The Australian Aboriginal community is faced with the need to re-assert an identity that will transcend political and social tensions caused by generations of white guilt and victimhood. Noel Pearson suggests that Government policies aimed at developing rights for the Aboriginal community have in fact had severe consequences on the populations’ sense of collective responsibility. Using the Government’s Legal Aid Policy as evidence of the current ideological dilemma, I will concur with Pearson’s thesis, “the most important right we (the aboriginal community) have is the right to take responsibility for ourselves” (2007, 5). In accordance with this view, the perspective put forward by Art Critic Daniel Browning will be used as evidence of attempts to redefine Aboriginal identity from within the community. This essay will go on to critically examine Pearson’s vision of finding a ‘radical centre’ to reconcile the discrepancy between rights and responsibility in light of his support of the Northern Territory Intervention.
According to Pearson, “the most profound debility caused by racism is not the externally inflicted harm, but the internalized acceptance of its power as destiny, which can become an excuse.” (2007, 4) The growing culture of white guilt and victimhood has enabled non-indigenous Australians to maintain a position of superiority over the Indigenous population they have cast as victims. Pearson argues the rise of “victim politics” in Australia has simultaneously caused the increase of black rights and the erosion of black responsibility in the Aboriginal community. He states it is “destructive, demoralizing and demeaning” to assume the indigenous population needs protection as it encourages them to see themselves as second-class citizens. An example of the ineffective distribution of rights in Indigenous Affairs can be seen in the Australian Government’s Legal Aid Policy. In July 2005 the Australian Government declared the “commitment to overcome Indigenous disadvantage… by reducing the incidence of adverse contact with the justice system.” (Council of Australian Governments, 2006) The government aimed to “deliver high quality, culturally sensitive, equitable and accessible legal aid services for Indigenous Australians”(COAG, 2006). According to Pearson this Policy in fact, “contributed to undermining of social order within Aboriginal society.” (2007, 4). Pearson argues that instead of recognizing issues of responsibility within the Aboriginal community, the Government treated wrongdoers as victims blaming the criminal justice system as the cause of their convictions. (2007, 10) The Legal Aid Policy can thus be used to exemplify continuing impact of the ideological discrepancy between rights and responsibilities in Indigenous affairs. The imposition of ‘progressive’ policies can in fact have a regressive effect on a population, as can be seen in the case of the Legal Aid which in fact devalued the Indigenous communities system of responsibility and took away their right to govern themselves.
Pearson uses the ineffectiveness of the Legal Aid Policy as evidence of the need for a ‘radical centre’ that will reconcile “tensions between opposing principles” (2007, 9). He admits that the dialectical tension between rights and responsibilities means that although “the radical centre may make common sense analytically, it is uncommon to see it emerge in practice.” (Pearson, 2007, 15) The difficulty of harmonizing this division is exemplified by the ineffectiveness of The Legal Aid Policy. In failing to understand the complex structure of responsibility within the Aboriginal community the Policy caused a “vicious spiral downwards with even more offenders appearing as a result of the breakdown of (Indigenous) social order”. (Pearson, 2007, 17) It is this dilemma that underpins Pearson’s thesis, “we (the aboriginal community) have a right to take responsibility” (2007, 5).
Similarly, Art Critic Daniel Browning suggests, “Aboriginality is to be determined by Aboriginal people themselves” (2010, 25). Browning brings to the fore Aboriginal artists who use their art to “identify themselves and … to intellectually marginalize those who would impose a fixed notion of Aboriginality upon them.”(2005, 26) Browning cites Aboriginal photographer Ah Kee as an example of the way in which Aboriginality is being revised from within the community. Ah Kee’s portraits of a racially diverse Aboriginal family are interpreted by Browning to express the significance of colonization in shaping Aboriginal identity. Similarly to Pearson’s criticism of the “modern tendency to categorize people according to an exclusive identity”(2005, 26), Ah Kee criticizes the identification of Aboriginals according to the hue of the skin and emphasizes the need for a revised sense of Aboriginal identity. Browning’s desire to see Aboriginal artists re-evaluate their sense of identity can be used in accordance with Pearson’s vision that the Indigenous community “pick up the mantle of responsibility and take it up because nobody can save us as surely as we can save ourselves”(2005, 26).
Both Pearson and Browning are unanimous in their view that the Aboriginal community needs to revise their identity in order to be recognized as a distinct people with distinct rights. Browning does this by drawing on the history of colonization to encourage the Indigenous population to reassert their rights. Pearson however is critical of perspectives such as this that perceive “rights as the real imperative and responsibilities as an ideological diversion” (2007, 22). According to Pearson there is a “gaping responsibility deficit in the Indigenous community” (2007, 23), which he argues need to be addressed in order for political progress to be made. Pearson used this critique of indigenous responsibility to defend the Federal Government’s Intervention in the Northern Territory. I would argue, however, that Pearson’s proposed ‘radical centre’ is fundamentally at odds with this Intervention. Declaring a situation of emergency the Federal Government directly intervened in Indigenous families without their consultation, directly contradicting Pearson’s vision of reconciling tension by respecting and harmonizing political opposition. The intervention was a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and caused severe mistrust between the non-Indigenous and Indigenous population. (Walter, Public Leadership Online, 2009) Pearson suggested the radical centre could only be achieved when both sides of the political opposition are accounted for, “not through the absolute triumph of one side of a struggle or a weak compromise” (Pearson, 2007, 19). However during the intervention the Federal Government abused the Indigenous communities’ sovereignty under the guise of ‘protecting’ Aboriginal children.
Whilst Pearson criticized the Government’s failure to engage with the community in the Legal Aid Policy, he supported the Federal intervention in the Northern Territory due to what he called the responsibility failure of the Indigenous community. I would suggest that the intervention did not coincide with Pearson’s proposed ‘radical centre’ of bridging the tension between rights and responsibilities, but instead caused the further disempowerment of the Aboriginal community. Pearson himself admitted, “The wasteland of responsibility in Indigenous Australia is the consequence of government and welfare organizations whichwho have intervened in Aboriginal affairs.” (ABC Online, 2007). As such there is an evident contradiction in Pearson’s vision for the Aboriginal community to take back responsibility and his support of the Intervention. Whilst critical of perspectives such as Browning’s that fail to recognize Aboriginal responsibilities, Pearson supported an intervention that denied Aboriginal sovereignty and thus further widened the ideological divide and undermined the possibility for resolving tension.
The ability for a radical centre to be located in indigenous affairs is evidently a challenging and yet crucial and continuing enterprise. This essay has found the discrepancy between Pearson’s vision for a ‘radical centre’ and his support of the Northern Territory Intervention useful in revealing how challenging it is for Indigenous people to achieve political equality in a society based on division and hierarchy. Pearson’s thesis “the most important right we have is the right to take responsibility for ourselves” (2007, 5) is an admirable yet highly challenging task that remains to be fully achieved. It is my opinion that in order to resolve the tension between rights and responsibilities there must be a complete revision of both indigenous and non-indigenous perspectives currently grounded in the history of colonial intervention and the management of Aboriginal people.
WORKS CITED
Pearson, Noel. “White guilt, victimhood and the quest for a radical centre.” The Griffith Review 16 (2007): 1-38.
Browning, Daniel. "The politics of skin: not black enough" Artlink 30, No 1, (2010): 23-26.
Public Leadership- Perspectives and Practices Online (2009) Command in action: the NT intervention case Walter, James. Website:http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/public_leadership/mobile_devices/ch16.html (Accessed: September 2010)
ABC Online (2007) Noel Pearson discusses the issues faced by Indigenous communities.
Website: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1962844.htm (Accessed: September 2010)
Council of Australian Governments Online (2006) Indigenous Issues.
Website: http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2006-07-14/index.cfm#indigenous (Accessed: September 2010)
According to Pearson, “the most profound debility caused by racism is not the externally inflicted harm, but the internalized acceptance of its power as destiny, which can become an excuse.” (2007, 4) The growing culture of white guilt and victimhood has enabled non-indigenous Australians to maintain a position of superiority over the Indigenous population they have cast as victims. Pearson argues the rise of “victim politics” in Australia has simultaneously caused the increase of black rights and the erosion of black responsibility in the Aboriginal community. He states it is “destructive, demoralizing and demeaning” to assume the indigenous population needs protection as it encourages them to see themselves as second-class citizens. An example of the ineffective distribution of rights in Indigenous Affairs can be seen in the Australian Government’s Legal Aid Policy. In July 2005 the Australian Government declared the “commitment to overcome Indigenous disadvantage… by reducing the incidence of adverse contact with the justice system.” (Council of Australian Governments, 2006) The government aimed to “deliver high quality, culturally sensitive, equitable and accessible legal aid services for Indigenous Australians”(COAG, 2006). According to Pearson this Policy in fact, “contributed to undermining of social order within Aboriginal society.” (2007, 4). Pearson argues that instead of recognizing issues of responsibility within the Aboriginal community, the Government treated wrongdoers as victims blaming the criminal justice system as the cause of their convictions. (2007, 10) The Legal Aid Policy can thus be used to exemplify continuing impact of the ideological discrepancy between rights and responsibilities in Indigenous affairs. The imposition of ‘progressive’ policies can in fact have a regressive effect on a population, as can be seen in the case of the Legal Aid which in fact devalued the Indigenous communities system of responsibility and took away their right to govern themselves.
Pearson uses the ineffectiveness of the Legal Aid Policy as evidence of the need for a ‘radical centre’ that will reconcile “tensions between opposing principles” (2007, 9). He admits that the dialectical tension between rights and responsibilities means that although “the radical centre may make common sense analytically, it is uncommon to see it emerge in practice.” (Pearson, 2007, 15) The difficulty of harmonizing this division is exemplified by the ineffectiveness of The Legal Aid Policy. In failing to understand the complex structure of responsibility within the Aboriginal community the Policy caused a “vicious spiral downwards with even more offenders appearing as a result of the breakdown of (Indigenous) social order”. (Pearson, 2007, 17) It is this dilemma that underpins Pearson’s thesis, “we (the aboriginal community) have a right to take responsibility” (2007, 5).
Similarly, Art Critic Daniel Browning suggests, “Aboriginality is to be determined by Aboriginal people themselves” (2010, 25). Browning brings to the fore Aboriginal artists who use their art to “identify themselves and … to intellectually marginalize those who would impose a fixed notion of Aboriginality upon them.”(2005, 26) Browning cites Aboriginal photographer Ah Kee as an example of the way in which Aboriginality is being revised from within the community. Ah Kee’s portraits of a racially diverse Aboriginal family are interpreted by Browning to express the significance of colonization in shaping Aboriginal identity. Similarly to Pearson’s criticism of the “modern tendency to categorize people according to an exclusive identity”(2005, 26), Ah Kee criticizes the identification of Aboriginals according to the hue of the skin and emphasizes the need for a revised sense of Aboriginal identity. Browning’s desire to see Aboriginal artists re-evaluate their sense of identity can be used in accordance with Pearson’s vision that the Indigenous community “pick up the mantle of responsibility and take it up because nobody can save us as surely as we can save ourselves”(2005, 26).
Both Pearson and Browning are unanimous in their view that the Aboriginal community needs to revise their identity in order to be recognized as a distinct people with distinct rights. Browning does this by drawing on the history of colonization to encourage the Indigenous population to reassert their rights. Pearson however is critical of perspectives such as this that perceive “rights as the real imperative and responsibilities as an ideological diversion” (2007, 22). According to Pearson there is a “gaping responsibility deficit in the Indigenous community” (2007, 23), which he argues need to be addressed in order for political progress to be made. Pearson used this critique of indigenous responsibility to defend the Federal Government’s Intervention in the Northern Territory. I would argue, however, that Pearson’s proposed ‘radical centre’ is fundamentally at odds with this Intervention. Declaring a situation of emergency the Federal Government directly intervened in Indigenous families without their consultation, directly contradicting Pearson’s vision of reconciling tension by respecting and harmonizing political opposition. The intervention was a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and caused severe mistrust between the non-Indigenous and Indigenous population. (Walter, Public Leadership Online, 2009) Pearson suggested the radical centre could only be achieved when both sides of the political opposition are accounted for, “not through the absolute triumph of one side of a struggle or a weak compromise” (Pearson, 2007, 19). However during the intervention the Federal Government abused the Indigenous communities’ sovereignty under the guise of ‘protecting’ Aboriginal children.
Whilst Pearson criticized the Government’s failure to engage with the community in the Legal Aid Policy, he supported the Federal intervention in the Northern Territory due to what he called the responsibility failure of the Indigenous community. I would suggest that the intervention did not coincide with Pearson’s proposed ‘radical centre’ of bridging the tension between rights and responsibilities, but instead caused the further disempowerment of the Aboriginal community. Pearson himself admitted, “The wasteland of responsibility in Indigenous Australia is the consequence of government and welfare organizations whichwho have intervened in Aboriginal affairs.” (ABC Online, 2007). As such there is an evident contradiction in Pearson’s vision for the Aboriginal community to take back responsibility and his support of the Intervention. Whilst critical of perspectives such as Browning’s that fail to recognize Aboriginal responsibilities, Pearson supported an intervention that denied Aboriginal sovereignty and thus further widened the ideological divide and undermined the possibility for resolving tension.
The ability for a radical centre to be located in indigenous affairs is evidently a challenging and yet crucial and continuing enterprise. This essay has found the discrepancy between Pearson’s vision for a ‘radical centre’ and his support of the Northern Territory Intervention useful in revealing how challenging it is for Indigenous people to achieve political equality in a society based on division and hierarchy. Pearson’s thesis “the most important right we have is the right to take responsibility for ourselves” (2007, 5) is an admirable yet highly challenging task that remains to be fully achieved. It is my opinion that in order to resolve the tension between rights and responsibilities there must be a complete revision of both indigenous and non-indigenous perspectives currently grounded in the history of colonial intervention and the management of Aboriginal people.
WORKS CITED
Pearson, Noel. “White guilt, victimhood and the quest for a radical centre.” The Griffith Review 16 (2007): 1-38.
Browning, Daniel. "The politics of skin: not black enough" Artlink 30, No 1, (2010): 23-26.
Public Leadership- Perspectives and Practices Online (2009) Command in action: the NT intervention case Walter, James. Website:http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/public_leadership/mobile_devices/ch16.html (Accessed: September 2010)
ABC Online (2007) Noel Pearson discusses the issues faced by Indigenous communities.
Website: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1962844.htm (Accessed: September 2010)
Council of Australian Governments Online (2006) Indigenous Issues.
Website: http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2006-07-14/index.cfm#indigenous (Accessed: September 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment