Defining power and representation

The term power can be defined as the ability of an individual to bind another individual or a group of individual to act on the behalf of the former, a relation that depend upon habits of interpretation. The term authority is often used to represent power perceived as legitimate by the social structure.  When it comes to representation, it can be defined as the method by which media that includes television, film as well as books, portray certain types of people or communities. Power is intrinsically linked with representation since the later decides the future impact of power on the society. According to researchers, there exists a strong relationship between power and representation (Fozdar et al., 2015). Each and every state is represented by group of individuals who remains and looks after the benefits and difficulties of the fellow citizens of the nation. In this essay, the relationship between power and representation will be analyzed on the context of the Australian day. In Australia, the Australian Day is celebrated on 26^th January in remembrance of the day in 1788 when Captain Arthur Philip, commander of the First Fleet of 11 British Ships that arrived at Sydney Cove to signal the birth of the colony (Walton et al., 2018). However, several controversies about whether the celebration should take place or not have been there. In this essay, the question that “what is the relationship between representation and power?” will be addressed by developing a critical argument about the Australian Day.

There are four chief theories of power that includes the elite theory, the pluralist theory, the class theory and the gender theory. The class theory of power is associated with Karl Marx. According to the theory, the society is consist of three classes namely  rich and poor. While the class of rich owns all means of production the poor class is comprised of individuals who are economically weak and is exploited and demotivated by the former class socially, politically, and economically (Meaney, 2015). The Class theory states that power always remains in the hand of a specific class of the society by usage of which the class maintains its dominance over the society. When it comes to the elite theory of power, it holds that in each society power is used by a small group of individuals, the elite, that takes all decisions as well as rules in the society. In each society, the power is really in the hands of the elite. The pluralist theory of power on the other hand rejects both the class theory as well as the elite theory. According to this theory, power, in society, is neither practice by a class or nor by elites but by several different groups. In each and every society there are several groups of individual each of which represents the major interest or at least some interest. The gender theory of power is however, completely different from the above mentioned theory. According to this theory, the power in a society always remains in the hands of men who are responsible for dominating a group of women in the society. According to researcher, the various opinions about power is the result of representation of the same (Ariely, 2017). For instance, in nations like Arab, where several cases of gender domination is visible, power is represented by men. When it comes to hegemony, it is the power which is used by socially powerful individual to convince less powerful individuals that a certain decision has been taken to serve their best interest while the truth is that the decision has been taken in order to serve the best interest of the power full class.

Analyzing the relationship between power and representation

According to Ariely, (2017) the representation carried out by the Australian media carries the power to enhance the awareness of the citizen. The action taken by Triple J by shifting the Hottest hundred poll from 26^th January to 27^th makes it obvious that the whole purpose is to demonstrate sympathy to the indigenous population. The national day celebration of Australia has drawn much criticism since according to several citizen of Australia the day bears no pride for the nation since it an invasion day. According to Donoghue & Tranter, (2015) this day hurts the sentiment of the indigenous Australians who were being invaded on the day and hence there remains no reason for celebration for them.  The conservative Liberal National Coalition government has also criticized any suggestion of a potential change of date that includes Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. A group of researchers states that the celebration of Australian day clearly demonstrate the lack of power as well as discrimination faced by the Aboriginal and Torres islander in Australia (McDonald, 2017).  Even in this era of civilization, the indigenous people of Australia, who are the actual residents of the nation are discriminated, provided with lesser opportunities and treated unequal by the Australian government. Fozdar, Spittles & Hartley, (2015) stated that half of the young individuals in juvenile detention are aboriginals and Torres island individuals. Several aboriginal individuals state that an aboriginal student laving school is more likely to be dragged to jail instead of providing the opportunity to visit university. Thus it can be clearly understood that there prevails a justice gap between the first Australian and the rest of them. Not only this, the lack of opportunity of the indigenous Australians can easily understood is the mortality rate, early age education, job opportunities and healthcare facilities are traced. In the year 2006,  the closing the Gap campaign had been initiated by the government of the nation (Becker et al., 2017). However, even after 12 years of the campaign, the improvement in the condition of the indigenous Australians makes the effectiveness of the mentioned campaign questionable. According to McDonald,  (2017) the encoding/decoding model states that television as well as other media audiences are presented with messages that are decoded, or interpreted in various ways depending on the cultural background of an individual, his or her economic standing as well as personal experiences.

The celebration of the Australia day as a national day further questions the democratic power of the indigenous population in their own land Australia. Considering the fact that the population of indigenous Australian is 2 percent of the total population of Australia, the Australian government has stated that the indigenous Australians do not require an advisory council in order to make their voice heard in federal parliament. Meaney, (2015) stated that one of the chief reasons behind declining the idea of incorporating indigenous representative is to prevent the representation of the indigenous people in the federal parliament. However, these news are often avoided or not highlighted by the Australian media.

The scenario clearly demonstrates the domination of Australian government on the media of the nation. Thus it can be clearly understood that when it comes to changing the Australian day, it will never take place until the more power comes in the hand of the indigenous population.  In spite of the support for changing the day by the indigenous leaders, no major action has been taken by the government of the nation. According to the indigenous leader, Tom Calma, the date of Australian date should be changed since it represents and symbolized what Australia used to be instead of what Australia will become. While political power is a major barrier when it comes to changing the Australia day, another barrier that was is preventing the hang of the date is the lack of social power of the indigenous people. According to the recent poll, more than 56 percent of the Australian population voted for the celebration of Australian day since they consider that it is a day of pride for the Australians. However, 39 percent of  the Australian are found to not supporting the celebration of Australian day as a national day since they feel that it unethical to celebrate a day that is offensive to the indigenous people (Donoghue & Tranter, 2015).  While majority of the indigenous Australian population claims that the celebration of Australia day on 26^th January is crucial to them, majority of them were not able to accurately name the event it commemorates. Thus majority of the population that supports the celebration on 27^th day are just supporting it in sake of an unethical nationalism which does not possess any strong ground. Over the years, several suggestions have been given to the government that includes 27^th may, the day when indigenous people were allowed to practice constitutional rights, 1^st January, the day the constitution of Australia came to force. However, all the alternatives provided by the Australian indigenous leaders were ruled out by the Prime Minister Malcum Turnbell. The reason that has been provided from the side of the government for not continuing preserving the date includes that January 26 is not celebrated  because of the first Fleet ship landing but because of essential cultural cargo.  They stated that more than 26 percent of the Australians who were born overseas were granted citizenship on January 26. They treasure it and use the anniversary to mark it through ages. According to researchers, this can be demonstrated as an ideal example for hegemony since an idea of manipulation of the common people can be obtained from the explanation (Moran, 2011). Considering the fact that for majority of the Australians the day is celebrated to reflect the achievement of the Australians, not because of the 26 percent of the oversea born Australians.

 Considering the fact that majority of the Aboriginal and Torres islander wishes to celebrate their freedom and values as Australians but is unable to do the same since the date marks the commencement of a long history of violence and trauma.  From the above discussion it can be clearly understood that lack of representatives and power of the indigenous people in the federal parliament a well as in the society is the chief reason behind the discrimination and lack of voice faced by them. However, this suppression is imposing negative impact on the development of the nation in near future.  

References

Ariely, G. (2017). Remembrance Day influence on national sentiments and hostility towards out-groups: evidence from a panel study in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(14), 2596-2614.

Becker, J. C., Butz, D. A., Sibley, C. G., Barlow, F. K., Bitacola, L. M., Christ, O., … & Sulz, A. (2017). What do national flags stand for? An exploration of associations across 11 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 335-352.

Donoghue, J., & Tranter, B. (2015). The Anzacs: military influences on Australian identity. Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 449-463.

Fozdar, F., Spittles, B., & Hartley, L. K. (2015). Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism. Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 317-336.

McDonald, M. (2017). Remembering Gallipoli: Anzac, the Great War and Australian Memory Politics. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 63(3), 406-418.

Meaney, N. (2015). The Problem of Nationalism and Transnationalism in Australian History: A Reply to Marilyn Lake and Christopher Waters. History Australia, 12(2), 209-231.

Moran, A. (2011). Multiculturalism as nation-building in Australia: Inclusive national identity and the embrace of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(12), 2153-2172.

Walton, J., Priest, N., Kowal, E., White, F., Fox, B., & Paradies, Y. (2018). Whiteness and national identity: teacher discourses in Australian primary schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(1), 132-147.