Workers Online
Workers Online
Workers Online
  Issue No 89 Official Organ of LaborNet 23 March 2001  

 --

 --

 --

.  LaborNET

.  Ask Neale

.  Tool of the Week


Review

Mean Nation

Reproduced from Pluto Writers' Forum

John Allen charts the fall and fall of philanthropy in Australian society.

"..philanthropy and charity were all about 'relationships' on the personal level between workers and 'kind' members of the ruling class who often tried deliberately to camouflage with good works the position of their class as a whole." (Richard Kennedy in his Introduction to Australian Welfare History - Critical Essays [Macmillan 1982], p.5).

Richard Kennedy's assertion that philanthropy and charity in Australia have been concerned with the class struggle between the ruling class and the working class raises an interesting issue. If Kennedy's assertion is correct, then what of the radical nationalist view of Australian society since the early nineteenth century would have us believe that the "typical Australian....is very hospitable and, above all, will stick to his mates through thick and thin"[1]? Would one not expect that philanthropy and charity would have existed within the most populous working class, with the workers helping each other? The aligned concepts of the "noble bushman" and a general, permeating egalitarian ethos throughout Australian Society would lend one to assume that Australians would have generally supported organised charities and general philanthropic activity, especially during the periods of greatest despair; the 1890's Depression and the Great Depression from 1929 to 1942. Granted, the Australian Legend generally surrounds the behaviour and characteristics of the rural working class. However, why is it that a society that pride's itself on the mythology of "mateship" and egalitarianism currently has, in fact, the lowest levels of philanthropy and charitable giving in the Western world?

This essay presents an analysis of the evidence of charity and philanthropy in Australia since the earliest beginnings of White Settlement. It examines the beginnings of institutional charitable works and organised philanthropy. Very little literature exists surrounding charity at the personal level. However, one might assume that the institutions that developed reflected the attitudes of the majority of society at that time.

This essay asserts that there are, in fact, two phenomena that need to be examined. The first is that philanthropy and charity in Australia has been central to the establishment of "bourgeois hegemony", where the dominant and ruling bourgeois class used philanthropy and charity as a means to exercise their domination over the working classes[2].

The second phenomenon that needs to be examined is the evidence of philanthropy within the working class. This is where one might truly expect the Legend to ring true; working class "Aussies" looking after their brothers and sisters when the times were tough. Again, when one explores the evidence, the conclusion is that, although there are some significant exceptions, on the whole the negative aspects of the Legend actually worked counter to the success of charity and philanthropy. As Swain states "both radicals and conservatives accepted that to be a man was to be a breadwinner and that to resort to charity was a sign of weakness"[3]. Not only have Australians failed to support organised charities, when one examines the empirical evidence that compares Australia with other Western societies, such as Britain and the USA, since World War 2, Australians appear to have been extremely uncharitable! The analysis is broken into four periods; pre-1880, 1890 to 1929, the Great Depression and from the end of World War 2 onward.

Some interesting anomalies have been exposed by several Historians that will also be discussed. There appears to be a difference between Sydney and Melbourne in both the extent and nature of charitable and philanthropic activity, as well as differences between Catholics and Protestants.

A Few Definitions

Shurlee Swain defines philanthropy in Australia in her contribution to The Oxford Companion to Australian History (1998); "... born out of a class-divided society, it was seen as an individualistic exchange in which the rich were expected to give their money and their time in relief of the poor"[4]. Swain acknowledges the role of the Australia Legend in its effect on philanthropy and charity; "The dominant culture, masculinist and egalitarian"[5].

Kennedy provides interesting definitions of both philanthropy and charity; "Charity first meant Christian love, but declined in the Middle Ages into alms giving to save one's soul. Philanthropy meant love of humanity, but declined into social action of the ruling classes to save their property. [6]" Kennedy uses these definitions to raise the interesting distinction between Sydney and Melbourne. Sydney has developed with more "philanthropy" than "charity"; flowering during the great age of evangelical philanthropy in England. Melbourne's charities burgeoned during the 1870's and 1880's, the great age of the empire-wide Charity Organisational Movement based upon more non-conformist Protestant ideals. They were based more upon what we would view as social policy, social welfare and social work, attempting to aid the recipient of the charity rather than to protect the property of the philanthropist.

Dickey (1980) describes three differing modes of charity in British society that have been perceived over the past two hundred years. One has been to provide "conditional welfare for the few", characterised by "selectivity" in the givers' approach to the receivers. A second has been to offer "minimum rights for the many". That is, to apply the principle of "universalism". A third has been to prescribe "distributional justice for all", the governing principle of "socialism"[7].

Dickey asserts that the first mode, that of selectivity, was dominant in Australia in the nineteenth century. Under this concept, charity was provided largely on judgements of individual worth. The second and third concepts have largely emerged since the 1890's. However, neither of these concepts have entirely dominated each other, nor have they dominated the first concept.

The Role of Religion; Melbourne versus Sydney - Catholic versus Protestant

The ability of the radical nationalist concepts of "mateship" and "egalitarianism" to permeate Australian society in relation of charitable works has been greatly influenced by the role of religion throughout the development of White Settlement. Anomalies have existed in the behaviour of Melbourne society when compared with that of Sydney (and indeed the rest of the country). Several authors have explained these anomalies via an analysis of the emergence of different Christian denominations at various periods of their development.

Sydney, being the site of first settlement, has been dominated by conservative, ruling class Anglican evangelical religious development. This has led to, as Richard Kennedy asserts, a flavour of philanthropy designed to protect the property of the ruling classes. A "selective" policy, where the giver assesses the recipient's worthiness[8]. O'Brien describes it as being designed for the benefit of the giver, rather than the recipient. She states that the "ruling" middle class thought the poor were stupid[9].

In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. People living in poverty in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Sydney were in an almost impossible situation. Not only were such fundamental requisites of life such as food and shelter in question, but to qualify for assistance from the charitable they had to tailor their behaviour. O'Brien states that they were walking a tight-rope in two spheres; the labour market and the charity bazaar[10]. They were in a situation that invited lying and deceit, where 'frauds' and 'imposters', of which the charitable institutions were so afraid, would thrive. They were men and women who had to lie about getting a day's labour at the wharves or at a factory for fear that their weekly rations would be reduced by a dutifully "selective" charity, such as the NSW Benevolent Society. This resulted in an uneasy relationship between the charitable and the poor, extending from wary distrust to outright contempt. O'Brien asserts that this is to be expected when one party has such power over the destiny of another[11].

To the defence of the charities involved, O'Brien does state that this vigilance in attempting to give assistance only to the "worthy" was not only a reflection of their ideology, but it reflected the difficulties of distributing paltry funds equitably among too many applicants[12]. Just as petty lying is a measure of the desperation of the poor, the apparently mean-spirited responses of charity workers were a measure of the impossibility of their task. Simply witnessing misery to such a degree and on such a scale that was experienced in Sydney at this time must have caused them to become hardened and judgmental over time. However, what of the Legend? It is difficult to argue that there was much "mateship" and "egalitarianism" in the hearts of those witnessing such poverty.

Melbourne, on the other hand, developed much later - around the Gold Rush era of the 1850's. During this time, the non-conformist Protestant religions, such as Congregationalists, Methodists and Baptists, were at the forefront of religious evangelism. This resulted in Melbourne's Philanthropy (or charity, as Kennedy prefers) being focused on the welfare of the recipient. Several case studies exist that contrast the development of private and religious charities in Sydney and Melbourne. The Wesley Central Mission opened in Sydney in 1887 and Melbourne in 1893. By the First World War, the Melbourne operations had expanded to several sites throughout the city, addressing the needs to the aged, unemployed, distressed mothers and children. By contrast the Sydney organisation remained in a single city location, largely as it still is today[13].

Another interesting case study in the Sydney/Melbourne divide is that of the Brotherhood of St Lawrence. This Anglican organisation had its infancy in Newcastle in the early 1930's. For several years a group of committed Anglicans attempted to gain Church and State sanction to address the huge needs of the poor in the Hunter. Frustrated, they moved to Melbourne, where they have since flourished into a national charitable organisation addressing tens of thousands of those in need.

Large charitable bequests were not a feature of Australia philanthropy, particularly in NSW. Few large pastoralist families were willing to risk their family's slender hold on gentility to follow the British evangelical call of the ruling classes. Early fortunes were more likely to be used to finance a family's return to England to live as minor aristocrats rather than be invested locally in philanthropic works. In Melbourne, philanthropists of note included Francis Ormond, John Wyselaskie and Samuel Wilson. In Sydney, Thomas Sutcliffe Mort and J. H. Challis gave principally to universities and hospitals.

Philanthropic activity especially, although not exclusively in Sydney, was highly gendered. Men dominated public giving and sat on the controlling committees of charitable institutions[14]. However, women predominantly did the work. Australian society was overwhelmingly characterised as the family unit with the male as the sole bread-winner and the female relegated to domestic and family duties. As such, women had no means to contribute as men did. However, the critical decisions as to who should be relieved and how, were made by women[15]. As Judith Godden has observed, Colonial women were attracted to philanthropy because it mimicked the activity of bourgeois women at home[16]. She asserts that philanthropy was one of the few public and highly visible activities allowed women. As the numbers of bourgeois women free of domestic and child-care responsibilities grew, so too did philanthropic activity[17]. Prosperity and the consequent confidence in the doctrines and moral imperatives of improvement found fullest and most complete expression in Melbourne in the 1880's, as upper-middle class ladies went out to do good[18]. Spurred on by Protestant evangelical zeal, the women were "seeking and saving the lost". Swain offers a radical interpretation of this behaviour of women when she asserts that women, by couching their activity in religious terms, they were able to extend the boundaries of their accepted sphere without challenging their accepted roles[19].

Anne O'Brien argues that in the nineteenth century charity, be it state or private, performed only a residual task, preventing starvation or eviction where possible[20]. Like the subject matter of several Henry Lawson Short Stories, countless people survived just above the level of destitution.

In NSW, O'Brien states that nearly all the early private and state charitable institutions were Protestant; and most of those aligned with the Anglican faith and therefore the State[21]. It was not until the 1880's that any real form of organised Catholic charitable institution emerged; in the St Vincent de Paul Society. Whereas the evangelical protestant charities engaged in "selectivity" by attempting to help only those whom they believed "worthy" of saving, the St Vincent de Paul Society was run by lay Catholics to help other working class Catholics. Put cynically, the "Brothers" in St Vincent de Paul, (the name given to volunteers), attempted to save themselves by administering charity on their fellow Catholic poor. Often, the Brothers were just as poor as the people they were attempting to help.

Unlike the NSW Benevolent Society or the other main Protestant charities, the St Vincent de Paul Society drew its funds from donations of members. It received no State assistance whatsoever[22]. Whether this was by choice or a reflection of the Protestant ascendancy not willing to aid a charity associated with the Catholic minority, is difficult to determine. However, the St Vincent de Paul Brothers proved just as selective and miserly in their charity as their Protestant contemporaries. O'Brien offers that during the depression years of 1896-1902, 35% of all applicants for assistance from the Brothers were refused[23]. During the same period, the NSW Benevolent Society's rejection rate was consistently lower (1895 - 3%, 1896 - 4%, 1901 - 1%). This was partly because its methods of inspection were less thorough and partly because it was an extension of Government policy and acted as the final safetynet for the destitute[24].

The Sydney City Mission, founded in 1862 by committed Congregationalist Benjamin Short, opened the City Night Kitchen and Soup Kitchen in Kent Street in 1868. It gave one meal and shelter at night to 75 men who had to leave the premises by 7am. Although the moto of the Mission was "Need not Creed", coercive measures were adopted to encourage patrons to take honest labour when it was offered. Anyone who refused a situation or left one "without sufficient reason" was denied further help[25]. Interestingly, The Mission nearly folded when, in 1864, private donations had dried up to such an extent that it could only continue with one full-time "Missionary", Stephen Robens. Slowly, over the next 20 years, the level of support increased to a more sustainable level[26]. This is an interesting example of the miserly nature of Sydney's philanthropic tendencies.

The Role of The State

In the very earliest days of White Settlement during the convict era, Governors ruled by command. Charity, philanthropy, indeed any form of social welfare, was largely non-existent. The NSW Benevolent Society, established in 1813 by Governor Macquarie, along with a few hospitals and orphanages, were the only forms of formal or informal charity recorded. Macquarie created the Benevolent Society to act as the last line of support for the destitute under-class. He selectively chose evangelical Christian warriors to act as a de facto agency of Government[27].

During the period between the end of the convict period and the 1890's, laissez-faire capitalism, or "free trade", became the dominant form of social relationship, and liberal individualism the moral theory on which it was based[28]. During this time the first signs of charity is distinguishable, along the lines of the "selective" form mentioned previously. This is the period when philanthropy, as described earlier by Kennedy, began to take hold. In Sydney, thousands lived in squalor, while there capital-controlling betters sought to enjoy the style and comforts of their English counter-parts[29]. During this period, the dominant ruling-class used the institution of the "public society", set up using the rules of free enterprise that they believed in so dearly, as the principle means of protecting the State, and thus their own interests, from being overly burdened. Membership of these charitable societies would be gained by subscription giving the right to elect an executive who would be responsible annually to the subscribers. The various private hospitals, schools, and evangelical missions established during this time attest to the method.

In NSW, more-so than in Victoria, State aide was used to fill the gap left by dwindling private donations. From the 1890's until the fall of the Chifley Labor Government in 1949, the dominant ideology in Australia of capitalism and individualism was challenged by the radical liberal doctrine of universalism[30]. State programmes engaged in child care, education, aged and invalid pensions and the notion of a basic wage all pointed to a softening in society's attitude to those less well-off. Since 1949, personal philanthropy and charity has become minuscule in comparison to similar Western countries[31]. The State has become the principal engine of the prosperity of the middle classes, its role being to sustain and maintain the capitalist economy[32].

During the 1890's, and up to the First World War, turbulent economic activity greatly affected Australian society. The existing structures, and the minimalist approach of the State, simply could not cope with the immense privations endured by the thousands of working class victims of the downturn. Unionism had spread widely in the Australian colonies in the late 1880's, but there ability to deal with the poverty of the working class was greatly diminished by the effect of reduced membership caused through widespread unemployment. Labor parties survived in three parliaments and set out to "civilise capitalism"; that is, to moderate the worst effects upon the working classes by mobilising what they believe to be the neutral powers of the state[33]. As a result, this period produced a stream of legislation from all around Australia which addressed itself to a wide range of social problems; such as hours of work, protection of neglected children and public health initiatives.

Anomalies Did Exist

It is unfair to argue that during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, kindness, non-judgemental giving and philanthropy did not exist. It did. However, unfortunately it was the exception rather than the rule[34]. The principle purveyors of social work and charity were the extended family, neighbours and friends. Poor women minded children of friends who were worse off. Landladies did not always insist on rent "I couldn't turn her and her children onto the street. She'll pay me when she gets in; and if she can't I'll manage to get over it"[35]. The milkman did not always charge. Tradesmen waived debts. Friends supplied food and clothing. People with fruit trees found they had fruit to spare.

The greatest single benefactor during the Great Depression of the 1930's was Sidney Baevski Myer[36]. Born in Russia in 1878, he arrived penniless twenty years later and worked his way up from being a horse-and-cart peddler to one of the country's richest men. It is interesting that Australia's greatest individual philanthropist was a European-born Jewish outsider, never really admitted to the Melbourne elite. Myer's first major gift appears to have been in 1929, when he donated 8,000 pounds to the Melbourne Childrens' Hospital. In April 1930 he attempted to stimulate manufacturing by inaugurating a "Made-in-Australia Week", order 500,000 pounds worth of locally made goods for his retail chain. By Christmas 1930 the amount of hardship throughout the community of Melbourne appalled Sidney Myer. He instructed his staff to book the Exhibition Building for 25 December, so that anyone in Melbourne who needed Christmas dinner could be properly fed[37]. More than 11,000 people turned up, and had to be accommodated in hourly sessions in the vast hall. Temperance bodies protested against the serving of alcohol. However, Myer rejected their views, saying anyone who felt like a glass of beer would get it. In July 1932, Myer loaned the Government a two-storey warehouse in La Trobe Street for conversion into a hostel for 300 girls while they were trying to find employment[38]. It is interesting that such an "outsider" was able to show such magnanimous philanthropy in Melbourne, and that it was not reciprocated in Sydney. One can only speculate whether this was because of the more laissez-faire, Anglican approach of Sydney society.

Institutions in Crisis

After World War One, politicians were openly questioning the propriety of universalism as the basis for distributing welfare assistance. The Hughes Liberal Government started to question the appropriateness of its earlier socially aware policies of old age and invalid pensions, unemployment benefits and a national contributory health scheme. It was argued that granting benefits without requiring recipients to make a contribution would "weaken those moral values of thrift and self-respect"[39]. For the next thirty years conservatives from all sides of politics and religion attempted to limit, or even replace, the universal approach to social welfare. They did this largely through a succession of federal and state royal commissions and enquiries as well as the skilful use of legislative proposals[40]. The State social welfare agenda for most Governments swayed towards returned soldiers; private charitable organisations were largely left to their own devises. The Great Depression swamped private charities to such an extent that Governments were forced to consider more intervention. Two reports commissioned by the Lyons Government in 1937, one on unemployment insurance and the other on health insurance, focused on the idea that government assistance would in part be in return for financial contributions made by the individual worker, that is, through 'insurance'[41]. Again, the "selective" notion of charity, discussed earlier, shone through.

From the election of a federal Labor Government until the 1960's, private charitable organisations proliferated and continued in established grooves largely due to federal financial contributions. Private donations steadily dwindled to a trickle over this period[42]. As Lyons states, since the 1980's, after allowing for differences in population and national income, charitable and philanthropic donations by individuals and households is only 15% of the level in the United States[43]. This startling paradox is not easy to explain. Lyons proposes two possible reasons. Firstly, in Australia government grants tend to "crowd out private philanthropy. Charities have come to seek government funding ahead of private donations simply because the government has a recognised role as a funder of private charities as discussed previously. Secondly, Lyons argues the US is overtly more religious than Australia. They are, it is claimed, likely to be more motivated to give for religious impulses[44]. However, the evidence discussed earlier shows that during earlier times when Australians were much more religious, religion in Australia actually hindered philanthropy and charitable activity.

Conclusion

Richard Kennedy's assertion that Australian philanthropy and charity have been principally concerned with a class struggle runs contrary to the radical nationalist view surrounding the Australian Legend; that Australians would "stick to their mates through thick and thin". Unfortunately, the evidence supports the view that most, albeit not all, philanthropic and charitable activity in Australia since White Settlement has been of a "selective" nature, designed to weed out "undeserving" recipients and protect the property of the dominant middle class.

The result has been that Australia is now considered one of the most miserly Western societies in the world, when measured by private charitable activity. We now rely almost entirely upon Government Assistance for the support of philanthropic activities.


------

*    Visit Pluto Press

*   View entire issue - print all of the articles!

*   Issue 89 contents

In this issue
Features
*  Interview: Paddy Takes the Helm
Irish, internationalist, republican, socialist & seafarer - Paddy Crumlin intends taking the old traditions of the labour left into the 21st century, the community and cyberspace.
*
*  Unions: Breaking the Mould
Mark Hearn looks at how women union delegates are helping to change the culture in the traditionally male bastion of glassworking.
*
*  Legal: Washing Their Hands
Mark Morey outlines how Liberal neglect of the working visa system has led to exploitation of guest workers.
*
*  International: Violence Betrays Shangri-La
Shangri-La hotel union members carrying a coffin marked Robert Kuok have been assaulted and beaten by police in Jakarta.
*
*  Economics: Corporations: Different Than You and Me
Corporations are fundamentally different than you and me. That's a simple truth that Big Business leaders desperately hope the public will not perceive.
*
*  History: The Steel Octopus
Be prepared for a flood of Nostalgia from the media about the �Big Australian�, as it prepares to flee our shores and finally internationalise its digging operations. Workers won�t forget BHP�s less than worker friendly past and present (and no doubt it�s future).
*
*  Review: Mean Nation
John Allen charts the fall and fall of philanthropy in Australian society.
*
*  Satire: Ryan 'A Big Wake-Up Call For Me': Beazley
The narrow victory to Labor in the Ryan by-election has delivered a big slap in the face to Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley.
*

News
»  Abbott and �Drinking Buddy� Under Microscope
*
»  Working Visas: Ruddock Sells Dump to Abbott
*
»  Tourist Guides Bussed In
*
»  Fair Wear Holds Breath as Carr Celebrates
*
»  Labor to Restore Public Sector�s Dignity
*
»  Its Time for Carr to Act on Safey on Building Sites
*
»  Bread Maker Slices Workforce
*
»  Workers Show Grace Under Pressure
*
»  Engineers Win BHP Redundancy Case
*
»  Transport Drug Pushers Not Charged
*
»  Training Body Needs $150 Million to Cope with Growth
*
»  HIH Urged To Safeguard Employee Entitlements
*
»  Carr Proposal For Public Schools Flawed
*
»  Human Smirk Returns to Spiritual Home
*
»  McGauchie Appointment Draws MUA Fire
*
»  Bove Loses McDonald's Raid Appeal
*
»  James Hardie Called to Account
*
»  Australasian Union Organising Conference
*
»  Activist Notebook
*

Columns
»  The Soapbox
*
»  The Locker Room
*
»  Trades Hall
*
»  Tool Shed
*

Letters to the editor
»  AXA Has Form
*
»  Leichhardt Debate Hots Up
*

What you can do

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

Enter keyword(s):
  


Workers Online - 2nd place Labourstart website of the year


BossWatch


Wobbly Radio



[ Home ][ Notice Board ][ Search ][ Previous Issues ][ Latest Issue ]

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/89/d_review_mean.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW

 *LaborNET*

 Labor Council of NSW

[Workers Online]

[Social Change Online]