Playing in the Pastoral
The entanglement of complexes which have, since invasion, structured settler responses to, and representations of Aboriginal land and its custodians, ruptures at its most readable in Australian poetics. The ostensible telos of the national literary sentiment – which is surmised by John McLaren as the rise ‘from the hostility of the landscape to man’s efforts to tame it’ – moves anxiously around Aboriginal presence in cosmic, embodied, and negated forms. As Ivor Indyk observes, the Australian pastoral is a site of conflict between the alluring but resistant aesthetics of the land, and the familiar but incompatible languages of the traditional form. Following Paul Kane and Andrew Taylor in their reckoning of the pastoral not as genre but as a series of modes which assimilate natural and human worlds into artistic endeavour, this tension has been mobilised by settler writers and artists for a range of nationalist concerns – most saliently the ongoing articulation and justification for the cultural and geographic boundaries of the colony within, beyond, and against the imperial centre. These concerns have produced a complex and at times contradictory aesthetic of Australian-nature kitsch.
Primarily a constellation of trope and compulsion in orbit around the void of settler colonial subjectivity, there are ostensible narratives which neatly fold the aesthetic production of Australia into thematics responding to both internal and external politics. The environmental conditions of the land being incompatible with European modes of agricultural practice, nineteenth-century poets such as Charles Harpur and Henry Kendall necessarily emphasised Gothic-Romantic themes of hostility and hardship in early Australian pastoral poetics, while Henry Lawson and Barbara Baynton staged forbidding prose tales of estrangement and annihilation against the backdrop of a land fundamentally opposed to humanity and civilisation. Following what Indyk has referred to as the second nationalist phase of Australian literature, the Jindyworobak movement of the 1930s emerged as a supposed aesthetic hybridisation of Eurocentric and Aboriginal culture – seeking to reconcile what George Seddon has described as the ‘filter’ of English language and conventions over the Australian landscape, translating the difference of that land into jargon and misappropriated cryptomythology. While the ‘bush ethos’ underpinning these early national poetics provides an effective thematic for the psychological condition of exile from the vantage point of the settler convict, it has also been critiqued as a myth imagining its own mythology. As Alan Frost suggests, the Australian literary character has been dominated by an origin narrative historically inconsistent with much early settler writings in New South Wales in particular, which responded to varied topographies with varied impressions and intentions. Frost’s argument is a useful one in resisting the inherent notion that the Australian landscape is somehow responsible for settler crisis:
It seems reasonable to suspect that the personalities of those who expressed the bush ethos may also have shaped it . . . Might it not be in that taking convicts and the bush as the correlatives for their feelings of isolation and despair, these writers were expressing individual predilections rather than a general historical experience?
The character of an Australian colonial melancholic has historically styled itself as the working-class outcast around tropes of economic and cultural displacement, but as Bob Hodge and Vijay Mishra remind us – the settler colonial project of Australia both transported and translated the ambitions and antagonisms of the metropolitan centre into the new land, along with the alliances of power and oppression which were in collaboration against the lawful custodians. If Aboriginal presence is considered in such work, it is a representation predominantly concerned with symbols of atavistic inconvenience to the colonial project, charged with psychic significance in the symbolic evocation of a ghostly spectre haunting land lost to Aboriginal people, but which ultimately clears space for the discovery and cultivation of that land by the appropriate settler. Hodge and Mishra have explored this double premise as the ‘Aboriginal archipelago’ of simultaneously refusing to acknowledge Aboriginal presence in social space while conjuring up emblematic tropes of Aboriginal spiritual presence in disembodied forms. Although one strategy seems to suggest a more ethically considerate response, they argue that each does their own form of violence – the former erasing Aboriginal people from literature, while the latter from history, into the mythic void of the Dream Time.
This dialectic enacts in literary terms what Patrick Wolfe has theorised as the Australian ‘logic of elimination’, wherein the erasure of the native through a structure of genocide facilitates the acquisition of land for the establishment of the settler colony, whilst settlers simultaneously cultivate a symbolic return of the native to demarcate the colony’s point of departure from the imperial centre. This return is imagined through strategies of settler nativism and fantasies of adoption into Indigenous cultural spaces, practices, and languages – what Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang have theorised as ‘settler moves to innocence’ – a range of political, intellectual, and artistic evasions of settler guilt and accountability.
The symbolic premise of Aboriginal occupation fully dispossessed into our own spiritual plane – at times presented as explicitly as placing Aboriginal graves within the pastoral scene – has been a persistent theme in Australian literature over the last two centuries, accompanied by the equally pervasive imagining of settler bodies – alive or dead – into the natural flora and fauna of the Australian landscape, manifesting in a complex range of forms, bodies, and tropes. Michael Farrell (2017) has written on the various genealogies of poeticised Australian animals as workers for the settler-colonial ambition itself, in which no creature could be accepted as ‘so wild we cannot name them and make images of them’. While more explicit in settler writings which explore human and non-human relationships or enlist animal bodies in the staging of settler subjectivities, strategies of domestication and white embodiment are equally present in settler renderings of native flora, following the pastoral convention of nature responding to human need.
The penultimate native species evoked in settler Australian poetics is the eucalyptus – whether it be as a resource for the pastoral homestead in Lawson: ‘And when sawn-timber homes were built out in the West;/Then for walls and for ceilings its wood was the best’; an image of the erotic in Robert Gray: ‘a nude descends a staircase/slender white eucalyptus’; or a site of violence in Heather Stewart: ‘Eyes pecked out/by currawongs/she hung four days/up a gum tree’. Frequently this emphasis fixates on the generic classification of ‘ghost gum’ – a species which only grows in Central Australia but has been projected onto a range of Australian ecoregions by settler writers to legitimate both a spectral and corporeal presence of white bodies in Aboriginal land, an imaginary no doubt aided by the myth that Aboriginal people universally assumed white invaders were returning ancestral spirits.
These tropes and strategies of settler nativism are nowhere more explicit than in Australian children’s literature. Jonathan Highfield suggests that the focus on Australian native animals in children’s fiction served to bypass the question of Aboriginal people and dispossession and further clear the land in favour of reinscribing a sense of national and environmental collections through ‘totemic’ relationships with fauna. Affrica Taylor extends this notion in her argument that for the white children of this literature, native animals functioned as guides or mentors through their ‘journey towards indigenisation’, naturalising their claim to the land as both entitlement and inheritance. Simultaneously these alliances worked to appease the ongoing anxiety of displacement of the European body and psyche beyond the idyllic safety of the European pastoral, and thus much of this literature constellates around the trope of the lost child in the bush – the symbol of ‘repressed settler fears that the bush, so closely associated with the enigmatic threat of native savagery and primitive spirituality, is essentially untameable and thus un-homely’.
In this settler/native binary, the safety of the child is predicated not simply on their return to the scene of the settler homestead, but their disavowal of uncivilised or transgressive behaviour – a moral circulated through paratext, such as Ethel Pedley’s introduction to Dot and the Kangaroo, which urges sympathy for ‘the many beautiful and frolicsome creatures of their fair land; whose extinction, through ruthless destruction, is surely being accomplished’, or May Gibbs’ famous greeting in each of her Snugglepot and Cuddlepie books, ‘Humans Please be kind to all bush creatures and don’t pull flowers up by the roots’. These texts exemplify models of mutually-determined belonging for both settler humans and Indigenous animals in their rejection of the ‘untameable and thus un-homely’ presence of Aboriginal bodies and practices in the bush: in Dot and the Kangaroo exemplified in the ever-present threat of the bunyip, and the repudiation of Aboriginal hunters as violent and savage for eating kangaroo (in a scene which more actually describes a ceremonial honouring of kangaroo ancestors or creator spirits); and in Snugglepot and Cuddlepie demonstrated through the casting-out of the recurring villains, the Banksia Men, who are aligned with savagery, animism, sexual deviancy, and Aboriginality throughout the stories.
These recurring narratives of nation-building have produced intricate forms of kitsch and cringe, shaping not just Australia, but also Australiana. The over-determination of these binaries and tropes continues to operate in a dialectic to the perceived horror of the Australian landscape. The operalisation of kitsch in children’s literature can be read as an attempted exorcism of the extant sensation of a profound alienation from the landscape, the tyranny of distance from European pastoral and folkloric traditions. These tropes have returned in contemporary work as both cringe and nostalgia. Recent attempts to recall or ironise these tropes in Australian conceptual poetics – a move which Farrell (2013) suggests might be signalled by ‘the very decline of the national ideal within poetics that enables a review of the Australian’ – also reflects a recent commercial recuperation of Australian kitsch into both aesthetic and ironic consumption. While the circulation of Australian native flora and fauna through literature, art, clothing, jewellery, tattoos, homewares, and placenames might suggest an environmentally and culturally situated movement against globalism and towards a pre-national and post-colonial Australia, it is always translated into Western aesthetic terms, and there is little to suggest that this latest movement does more than further operationalise Aboriginal bodies and culture as a settler psychosis. As Jonathan Dunk has recently argued: