism 'took definite form in the class struggle betweenthe landless majority and the land monopolising squatters' .30 On the other, he assertsthat the class struggle was 'softened by the mediation of those 'tolérants' andenthusiasts of the middle classes who voted for Labor or the Deakin Liberals andapplauded when the State intervened to protect the weak, to annex industry as anew province for law and order'.51 In the next instance he is expressing concernthat the landless majority may become a 'master class'. The state thus becomesthe area of contestation and struggle at an economic level is transformed to a politicalcontest. The concept of resistance to exploitation—be it at the personal, communityor industry level—has no validity in such a framework.

In discussing these contemporary issues from a liberal perspective, Hancockis also able to overlook situations indicative of alternative interpretation. Highunemployment throughout the 1920s, incidents of strikes, stoppages, lockouts andprotest meetings have led some historians to claim that the depression should bedated from the early-to-mid 1920s.52 Numerous enquiries and commissions onwages, unemployment, insurance schemes for unemployed are further evidenceof the state responding to social pressures. Even as early as 1920 food priceswere high enough to lead to housewives' associations being formed around thenation to organise co-operative buying schemes and boycotts as well as conductinga political fight for lower prices.53

The post-war return of ex-servicemen not only aggravated unemployment buthad a social and political impact. It has been frequently argued that these mencame home with strong conservative views, strong enough to be recruited into rightwing 'secret armies' (a la Lawrence's Kangaroo) that could be called up to breakstrikes, rout socialist groups and generally act as 'counter revolutionary' forces.54

The early 1920s also saw a new form of agitation. Aboriginal activists and whitesupporters were becoming vocal over the inhuman policies and practices implemented

148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the Round Table

by the state against Aborigines. To fight for change, an Australian AboriginesProgress Association was formed in 1925.

In such chaotic times, an explanation for the threats to economic and socialstability that had both geographical and historical elements but could be also connectedto political parties, and more specifically inadequate, incompetent and unimaginativepoliticians and bad policies may appear uncomforting. However, a whig frameworkthat promises evolutionary progress towards an ideal future can transform despairto hope. As the environmental barriers to economic progress were conquered throughscience and technology, so the Australian 'type', currently intolerant and crudelynationalistic, may ultimately develop depth and maturity. From this point, the writingof Australia may be construed as a step along this path, an assessment of the past,and explanation for the present and a pointer to the future — but a future to befound also in the past: 'we must retrace our steps towards—not to—the liberalismof the last century'.53

When Hancock claimed that 'every Australian party and Government' acceptedthat Australia's future lay within 'a family of Nations', he was also expressing hisown belief.56 So, through an ideology of commonwealth, Hancock was able toreconcile his 'deep, passionate love for Australia' with a faith in the civilising role ofan imported British culture — a culture which, through a process of socialexperimentation in a new land would bring true nationhood where the 'AustralianBritish' would become 'Independent Australian-Britons'.57

Hancock in the writing of Australia thus kept faith with the Round Table creedand fulfilled a role within the intellectual network of the Round Table aimed atretaining Australia within the commonwealth family and developing full self-government, whilst contemporary acceptance and later 'canonisation' of his viewseffectively closed analysis and discussion on radical aspects of the 1920s. At thispoint in his career, it could be said Hancock was truly a man with 'High Hopes' inthe civilising force of the commonwealth.

This article has taken up many points already raised in previous assessments ofAustralia and Hancock, however by addressingthese topics through a specific framework— the intellectual network of the Round Table and its ideology of commonwealth —both work and writer can be seen in a new light. The production of Australia maytherefore be seen as a concrete example of the work of a specific group of intellectualswho made vital and ongoing contributions to Australian culture. Their ideological workgenerated and disseminated ideals inherent in the concept of a family of self-governingnations—a family bom out of and carrying on a European tradition—but shaped to theneeds of a young nation approach political and social maturity.

Endnotes on pages 252-4

149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 18:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014