The origins of the radical intelligentsia in the 'Sixties.

• Author: Bendle, Mervyn F.
• Position: 178221275
• Pages: 23(14)

Recent discussions about the nature and role of the contemporary Australian intelligentsia offer limited analyses of its origins, ideological structure, and cultural and psychological dynamics. (1) In fact, its history goes back some 40 years to the adversary culture that developed in response to the Vietnam War, at a time when Australia was undergoing an "education revolution" that was transforming society. It has been remarked by an historian of modern warfare that "the way a nation organises itself during warfare reflects the nature of its entire social system and those forces, ranging from its class structure to its intellectual processes, that define its institutional life and influence its values". (2) This applies to that war, Australia's fighting of which was hindered, obstructed and ultimately terminated because a fundamental disjunction emerged between the political establishment and general popular opinion, on one hand, and the nation's intellectual culture, on the other. The 1960s introduced an historical caesura--a discontinuity--into the social, cultural and political history of Australia whose scale and implications no government recognised. Consequently, there came rapidly into being a highly effective adversary culture led by a militant intelligentsia that was unlike anything that had previously existed in Australia and that continues to exercise influence today.

On the evening of 31 January 1968, at the start of Tet, the lunar New Year holiday, some 70,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers launched a massive offensive throughout South Vietnam. Major battles occurred in nearly every province and significant city with the communists even attacking the American embassy in Saigon and the huge American complex at Cam Ranh Bay. The Tet Offensive proved to be a military catastrophe for the communists, with the Viet Cong losing some 45,000 of its best troops, permanently stripping away the military capability of the National Liberation Front in the South. (3) However, in terms of international propaganda it was a triumph, facilitated by unprecedented media coverage epitomised by the infamous photograph of a police chief blowing out the brains of a captured member of a Viet Cong execution squad in Saigon. (4) "Tet shocked Western television viewers and drew waves of sympathy for Hanoi and the Viet Cong." (5) It signalled the start of a series of dramatic events in 1968 that transformed contemporary history and made the year itself iconic.(6)

The year also served as a tipping point in Australia's commitment to the Vietnam War. When Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies had some years earlier announced Australia's commitment of a battalion to the war in Vietnam he had emphasised that it had to be seen in terms of a worsening communist threat in Southeast Asia and Australia's alliance with America, a relationship that was becoming increasingly vital as Britain continued its strategic withdrawal from the region, and America became Australia's most important economic and military partner. There was nothing unusual about such foreign policy decisions. Nevertheless, as Australia's involvement in this war unfolded, a new radical intelligentsia became increasingly successful in mobilising and legitimising both opposition to the war and active support for the communist cause.

The manner in which various long-term demographic, social and cultural processes inter-acted in a myriad ways through the 'Sixties and coalesced around opposition to the Vietnam War is a remarkable phenomenon that appears almost to defy historical analysis. For example, a recent book recounts Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War, proceeding in an organised fashion through the various phases of this history until it comes to the point where the narrative addresses the crucial intersection between the war effort and the inchoate cultural revolution of the 'Sixties. Here the relevant chapter (pointedly entitled "Australian Viet Cong") begins with a single sentence that continues for two pages, listing hundreds of names and concepts (e.g., Maoists, Che Guevara, Timothy Leary, Structuralism, the Pill, Woodstock, LSD, Buddha, etc., etc.) in a sort of stream of consciousness that in itself invokes the cultural experience of many people at the time. (7)

This gigantic list is not systematic, but neither is it random; rather it is best viewed as a constellation of interrelated elements whose sprawling complexity reflects the intellectual challenges that this period represents. How did this vast number of widely disparate cultural phenomena come to cohere sufficiently to constitute a dynamic and resilient adversary culture that fuelled and sustained a long-term campaign against the Vietnam War? The present article seeks to address this question.

The power of this cultural revolution and its effects upon the Australian war effort can be gathered from the transformation in attitudes that occurred in just a few years following 1965. When the Vietnam commitment was announced, opinion polls showed solid community support for the decision. For example, in May 1965, 52 per cent of a Gallup Poll sample supported the war against 37 per cent opposed; while 64 per cent (versus 16 per cent) believed that Thailand and Malaysia would fall to communism if the Americans abandoned Vietnam. A massive 72 per cent (versus 16 per cent) believed that China would become a threat to Australia in such an eventuality. Six months earlier, in November 1964, a selective National Service scheme for 20-year-old males had been introduced with considerable support and little opposition in an atmosphere "of gathering alarm" about the deteriorating political situation in Southeast Asia. (8)

Clearly, at this stage, "the principal elements of the domino theory ... were deeply embedded in the Australian psyche". (9) The media generally supported the Government's decision, sharing the view that the communist threat was very real, and confident that Australia had taken a responsible decision and couldn't "shirk its responsibilities", ever though "Australian casualties in [such a] dirty war are inevitable". (10) The Australian Labor Party was torn between its right and left wings and provided little effective opposition. Major social institutions like the unions, the churches and universities initially either supported the government or at least accepted the necessity of the action. When the communist-controlled Waterside Workers' Federation demanded strike action there was little support, and a few protest meetings around the country drew disappointing crowds. Amongst the churches, the Anglicans were divided, but key leaders and most members supported the government. Within the Catholic Church, the hierarchy and most of the membership also supported the commitment, as did the Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council, all being concerned with the general communist threat and the fate of the Catholic population in Vietnam. On university campuses opinions were divided and small demonstrations championed both sides of the conflict. At the University of Melbourne in May a student meeting supported the commitment by a vote of 312 to 200. Broad public support for the Government was also registered in the 1966 federal election, which saw the Liberal-Country party coalition returned with an historically large swing and a substantially increased majority...