Summative Entry

Australia is not a finished product.

This statement has underpinned every step that Australia has taken as a nation. Throughout this unit there has never been one specified point where I have seen no room for Australia to improve, so to speak. There has always been something new to achieve, to explore and to understand.

I think that this idea of being unfinished really finds its base in the ambiguity surrounding exactly what makes someone Australian. In my first blog post (https://cameroncole.home.blog/2019/08/18/australian-literature-1/) I spoke about exactly who I saw an Australian being as, yet even there I speak about how my different experiences have constantly changed what it is that makes someone Australian. This constantly changing view of who an Australian is, is symbolic of the “something new”, that I talked about above. At no one point can we definitively say that “x” is the epitomal Australian, because Australia as a nation is constantly evolving. This is shown through the evolution of the literature that Australia has produced, as seen within this unit.

The major differences between Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson, that I discussed in my second blog post are a perfect example of this. (https://cameroncole.home.blog/2019/08/25/henry-lawson-or-banjo-paterson-explain-briefly-your-understanding-of-why-these-two-authors-were-so-different-in-their-views-of-the-australian-experience/). Banjo Paterson explored the, perhaps outdated, Australian experience of rural life, displaying heroic feats of bravery. The Australian that he depicted was a hearty man of the country, rugged and determined. In contrast, what Henry Lawson presented was a dreary urban Australia, the very societal landscape that Australia was quickly becoming. His “Australian” was the faceless urban character, solemn and dejected, merely a generic face in the street. The “Australian” that both Paterson and Lawson present us, are innately Australian, yet neither truly epitomised the entirety of the Australian experience, a feat I deem impossible, as the nation of Australia is constantly evolving.  

The Australia that Patrick White presents is a far cry from both Lawson and Paterson, and yet is innately Australian all the same. In the letter written to him regarding his short story “Miss Slattery and her Demon Lover” (https://cameroncole.home.blog/2019/09/16/write-a-letter-to-patrick-white-telling-him-what-you-think-of-any-one-of-the-texts-you-have-read-this-week-miss-slattery-and-her-demon-lover/), I make note of his vivid, yet simplistic imagery, and it is in these descriptions that White depicts his “Australian”. The character of Miss Slattery, in my opinion is White’s “Australian”; a female protagonist, empowered, loosing herself of the shackles of a patriarchal society, within which she was forced to play a submissive role. This is representative of the evolution of Australia, especially in regard to the way in which women were treated.

 Even today, Australia continues to evolve. The emergence of cross-cultural voices within Australia, and greater steps towards multiculturalism, has shifted the idea of the epitomal “Australia” away from just First Nations Peoples, or Europeans. Instead, the “Australian” of today, is multi-national.

Throughout its brief history, the nation of Australia has continued to evolve and change, and as such the idea of the epitomal “Australian” has changed accordingly. It is because of this ever-changing view, that Australia cannot be seen as a finished product.