6 Michelle

Bar/refandCristinaRocha

therehave

always

beentwodiiferentstoriesofwhatitistobeAustralian:onethat

Australiaisa

whitenationandtheotherthatAustraliaisanationof

immigrants.

Elder

argues

that both

thesestorieshave

always

existedandcontinuetoexist

side

by

side

(2007: 115).

InWhite

Nation,

Australianichanese

anthropologist

Ghassan

llage

(1998),

addressesbothstories,He

argues

that

being

whiteisthe

dominantnarrativeof

being

Australian.

Following

Bourdieu.

Hage

seeswhiteness

asanaccumulation

ot~cultumland

symboliccapital.

The morewhitenessone

possesses.

themore

politicalpower

onehasoverthenation.inthis

context.

Anglo—

Australiansareatthe

centreof

politicalpower.

ableto

manage

thenation.Itisas

ifthey‘nat’urally‘

belonged

tothenation.

By

contrast,

those‘ThirdWorld

looking

people‘

with

heavy

accentsanddifferenthahirur.as

Hag:

describesthem.arein

a

precariousposition

at

the

margins

of

govemrnentality(1998:18).

Whitenation-

aliststurntheminto

‘theolher‘:

they

areexcludedfrom

belongingthoroughly

tothenation.

Importantly,Hageequals

this

‘objectification'

oftheother

by

the

conservative

right

as

thecelebrationofmulticulturalismofthelefl.Asseenin

the

previous

section,

in

bothinstancesthenationalself7asthe

powerfullegitimate

white

guardian

ofthe

nation

,

feelsentitledto

manage

and

regulate

theother.

Ina

previous

publication, Hageexplores

anotherfacetofthediscourseof

multiculturalism and

whitenessin Australia: ‘cosmo-multiculturalism'

(1997).

According

to him:

‘[Australian]

multiculturalism

increasingly

refers to an

experience

of

cosmopolitan

consumption grounded

ina

reality largely

created

by

internationaltourism‘and

not

bymigranthomebuilding

tie.

the

production

and

consumption

oflbod

by

migmnts.

their

religiouspractices.language

schools

forchildren,clubsandso

forth)

(1997:99).

Put

simply.Hageargues

that

White

Australiasecsmulticulturalismasa

way

toconfer

cosmopolitanisrn.sophistication

and

internationaldistinctiontoAustraliaand

by

ontrast.

as

a

way

ofdistancing

itselffrom

theold.

English.

monoculturalself.The Whitenational

subject

is

empowered

and

enriched

by

its

appropriation

oftheexoticother.Power

inequities

areclearwhenanactive

‘Anglo‘subject

consumesfoodandotherculturalartefacts

made

by

a

passive

‘ethnic'

subject.

Manychapters

in thisbookdelve

into

Anglo

Australians'

social.

political

and

cultural

capital

visaavisAsianAustralians‘lackof

these,McAra's

chapter

shows

theeasewithwhich

Anglo-Australian

followersoftheF

PMTreceivedcouncil

approval

toconstructa

largestupa

in

Bendigo,

atowninrural

Australia.

Indeed.

McAradetailsthe

Bendigomayor's

visiontousethe

stupa

asamarkerofthe

town'scultural

diversity

and

vibrancy.By

contrast,

the

chapters

contributed

by

Skennar

and

Waitt

evidencetheditficultiesAsianBuddhistshavehadin

gaining

approval

forthe

establishmentof

temples

inWestern

Sydney.

Skennar's

chapter

detailsthe

challenges

facing

BuddhistcommunitiesinWestern

Sydney

inestab—

lishing

centres.

suggesting

that

thesecentresshouldbe

supported

as

they

assistin

securing

thesocialandcultural

sustainability

ofcitv

growth.Tuong

Quang

Luu

alsonotesthedifiicultiesthattheVietnameseBuddhist

community

encounterin

buildingplacesofworship.

Waitt

reports

that

approval

camewhenthe

Wollongong

Councildecided the

temple

lent

cosmopolitanism

and

sophistication

toanarea

that had

noneofthese.Thisis not new. Previousstudieshave demonstrated

—#

Irrimduclion 7

theobstaclesAsianBuddhists

encounter,

particularly

atlocal

government

level

(Croucher

1989:

104—5;

Lyall

1989:

12—16;

Lyall:

1994:

3W5;

andAdamand

Hughes

1996:

5),

Waitt

goes

ontocall forrenewedcommitmentto

multicultural

discourses,

as

equivalence

offaithshas

yet

tobeattained,

Buddhism

today

Anew

period

has

developed

inAustralianBuddhism

sinceCroucher

published

hisoverviewofBuddhisminAustraliain1988,

This

period

ischaracterized

by

demographicchanges

andariseinthenumber

ofconvertsandBuddhist

organiz-

ations.

Indeed.

therehavebeen

significantchanges

intheBuddhist

population

inAustralia sinceAdamand

Hughes

first

published

an

analysis

ofavailable

demographic

dataon

Buddhistadherents

(1996).

Dataare

providedby

thefive»

yearly

AustralianBureau

ofStatistics

(ABS)

census.In 2006 Buddhismwasthe

fastest

growingreligion

in

Austraa. Buddhistsaccounted for2.

per

cent of

Australia‘s

population,

asubstantial

increaseon

previous

figures,

asshownin

Table1.1.

However,

thecensusdataarenot

necessarily

accurateandarebetterconsidered

asanindicationofBuddhist numbers,Prior

to 2001 thecensusfor-mdid not

includeBuddhism inthelistof

religions

thatcouldbechosen.Buddhistscould

only

notetheir

religious

affiliation

bychoosing

the

category

of‘other

religion‘

and

specificallyentering

Buddhismonthe

form.Itwasnotuntilthenumberof

Buddhistsrosetomorethan I

per

centof

the

population

(in

the 1996

census)

thattheformforthe

following

censusin 2001

was

changed

to

includeBuddhism

inthe

religioncategory

Itmustalsobetakenintoaccount

that

many

convertsto

BuddhismdonotViewBuddhismasa

religion,

but

as

a

philosophy

or

way

oflife

and

may

not

classify

themselvesasBuddhists.

intandem withthisincreasein Buddhistadherents.

therehasbeenarise in

Buddhist

organizations

7

from 308

in 1998 to 570 in 2006

(Barker2007).

An

analysis

ofthe 308

organizations

thatexisted

in 2000 classifiedtheseintoBuddhist

traditions/lineage

is

probablyequallyapplicable

tothe 2010

figures:Mahayana

34

per

cent,

Theravada 25

per

cent.

Vajrayana

27

per

centandnon—sectarian 14

per

cent

(Spuler

2002).

Non-sectarian

organizations

include

hospices.engaged

Buddhist

groups,

librariesandbookstores.

Vasi

provides

amorerecent

analysis

of

Buddhist

organizations

inthestateofVictoria

and

provides

adetailed

description

of

16

representative

Buddhist

organizations

(2005).

EcumenicalBuddhistsocieties

havecontinuedto

grow.Although

achievements

oftheseecumenical

groups

have

Table

[.

Demographics

ofAustralianBuddhists.

199172006

[99]

I996 ZIWI 217110

Percentage

of

population

0.3%

1.1% 19% 2.1%

Numbersofadherents

139,

199.

357.

418.

Source:Adamand

Hughes

[996:

41;

ABS2006,

2007