Anzac Day.

In answering the question "Is Anzac Day central to Australian conceptions of national identity?" the short answer is undoubtedly yes; however to explain why, it is necessary to explore the entire notion of what the Australian national identity is and how it is formed. I do this by firstly defining the characteristics that comprise our national identity, and then looking at how the Anzac experience has helped shape this identity. I argue that this is a contrived image, which is exclusionary, its relevance increasingly questioned in a multicultural Australia. I explore the impact of the Vietnam anti-war movement and feminism on the Anzac mythology, which played some part in Anzac Day receding in popularity. This brings us full circle to the conscious invigoration of Anzac Day that occurred in the mid 1980s, that resulted in the resurgence and continuance of the Anzac myth as central to the Australian national identity.

In defining the Australian national characteristic during the Great War, Thompson describes the Anzac as "Enterprising and independent, loyal to his mates and to his country, bold in battle, but cheerfully undisciplined out of the line and contemptuous of military etiquette and the British officer class." (2) This conception of an Anzac encapsulates the ideals of masculinity; it focuses on male bonding and egalitarianism as the major characteristics of Australianness. Inglis highlights "... comradeship, loyalty to mates. Also initiative, individuality..." (3) Both of these descriptions of Anzacs portray an Anglo Celtic male persona, and are essentially a rehash of Bean's Australian Bushmen image of the late 19th Century. (4)

The Anzac myth was originally created by the Great War historian C.W. Bean. That is not to say that Bean deliberately set out to exaggerate the characteristics of the Australian soldiers who fought in the Great War, but as Thomson succinctly put it "a legend [the Digger] was created not by excluding the varieties and contradictions of digger experience, but by using selection, simplification and generalisation to represent the complexity." (5) As McLachlan states, the Anzac legend "is probably a necessary fiction for [the purpose of] vigorous nationality." (6) In essence the Anzac myth was a contrived and ritualised image (7), created for a number of reasons, primarily to be utilised as a unifying force for the Australian nationalist cause as well as a recruiting tool.

The newly created Anzac myth had an important impact on Australian society during the interwar years. During this period, Anzac Day proved popular as a day of commemoration and remembrance for those who served, however it was also an exclusionary event. As much as the legend served to act as a focus of national pride, the elevated status of the returned diggers contributed to an ongoing social struggle, as returned servicemen were given preferential treatment for employment over those who had not served. McLachlan argues that, "The digger legend had never been a unifying force," (8) and cites numerous instances whereby the Anzac and Digger tradition resulted in the exclusion of large segments of society from effectively participating in all manner of social activities. McLachlan argues that the Anzac legend "had been 'profoundly divisive' as the returned soldiers had been encouraged to see themselves as elite ... which deeply divided the Australian workforce." (9)

The period from the end of World War Two to the early 1980s was to prove the greatest challenge for the Anzac legend; for many this era represented the beginning of the end for Anzac Day. During the 1950s and 60s, attendance at Anzac Day marches steadily declined, and by the early 1960s Anzac Day was the target of criticism, in particular through popular culture. Inglis writes "Alan Seymour's popular play 'The One Day of the Year 'dramatised a rejection of the [Anzac] tradition." (10) This growing rejection of the Anzac legend was exacerbated by Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War, the growth of a large anti-war movement and the subsequent polarisation of Australian society. As Joan Beaumont writes of the Vietnam War period, "Much of the antagonism toward Anzac arose from its identification with militarism." (11)

The impact of feminism on this period should not be underestimated, both in society at large and within the armed forces. To feminists, the Anzac myth had always been fiercely masculine and emphasised the denigration of women and as Adrian Howe writes, "those women who served in subsequent wars and commemorated Anzac Day, could never be seen as anything more than intruders ... or irrelevant if they marched." (12) What all these factors amounted too was that Anzac Day crowds had shrunk to significantly smaller numbers by the mid 1970s.

So it becomes an interesting question to ask why, in the early 1980s, there is a resurgence in the popularity of Anzac Day. Some of the reasons cited for its resurgence include the fact that the World War One generation was dying out, and it was seen that they needed to be recognised. Beaumont explains that during the early 1980s, "there has been a conscious 'creation' of the memory of war." (13)

This progressive reconstruction broadened the Anzac legend to be more inclusive of those who had been previously excluded, so, as Prime Minister Keating stated in 1988, "We can remember all Australians of whatever ethnic origin." (14) In effect, from the 1980s onwards, "the Anzac Day march ... though still imperially British for most of its length ... becomes multicultural at the rear." (15) But were Australians of various ethnic backgrounds now identifying with the Anzac legend? Were they able to relate the ceremony to their own ethnic experiences and memories? Apparently yes, according to Inglis: "this broadening [of interest] is not confined to the dawn service and the march ... [includes] ethnic sub branches of the RSL." (16)

It may be argued that the resurgence of interest in maintaining the Anzac legend in the 1980s was fuelled by political concerns. This era witnessed massive socio-economic change through the impacts of the floating of the dollar, the opening of Australia's borders, globalisation and the subsequent dilution of a unique national identity. Add to this the Gender and Employment revolution which turned the lifestyle of the typical Australian family upside down. Further, the rise of political parties like One Nation demonstrated a popular desire by many Australians to see themselves as unique. It makes sense that the government of the day wanted to latch onto something to facilitate a sense of nationalism which at the same time did not negate multiculturalism, and what better vehicle was available to achieve this than Anzac Day? Particularly as Anzac Day was becoming a construct for which a multicultural Australian population could identify with.

One other major aspect of this resurgence of interest in Anzac Day was the increase in military operations from the late 1980s, including the arguably righteous 1990 Gulf War, and the peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, Somalia and Timor. All these operations provided an image most Australians were happy to be identified with. Beaufort sums it up with the statement: "In the 20th century, war--for better or worse - has been one of the [key] experiences for which Australian identity has been defined." (17)

In conclusion, I would like to affirm that Anzac Day is central to Australian conceptions of national identity. Equally, this Anzac image is largely a contrived image, created for a specific purpose and that this image has continued on through a widely differing understanding of popularity during the previous 90 years and in the present day. What has changed over the years is the image and focus of Anzac Day, and it could be argued that this change of focus reflects society in general. Australians like to identify with an image of the Australian digger: an affable chap, an egalitarian larrikin who works hard. It is a pleasant image. Unfortunately the Digger myth is just that, a myth. The truth is that the Australian soldier was little better on average than a soldier in the United States or Canadian army. (18) What is amazing--and arguably proof of its political importance--is that a myth which is so selective in its inclusiveness can and has survived the post-war years intact.

(1) Sub-Lieutenant Blagg was the joint winner of the 2005 ADFA History Prize sponsored by the Society

(2) A. Thomson, Anzac memories: Living with the Legend, Oxford University Press, Melb, 1994, p. 26.

(3) K. Inglis, 'Anzac Day and the Australian Military Tradition'. Current Affairs Bulletin, 64:11, p. 5.

(4) G. Serle, 'The Digger Tradition and Australian Nationalism', Meanjin Quarterly, June 1965, p. 152.

(5) Thomson, op. cit., p. 47.

(6) N. McLachlan, 'Nationalism and the Divisive Digger', Meanjin Quarterly, September 1968, p. 303.

(7) J. Beaumont, 'Rebirth of an Icon', The Australian (Anzac lift out), April 1988, p.6.

(8) McLachlan, op. cit., p. 307.

(9) ibid., p. 307.

(10) Inglis, op. cit., p. 12.

(11) Beaumont, op. cit., p.6.

(12) A. Howe, 'Anzac mythology and the feminist challenge', Gender and war: Australians at war in the twentieth century, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne 1995, p.303.

(13) Beaumont, op. cit., p.6.

(14) Ibid., p. 6.

(15) K. Inglis, Sacred Places, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne 1998, p. 474.

(16) ibid., p. 476.

(17) Beaumont, op. cit., p.6.

(18) McLachlan, op. cit., p. 307.

Sub-Lieutenant Michael C. Biagg RAN (1)