Email and factual mistakes

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time" - TS Eliot

Feedback

convictwally@hotmail.com

First published: March 2000

Is this site a reliable resource?

Because a website can be built by anyone with a bit of common sense, web content is sometimes derided as not being a worthy source of information. Although it would be true to say internet contributors are not always experts on the subjects they write about, it would also be true to say that writers for newspapers, magazines and academic publications are often pursuing an agenda. Arguably, a naïve person writing web content out of interest is a better resource than a biased expert trying to manipulate public opinion. Furthermore, anyone can write a book and get it self-published. It just takes a greater initial financial investment. Just because it is on paper doesn’t mean it is more objective or informed.

Admittedly, to get something published in a magazine or newspaper means that at least an editor has agreed that there is value in what has been written. Of course, that "value" may be to strengthen the ideology of readers, appeal to advertisers, provoke conflict, and in some cases, be accompanied by payment from the writer. Basically, the commericial media is driven by profit and the government owned media is driven by politics. Their agendas often rule over a desire to inform in an objective way.

In regards to the methodology used, I did not compile the site using the traditional method of looking at books and summarising what others have said. This is partly because I went into areas that have yet to be written about and also because there are flaws in the traditional research technique. Basically, cultural books are often just opinions of others and justified with the opinions of others. Using them always runs the risk of an academic version of Chinese whispers where accuracy is corrupted.

 Rather than rely on pre-existing views, I was theoretically driven. I applied social psychology and sociology theories to past and present situations in Australia. Art, newspapers, books, journals and life experience were used as content for the theories to explain. Book references were then used as points of comparison against the predictions of the theory.

Consideration of the tall-poppy syndrome provides a good example of the different conclusions that will be made by those who rely on the opinions of others that already exist in books, and those who apply a theory to go into new territory. Most theorists believe the tall-poppy syndrome (an Australian trait to knock the high achievers), stems from a jealousy of success. If I relied on books, I would have to come to the same conclusion because that is the consensus tha thas been arrived at by peer review. However, Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner in 1979) would explain it in a different way. Think of someone from your school that might win a prize and bring acclaim to your school. If you are proud of your school, you will celebrate the achievement of your school mate. You will see their success as a reflection of yourself. In a sense, you de-individualize yourself and adopt a social identity in order to share the success of others. By adopting the social identity, you feel good about yourself and good about your classmate. However, if you don't identify with your school, you will maintain an individual identity. If you were also going for the same prize, the success of your classmate will be damaging to your ego because their recognition seems to be saying they are superior to you. You need to cut them down, or criticise the judges to feel better about yourself. In other words, you become quite negative.

Individualism can be a self-defeatist method to attain esteem. Long-term, if the school's reputation is enhanced, that will benefit every student in the school. However, if you harm the school's reputation by cutting down its success stories, you are really shitting in your own nest, and might end up smelling like shit as well. (The pragmatic benefits of a social position was also proved with Game Theory.)

I think Australians are more prone to suffer the tall-poppy syndrome than Americans because Australians are more individualistic (and often quite proud of it.) I looked at history to subsequently explain why this may be. In this way, history supported by interpretation of social psychological theory and social psychological theory supported my interpretation of history. Explaining history and culture almost became like fitting a jigsaw puzzle together so that all the pieces fitted nicely.

Self-Categorisation Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) helps explain the tall-poppy syndrome from a social comparison aspect. In Australia, it is common for people who drive BMWs to have their car scratched. The people who have their cars scratched believe it is done out of jealousy of their wealth. However, the same people who would scratch a BMW would probably never scratch a Street Machine that would be worth even more money. For this reason, I'd argue the scratching would reflect a desire to express a belief that the Street Machine people are superior to BMW people. So back to the school yard, a group of goths might celebrate one of their peers winning a poetry reading contest but they would criticise a school mate winning a football prize. The criticism is a way of making the goth group superior to the football group. Neither group cares about the school's reputation. They only care about the reputation of their subculture.

Like all forms of social commentary, applying social theories produces subjective judgements that can be disputed by others. Readers just need to accept that the social world is not a world of facts and certainty. I have encountered some researchers who have difficulty with this and have tried to gain certainty, not by reading books, but through the use of the survey.  For example, in China I met a German man doing a PhD in cross-cultural management. He was surveying different nationalities to work out their cultures and then using his survey results to develop communication strategies that were tailored to those cultures. I asked him what his survey results were showing in regards to the differences between China and western countries. He said Chinese put the group first.

I then asked him whether, as a man living in China, he had ever seen Chinese put themselves first. It then clicked in his mind the folly of his survey. Everywhere you go in China someone is putting him or herself first. This is to be expected. China is a third-world country where the majority of individuals are struggling to attain a better life. It is far easier to think of others when you are not hungry and cold.

After I pointed out the obvious problem with his survey results, the German man didn't want to talk to me anymore. That was a shame because it meant I never got the chance to explain that his research was not a complete waste. Specifically, his survey results showed that Chinese have a stereotype that they put the group first and that stereotype can be exploited in cross-cultural management. For example, I used to teach classes of up to 30 Chinese professors, the majority of whom were also Communist Party members. Sometimes I would have a trouble maker in the class and to deal with them, I would say that I was surpised that a Chinese person was not putting the group first. With an "individualistic" westerner evoking the group-first myth promoted by the Communist Party, the troublemaker would usually de-individualise themselves and act in accordance with the group-first identity. As a teacher, I had seen that in China there is the same diversity of personalities as there is in any other country. However, by evoking a stereotype, I was able to make a myth of behaviour temporarily become a fact of behaviour.

In a nutshell, the German worked from methodical research while I worked from intuition. While I believe methodical research has its place in certain fields, when it comes to culture, I think intuition has more value. In any group of people, there will be a range of personalities and individual character traits. Stereotypes do not define the behaviour of these individuals unless an individual chooses to embrace them by adopting a social identity. Sometimes the one individual will embrace a stereotype and conform to the behaviours prescribed by it. Sometimes he or she will individualise themselves and express more of their individualistic personality traits. In other words, the average Chinese is likely to be similar to the average Australian on an individual level; however, when social identities are provoked, they become very different. It is very difficult to use a survey to predict how an individual will behave unless the survey can somehow take into account the differences between individualistic and social identities, and the triggers for either of them.

In this site, it has not been practical to write "this interpretation is influenced by the Stanford Prison Experinment and this interpretation influenced by Social Identity Theory blah blah." Nor has it been practical to write, "this is how Australians are when they have deinvidualised themselves and adopted the social identity of a Greens voter/Australian/Essendon fan/bogan." It would make the content too clinical and complex. The site should be seen as a collection of interpretations made by an Australian who has travelled extensively, is educated in social psychology, sociology and media analysis and has been thinking about the issues for about 10 years. Over those ten years, the interpretations have changed and will likely change again over the following ten years. It is a site of ideas, not a site of facts.

My methodology has often resulted in traditional researchers criticising me. By not justifying my work with the interpretations of others, I am devaluing the research technique that most people use, which is damaging to their ego. That really can’t be helped. It is a shame that ego often closes people’s eyes to the benefits of a different approach or even just to an idea for discussion. Although I understand why ego matters, and what can be done to lesson ego problems, it is still frustrating. I often wish critics would give themselves a big hug, or some other expression of self love, and then we could all move on.

Despite conceding that most of his site is just personal interpretation, I believe my interpretation has a degree of validity due to the response to it. From September 2008 to September 2009, there were 596,822 unique visits and 1,392,056 page views. Whether criticised or respected, the site has distracted a significant number of people from other uses of their time in a way that indicates some degree of usefulness to them. To be brutally honest, Australian history and culture is not exactly the hottest of topics world wide. I love it, but most people do not, Australians included. Drawing any kind of attention to Australian history and culture is an achievement in itself. In addition, the site has been used by schools compiling educational material, other websites for content, indexed by libraries for future generations, it has been plagiarised by lazy public servants needing to write content for government websites, and been used by students looking for ideas for their assignments. In this internet age, it seems google, rather than the library, is the first port of call and this site ranks well in google.

Finally, I frequently get requests to place sell advertising space, which I have not been inclined to do. I feel if I started selling space, I would need to keep content very generic so that advertisers would not be concerned by anything controversial that I might write. I do feel for academics and commericial radio hosts and their need to toe the standard line over what they really believe. Perhaps that is the greatest benefit of the website. Because it doesn't require a great financial outlay, it doesn't require that vested interests be kept happy in order to get value for money. In that regard, it is potentially the most objective medium on earth.