A. C. Gariano and S. D. Rutland
Intermarriage between partners of different religious identification is an important indicator of the extent of cultural maintenance. An analysis of the 1996 Census shows that religious intermix is significant and growing amongst Australia’s major Catholic and Protestant faiths. The once strong divisions between Catholics and Protestants are fading. However, amongst minor religions, intermix is low. It is particularly low amongst Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Greek Orthodox adherents.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this article is to examine the extent to which religion determines our selection of a mate and whether like marries like. These questions are answered using previously unpublished customised 1996 Census data.
The article examines religious intermix for married couples identified in the 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census and compares and contrasts it with 1991 Census data.1 It also examines religious intermix according to state of residence as at the time of Census enumeration.
MULTICULTURALISM
The ideology of multiculturalism can be broadly divided into two schools of thought — structural multiculturalism (concerned with structural barriers to full participation in Australian society) and normative multiculturalism (concerned with the ‘cultural’ and ‘ethnic’ aspects of Australian society). Without entering into detailed discussion, it is widely accepted that structural multiculturalism has remained in the background of multicultural rhetoric. The prevailing normative rhetoric paints a picture of a tolerant and harmonious Australian society where mutual respect for cultural, linguistic, racial, ethnic and religious identification is encouraged. This view however is problematic. On the one hand it espouses cultural maintenance (hard multiculturalism)2 and on the other tolerance (soft multiculturalism).3 Intermarriage serves to break down cultural maintenance and shift the goal posts to ‘soft’ multiculturalism. According to Cope et al., intermarriage results in the disappearance of ethnic differences.4 Some would say that this type of multiculturalism reflects assimilationist policies.
An indicator of the extent of movement towards ‘soft’ multiculturalism is the relaxation of religious taboos, particularly as they relate to marriage. If ‘soft’ multiculturalism is working one would expect greater religious intermix over time, all other factors being equal. The study of religious intermix also helps determine the extent to which religious identification influences our selection of a mate.
Within the limits of this article there is sufficient scope to provide a brief account of the extent to which religious intermix is occurring in Australia and whether there has been any change since the last Census.
In 1991 Gariano analysed religious intermix for _dominant_ and _minor_ religions. The dominant religions consisted of Catholicism, Anglicanism and people classified as Other Protestants/Christians. The minor religions consisted of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Orthodoxy, Other Orthodoxy, other religions and those claiming no religion and those who did not state a religion. For comparability the same categories are used in this analysis.
CAVEATS TO THE ANALYSIS
| Table 1: Total number of persons in registered marriages according to religious identification, 1991 | |||
| Religion | 1996 | 1991 | % change 1991-1996 |
| Anglican
Catholic Other P/Ca Buddhism Hinduism Islam Judaism Greek Orthodox Other Orthodox |
1,642,076
1,839,248 1,441,880 74,131 30,590 76,780 34,39 172,658 65,257 |
1,688,190
1,717,871 1,433,323 49,675 19,068 56,652 31,892 168,092 55,004 |
- 2.7
+ 7.1 + 0.6 + 49.2 + 60.4 + 35.5 + 7.9 + 2.7 + 18.6 |
| a Other Protestant/Christians | |||
Various caveats apply to this analysis. The data are limited by the non-mandatory nature of the Census question on religion (6.9 per cent non-response rate in 1996 compared to 10.2 per cent in 1991). We were unable to control for: couples who had been previously married; those who had undergone religious conversion prior to marriage; marriages that occurred prior to migration; the motives behind marriage; and the level of religious adherence. In addition, the data set did not contain variables such as age, birthplace, socio-economic-status (SES), parents’ birthplace, language and other variables which may otherwise affect the choice of marriage partner. Finally, we have limited our analysis to people who reported their marital status as married when filling out the Census form. The ABS refers to these people as being in registered marriages.
AUSTRALIA_S RELIGIOUS COMPOSITIONBouma_s recent article5 reveals significant changes in Australia_s religious composition in the 1996 Census compared to 1991. There has been an increase in the total number of persons identifying as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Catholics and a decrease in the number of persons identifying as Anglicans. The increase in the number of persons identifying with these religions has had a significant effect on the number of registered marriages. The number of Hindus who have married has increased by 60.4 percentage points, the number of Buddhists by 49.2 percentage points and the number of Muslims by 35.5 percentage points (see Table 1).
The number of registered marriages for the category ‘Other Orthodox’
has risen by 18.6 percentage points compared to 2.7 percentage points for
the Greek Orthodox. The Jews have also shown an increase, with a 7.9 percentage
points gain in the number married since the 1991 Census
| Table 2: Married persons in mixed marriages in 1996 and increase since 1991 | |||||||||
| Religious category | 1996 Census | Percentage increase
in mixed marriage,
1991 -1996 |
|||||||
| % in mixed marriage | Total married | ||||||||
| Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | |
| Anglican
Catholic Other P/C |
35.5
31.5 29.5 |
37.0
35.6 35.4 |
36.2
33.6 32.6 |
811,493
891,232 689,186 |
830,583
948,016 752,694 |
1,642,076
1,839,248 1,441,880 |
1.5
1.4 0.5 |
1.6
5.8 1.5 |
1.5
3.7 1.1 |
Changes in the dominant religious group are also apparent. As indicated in Table 1, there has been a 2.7 percentage points decrease in the number of Anglicans in registered marriages and a 7.1 percentage points increase in the number of Catholics in such relationships.
INTERMIX — DOMINANT RELIGIONS
Table 2 reports the intermix rates for married persons identifying with the dominant religions and compares it to data from the 1991 Census. As indicated, the rate of religious intermix for the dominant religions has increased for all groups for both males and females. The greatest increase has occurred for Catholics, with a 3.7 percentage points increase since the 1991 Census. This increase is somewhat surprising. One would expect intermix for this group to have reduced, as the pool of marriage partners of the same religious identification has increased.6 Whilst not reported here, 52.3 per cent of Catholics aged over 18 are females yet female intermix has risen sharply by 5.8 percentage points. It now stands at 35.6 per cent. This increase is remarkable since, when comparing it to the level of intermix amongst male Catholics, the difference is 4.4 percentage points. Age may be a factor. However, age data were not available for this inquiry.7
The total number of Anglicans on the other hand has decreased since the 1991 Census, yet their religious intermix rate has increased only slightly (1.5 per cent). One would have expected intermix for this group to have risen at a greater rate than for Catholics, given the reduced pool of persons of marriageable age.8 Factors other than the marriage pool may, however, be at play. Of interest is the fact that 52.9 per cent of Anglicans aged 18 or over are females, yet Anglican female intermix has only risen by 1.6 percentage points and is only 0.1 percentage points greater than that of Anglican males.
As reported in Table 2, Anglicans and Catholics are out-marrying at much higher rates than in the past (21.2 per cent out-marriage for Catholics and 20.1 per cent for Anglicans in 1961),9 with female Catholics leading the way. It seems that the old hostilities of the church to intermarriage have been weakened.
Closer examination however paints a somewhat different picture. Table
3 reports the intermix pattern for the dominant religions by gender and
denomination of spouse for the 1996 Census and shows the percentage difference
since the 1991 Census.
| Table 3: Married persons in mixed and unmixed marriages in 1996 by denomination of spouse and change since 1991 (percentages) | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| 1996 | Change since 1991 | 1996 | Change since 1991 | 1996 | Change since 1991 | 1996 | Change since 1991 | |
| Males |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Anglican
Catholic Other P/C |
64.5
16.1 13.6 |
-1.5
4.5 -1.0 |
19.1
68.5 12.4 |
1.3
-1.4 0.5 |
12.7
9.7 70.5 |
-0.4
0.2 -0.5 |
3.7
5.6 3.4 |
0.6
1.0 0.9 |
| Females |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Anglican
Catholic Other P/C |
63.0
16.4 13.7 |
-1.6
-0.9 -1.0 |
17.3
64.4 11.5 |
1.1
-5.8 0.4 |
11.3
9.0 64.6 |
-0.5
-0.6 -1.5 |
8.4
10.2 10.2 |
1.0
7.3 2.1 |
| a Includes no religion, religion not stated and other religions | ||||||||
As indicated, the 5.8 percentage points difference in female intermix for Catholics is largely a result of greater female outmarriage to those of ‘minor religions’ (an increase of 7.3 percentage points since the 1991 Census). Note that in Table 3 ‘minor religions’ includes no religion and not stated religion. The 10.2 per cent female Catholic intermix with the minor religions for 1996 includes 2.1 per cent female Catholic intermix with males claiming no religion or where religion was ‘not stated’. Catholic females seem to have adopted a more open approach to marriage and accepted the rhetoric of soft multiculturalism. On the other hand, Catholic males have been less inclined to do so, at least when it comes to intermixing with females of the minor religions. However, Catholics males do display a wearing down of the old hostilities towards Anglicans. The 1996 data show a 4.5 percentage points increase in the rate of intermix with Anglican females since 1991.
Overall, however, Anglicans males and females still prefer to marry
Catholics when marrying out and likewise male and female Catholics prefer
to marry Anglicans.
| Table 4: Married persons in mixed marriages by state of enumeration as a percentage of each religious group, 1996 (dominant religions) | |||||||||
| State |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NSW
Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT |
34.9 39.4 33.4 34.1 31.0 41.6 42.2 |
37.8 39.6 35.2 37.4 32.5 43.4 44.8 |
36.3 39.5 34.3 35.8 31.8 42.5 43.5 |
25.6 38.7 34.6 30.5 51.3 31.5 38.7 |
29.1 43.3 38.9 34.9 54.7 36.8 43.9 |
27.4 41.1 36.7 32.8 53.1 34.3 41.1 |
26.6 30.3 31.6 21.1 32.7 36.3 25.6 |
33.0 36.2 40.0 28.1 38.4 42.6 33.0 |
30.0 33.4 36.1 24.8 35.7 39.6 29.5 |
DOMINANT RELIGIONS — STATE DIFFERENCES
Table 4 reports intermarriage for the dominant religions according to state of enumeration. Tasmania records the lowest rate of intermarriage for Anglicans (31.8 per cent) whilst the Northern Territory records the highest (43.5 per cent). Anglican intermarriage in the Northern Territory is highest for females (44.8 per cent). The rate of intermix for Anglican females is consistently higher than for males in all states.
Intermarriage for Catholics is lowest in Victoria (27.4 per cent) and is exceptionally low for males (25.6 per cent). In contrast, intermarriage for Catholics is over 53 per cent in Tasmania, with just under 55 per cent of female Catholics intermixing. Like Anglican females, Catholic females out-marry at a greater rate than do males in all states.
Adelaide is the city of churches and intermarriage is lowest for Other Protestants/ Christians (24.8 per cent) in South Australia, with 21.1 per cent of males intermixing. Intermarriage is highest for Other Protestants/Catholics in the Australian Capital Territory (39.6 per cent) with 42.6 per cent of females marrying out.
Queensland, often regarded as a conservative state, leads the others when it comes to religious intermix.
MINOR RELIGIONS
Intermarriage for members of the minor religions is less than half of
that recorded by the dominant groups, apart from those categorised as ‘other
religions’ where it is particularly high at 61.6 per cent. This result
is surprising as the rate for this group in 1991 was only 25.5 per cent.
Not withstanding any errors in the 1991 analysis, this increase may reflect
the heterogeneity of smaller religions and/or more refined classification
of religions since the 1991 Census.
| Table 5: Minor religions, married persons in mixed marriages in 1996 and change since 1991 | |||||||||
| Religion |
|
|
|
||||||
| Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | |
| Buddhism
Hinduism Islam Judaism Greek Orth. Other Orth. Other rels. No religion N.S. |
13.2
10.9 7.4 15.6 15.5 15.2 73.0 38.4 15.7 |
19.4
10.7 4.3 12.5 12.6 12.5 33.2 20.1 10.8 |
16.4
10.8 5.9 14.1 14.1 13.8 61.6 30.4 13.3 |
35,694
15,317 39,024 17,509 87,785 33,140 23,327 487,041 236,565 |
38,437
15,273 37,756 16,890 84,873 32,117 10,982 375,894 223,798 |
74,131
30,590 76,780 34,399 172,658 65,257 34,309 862,935 460,363 |
1.4
-3.1 -0.4 1.1 1.9 -0.4 49.1 7.4 1.5 |
0.3
-2.3 0.2 0.9 2.1 1.1 9.4 1.1 0.8 |
0.8
-2.7 -0.1 1.0 2.0 0.2 37.7 4.9 1.1 |
| Note: Intermarriage rates include unions with those claiming no religion and with those whose religion was not stated. | |||||||||
The lowest rate of out-marriage, as indicated in Table 5, is amongst Muslims (5.9 per cent) with just a 0.1 percentage points difference from the 1991 rate of 6.0 per cent. It seems that the taboos in Islam associated with intermarriage are firmly entrenched. Intermarriage for Muslim males has decreased from 7.8 per cent in 1991 to 7.4 per cent in 1996 and for females it has slightly increased from 4.1 per cent to 4.3 per cent. The higher rate of intermix for male Muslims, as compared with Muslim females, is in line with religious thought on this issue.10
With the exception of those categorised as ‘other religions’, intermarriage is highest for Buddhists with 16.4 per cent intermarrying. This rate represents a 0.8 percentage points increase since the 1991 Census. Unlike women in other minor religious groups, female Buddhists marry out at a rate greater than males (19.4 per cent compared to 13.2 per cent). This pattern has not changed since the 1991 Census. Buddhists are the only group to display a similar pattern to members of the dominant faiths, where females tend to intermarry at a higher rate that males.
The intermarriage rate for Hindus has substantially reduced from 13.5 per cent in 1991 to 10.8 per cent. Here female intermarriage rates have dropped from 13.0 per cent to 10.7 per cent and male intermarriage rates from 14.0 per cent to 10.9 per cent. It is likely that this is a result of the larger pool of eligible Hindus. This observation tends to confirm the marriage-market theorists’ expectations.11
Jewish intermix has risen by one percentage point since the 1991 Census. Intermix for Jews now stands at 14.1 per cent. For males and females the intermix rate has risen by 1.1 percentage points. For males, the intermix rate is now 15.6 per cent compared to 14.5 per cent in 1991 and 14.0 per cent in 1981. For females, it is now 12.5 per cent compared to 11.6 per cent for 1991 and 11.2 per cent in 1981. The increase over that last 15 years is less than 0.11 percentage points per annum. If this rate remains constant, 16 per cent of married Jews will be in mixed marriages by the year 2000. However, if the assumptions behind the theory of the marriage market are sound, the proportion out-marrying should decrease as the number of Jews immigrating to Australia increases. Increases in Jewish immigration are likely to occur given the continued changes in Eastern Europe and South Africa.12 In addition, the rekindling of the Jewish religion for some of these new migrants, who may not have been in a position to practise their beliefs in their native countries, may reignite religious taboos against intermarriage. Given the low levels of intermix for Jews in Australia, the offspring of these immigrants and the next generation may be less likely to consider intermarriage. This view however, does not rule out intermix. In fact, Rubinstein claims that the rise of Jewish intermix in Australia is a result of ‘out-marriage among the children of migrants’13 and possibly out marriage that took place prior to immigration. However, the evidence is scant with only anecdotal information available.
The rates of Jewish intermix in Australia are quite low in comparison. According to Norden ‘of the marriages from before 1965, 10 per cent are intermarriages; from 1965 to 1974, 25 per cent; from 1974 to 1984, 42 per cent; and since 1985 more than half’.14 Norden goes further and claims that intermarriage for Jews in the US is even higher as the data do not take into account Jews who are separated or divorced from an intermarriage. Norden also argues that the rate of gentile partner conversion to Judaism has been constantly dropping from a high of 20 per cent for pre-1965 couples to 10 per cent for the 1985 couples. Sarna quotes the 1990 National Jewish Population Study which indicated that this figure now stands at less than five per cent.15
As to the effects of out-marriage on the children of mixed marriages, Norden cites the 1990 National Jewish Population Study which found that ‘only 28 per cent ... are reported as being raised Jewish ... 41 per cent ... raised as non-Jewish ... and 31 per cent as nothing’. It seems that American Jewry are assimilating at a fast pace. We are currently exploring some of the factors which might explain the contrast with Australia.16
One problem associated with Jewish intermix rates is the effect of ‘no
religion’ and ‘not stated religion’. It is argued by Rubinstein that the
inclusion of unions between Jews and those claiming no religion and where
religion is not stated is problematic. Some Jews may be reluctant to identify
as Jews and some may view their Jewishness as a cultural attribute rather
than a religious one. Further, some Jews are Jews by background and may
not identify with the religion. Rubinstein claims that this may be the
case for a large majority of nominally ‘non-Jewish’ partners in mixed marriages,
or at least a significant minority of cases.17 As in the 1991
Census, those claiming no religion and people whose religion is not stated
can be excluded from the analysis. Exclusion of these cases reduces intermarriage
for Jews from 14.1 per cent to 10.2 per cent. The exclusion, however, still
results in a one percentage point increase in the level of intermix from
the 1991 Census. For males, the intermix rate drops to 12.3 per cent compared
to 11.6 per cent for 1991. For females, the rate drops to 7.9 per cent
compared to 7.6 per cent for 1991. A less conservative approach is to suggest
that intermarriage for Jews is in the range of 10.2 per cent to 14.1 per
cent overall and that it is between 12.3 per cent and 15.6 per cent for
males and 7.9 per cent and 12.5 per cent for females.
| Table 6: Minor religions, number of married persons and percentage who are in mixed marriages by state of enumeration, 1996 | ||||||||||||
| State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| % | ’000s | % | ’000s | % | ’000s | % | ’000s | % | ’000s | % | ’000s | |
| NSW
Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT |
15.2
13.5 23.1 22.7 14.2 51.7 34.2 23.4 |
30.8
23.7 6.3 6.7 4.0 - - 1.5 |
8.4
11.5 14.9 17.4 18.7 35.2 19.6 11.1 |
16.6
7.6 2.8 1.5 - - - - |
4.8
5.0 14.2 10.0 11.0 15.1 13.2 11.7 |
38.3
26.7 3.6 4.6 1.8 - - 1.0 |
15.2
9.2 36.8 18.6 36.5 61.2 64.7 49.0 |
14.3
15.9 1.3 2.0 - - - - |
13.7
11.8 27.3 30.0 13.0 23.9 9.4 18.3 |
60.5
76.4 8.8 5.7 17.3 - 1.3 1.8 |
12.0
12.0 29.1 16.6 24.6 45.3 40.4 20.7 |
29.7
24.4 2.9 4.2 3.0 - - - |
| Percentage in mixed marriages includes unions with persons claiming no religion and persons who did not state their religion. Cells where the number of registered marriages were below 1000 are not shown. | ||||||||||||
The change in intermix for those of the Orthodox faith reveals that intermix has increased more rapidly for those of the Greek Orthodox faith than for people of Other Orthodox faith. Overall, intermix for the Greek Orthodox has increased by two percentage points from 12.1 per cent to 14.1 per cent. Intermix for Other Orthodox has remained largely static (13.6 per cent in 1991 and 13.8 per cent in 1996), despite the increased number in registered marriages since 1991. There has been a general increase in intermix according to gender for both groups. The exception is for Other Orthodox males who have recorded a decrease of 0.4 percentage points in their intermix rate. The rate of increase of intermix for male and female Greek Orthodox is almost equal, with males recording a 1.9 percentage point increase and females 2.1 percentage points.
Just over 30 per cent of those claiming no religion had chosen a religious spouse in 1996 as compared to 25.5 per cent in 1991.
MINOR RELIGIONS — STATE DIFFERENCES
Examination of religious intermix according to state of enumeration is limited to the following religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Greek Orthodoxy and members of Other Orthodox religions.
The general trend in Table 6, is that intermix tends to be lower when the number of persons in registered marriages for the religion in question tends to be high.
This is true for Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Other Orthodox adherents. It fails for Buddhists who tend to record lower intermix in Victoria (13.5 per cent) yet have more persons in registered marriages in NSW, where the intermix rate is 15.2 per cent.
Generally speaking intermix is highest in Queensland, when discounting for persons in registered marriages numbering under 1,000 (cells in Table 6 marked with a dash).18
The Jewish community would undoubtedly be alarmed at the 36.8 per cent intermix rate in Queensland, especially when one considers that it is only 18.6 per cent in Western Australia where there are only an extra 700 Jews in registered marriages. Whilst not reported here, there are 3,889 persons aged 18 plus claiming to be Jews in Queensland compared to 3,615 in Western Australia.19 It seems that population size has a differential effect in Queensland than in Western Australia. The difference between the two states reflects differences in community support structures. The Perth community has a much stronger and less dispersed support structure than does Queensland.20
Melbourne Jewry, on the other hand, has the lowest intermix rate, 9.2 per cent, compared to its neighbour NSW with a rate of 15.2 per cent. It seems that Melbourne Jewry, whilst greater in number, are also more entrenched in their religious beliefs and have an even stronger community infrastructure.21 But are there gender differences? Rubinstein reports that, in 1981, intermix for Jewish females in Victoria was 7.2 per cent and for males it was 8.7 per cent.22 Male Jewish intermix in Victoria has increased by 3.1 percentage points whilst intermix for Jewish females has decreased by 0.5 percentage points over the 15 year period. In contrast, the rise in intermix for males and females in NSW has been minuscule: female Jewish intermix in NSW was 12.9 per cent in 1981. It now stands at 13.4 per cent (0.5 per cent increase). Male Jewish intermix was 16.8 per cent in 1981 and it now stands at 17.0 per cent (a 0.2 per cent increase).
Surprisingly, intermix is lowest for the Greek Orthodox in the Northern Territory (9.4 per cent) where there are 1,300 Greek Orthodox adherents in registered marriages. It seems that the Greek Orthodox are a tight-knit group in the Northern Territory. Like the Jews, Greek Orthodox adherents in Melbourne tend to intermix at a lower rate than their NSW neighbours.
The data in Table 6 indicate that the differences in intermix for Muslims are a function of population size. The Hindus display a similar pattern to the Muslims, with intermix low in NSW (8.4 per cent) where their population is large (16,600) and a high rate of intermix (17.4 per cent) in Western Australia where their population is 1,500.
CONCLUSION
The analysis presented here reveals that religious intermix has increased since the 1991 Census and that it is numerically significant for the dominant religious groups. There has been a decrease in intermix for both Hindus and Muslims, and a slight increase in intermix for Buddhists and Jews.
The analysis by state indicates that factors affecting intermix are complex. Jews tend to intermix more as the focus moves away from the Melbourne hub. Melbourne also plays a significant role for the Greek Orthodox with intermix increasing outside of Melbourne. In general, the only group who are displaying negligible intermixing are the Muslims.
It seems that the rhetoric of ‘soft’ multiculturalism, which supports the relaxing of religious taboos, has made significant inroads in respect to the dominant religions. But, in Australia, it has quite a long way to go in respect of the minor religions.
The question, however, still remains: do we want a society where religious lines become blurred, or do we accept that diversity ought to mean religious maintenance by reinforcement of marital taboos?
We only need turn to the US experience of Jewish intermix to witness the effects of religious blurring. A recent article by Shalit highlights the problems which are emerging in the USA as a result of the high rate of religious intermix between Christians and Jews.23 The article argues that tension can be created within a marriage, especially in regards to children’s education, as each spouse attempts to maintain their own tradition. Recent children’s stories24 written to meet the needs of such families have resulted in a dilution and distortion of both Christianity and Judaism. In other words the article confirmed that, in America, Judaism has been gradually absorbed by the dominant religions and that children of inter-faith marriages are now faced with a choice of siding with the dominant or minor religion. According to Shalit’s analysis the choice they make is clear.
Returning to the question posed previously, we, the authors, believe that, in the Australian context, normative multiculturalism requires acceptance of the richness of cultural and religious maintenance.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Danielle Bouvier from the ABS for her efforts in the development of the data set and Dr Robert Birrell for his commentary.
References
1 Gariano, A. C _Religious Identification and Marriage_, People and Place, vol. 2, no. 1, 1994, pp. 41-47
2 Chipman states that ‘hard multiculturalism is about the preservation of "ethnic integrity" and the reinforcement and impression of a new-born set of traditions, beliefs and values’. See L. Chipman, ‘The menace of multiculturalism’, Quadrant, April 1980.
3 Hirst uses the term ‘hard’ multiculturalism to refer to cultural maintenance and ‘soft’ multiculturalism to refer to multiculturalism based on tolerance. He argues that opponents to multiculturalism seize on hard multiculturalism and use it to proclaim that the policy will ‘divide the nation into waring tribes’. See J. Hirst, ‘National pride and multiculturalism’, People and Place, vol. 2, no. 3, 1994, pp. 1-6.
4 See S. Castles, M. Kalantzis and B. Cope, Immigration, Ethnic Conflicts and Social Cohesion, Bureau of Immigration (BIR), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1991; also Hirst, ibid.
5 G. Bouma, _Increasing diversity in religious identification in Australia: comparing 1947, 1991 and 1996 Census reports_, People and Place, vol. 5, no. 3, 1997, pp. 13-18
6 The theory of marriage markets may apply here. It relates to population size and gender ratios and stipulates that intermarriage is related to marital preferences which are in turn influenced by the imbalance of the sexes. See J. Penny and S-E. Khoo, Intermarriage: A Study of Migration and Integration, BIR, 1996, for an overall discussion of this theory. In general, the theory states that ‘larger groups may not only offer wider choice, but also may have more complete structures, and therefore more opportunities to meet suitable partners in social or work settings. ... A related factor ... is the influence of an imbalance of the sexes ... the more closely balanced, in general the lower the rate of intermarriage’ (p.16). Without undertaking the appropriate analysis, it seems that the theory does not hold true for Catholics, given that the sex ratios for Anglicans and Catholics are almost the same (52.3 per cent versus 52.9 per cent) and that the Catholic population has increased, as opposed to a decrease for Anglicans. The substantial increase in female Catholic intermix may point to other factors which may operate outside this theory. For a more detailed discussion see A. Gray, ‘Intermarriage: opportunity and preference’, Population Studies, vol. 41, 1987, pp. 365-379.
7 Bell (Marriage and Family Interaction, p. 149 [no date]) has shown that ‘studies of interethnic marriage in other parts of the world show that people who intermarry are somewhat older at the time of their marriage than those who marry within their own ethnic groups’. Quoted in R. Hassan, Interethnic marriage in Singapore: A study in interethnic relations, Occasional paper no. 21, Institute of South-East Asian Studies, Singapore, May 1974, p. 45.
8 ibid.
9 H. Mol, The Faith of Australians, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1985
10 C. Horrie and P. Chippindale, What is Islam?: A Comprehensive Introduction, Virgin Books, London, 1993, p. 56. According to the authors, ‘All versions of the shari’ah ... prevent a Muslim women from marrying a non-Muslim male. A Muslim man, on the other hand, can marry any virginal women subscribing to a faith based on scriptures recognised in the Qur'an, such as Christianity or Judaism.’
11 F. L. Jones examined intermix for the 1986 Census based on ancestry and indicated that intermarriage tends to be low for groups which can sustain immigrant flows. See ‘Multiculturalism and ethnic intermarriage: melting pot or nation of tribes?’, paper presented at the National Conference of the Australian Population Association, Canberra, September 1994. ABS data on the number of Hindus in Australia show that their number has grown from 21,455 in 1986 to 43,580 in 1991 and over 67,000 in 1996. See P. Bilimoria The Hindus and Sikhs in Australia, Bureau of Immigration and Multicultural Research (BIMPR), 1996; Bouma, op. cit.
12 Data on the number of Jews immigrating are not available. In the absence of available data it may be estimated as the difference in the number of people identifying as Jews between each Census period. According to Bouma, there has been an 8.11 percentage points increase in the number of people identifying as Jews since the 1991 Census. It is acknowledged that this approach is problematic and subject to variation given that some Jews may not identify as Jews (see text).
13 W. D. Rubinstein, The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History, vol. 2, 1945 to present, William Heineman, Australia, 1991, p. 94, Table 2.3
14 E. Norden, ‘Counting the Jews’, Commentary, October 1991, pp. 36-43
15 J. D. Sarna, ‘The secret of Jewish continuity’, Commentary, October 1994, pp. 55-58
16 Preliminary multidimensional analysis performed by the authors on 1991 Census data using Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Dector (CHAID) analysis indicates that parents’ birthplace is the best predictor of intermarriage for Jews.
17 W. D. Rubinstein, Judaism in Australia, BIMPR, 1995, p. 44
18 These counts were excluded as they are disproportionately affected by error randomisation put in place by the ABS to ensure confidentiality. 19 ABS Census figures from 1921 to 1971 indicate that there were on average twice as many Jews in Western Australia than in Queensland. Census figures for 1981 and 1986 indicates that there were one and a half times as many, and the 1991 Census indicates that the populations were near equal. (ABS data quoted in W. D. Rubinstein, 1995, op. cit. p. 23)
20 S. D. Rutland, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, Collins, Australia, 1988, pp. 289-290, 372-73, 392-93.
21 ibid. p. 254-255, pp. 288-289
22 Rubenstein, 1991, op.cit.
23 W. Shalit, ‘Intermarriage, Inc.’, Commentary, March 1997, pp. 50-53
24 Shalit, ibid., cites the following children’s books: S. Gertz, Hanukkah and Christmas at My House, 1992; M. Moorman, Light the Lights! A Story about Celebrating Hanukkah & Christmas, 1994; J. C. Hawxhurst, Bubbe and Gram: My Two Grandmothers, 1993.
Back to People and Place Home Page