Knowing 'Australia' - The Layman's Approach

A few of you may know of my disenfranchised attitude towards university. They were good times, but the structures, methods and goals of learning fostered within are... objectionable. I have a peice of paper which says I know Mathematics and Aussie Lit, but if I actually had to make use of my experience in either area I would fall short. Very short. I am actually afraid of people asking me questions about Aussie Lit, because I know I won't be able to answer them. "What do you think of D.H. Lawrence?" "Can you recommend anything?" "So what do you study in that then?" Such innocent questions leave me fumbling for some sort of a response. I did some good work, that I will not doubt - but to suggest I am somehow qualified in the subject area of 'Australian Literature' is proposterous, let alone to suggest that I have a practical or useful knowledge of the subject in general.

Now, if somebody were to ask me about motorcycling that would be different. It's not that I know everything - perhaps not anything to do with how much I know. But my knowledge is built upon a broad interest, tempered in practical learning and weathered by conversation. I can take part in discussion on almost any topic within the subject - even if I can't really contribute. But in many discussions I can, because I at least have a broad base-level understanding of most areas. I am aware of what I know, and what I don't - I have an idea about how to find out answers, or to suggest for other people to search for one. I have regular practices to increase my knowledge and understanding - if only to keep up-to-date.

The only thing more absurd than claiming to know 'Australian Literature' is the all-the-more sensible proposition of claiming to know, in some official context, 'motorcycling'. Can you imagine reading "I know about bikes" on an applicant's resume? But it would be much more truthful and useful an observation than listing an AusLit qualification.

I'm well beyond uni now (undergrad at least), but it's never to late to take responsibility for one's learning. So! - I am introducing the Layman's Certificate (of knowledge or understanding). The point is not to give yourself a pat on the back for random stuff that you know. It is to formalise leaning in a way which is flexible and personal, yet structured enough to ensure practicality (in whatever sense is desired), to provide motivation to continue, and to provide checks to assess one's own learning.

Rather than getting carried away with my own waffle I will cut to the point of the post. 'Knowing Australia' is the only thing on my list of goals for this year which hasn't changed - probably because it's so vague. In order to actually be able to pursue this goal, rather than progress being incidental, I'm doing up an outline for a LC (Layman's Certificate - keep up!) on Australia.

Preliminary LC requirements so far include:
1. being able to confidently converse in 'pub conversation' on given topics;
2. being able to advise people on how to increase their knowledge;
3. meeting minimum, subject-specific knowledge requirements;
4. being aware of the extent (and limits) of my knowledge;
5. being able to revise my knowledge, and to extend it further;

The key to the LC Aus., however, is the realisation that 'Australia' is not something that can be 'known', because there is no fundamental or separable thing to know. Virtually all of the understanding I've gained so far has fallen into an alternative formulation: understanding how Australia got to be the way it is. This is a much easier problem to divvy up and address! One can walk into an info centre and learn about the history of a place, the makeup of the population, industry, sport, environment (weather, geology and geography, animals and plants) - with a bit more subtlety one can look into the symbolism surrounding a place, though expect direct questions to fall on deaf ears!

Up here in the NT, virtually all of the National Parks are Aboriginal owned, and its the depiction of 'country' up here which has fired up my literary brain. The word 'Dreamtime' is typically avoided in favour of original-language options because it moves us away from understanding country inseparably from these stories (which are much more than stories! - they are laws, practices, and the country itself). As the creation beings created the land, so the Dreamtime preserves that creation in an understanding of the land formed by the Dreamtime itself.

Western romanticisation of Aboriginal relationships to the land say less about some magical sense of being 'of the land' than it does about our queer sense of nature as 'other', as out there (out back), and as alien, and about our refusal to recognise our interrelationships with it, and the way we shape it with our own understanding.

This isn't exactly groundbreaking stuff, whether personally or academically. The creation of symbolism and meaning in public spaces has been an ongoing source of interest for me - and the conversion from urban to rural/bush is not a large leap. But rediscovering old trains of thought in new contexts has been exciting, and applying this understanding to my approach to knowledge of the country I am travelling through... - well, it's significant enough for me to write all this. What more can I say?