1.1. INTRODUCTION
What counts here are not blood ties, real or alleged, but a spiritual kinship, proclaimed in ideals that are allegedly derived from some ancient exemplars in remote eras. The aim is to recreate the heroic spirit (and the heroes) that animated âour ancestorsâ in some past golden age; and descent is traced, not through family pedigrees, but through the persistence of certain kinds of âvirtueâ or other distinctive cultural qualities, be it of language, customs, religion, institutions or more general personal attributes (Smith, 1999, p. 58).
In this chapter, we examine claims of convict ancestry, which we argue are at least partly, identity claims. Our survey data show that those who lay claim (or reject) convict ancestry differ according to their social background, particularly in terms of their, age, social class location and political affiliations. In earlier research, we found that âyounger, left-leaning, working-class Australians are most likely to identify as convict descendants, while older, high income, educated, city dwellers are least likely to identifyâ (Tranter & Donoghue, 2003, p. 555). We interpreted these findings as indicating more than an attachment via direct blood ties to the early transportees, and suggested that claims of convict ancestry constitute a form of identity claim for many Australians.
In this chapter, we extend our earlier research in two ways. First, we draw upon the recent survey data to examine whether the proportion of Australians claiming to have convict ancestors has changed over time, and whether the social background associations we found almost a generation ago are still apparent in contemporary Australia. Second, we add an international comparative element. In addition to asking whether Australians are descended from convicts, we also asked British citizens whether they have ancestors who were transported to the former British colonies as convicts. Our expectations are that similar to Australians in our earlier study, contemporary Australians and Britons will exhibit differences in social background in terms of who claims convict ancestry and who does not.
1.2. CLAIMING CONVICT ANCESTRY
The celebrations marking the bicentennial of Australian white settlement in 1988 saw a resurgence of interest in Australiaâs colonial past. These celebrations gave scant recognition to indigenous Australians or early settlers, but amidst all the flag waving and self-congratulatory back slapping, brought to the fore those early âwhiteâ Australians who did not arrive by choice â the convicts.
The transportation of convicts to Australia, according to Blainey (1966, p. 149), was in essence a form of compulsory, assisted migration, with approximately 162,000 convicts transported (Alexander, 2010, p. 1). However, convict heritage was often hidden and considered a âstainâ by later generations. For example, families developed fictional family trees and it was common for âaging ex-convict couples to be ostracised by their familiesâ (Hay, 2000, p. 3).
Attitudes began to change in the early 1960s and, as Horne (2008 [1964], p. 60) argued, ordinary people who âcould claim an early arrival in the colony as an ancestor â even a convictâ gained some slight prestige. During the last decades of the twentieth century, it became more acceptable to acknowledge Australiaâs convict heritage, rather than conceal it in the manner of previous generations (Fletcher, 1992).
Re-enactments were the order of the day during the bicentennial celebrations of 1988, including convict trials and floggings, sanitised and romanticised for the consumption of younger Australians (Fletcher, 1992; Sayle, 1988). It became fashionable to uncover a convict ancestor. Early arrivals, especially on the first fleet, were particularly welcome finds (Sayle, 1988, p. 45), with convict ancestry âone of the most sought-after prizes of genealogical inquiryâ (Bennett, 1988, p. 41).
The significance of convict identity in Australia is linked to what Hughes calls the âtwin pressures to forget and mythologiseâ (1987, p. 158). In the United Kingdom, Australians are often referred to as âconvictsâ and prisoners of Her Majesty, yet the transportation of their own family members from the United Kingdom is downplayed. According to Smith, âgenealogy and presumed descent ties, popular mobilisation, vernacular languages, customs and traditions are the elements of an ethnic conception of the nationâ (1991, p. 12).
Smith (1996, 1999) identifies three key features of âmyth and memoryâ necessary for the renewal and resurgence of nationalism: a golden age, an elect ethnic group or chosen people and a promised land. The original Australian golden age has been related to the convicts, free settlers and gold miners who carved out the British colonies. Foundation myths, concerning these convicts, bushrangers and gold miners, form an element of the national history and provide a shared memory.
In this instance, the emigrant-colonists who were the âchosen peopleâ (Smith, 1999, p. 137) were predominantly English, Irish and Scots, and a small number of Welsh (Ward, 1978 [1958], p. 47), who âsubduedâ the indigenous population and repelled âexternal enemiesâ such as the French (Phillips, 1996, p. 108). The âpromised landâ was a great southern continent, dry and hot, but ripe for European exploration, colonisation and development.
In contrast to the early convict arrivals, who could scarcely have regarded the continent as their âGod-givenâ homeland, contemporary Australians are tied by âan egalitarian mythâ and their âcontinued freedom and prosperityâ (Smith, 1999, p. 135). Although Horne (2008 [1964]) used his subsequently well-worn phrase in an ironic sense, in popular culture Australia is frequently referred to as the âlucky countryâ. Claiming convict heritage taps directly into the foundation myths and collective memory of Australia, and links contemporary citizens with the âchosenâ (and in this case âchainedâ) few who helped to establish the modern Australian nation.
The topic presented in this chapter is situated within a body of research that examines aspects of national identity in Australia (e.g. Jones, 1997; Pakulski & Tranter, 2000a, 2000b; Phillips, 1996, 2000), and cross-nationally (e.g. Jones & Smith, 2001; Pakulski & Tranter, 2002) using quantitative, survey-based approaches. For example, for Jones (1997, p. 291), âAustralian nativismâ is a form of identity that âlooks backward to a vision of Australia that is fadingâ, while âcivic cultureâ is âa more abstract and open concept, looks forward to a future already in the makingâ. Similarly, Pakulski and Tranter (2000b) mapped the social background of their âethno-nationalâ and âcivicâ national identity types. Their âethno-nationalsâ stressed âthe importance of more ââprimordial tiesââ acquired by birth and long residence, the ties that bind us to the ethnically defined and culturally circumscribed nationâ while âcivicâ identity was characterised by âthe centrality of voluntary ties, interdependence and shared commitments to the core institutions of a societyâ (Pakulski & Tranter, 2000b, p. 218). Pakulski and Tranter (2000b) found that the tertiary educated, baby boomers and middle classes were more likely to associate with a âcivicâ form of identity. On the other hand, their âethno-nationalistsâ were more likely to be born before World War II and tended to be less educated, more religious (particularly Anglican) and to be married or partnered (2000b, p. 213).
Our research differs from earlier Australian quantitative research on national identity in at least one important way. Earlier studies (e.g. Jones, 1997; Pakulski & Tranter, 2000b; Phillips, 1996) based their findings upon attitudinal survey questions constructed by researchers to tap various aspects of national identity. By contrast, our research relates to actual historical events â in this case the transportation of convicts to former British colonies, to what later became states of Australia. By considering the characteristics of those who claim to have convict ancestors, we attempt to examine a more grounded identity claim, although a form of identity that is not necessarily essentialist. Nevertheless, claiming convict ancestry may constitute a claim to (mainly) British or Irish ethnic identity of a particular type, because as Lambert (2002, p. 119) p...