Migration, Ethnicity and Privilege

Representation assumes that those who govern have knowledge of those for whom they govern. It is easy to presume knowledge of the “other”, but as we know this can be based in prejudice, cultural difference, or simply misinformation or simplification. Usually our explorations of this process have focused on populations identified as disadvantaged, disempowered or somehow “non-privileged”. However, the research process outlined here has revealed previously unexplored diversity within a population commonly described as privileged suggesting that good governance requires alertness to presuming to know both the unprivileged and the privileged. The research approach outlined in this paper has used a blend of historical reappraisal and qualitative techniques focusing on a population who have been conceptualized as doubly privileged. This population focus is that of older British; post World War II male migrants in South Australia. These people have been conceptualized as privileged because they are male, and they were part of the preferred ethnic group that Australian politicians and policy makers favoured post WW2. However, review of the historical data and qualitative interviews with some of these men show that the accepted narrative of a homogenous pre-WW2 British origin population is over simplistic. The historical research suggests that the presumption that post WW2 British migrant men were coming into an homogenous, privileging environment in migrating to SA is both ahistorical and crude. Furthermore the belief that post WW2 British migrant men were ethnically homogenous is undermined by the qualitative research, that reveals that their presumed homogeneity is much more fluid and nuanced than dominant conceptualisations have allowed. The impact of core ethnicities that continue to exist and compete in Britain, the social class focus and economic commodification of migrants in the machinations of powerful players in the state of South Australia all confound homogenizing, simplistic knowing of British migrant men in this state. Generically these findings caution social researchers with regard to presuming to know so called “privileged” populations as well as presumed non-privileged groups.