Aborigines – Self-Determination
This essay deals with the Indigenous Australian development policy known as “self-determination”. In particular, it focuses on the social, political and economic aspects of this policy by (a) examining the changes that have been effected in the Indigenous Australian population, (b) addressing the imbalances that persist not only between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian standards of living but also within the fabric of Indigenous Australian development, and (c) recommending some possible strategies for overcoming these imbalances. The basic issues that this essay takes into consideration are land tenure, employment, education, health, and households, and most of them are approached on the basis of the data, conclusions and policy implications that have been put forward by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) from 1990 to 2000 .
To a great extent the term “development” reflects the ethnocentric discourse of Western countries in regard to their relations with the so-called “Second” or “Third World”. According to this discourse, the West consists of those countries that are developed since they have already entered the phase of modernity, while all other countries are regarded as still lacking a firm modern background and thus undergoing various degrees of development . In other words, the dominant paradigm of development requires non-Western countries to grow economically through industrialization, urbanization, a capital-intensive use of technology, and a centralized planning, on the one hand, and to displace any internal hindrances, i.e., all their religious and / or traditional elements that might jeopardize this very process (cf. Melkote 1991: 56-61), on the other. Besides, this is what modernity is all about. In the light of this it would seem a bit awkward, at least, to talk about underdevelopment within the confines of a developed, “First World” country like Australia. However, one has to bear in mind that not only has the dominant paradigm of development been denigrated (Abraham 1980; Portes 1976), but it has also been shown that development and underdevelopment are “two facets of the same process” (Melkote op. cit., 135). In this respect, underdeveloped countries are to be conceived as such only within the dynamics of colonialism, which means that a developed country like Australia with a colonized minority of its own constitutes a typical example of underdevelopment within development. And this typical example is precisely the case of Indigenous Australian peoples. Furthermore, in order to avoid certain ideological biases (cf. Melkote op. cit., 189-91), the present essay employs more the terms “disadvantage” and “benefit” than “underdevelopment” and “development”, respectively.
Rowse 2002 has been extremely helpful as a concise and at the same time comprehensive critical survey of the research produced at CAEPR. For a critique of this discourse, see for instance Vogeler and De Souza 1980. For the quite debatable issue of what is modernity and whether it should be understood as an exclusively Western achievement, see for instance Nelson 1981; Rowe and Schelling 1991; Pred and Watts 1992.
With regard to the policy of “self-determination”, it has to be mentioned that it is the most recent of a series of policies, namely, “segregation”, “protection”, “inclusion”, “assimilation”, “incorporation” and “integration” . More specifically, “self-determination” dates back to the early 1970s –thus being contemporary with the emergence of the various alternative theories of development – while its basic “[…] public policy moves have been two: affirming Indigenous land rights and publicly subsidising Indigenous organisations” (Rowse op. cit., 1). Furthermore, the most distinctive outcome of “self-determination” has been the creation of an entirely new sector, the so-called “Indigenous Sector”, which comprises a range of statutory authorities (e.g. ATSIC), “councils”, employment agencies, health and legal services, housing associations, schools, and a variety of clubs. However, the most important thing is that the “Indigenous Sector” has signaled a new era in the political empowerment of Indigenous Australians.
For instance, the term “disadvantage” is used consistently throughout Addressing Disadvantage: A Greater Awareness of the Causes of Indigenous Australians’ Disadvantage, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Key Issue Paper No. 5, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994. This term, of course, has also been used in a pejorative manner: “[…] the term ‘disadvantage’ may have more than one meaning, referring not only to measurable inequalities in socio-economic conditions and health status but also to the inherent ‘disadvantages’ of a life shaped by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander custom” (Rowse op. cit., 4). For “segregation”, see McGregor 1997: 224-49. For “protection”, see Hollinsworth 1998: 109-13. For “inclusion”, see Attwood 1989: 81-103. For “assimilation” (which has been the dominant policy), see
LITERATURE REVIEW
As to the issue of land tenure CAEPR research has produced the following outlooks. Firstly, land as a factor of Indigenous Australian economic development is hardly characterized by equity, since the States, Territories and the Commonwealth differ in the ways they deal with it (Altman and Allen 1991; Altman, Beck and Roach 1995). This means that it is very difficult to say what the significance of land tenure will be in regard to Indigenous Australian development. Secondly, by no means should anyone assume that Indigenous Australian people value their land as a source of income (Trigger 1997), or that they cannot change their perspectives according to circumstances (Smith 1998). Lastly, the most important thing that economic development policy has to take into consideration as to Indigenous Australian land tenure is that the latter is hardly a distinct “economic” behavior and that it remains deeply culturally embedded (Rowse op. cit., 83-4).
In regard to Indigenous Australian employment the relevant CAEPR research has been summarized by Rowse (op. cit., 27) as follows: “On the one hand, Indigenous people were being conceived [by the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy] as lacking in well-being, and the state had a responsibility to lift them to the levels of well-being measured among non-Indigenous Australians. On the other hand, Indigenous people were being presented as historically and culturally different; they had a right to enact their difference by choosing their ‘way of life’ ”. Thus the whole policy of Indigenous Australian employment development has been dominated by the problem of whether it should focus on systemic-structural issues, or rather take seriously into account the possibility of Indigenous choice being a crucial qualifier of policy outcomes.
Hollinsworth op. cit., 120-66. For “incorporation”, see Jennett 1987. Finally, for “integration”, see Hollinsworth op. cit., 157-9. The basic characteristics of these theories are: (a) equity in the distribution of development benefits, (b) active participation at the grassroots level, (c) local independence in producing development projects, and (d) integration of traditional and modern elements. For more details, see Melkote op. cit., 177-227.
According to Rowse, again, the research produced at CAEPR on Indigenous education policy is “a more or less critical dialogue with ‘human capital theory’ ” (op. cit., 53) . More specifically, the perspectives of Indigenous Australians in regard to education have been summarized as follows: “[…] for one community, education may be viewed as the avenue to equity in employment opportunity; for another, it is a means to increased facility with the tools and conventions of a second (the dominant) culture; for a third, education may be one of a series of mechanisms for ensuring the continuing vitality of Indigenous culture” (Schwab 1996a: 16). This means that there are considerable Indigenous variations on the theme of “investment” in education that simply do not allow policy to put forward or rely on one-dimensional educational projects (Schwab 1996b; Campbell 2000).
For details and critical comments on the relevant bibliography, see Rowse, op. cit., 29-78. The theory of “human capital” regards education as a rational individual choice that seeks long-term investment, an investment from which both the individual and society benefit.
The state of Indigenous health policies has been put very succinctly by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. “Commissioner Elliott Johnson of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody said, ‘Along with many other Australians, health care worker are generally poorly informed about Aboriginal people, their cultural differences, their specific socio-economic circumstances, and their recent history within Australian society’ […] And the Access and Equity – Rhetoric or Reality? report found, ‘There is also a lack of recognition of the traditional roles of women and men and the separation of women’s business as opposed to men’s business […] In many health services, no care is taken over the cultural aspects – that some business is men’s and that some is women’s […] Because a lot of bush clinics were seen as women’s places, men did not access them” . Thus one could easily say that it would be hard to find more striking cases of cross-cultural misunderstanding than those evident in the implementation of Indigenous health policies.
Finally, in regard to Indigenous household policies the whole research of CAEPR has concentrated on the issue of who are the ones responsible within Indigenous Australian domestic groups for the well-being of children and, by extension, who are the ones that should be paid for looking after these disadvantaged children. However, “[…] in answering this second question […] CAEPR research has faced a challenge that is at once conceptual, empirical and ethical” (Rowse, op. cit., 149). In particular, there is an emerging uncertainty within development policies as to what should be regarded as a fundamental aspect of Indigenous Australian domestic life. For instance, it is not at all clear what an Indigenous Australian “household” is, or what are the kin-based associations of “households”, or how many people make up a “household”, or even how come the responsibility for children passes among adults and from “household” to “household” with such ease . Finally, one would not be exaggerating if one was to say that the policies that are supposed to benefit Indigenous Australian “households” are simply founded on a petitio principii.
Status Report
Turning to the effects that the policy of “self-determination” has had on Indigenous Australian life, one has to distinguish between the social, political and economic levels. Starting with the last one, we could say that in spite of the increasing economic achievements, the various socio-economic indicators, if anything, suggest that the Indigenous peoples of Australia are confronted with disadvantage. For instance, it has been noted that “[…] indigenous Australians of working age […] were less likely to be in the labour force, three times more likely to be unemployed if they were in the labour force, and more likely to be unemployed for a long period” . Moreover, no development options seem to have been put forward in regard to remote areas, where large Indigenous populations live with strong local cultural links. In other words, if people are not willing to abandon their spiritual roots within their lands, where, by the way, no one sees any reason to invest time, money, expertise, and technology, these people are virtually left in the perpetuation of disadvantage. In this respect, traditional modes of subsistence, combined with royalties and welfare payments, are the only solution left. But this could hardly be regarded as a something that all Indigenous Australians would regard as a distribution of equity within the wider Australian community.
Addressing Disadvantage… op. cit., 25. For extensive details on Indigenous health, see Reid and Trompf 1991. See Rowse op. cit., 130-51 for a critical survey of the most recent bibliography. Addressing Disadvantage… op. cit., 9.
At the social level, it has to be conceded that discrimination, exclusion and control are not phenomena of the past; they still continue to be present, although more subtly. It only comes as a truism that all sorts of negative stereotypes concerning Indigenous Australian peoples –as being, for instance, unproductive, unreliable, and a burden on the taxpayer– are rather widespread among the non-Indigenous majority of Australians. According to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, “Racial stereotyping affects the lives of indigenous Australians […] in a number of ways, such as […] by ignoring not only differences between individuals but also differences between groups, thus limiting understanding and the capacity of service agencies to develop the variety of approaches necessary to meet the range of indigenous Australians’ needs across the continent” . Termed differently, the very issue of undermining the importance of cross-cultural understanding is a latent racism within the wider Australian community. Nevertheless, the social disadvantage of Indigenous Australians is clearly manifested in the case of education. Indigenous Australians generally “[…] leave school earlier, are much less likely to have qualifications (at all levels), and are less likely to be enrolled in post-secondary education than other Australians” (Addressing Disadvantage… op. cit., 9). But perhaps the most alarming fact is that depending on State or Territory the death rates of Indigenous Australians are up to four times higher, infant mortality is three times higher than for other Australians, while life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is about 15-20 years less than what it is for the rest of the Australian population . However, one must always keep in mind that the social disadvantage of Indigenous Australians is not just a question of material or economic disadvantage. Primarily, it is related to a more fundamental anthropological predicament, and that is the widespread loss of self-determination, dignity, self-confidence, sense of identity and spiritual heritage. Finally, at the political level the situation of Indigenous Australians seems to have witnessed a substantial improvement. Undoubtedly, this is intrinsically related to the emergence of the “Indigenous Sector”. The latter is quite a novelty, since it is not a traditional Indigenous political entity, on the one hand, neither what is conventionally understood to be a “civil society”, on the other. It’s like a tertium datum, a third, new thing. Of course, this achievement has or, better, might have both pros and cons. To the extent that the “Indigenous Sector” acts autonomously it can be a source of empowerment to Indigenous Australians, but to the extent that it simply mediates between a Black minority and a White majority it can turn into a dependency and manipulation mechanism. It is worth asking, for instance, whether, to what degree and why are Indigenous Australians ignored in the process of planning and implementation of social welfare programs that refer to the general population. In other words, it is worth exploring the possibility of the “Indigenous Sector” being or becoming in certain cases a subtle restoration of “segregation”. On the other hand, the very issue of autonomy has to be constantly re-addressed, insofar as the “Indigenous Sector” tends to turn into a superimposed structure that in terms of policy and funding priorities does not really reflect or speak for the numerous local communities, but serves a system that is external and irrelevant to most of their needs.
Addressing Disadvantage… op. cit., 23. For analytical figures concerning Indigenous Australian mortality, see Gray 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the above research, one could say that two are the things that stand out in the case of the development policy of “self-determination”. The first is that this policy has been accompanied by a number of deficiencies and has not quite risen to the occasion. The second is that the scientific research that has been conducted in order to assess “self-determination” has come up with a picture of an Indigenous Australian response to this policy that is extremely complex and complicated. In other words, it seems that “self-determination” has relatively failed precisely because it did not take into account the highly differentiated task it was suppose to achieve. In such cases of course the only way-out is a certain qualification and, by extension, modification of the policy in question. In this respect one could make a number of recommendations in the light of some of the most recent alternative theories of development. For instance, Indigenous Australians should be given both the ideological and the structural possibility to exert greater control over their own future. After all, they are the ones that know better what their real needs are and can realize a more reasonable prospect for overcoming their disadvantage. This means that any policy committed to their benefiting from the non-Indigenous way of life should move beyond the aspiration of a simple Indigenous participation in the political system, and allow for a substantial Indigenous self-control at the grassroots level.
The big issue though is how an overwhelming non-Indigenous majority can come to realize, appreciate and pursue an Indigenous policy that will potentially foster a social, political and economic way of life that most probably transcends the norms, values, and criteria of this very majority. At this point the key-answer can only be the alternative of cross-cultural communication, that is, the option of mutual awareness and understanding. The education system, the media, and the “mainstream” local communities have to really get involved in this broadening of horizons. But again by definition no communication is perfect, which might lead one to suppose that even the best recommendations are ultimately unable to sort things out regarding the imbalances that the post/colonial predicament entails. However, this perspective would be not just pessimistic, but also ahistorical, since it would deny or ignore the fact that no social formation whatsoever exists in isolation. And even more importantly, it would deny or ignore the fact the individuals and collectivities constantly transcend and transform themselves in interaction, recreating for themselves their own diversity.
If this essay has to contribute a policy recommendation that would enable Indigenous Australians to find a way to balance the benefits that the might draw from their interaction with the non-Indigenous Australian majority, then it would suggest that “self-determination” has to turn into “self-definition”. This means that the States, Territories, and the Commonwealth, along with the “Indigenous Sector”, must not impose on Indigenous peoples the burden of finding a way to determine how they are going to adapt to the requirements of a different way of life, but to let them free to explore and experiment with their “Dreaming” and make it once again the foundation upon which they will choose and reject whatever they like. But this of course requires the Australian nation to stand firmly on the road to reconciliation…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, F. (1980) Perspectives on Modernism: Toward a General Theory of Third World Development. Washington, D. C.: University Press of America Altman, J. C. and L. M. Allen. (1991) “Living off the land in national parks: Issues for Aboriginal Australians”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 14 Altman, J. C., H. J. Beck and L. M. Roach. (1995) “Native title and Indigenous Australian utilisation of wildlife: Policy perspectives”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 95 Attwood, B. (1989) The Making of the Aborigines. Sydney: Allen and Unwin Campbell, C. (2000) “The reform agenda for vocational education and training: Implications for Indigenous Australians”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 202 Gray, A. (ed.) (1993) A Matter of Life and Death: Contemporary Aboriginal Mortality. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press Hollinsworth, D. (1998) Race and Racism in Australia. Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press Jennett, C. (1987) “Incorporation or independence: The struggle for Aboriginal equality”. In Jennett, C. and Stewart, R. G. (eds) Three Worlds of Inequality. Melbourne: Macmillan McGregor, R. (1997) Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press Melkote, S. (1991) Communication for Development in the Third World. New Delhi: Sage Publications Nelson, B. (1981) On the Roads to Modernity. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield Portes, A. (1974) “On the Sociology of National Development: Theories and Issues”. American Journal of Sociology 82 (1): 55-85 Pred, A. and M. J. Watts (1992) Reworking Modernity: Capitalisms and Symbolic Discontent. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press Reid, J. and Trompf, P. (eds) (1991) The Health of Aboriginal Australia. Sydney: Harcout Brace Jovanovich Publishers Rowe, W. and V. Schelling (1991) Memory and Modernity: Popular Culture in Latin America. London: Verso Rowse, T. (2002) Indigenous Futures: Choice and Development for Aboriginal and Islander Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Schwab, R. G. (1996a) “Having it ‘both ways’: The continuing complexities of community-controlled Indigenous education”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 111 ----------, (1996b) “Indigenous participation in higher education: Culture , choice and human capital theory”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 122 Smith, D. E. (1998) “Indigenous land use agreements: The opportunities, challenges and policy implications of the amended Native Title Act”. CAEPR Discussion Paper 163 Trigger, D. (1997) “Reflections on Century Mine: Preliminary thoughts on the politics of Indigenous responses”. In Smith, D. E and J. Finlayson (eds) Fighting over Country: Anthropological Perspectives. CAEPR Discussion Paper 12, pp. 110-28 Vogeler, I. and A. De Souza (1980) Dialectics of Third World Development. New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun and Co. Publishers DEVELOPMENT POLICY ESSAY
Topic: Imbalances in the Indigenous Australian Development Policy of “Self-Determination”
