The monoculture myth at the heart of Hansonism

Australia has never been a monoculture, and importing American-style grievance policies only distracts from the real challenges faced by ordinary Australians, writes Rob Powell.

IT WAS 1995 and little-known Melbourne funk band Cranky were released ‘Australia should not be America‘soon Hit the airwaves on Triple J.

In doing so, they forced us to confront a broader question: What is Australian culture?

They said that Australian culture began with the denial of Indigenous culture, captured along the lines of: “40,000 beers cannot erase 40,000 years.” This is a particularly poignant observation, given that this article was prepared in accordance with Australian markings. NAIDOC Week.

At the time, the song was primarily a warning against the importation of American consumer culture: its brands, its values, and the cultural flattening they caused. Thirty years later, the warning still resonates. In fact, this may be even more urgent now, given the danger that American-style politics poses to Australia through our friendly attitude.”pelican” imports some of the most fundamental elements of global grievance politics into Australian public life.

Senator Pauline Hanson He claims to be the guardian of Australian culture, but the idea of an Australian monoculture is historically inaccurate. Australia never had the single, homogeneous culture his argument assumes. Against more than 65,000 years In First Nations civilization, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were never a single culture.

Australia was and is home to many different nations, languages, laws, traditions and belief systems. AIATSIS definitions More than 250 Indigenous languages and nearly 800 dialects, each tied to specific peoples and places.

Therefore, First Nations cultures alone debunk the myth that Australia has a single ancient culture or that cultural diversity is merely a modern concept. Migration and cultural change have also long shaped Australian life. This includes Trade between Makassan visitors from Sulawesi and peoples of Arnhem Land, as well as historical interaction between Melanesian peoples in Papua New Guinea and communities in the Torres Strait and Northern Australia.

Since then, successive waves of modern immigration have transformed Australian society. Even the Australian Government Multicultural Framework Review describes migration as fundamental to the Australian story.

Australia does not have a defensible monocultural historical legacy. Hanson’s monoculture is nostalgia turned into politics: a retrospective fantasy whose political effect is to maintain the dominance of British settler culture over modern Australia, regardless of whether anyone who promotes it consciously intends this outcome.

Hanson’s vision is not a revival of Australian culture, but the elevation of one part of Australian history above all others. In fact, when he tries to explain his monoculture like this: I’m telling the Senate with “Bring back Paul Hogan and Norman Gunston” hogan rejected the compliment, describes his position being racist and saying so “Living in the past”.

Hansonism borrows some of the worst elements of American cultural politics. He uses anger, resentment, anti-elite language, anti-globalisation, hostility towards the media and the performance of outsiderhood to achieve his political goals. Its political appeal is not entirely dependent on a coherent body of policies. It depends largely on emotional recognition.

Supporters feel that their grievances are understood and that recognition can remain politically powerful even when the policies offered are incomplete or contradictory.

That’s why questioning both Hanson and his supporters is more important than reacting to them. Flaws in reasoning, gaps in knowledge, and contradictions in policies can be revealed by answering real, difficult questions.

While many focus on the mainstream media and its complicity in the rise of Hansonism, social media comment sections complete the complaint machine. Hanson says something provocative. Opponents of Hansonism show their anger. Supporters of Hansonism are realizing their grievances. Social media platforms reward the resulting engagement.

The research found that Hostility toward political outgroups is a particularly strong driver of social media engagement, providing platforms and political artists with an incentive to keep the conflict alive.

Some commentators then compete over who is the most ideologically pure. Even within the same political tribe, those considered less pure may be ostracized and exploited by those with whom they generally agree. Meanwhile, fundamental political problems are disappearing. Politics becomes emotional performance: a pantomime that divides people into tribes and reinforces existing prejudices. Critical thinking and skeptical questioning are buried as if all the time and money spent on education is a complete waste.

At the end of this huge charade, ordinary people do not need to benefit from complaints policies. But economic elites can benefit from the redirection of political anger from concentrations of wealth and power to cultural symbols and convenient scapegoats. Research Identity and political conflict found that cultural identity can mask class differences and reduce political conflict over redistribution.

While ordinary people are given symbols with which to fight and blame others, rent, wages, taxation, welfare, housing and corporate power receive less attention. Meanwhile, Australia reached a record 178 billionaires He has a total wealth of more than $686 billion.

This does not prove that billionaires created Hansonism or consciously control every culture war. But what this shows is that the politics of grievance can maintain concentrated wealth by diverting political attention away from distribution. Those who already have economic power can benefit from this guidance, whether they intend to do so or not.

The politics of grievance acts as a valve to suppress economic anger. for people living in tents, caravans, and makeshift campsTrapped in precarious housing or left without food, positive GDP figures and positive OECD comparisons offers little comfort. Their immediate concern is that their income no longer covers basic needs. according to Food Bank Hunger Report 2025One in three Australian households experienced food insecurity last year.

The politics of grievance can turn class pain into culture war. It can undermine the possibility of class solidarity by encouraging people with similar economic interests to understand each other primarily as cultural enemies. Material insecurity can be directed at immigrants, minorities, and other suitable targets rather than creating demands for lifting those at the bottom up through redistribution. Meanwhile, Australia continues to experience wealth flowing upwards to those who already have it, rather than wealth flowing downwards.

After all, Australia doesn’t need monoculture. Biological monocultures provide a useful, albeit limited, example of why uniformity should not automatically be confused with strength. Consider the Cavendish banana. Commercial Cavendish plants are propagated clonally and have extremely limited genetic diversity, making them particularly vulnerable. Panama disease and extinction.

A society is not a banana plantation; thus this biological example cannot prove that cultural diversity necessarily produces social resilience. Its value is metaphorical: it shows that uniformity is not always the same as power. The political argument for diversity must stand on its own merits. A pluralistic society can benefit from a wider range of experiences, knowledge and perspectives; But diversity only becomes a source of resilience when people are connected through inclusive institutions and a meaningful common life.

Research organization theory similarly, it suggests that well-managed diversity can strengthen the capacity to anticipate problems, cope with disruptions, and adapt to change.

Australia must therefore build its diversity around this collective symbiosis. May include shared institutions: public schools, public housing, MedicareIncluding dental care, early childhood education, fair wages, public broadcasting, unions, local sports clubs, libraries, public parks, regional communities and democratic accountability.

Shared public institutions are fundamentally different from the imposition of cultural sameness. They create spaces where different people can join a common society without giving up their cultural identities. A healthy country does not need everyone to think, worship, speak or live the same way. People need to be able to live together without being led to hate each other.

Even after all these years, Cranky’s warning remains relevant: Australia must not become America. But the threat to Australia does not come from immigrants, multiculturalism or pluralism. This stems from the importation of a style of grievance politics that tears apart common life by transforming material insecurity into cultural hostility.

Hansonism does not protect Australian culture against American monoculture. It reflects American anger in Australian colours. The answer isn’t more comment section hate. This is a policy of persistent questioning, democratic accountability, stronger public institutions, and a policy that does not allow the suffering of ordinary people to be turned into a profitable culture war for the rich.

Rob Powell is a retired mature-age student currently studying politics and philosophy, focusing on how ethical frameworks shape public policy and political behavior.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.