A Response to Mr O. Boot

It was with a wonderful pang of pleasure that I received my first critical response on this blog. (I mean critical in the discursive sense). It gave me a chance to revisit my earlier musings. The comments below are my first response, but hopefully they will spark further debate, because reading through these (and my first post), I realise that I have not yet fully elucidated my theories on exile and Antipodality. That said, hopefully these comments will spark further discussion.

So, first, here are Mr Boot's comments...

Three things:
(i) It's not no-man's language heading into no-man's land - it has your name on it. You might write something here, that you wish you hadn't but someone, somewhere will find it stashed in a cache of memory and remind you that you once said it. Sort of like Rudd and the strippers, but more like the Liberal guy who lost preselection because he called Lynne Kosky a ho, or somethign like that. That is why it is better to be anon on the web.
(ii) You're not an exile, you're a migrant. Just like the Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese, Sudanese etc etc coming to Melbourne to seek a better like. It's good here. If you really want to assimilate you should go for Essendon or Collingood.
(iii) Welcome to the 21st century.


And here are my somewhat rushed, immediate responses.

Dear Mr Boot,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They certainly require thoughful responses, to which at this point I can only offer my immediate gut resposes.

My first response would be to challenge the blunt literalness with which you have taken my metaphorical musings. My major criticism of your response to this post would be your failure to recognise that, beyond dictionary definitions, states such as 'exile' or even 'anonymity' can be purely psychological states of personal identity creation. In fact, a good argument could (and has) been made that the state of exile is often a very personal decision on behalf of the exile. (See for instance, Adorno). This decision is very different to that of the migrant or even of the refugee. This is a much larger semantic argument, which I will take up further below.

So, for the sake of clarity, let me return to the original post and add some definitory clarifications in response to your three criticisms...

(i). The reference to 'no-man's' language in no-man's land' was a pointed one - it was not solely intended as a reference to the internet, nor to Victoria, to anonymity, nor even to the nature of Antipodality, but rather an amalgam of all of these and perhaps even more. You criticise the nature of my anonymity, and yet, even through the veil of your non de plume I have a fairly good idea of who you are...

But, of course, this is beyond the issue - the point is that we are all, to some extent anonymous. I for one, could stand in the middle of Times Square or Piccidilly Circus with an enormous banner saying 'Henry F Skerritt' and would be as anonymous as the man next to me. Anonymity is a state of recognition - and as the Kevin Rudd story proves - one only ceases to be anonymous when everybody knows who you are. His trip to the strip club took little importance until he became a figure of note. In fact, your comments make the amusing double take of refusing to recognise the 'Liberal guy', over Lynne Kosky - thus returning him to the anonymity of the blogosphere (such an unattractive word). As something to hide behind, anonymity is a con. Rather, I think any written word should be chosen carefully, with the view that it will be read. Why else go to the narcissistic exercise of a diary or a blog? Also, anonymity can be very restrictive. I really enjoyed writing the post on Col Jordan and my grandfather, which I could not have done and remained anonymous. And, yet paradoxically, such a post is really quite meaningless to anyone who does not know me. No, I think the nature of anonymity is much broader than what name you choose to put on a piece of writing.

So, why did I choose the term exile. Certainly I do not see myself as a refugee, nor indeed a migrant. Both these terms come with a certain level of cultural baggage that I was hoping not to invoke. No, exile is the right term. Like Phillip and the 300 officials who travelled with him on the First Fleet, I left Perth for many reasons. Some were about adventure and the possibility of better things, others were about running away - about leaving those things that cramped us in. The utopian vision of the Antipodes as a place of abundant space and wealth (as spoken of by Cook and Banks), was tempered by the much older view of terra australis as 'Hic Sunt Dracones' or 'Here Be Dragons'. Part of the reason that it took over 130 years from the European discovery of Australia to the eventual settling of a colony was that since the arrival of Dutch and Portuguese sailors, Australia had tended to be considered as a barren, inhospitable land inhabited by violent savages. These two competing visions of the new country bore heavily on the minds of the officers of the First Fleet, and in many instances were given as the cause of insanity that living in the new country produced.

The nature of exile takes in both these competing positions. When Adorno discusses the European exiles living in New York, the distinction becomes very apparent. For although these emigres fled persecution in Europe during WWII, many lived their entire lives out in America. Despite this, they largely refused to learn the language or make much effort to assimilate. These exiles couldn't return to Europe after the War, because the Europe that they left had disappeared, but more importantly, they needed to hold on to the great concept of Europe that they remembered. Their whole self-defintion relied on a Europe that no longer existed and for them to give this up - to relinquish the position of exile - was for them to lose the great history that defined them as part of a great European cultural tradition.

You can be in exile for many reasons, but perhaps the simplest defintion could be that you cannot return, but you cannot let go. I think that perfectly describes the condition that I spoke of, and more pertinently describes the condition of Antipodality that Australia desperately needs to shed itself of.

That and Collingwood suck.