Solidarity with those on strike at Uni of Sydney! Stop police brutality!

 

 

† Around Australia, thousands of students (seemingly concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney) went on strike and rallied and marched today, in protest at the cuts ($2.3 billion) by the Federal government to the tertiary education sector.

Their protests will of course be ignored — but may constitute a step in the right direction. In any event, at the University of Sydney, police attacked a picket, breaking one man’s leg in the process.

Some folks have issued the following statement on Facebook in response. No doubt there will be further accounts and reflections in the days and weeks ahead. (Note that the University inter alia appears to have become a focus for recent ASIO snooping.)

 

“An Open Letter to and from the University of Sydney community,

 

One student had his leg broken. Another was choked and went limp. Several students were trampled. Many others were shoved, grabbed, bruised or struck. These attacks on peaceful protestors were nothing less than outrageous.

 

All of these assaults and indignities could have been avoided if Spence did not allow the riot police on campus. The university has the right to exclude police from campus, and in the past it was very rare for the cops to come on campus for this very reason.

 

We condemn Spence. If the university allows riot police onto campus, it is complicit in their violence. The argument that they bring order to the campus is transparently absurd, all footage and testimony shows that the police have been a force for violence and disruption (there is an old quip: the riot police are aptly named).

 

Copy and paste this as your status in solidarity with those injured.”

 

 

 

 

 

† This is re-blogged from everyone’s favourite Australian #anarchist #trot-spotting #antifascist blog, Slackbastard.

 

To the organisers of the 2013 Sydney Historical Materialism Conference

 

 

 

“Some of us were invited to speak, others have already prepared abstracts and papers for panels, and we had all been planning to attend the conference. We have since learned that Solidarity, an affiliate of the Socialist Workers Party, has given its full and unequivocal support to the latter in its handling of an allegation of rape against a senior member. You have informed us that you agree that the position taken by Solidarity is indefensible, but that you have also decided to invite Solidarity members to present at the conference. As a consequence, and in the absence of any evidence of a change of position by Solidarity, we will not be taking part.”

 

 

Bree Blakeman

Ann Deslandes

Mark Gawne

Angela Mitropoulos

Steve Wright

 

 

If you were going to attend the conference and would like to add your signature, or register your support of those who have decided not to attend, please do so in the comments box of the post via this hyper-link.

 

 

 

 

Mutiny: Imprisonment, Deaths in Custody and the NT Intervention

 

 

This month is the 7th anniversary of Mutiny Zine! Mutiny are an anarchist collective based in Sydney. The zine that they produce explores  ideas about anarchist thought and practice, as well as different avenues of disobedience and resistance. Mutiny are also closely associated with Jura Books, which is well worth a visit if you ever happen to find yourself in Sydney-town.

The following piece – which is based on a previous post hereon -  appears in the latest Issue of Mutiny Zine, # 69. Thank you to the Mutiny crew for the opportunity to share info and stories about Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and institutionalised racism, and congratulations on your 7th anniversary -  keeping a radical project alive for this length of time is no small feat.

 

Imprisonment, Deaths in Custody and the NT Intervention

 

THE CENTRAL FINDING OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY WAS THAT ABORIGINAL PEOPLE DIE IN CUSTODY AT A RATE RELATIVE TO THEIR CUSTODIAL POPULATION. HOWEVER, ‘THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION IS GROSSLY OVER-REPRESENTED IN CUSTODY. TOO MANY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ARE IN CUSTODY TOO OFTEN.

 

THE ROYAL COMMISSION FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO WAYS OF TACKLING THE PROBLEM OF THE DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN CUSTODY. THE FIRST WAS TO REFORM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; THE SECOND APPROACH WAS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS WHICH BRING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE INTO CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM – THE UNDERLYING ISSUES RELATING TO OVER-REPRESENTATION. THE COMMISSION ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION MUST UNDERLIE BOTH AREAS OF REFORM. IN PARTICULAR THE RESOLUTION OF ABORIGINAL DISADVANTAGE COULD ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION.

 

* * *

 

On the evening of January 4th, Kwementyaye joined a large group of friends in the vicinity of Flynn Oval, which is approximately 5kms from the centre of town in Alice Springs.

Constable Gareth Evans began walking towards the group, wanting “to see if they had any information about an alleged fight at the shops.” [i] When he was half way across the oval, however, one of the young women in the group shouted out to the others and they all began to disperse. Constable Evans called for back-up on his radio and began to pursue the group on foot. He jumped a fence and began to jog after a smaller breakaway group of five or six. At the back of that group was Kwementyaye, “and when he got close to a large iron gate beside the school, he slipped on the bitumen or dirt and fell.” When Kwementyaye got up, he had a cut above his left eye, described as a “laceration above his eyes that had burst. There was fresh blood around the cut but it wasn’t gushing or dripping down his face.”

After this initial “fall” Kwementyaye got to his feet and allegedly started swearing. Constable Evans then allegedly gave him a direction to “take a step back” which Kwementyaye allegedly ignored. Constable Evans then “pushed him in the chest with an open left hand, causing him to stumble and fall into the gate, before falling forward.” Kwementyaye was then secured on the ground using a three point hold position, which involves placing one knee on the side of his shoulder and securing his right hand behind his back. Keep in mind that Kwementyaye was not even suspected of having committed a crime. He was taken into Protective Custody because he was deemed too intoxicated to look after himself.

Upon arrival Kwementyaye was placed in an observation cell with two other men. Approximately thirty minutes later he was ordered to come out from the cell to join four or five other detainees who were being processed in reception. On the way into the corridor towards reception, Kwementyaye swayed slightly, turned back and grabbed the door handle, appearing then to lean in to get his shirt that was left on a bench. Constable Evans noticed that Kwementyaye wasn’t following behind the others and “he took him by his wrist to escort him to reception. While Kwementyaye was being escorted his legs went out from under him and he fell forward onto the floor.”

Kwementyaye was then dragged by Constable Evans into the reception area where he was left sprawled out on the floor. A number of other detainees were being processed around him. Kwementyaye lay on the floor for several minutes before Constable Evans “took a pen and applied pressure to his fingernail to see if he would respond to a pain stimulus, a technique he learnt while working as a security officer at a Hospital.” CCTV footage shows that Constable Evans left Kwementyaye lying face down on the ground as he walked away.

 

* * *

 

IN UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT, CUNNEEN WRITES, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS TO GRASP IS THAT A RISING IMPRISONMENT RATE IS NOT DIRECTLY OR SIMPLY RELATED TO AN INCREASE IN CRIME. THE USE OF PRISON IS A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT: IT REFLECTS GOVERNMENT POLICY AND LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING. GOVERNMENTS MAKE CHOICES THAT EITHER DIRECTLY IMPACT ON THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT (FOR EXAMPLE, LEGISLATION COVERING SUCH MATTERS AS STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIODS, MANDATORY SENTENCING, MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES, ETC) OR LESS INDIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, AVAILABILITY OF NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCING OPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOUR OF BAIL, AVAILABILITY OF PAROLE, ETC). [ii]

 

* * *

 

At one stage Kwementyaye was clearly emotionally distressed and can be seen on the CCTV footage to be sobbing and groaning. He was incapable of taking his own shoes off and he lay on the floor barely moving while another detainee took them off for him at the request of police. The CCTV shows Kwementyaye lying on the floor for several minutes while several officers walk around him, concerning themselves with the other things. As he lay there, police were joined by Sergeant William McDonell, who was performing the role of Watch House Commander. He appeared untroubled by Kwementyaye’s state, in spite of observing a smear of blood on the reception floor caused by a laceration above Kwementyaye’s right eye. Sergeant McDonnell merely cleaned up the blood smear, asked who Kwementyaye was and ordered him to get up. Kwementyaye did not respond, but Sen Sgt McDonnell was then distracted by another detainee and he left the area.

After repeated commands from Constable Evans to get up, Kwementyaye managed with some difficulty to lift his weight up onto the bench seat, but he was obviously unsteady and lacked control of his faculties. Soon after he sat down on the bench, he got up and leant against the wall. “He was then sat back down, firmly but fairly by Constable Evans.” Kwementyaye stood up again, but this time, “instead of firmly guiding him again or giving him a stern verbal direction, Constable Evans pushed him hard with an open hand and sent him sprawling backwards into the wall.”

After the push, Kwementyaye “looked upset and picked up a blue plastic property box that was between him and another prisoner. He did so in a drunken manner, and the plastic box was easily taken from him by an older man seated beside him who was being processed as a protective custody.” Constable Evans looked relatively unperturbed and motioned for Kwementyaye to put the box down. Kwementyaye stood up with a clenched fist, although his arm and fist stayed down by his side. In response, Constable Evans “grabbed him by the arm and slung him towards the reception counter with undue vigour, causing Kwementyaye to hit his arm and head on that surface.”

 

* * *

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CONSTITUTES SOCIAL GROUPS AS THREATS,’ CUNNEEN WRITES, ‘AND REPRODUCES A SOCIETY BUILT ON RACIALISED BOUNDARIES. INDEED IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE PROCESS OF CRIMINALISATION ITSELF NOW CONSTITUTES A SIGNIFICANT RACIALISING DISCOURSE – THAT IS WE UNDERSTAND RACE THROUGH DISCOURSES ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, AND WE UNDERSTAND CRIME AND PUNISHMENT THROUGH IMAGES OF RACE.  THE NORTHERN TERRITORY INTERVENTION PROVIDES A PARTICULARLY GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF INDIGENOUS MEN IN PARTICULAR AS SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSERS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. SUCH ABUSE WAS ALSO LINKED TO TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL CULTURE. AN INCREASED CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE WAS SEEN AS APPROPRIATE TO DEALING WITH THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM AND INDIGENOUS IMPRISONMENT RATES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE DRAMATICALLY.

 

* * *

 

Kwementyaye was then spread out on the ground and searched by Constable Evans, assisted by Constable Blansjaar and Constable Grey. It is apparent from the CCTV footage that where his head was positioned, a small pool of blood formed from the leaking wound above his eye brow. Kwementyaye was then carried face down to Cell 9 by the three officers, with one on each arm and one picking up his legs. Prison officer Parker hurriedly threw a mattress into the cell on an awkward angle which stretched diagonally across the two concrete slabs in the room, and Kwementyaye was placed faced down at the same angle without anyone moving the mattress into a more comfortable position.

When Kwementyaye was carried along the corridor, blood from the head wound fell in droplets on the floor. That drew the attention of four or five sober prisoners in cell 16 who saw the blood and called out to the officers, telling them that the man they saw should be taken to hospital. After being placed on his mattress Kwementyaye was left alone in Cell 9. What happened next was captured on CCTV. Seconds after being placed on the mattress, he rolled onto his back and hit his head on the concrete bench. A minute later he attempted to stand up but fell hard onto the bench, hitting his head again. At 10.14pm, he attempted to sit up but fell and landed face down with his head and chest on the bench and the rest of his body on the floor.

Soon after Kwementyaye was placed into Cell 9, Prison officer Parker began a series of brief but regular checks, which involved her standing in the corridor and looking in to confirm that he was breathing. Prisoners in Cell 16 were watching from their vantage point and, once again, expressed their concern that Kwementyaye needed immediate medical care. In her own words, this was Prison officer Parker’s response: “I just turned around and I might have been out of line when I said it but I just turned and said, ‘Well, youse all carry on like this when youse are drunk,’ and you know, ‘And when youse are sober you just want to be nice to us,’ then I – I think I’ve walked off.”

At around 11pm the evening Watch House shift changed over to the overnight shift.

Over the next two hours, the two officers on duty rarely left their desks; only three cell checks were done by Constables O’Keefe and Kershaw. In evidence they admitted being distracted from their duties ‘by various things, including an iphone, an ipod and the internet.’ The officers also failed to respond to the distress calls made by prisoners in Cell 16, who could see and hear that Kwementyaye was in trouble.

 

* * *

 

INCREASED POLICE NUMBERS IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WAS A KEY MEASURE OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY INTERVENTION (2007). THIS HAS TRANSLATED INTO OVER-POLICING, RACIAL PROFILING AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF ARRESTS. AS ALTMAN AND HINKSON NOTE OF CENTRAL AUSTRALIA, ‘MANY ARE FOR VEHICLE RELATED OFFENCES. MANY OTHERS RESULT FROM ANOTHER OF THE INTERVENTION’S MEASURES—THE OUTLAWING OF CUSTOMARY LAW, ESPECIALLY THE USE OF PAYBACK TO SETTLE DISPUTES. WHEN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ATTEMPT TO USE THEIR OWN CUSTOMARY MEASURES TO RESOLVE SIGNIFICANT TRANSGRESSIONS, POLICE WHO ONCE TURNED A BLIND EYE ARE NOW LEGALLY OBLIGED NOT TO DO SO. [iii]’

 

* * *

 

At 11.44pm, prisoner Warren McDonald activated the call button in his cell. It is clear from CCTV footage that he and other prisoners were looking across to Kwementyaye in Cell 9. The Coroner writes that, “it is likely that the prisoners in Cell 16 were seeing Kwementyaye in the last moments he was alive and at the last opportunity police had to save his life. I heard from Warren and Kyle McDonald and from Mr Impu that they could hear distressing noises from Cell 9, described by the men as coughing, gasping and choking. A review of CCTV footage shows that the last movement of Kwementyaye’s body was a very slight twitching of his limbs, at 11.42pm, just two minutes before the call button was activated.”

The call rang three times over several minutes. Constable O’Keefe answered the call a few minutes later, however, he hung up the receiver, “because when he glanced up at the CCTV screen in front of him and could see that the prisoners in cell 16 were seated back on their mattresses.”

The prisoners gave evidence that they also tried to get the attention of police on more than one occasion, by calling out. The report notes that, Officer Kershaw had “shut the door between the corridor and reception area, in order to block out the noise of a prisoner who was at the end of the row of cells where Kwementyaye was housed.”

When Sen. Sgt Barram returned to the Watch House at 1.30am, he commenced a round of cell checks and at 1.41 am, he noticed that Kwementyaye had not moved from the position he had last seen him in at 11pm. The Watch House Commander moved straight to Cell 9, entered it and found that Kwementyaye was not breathing. He yelled for an ambulance to be called and commenced CPR, but his body was cold. According to the Coroner’s report, “he had probably passed away around two hours earlier.”

In October 2012 Deputy Chief Minister Robyn Lambley ruled out taking disciplinary action against any of the Police officers involved. This is the story of so many Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. All the facts and figures in the world cannot account for this level of institutionalised racism. There is nothing post- about colonialism in Australia.

* * *

 

ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE COMPRISE 2.5% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IN AUSTRALIA, & YET THEY COMPRISE 26% OF THE TOTAL PRISON POPULATION.

 

 

ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE COMPRISE 32% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY, & YET THEY COMPRISE 82% OF THE NT PRISON POPULATION.

 

 

THE IMPRISONMENT RATE OF ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE HAS RISEN 46% IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY IN THE PAST DECADE & CONTINUES TO RISE. [iv]

REST IN PEACE KWEMENTYAYE BRISCOE & ALL WHO HAVE DIED AT THE HANDS OF POLICE WHILE IN CUSTODY.

 

 

 

---

[i] All in-line quotations taken from the Coroner’s Report: http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/inquestlist.shtml

[ii] Chris Cunneen (2011)

[iii] Jon Altman & Melinda Hinkson (2012)

[iv] Bureau of Statistics (2011)

 

 

More exclusion please: Gove Land Rights (1971) and Justice Blackburn’s ruling against Yolŋu claimants

 

 

The Gove Land Rights case – Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, (1971) 17 FLR 141 – was the first litigation on Native Title in Australia. Justice Blackburn ruled against the Yolngu claimants on a number of issues, rejecting the doctrine of Aboriginal Title in favor of terra nullius. His ruling says a great deal about the Balanda (white people, European) concept of ‘private property’ and the social relations that comprise it.

 

‘I think that property, in its many forms, generally implies the right to use or enjoy, the right to exclude others, and the right to alienate. I do not say that all these rights must co-exist before there can be a proprietary interest, or deny that each of them may be subject to qualifications. But by this standard I do not think that I can characterize the relationship of the clan to the land as proprietary.

 

It makes little sense to say that the clan has the right to use or enjoy the land. Its members have a right, and so do members of other clans, to use and enjoy the land of their own clan and other land also. The greatest extent to which it is true that the clan as such has the right to use and enjoy the clan territory is that the clan may, in a sense in which other clans may not (save with permission or under special rules), perform ritual ceremonies on the land. That the clan has a duty to the land-to care for it-is another matter. This is not without parallels in our law, which sometimes imposes duties of such a kind on a proprietor. But this resemblance is not, or at any rate is only in a very slight degree, an indication of a proprietary interest.

 

The clan’s right to exclude others is not apparent: indeed it is denied by the existence of the claims of the plaintiffs represented by Daymbalipu. Again, the greatest extent to which this right can be said to exist is in the realm of ritual. But it was never suggested that ritual rules ever excluded members of other clans completely from clan territory; the exclusion was only from sites. The right to alienate is expressly repudiated by the plaintiffs in their statement of claim.

 

In my opinion, therefore, there is so little resemblance between property, as our law, or what I know of any other law, understands that term, and the claims of the plaintiffs for their clans, that I must hold that these claims are not in the nature of proprietary interests.

 

That disposes of the question in general terms, but it is proper also to consider the applicability of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1966. That Act does not define “property” but defines ” interest,” in relation to land, as “(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; or (b) a right, power or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” (s. 5 (1)). The earlier Act had substantially the same definition, applied to “land,” with the inclusion of the word “easement.”

 

The Solicitor-General submitted shortly (the point, in his submission, did not require extensive argument) that the Act does not apply to any interest other than one already known to the law of property at the time when the Act was passed.  It therefore could not protect the plaintiffs’ interests. I do not think I need decide the theoretical question whether a proprietary interest of a new kind which was created, or held to exist, after the passing of the Act, would be protected by it. Mr. Woodward submitted that the words “right, power, or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” were wide enough to cover “communal native title” which was shown by the evidence to be vested in the Rirratjingu and the Gumatj in respect of the land attributed to their respective clans. With respect, I think this is begging the question. It amounts to saying that whenever aboriginal natives are found in occupation of land under a system which does not recognize private property in land, that is “communal native title,” and that that alone is sufficient to attract the protection of the words “right, power, or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” in the Act.’

 

 

- Federal Law Report, Milirrpum and other v. Nabalco Pty. Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia (1971, pp. 272-273)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bi-directional nature of representation and accountability: An excerpt from my fieldnotes (2008)

 

Fieldwork Photo (2008)

 

There is a something unique about the bi-directional nature of representation and accountability in Australian democracy. The following excerpt is taken from my field notes (2008). They are notes on a rather tense meeting between senior Yolŋu people and government representatives when ‘welfare quarantining’ [4] was first introduced in Arnhem Land. I have noted major edits or omissions with ellipses.

 

Fieldnotes, Friday 8^th February 2008

Yesterday was the day of the mala-leader [1] meeting at Galiwin’ku Island. The plane flew in at 9am to pick up yapa, wäwa, wiripu wäwa and myself. The pilot apologised for the delay and explained that we were doing a ‘round trip’ – we had to stop at Doinji and Marparu before Galiwin’ku yet. Yapa wasn’t impressed, given we already running late, and teased the pilot accordingly, “I don’t usually do the round trip . . . I always go straight there – I don’t want to go straight to the hospital – I should tell dhuway to start digging my grave right now!” The pilot wasn’t quite sure if this was banter or complaint. He looked a little flustered and reassured her it wouldn’t take long.

It was lovely to fly over Country that I haven’t seen before. As we flew away from camp yapa began pointing out this and that – where the flag-song travels following the contours of Country, where she got that big scar on her forearm down there near the point on the rocks, pointing out and naming different features of the broader landform – the backbone Country, the open Country where there’s dharrwa gatapunga, dharrwa, dharrwa (‘heaps of buffalo, heaps and heaps’) . . . .

We arrived at Marthakal [2] when everyone was taking a break for morning tea. Yolŋu’yulŋu (‘Yolŋu people [plural]’) were milling about in the walkway between buildings. Yapa rolled a cigarette, chatting and introducing me to gurrutu (‘kin’) I hadn’t met yet. After about ten minutes we made our way into the meeting room, where we took up seats arranged in a semi-circle facing a desk at the front of the room. Yapa sat on the floor in front next to Kathy (the strong Warramiri woman), and Jane who was also wonderfully articulate and outspoken. All the women were seated on one side together and all the men on another side, just as is. The government or Centrelink [3] Representatives (three women and one man) were sitting together at the desk at the front of the room, along with Richard the Balanda (‘white person, European’) CEO of Marthakal, the Yolŋu Chairman of Marthakal (whose name escapes me), and gathu David, the Manager.

We were given a sheet of paper with the agenda, as well as an official Centrelink ‘information sheet’ explaining a little about the new welfare quarantining measures. The Centrelink Reps introduced themselves – they were asked where they were from, if they had children, and how long they had been working in Aboriginal communities for. (This is fairly standard request in these intercultural ‘meeting’ contexts.)

One of the Centrelink Reps began to deliver an introductory talk about the new welfare quarantining measures. Galay, a senior Yolŋu man and long term cultural broker, stood near the front of the room and translated as he spoke. He was not long into his introductory talk when one of the mala-leaders requested a moment of pause for questions or comments thus far. Dhumungur, Galay’s son, was the first to speak up: “I’m going to speak in my language” he said, though his English is impeccable. Galay translated as he spoke:

“This is going to be a hard question for you, not as a Centrelink worker but as a person – Andie – as Andie – do you think these are fair or unfair? How do you feel, as a person?”

‘Andie’ exhaled in one deep breath and stood up: “You’ve asked me a really hard question . . . [exhale] . . . just before I say anything, I want to say that I’m doing a job, and what happens is that one person tells another person what to do, and they have to do it – that’s what’s happening here today okay. But you’re asking me personally . . .  well, I think there’s some good and some bad parts to this policy, but if the stories in The Little Children are Sacred [6] report are true . . . if this can help [voice quivering] . . . ” He seemed about to burst into tears. He resumed his seat and took a few deep breathes. All the mala-leader representatives felt immediately worrying and sorry for him, gumurr-djararrk.

For my part I have to admit that I was more skeptical; I wasn’t sure whether he was feeling emotional because he had to be the one to explain these new discriminatory, punitive policy measures – or if it was something to do with the actual content of The Little Children are Sacred Report. Either way, this set the parameters for the meeting. The Centrelink Representatives were there to deliver a message. They were ‘just doing their job.’

The rest of the meeting ran thus: The Centrelink Reps explained some key piece of information about the new welfare quarantining policy, galay would then translate it into Yolŋu-matha, and then the floor was open to comments and questions.

For the most part the Centrelink explanations were over-simplified and condescending. The Centrelink Reps drew two columns on the white board. $500 was written on top as TOTAL pay, with $250 written at the top of each column. In one column was listed

FOOD

RENT

ELECTRICITY

MEDICINE

CLOTHES

NO GROG!

NO GUNJA!

NO GAMBLING!

At the top of the other column was written YOUR MONEY. When explaining this, the Centrelink Reps repeatedly said: “We don’t want to know about that money – that is your money to spend however you want.” In order to use the “Centrelink half,” however, “you have to ring Centrelink and talk to them about what you want to spend it on” they explained.

Yapa spoke up, gently out of turn: “We just in the deep shits. That’s where we are . . . . What about all the people who don’t speak English? This is one example that I am giving to you, about why this is putting us in the deep shits.”

One of the Centrelink Reps replied: “We’re not going to lie to you – it’s going to be a lot of work. If you ring up Centrelink and say you want $100 sent to the shop and then you change your mind, you’ll have to ring them back and say ‘stop that money, I want to spend it somewhere else.’ It’s going to be a lot of work.”

One of the mala-leader women began to explain that they had been actively dealing with issues of alcohol and gambling for a long time, and had long-running community based programmes to do so. “We know this is a big issue for us,” she said, “but we need to work together.”

The Centrelink Rep acknowledged that this was indeed the case, before saying (rather out of nowhere): “I hear this from a lot of people – that they feel caught between two worlds.”

Dhumungur interrupted: “Actually we feel dominated by the white people and the white world. And what’s the reason for all this? From that report about child abuse? Whose children?? And can you tell us then, when will you know – when will you think you know – if those children are safe?”

Many of the following comments, concerns and queries from the mala-leaders followed in a similar fashion. One of the Centrelink Reps interjected and suggested that we “try and focus on the smaller issues – like how this quarantining is going to work.” It seemed to me, however, that the mala-leaders knew these measures were a fait accompli (and that they would therefore learn about them in time), so they were taking this opportunity foreground and appeal to the larger issues – the perceived injustice of these policy measures. Further comments from mala-leaders that I noted at this point included:

“Are we like an elephant or monkey – ‘look can we teach them to read and write and talk?’ Is that what we are like for this government??”

“When this Intervention started, myself and other Yolŋu people – we felt like a concrete block had fallen on us. That is what it felt like when that John Howard and Mal Brough introduced that thing. And since then, we feel that concrete block on top of us.”

“If they are worried about Yolŋu people learning about saving their money why don’t they bring the education program that we had here at Galiwin’ku, that Money Business[7] that we had – instead of just cutting our money in two. We were happy running that Money Business here – learning for our own people about the money. We are not stupid.”

“See those three ‘g’s on the board there? Grog, gunja and gambling – they not a Yolŋu disease, they are a Balanda disease. And on the Homelands we stopped them long long time ago. They a Balanda disease in the towns ga cities.”

“Many of us have certificates – ‘diplomas’ – I was the first Yolŋu to get a diploma in horticulture. But those bits of paper – that you Balanda always tell us that we need – well, then they stay in the Balanda cupboard. We work, and we have those certificates – those qualifications – so why aren’t we on the Salaries like you Balanda? We work just the same, but we just get that CDEP – that sit-down money. Is your Balanda paper more powerful that you get those salaries for doing the same work, and we just get sit-down money?”

Notable among the last of the comments was the beautiful ‘kind of parable’ from Kathy (one of the mala-leader women). She spoke in Yolŋu-matha, and galay translated into English.

“This is a kind of parable. There are two people. They are different and have separate lives. One knows his destiny, the other is travelling. The traveller says to the other, follow me. And he says ‘no’ this is my home and my people and I have to stay here where I belong. But the other person says you have to come with me. That man says, if I go with you, you will be my eye. I will have to go with blind faith.” She paused for galay to translate, before continuing: “You have to understand that that is the position we’re in. We can’t have anything except blind faith if you make us come along with you. But there is no trust here.”

As with all meetings of this kind that I have attended, there wasn’t enough time to hear everyone’s concerns. The sense of frustration was palpable. The meeting was supposed to close for lunch, but it went on and over into lunch-time because the comments and concerns from mala-leaders kept coming. At some point, noticing that the Centrelink Reps were making a move to ‘pack up,’ Jane (one of the mala-leader women) asked, nay implored them to write down the concerns and questions that were being voiced: “Write it down and take it back with you to the government. Take these two big words back with you on that paper – ‘fairness’ and ‘human rights!’ We are Australian citizens! We should all get the fair treatment, black or white! Write those words down!”

Others echoed her call, urging the Centrelink Reps to make a record of what was being said. They didn’t, of course, I doubt they were prepared enough to do anything of the kind. They did, however, repeat Jane’s concerns aloud, demonstrating that they would remember (i.e. they needn’t write it down because they would remember). Jane was still talking when the lunch was brought in in two boxes. People wanted to be heard out. Balanda Richard (the CEO) attempted to draw things to a close, explaining that the Centrelink Reps would be available to sit down with people individually after the meeting. His attempt to quell concerns had little affect. People continued to share their comments and concerns, politely but firmly, in turn. This continued for about ten minutes before one of the Centrelink Reps declared “Lunchtime!!!!”

The meeting was over.

People milled around to get drink and food. The Centrelink Reps hung around for a little while longer too. Yapa B grabbed two sets of sandwiches and we were about to make an exit when one of the Centrelink Reps approached to say: “We hear that Homelands find it hard and we are going to do everything we can – ”

“Yo, manymak (‘good’), that’s ok . . . ” said yapa. I interrupted, though I knew it might be speaking out of place:

“One of the many problems is the fact that one single shopping trip costs more than $700 for people living on the Homelands, so if you quarantine their money they won’t be able to pool their money to pay for a flight let alone collectively buy food. And – ”

“Yes I’ve heard about that, and Centrelink might have to speak to the airlines to arrange that, even $10 be deducted from people’s pay each week to put towards a plane.”

I explained that this wouldn’t be nearly enough, but she was clearly intent on saying ‘yes, I’m listening carefully to your concerns and I’m really interested’ in any or as many ways as possible with an understanding tone. And we were running late – we had to rush off to catch our plane home. Waku David was waiting for us, engine idling. We all clambered into the back of the Troopy and waku drove us down to the hangar. There was a storm rolling in. . . . The flight home rough (and terrifying for me, not for anyone else). After dipping and rising and swerving around the darkest and most dense of the cloud clusters, the engine finally eased and we started to descend. As we glided down gently onto the gravel strip I spotted little gaminyarr running parallel to us over near the houses, racing us up to Top Camp. Balanda dhuway was waiting for us under the mango tree on the mat with Bäru, waving as we taxied to a stop.

We began to relay stories from the meeting and the day:

“Balanda waŋanha waŋanha waŋanha true!” (The Balanda talked and talked and talked true!’)

It seemed that yapa, wäwa and wiripu wäwa were still really angry and frustrated. And then I realised – not only had they been denied time and platform to voice their respective concerns and ask questions – but the regular mala-leader meeting had been totally eclipsed by the Centrelink agenda. And now I recall, of course, that they had collectively requested that a number of issues be listed on the agenda some weeks ago – issues crucial to our capacity to maintain essential equipment and basic infrastructure (e.g. the plumbing!). Now I realise that the meeting must have been doubly frustrating and upsetting for them . . . on top of the horrible Centrelink policy stuff. An overflowing toilet for another few weeks it is . . .

 

 

---

[1] The term mala refers to group or collectivity. In an intercultural context ‘Mala-Leaders meetings’ are attended by a delegate or representative from each bäpurru (‘clan’) in the relevant region. This arrangement between Yolŋu people and representatives of Balanda institutions – and the associated intercultural decision making process and structure – was established by Yolŋu people in dialogue with a few individual Missionaries of the Methodist Overseas Mission in the early 1940s.

[2] Marthakal is the name of the local Government Service Provision Agency at Galiwin’ku Island)

[3] ‘Centrelink’ was, until very recently, the name of the social welfare branch of government.

[4] Welfare Quarantining was one of many policy measures comprising the Northern Territory Intervention into Aboriginal Communities (2007). See the latter half of this post.

[6] This is the report that was the alleged catalyst – reason and justification for the Intervention. It is now widely acknowledged that this was used as something of a Trojan Horse to fast-track the cluster of policies comprising the Intervention.

[7] Money Business is a program run by Mission Australia, it ‘provides individuals and families with money-management information and support. Money Business builds self-reliance and improves individual, family and community wellbeing. It also provides people with the skills and information to make better decisions and reduce the risk of getting into greater debt.’

 

*this may need further editing, and yes, I realise it is rather long*

A critical note: ‘Marriage’ and its applicability in ethnographic description

 

 

This is an updated version of an older post, revived for students in my tutorials today.

 

There are infinite possible kinds or forms of long term intimate relations, or at least as many as there are possible combinations of persons alive at any given moment. It is unsurprising then, as feminist studies of kinship remind us, that there exists a great deal of diversity when it comes to socially recognised forms of intimate long-term relations. And yet pick up any ethnography, turn to the index, and there you will find the term marriage duly noted in between those things that come before and after. (Birth and death or maq- and mas-.) Flick back through to the relevant page and there you find an ethnographic description of marriage practices and marriage relations in the society or region in question.

In using these terms unproblematically anthropologists risk unwittingly translating over or effacing whatever it is that might be different, unique or idiosyncratic about socially recognised forms of intimate, long-term relations in the culture or region in question. Moreover, such habits of methodology unwittingly reproduce dominant norms[1] when it comes to understandings and expectations of what is ‘normal, proper and right’ in intimate relations. (“You mean they don’t have marriage!?!? *imagination goes wild*)

 

What is marriage?

Marriage relations are contractual relations (i.e. alienated relations) between two persons recognised, conferred and regulated by the Church and/or State. The relationship between husband and wife is first and foremost an exclusive status recognised, conferred and regulated by the Church and/or State (i.e. the personal relationship existed before and outside the institution of ‘marriage,’ it did not come into existence as a result of it.) In conferring this exclusive status the centralised authority also confers certain exclusive rights to persons involved who agree, by way or means of a binding contract, to accept certain obligations in turn.

There are further defining characteristics of ‘marriage’ which include: the ceremonial ‘signing’ of said binding contract;[2] the fact that the contract can only be terminated by the Church and/or State (i.e. a married couple cannot just ‘declare’ themselves no longer married), and crucially -  the fact that the exclusive rights conferred upon persons involved include rights and interests to persons and property, which significantly affects (if not determines) socio-economic patterns of succession/inheritance (i.e. the intergenerational transmission of socio-economic rights and interests to persons and property).

 

This doesn’t really sound like an ahistorical, cross-culturally neutral concept or institution, does it? So why do anthropologists so often employ it as if it were? A number or combination of reasons I think, chief among which is the difficulty in describing terms and concepts that do not have direct equivalents in the language in which the anthropologist is writing. Writing ethnographic descriptions of culturally recognised forms of anything, is a lot more difficult and involved than drawing on familiar terms and concepts from one’s own language and culture. Thick description takes forever! [3]

From Schneider and Strathern to Keen and Morphy, many anthropologists have written about and proposed ways and means to avoid translating over social and cultural difference. The most recent I have come across and enjoyed is the Introduction in Howard Morphy’s ethnography Becoming Art: Exploring Cross-Cultural Categories (2008), where he writes, in part thus:

 

‘The development of a meta-vocabulary for anthropology, consisting of categories that are applicable cross-culturally, can be justified on a number of different bases. The pragmatic justification is that the meta-vocabulary is simply a formalisation of something that anthropologists do anyway. An anthropologist brings certain concepts with her or him into the field and uses them as an aid to analysing the data gathered from that society. The concept is then re-defined in terms of the categories and concepts of that society: so that gender in Melanesia, for example, is differently constructed or conceptualised than it is at a particular time and place in European history (see Strathern 1988).

 

It is better that anthropologists apply these terms in a considered way that reflects , even challenges the sense in which they are understood within the discipline than that they should apply them unreflexively and without definition.

 

A more theoretical answer is that the meta-vocabulary that anthropologists construct is indeed an acknowledgement of the existence of cultural categories that have general relevance. Not all cross-cultural categories are going to be universal; some may apply regionally or temporally. . . . To be valid in the sense in which I am using it, however it [the cross-cultural category] needs to be interrogated in the contexts where it is applied and to make sense to the people whose categories are under scrutiny. In practice such testing of the proposed category will proceed through ethnographic research . . . ‘ (2008, pp. 5-6).

 

In closing, a final note from Howard Morphy:

 

‘It is quite possible that as a result of investigation the anthropologist concludes that no such phenomenon exists in the society concerned, though it is more than likely that something will have some relationship to the phenomenon marked by the cross-cultural category. Of course it is precisely this mismatch that can result in a revision of the category itself’ (2008, p. 6).

 

 

#Occupy your own tools of analysis

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Assumed/dominant norms in the anthropologist’s culture or context (is what I mean here).

[2] As a cultural ceremony or ‘ritual’ most weddings follow Victor Turner’s three phases of ritual down to a tea: separation, transition/liminality and reintegration/incorporation.

[3] For non-anthropologists, ‘thick description’ is a term coined by Clifford Geertz. See the relevant wiki-entry, here.

 

Congratulations to Traditional Owners of Koongarra, Kakadu.

 

Jeffrey Lee

 

Jeffrey Lee and Traditional Owners of Koongarra and surrounds have shown such integrity and strength in their collective struggle to protect their Country. Congratulations and much respect – Koongarra and Djok lands set to be protected as part of Kakadu National Park. The following statements are from Jeff Lee and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation.

 

Statement by Djok Senior Traditional Owner, Jeffrey Lee AM, 6 February 2013

‘This is a great day for me, my country and my culture. My mind is at peace now that I know that there will be no mining at Koongarra and that Djok lands will be protected forever in Kakadu National Park. My mothers and grandmothers who taught me about the plants and animals, my uncles and aunties who shared their knowledge, to all the elders and my creation ancestors – I give my humble respect for standing here today.

I have said no to uranium mining at Koongarra because I believe that the land and my cultural beliefs are more important than mining and money. Money comes and goes, but the land is always here, it always stays if we look after it and it will look after us. So many people have helped me along the way. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke, for his determination to see this finally done. I also want to thank the Mirarr people and especially the senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula, and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation. They have stood by me and showed me that Aboriginal people can say no. I hope that one day Kakadu National Park will be truly complete with the Mirarr lands at Ranger and Jabiluka included in the national park.

There are too many people to thank. Special thanks to my family Stephen, Jacqui & Mai Katona; Dave Lindner, Ian Conroy, Tony Heenan & my Kakadu friends; Gareth Lewis, Richard Ledgar, Rian Rombouts; Dave Sweeney and Justin O’Brien, Clare and Darcy Henderson, Peter Garrett, Trish Crossin, Peter Wellings, Chris Haynes, Peter Cochrane, Clare Martin, the Northern Land Council, The Greens, The Australian Democrats, the NT Environment Centre and Larry and Gabrielle O’Loughlin. I also thank those people in the early days from the 1970s who also offered their support. I thank the journalists and film makers who took the time to listen to my story and then told it so that others could hear.

To all the Aboriginal people from Australia and Indigenous peoples from overseas that have supported me and to all those that go on to fight for your own rights – I thank you. All the people that have written to me from across Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Italy and other parts of the world – thank you. To all the people who I have not met and who I know are out there helping others to stand up and say no, I thank you because you have always been there. I sincerely thank the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for respecting the values of my country and culture and to the Australian and Northern Territory governments for supporting the inclusion of the Koongarra area into Kakadu National Park.

This has been a very long and difficult struggle for me. I have gone through a lot of trouble and heartache and waited a long time to see this day. However, the fact that I am here today proves that if you are true to your culture and to your land one day you will win.’

 

 

Media Statement from Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation: Koongarra Set For Permanent Protection (6 February 2013)

Mirarr Traditional Aboriginal Owners today welcomed Environment Minister Tony Burke’s introduction of a bill which clears the way for the incorporation of the Koongarra area into Kakadu National Park. This move recognises the long held Aboriginal aspiration to protect this unique area from the threat of uranium mining.

The introduction of the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill was also welcomed by the Djok Senior Traditional Owner of the Koongarra area, Jeffrey Lee AM. Mr Lee was in the Federal Parliament to witness the introduction of the bill, accompanied by a delegation representing the Mirarr. Jeffrey Lee was awarded the Order of Australia in 2012 in recognition of his work to protect his country and gift it to the nation. He has firmly opposed uranium mining on his country on the grounds of the deep cultural significance of Koongarra to its Traditional Owners and concerns about the dangers of uranium.

In his long struggle to protect his country Mr Lee has drawn inspiration from Yvonne Margarula, the Senior Traditional Owner of the neighbouring Mirarr people. Since the 1990s Yvonne Margarula has led the Mirarr opposition to the proposed Jabiluka mine, north of Koongarra and the existing Ranger uranium mine also on Mirarr land. Ms Margarula spearheaded the international campaign against mining at Jabiluka. Her resolve and leadership guided the campaign and prompted a special UNESCO mission, resolutions in the European Parliament and US Congress and several Australian parliamentary inquiries. In the late 1990s Ms Margarula won several prestigious international awards in recognition of her work to protect her country.

In 2001, the Rio Tinto majority owned mining company Energy Resources of Australia acknowledged the opposition of the Mirarr traditional owners and agreed to halt work at Jabiluka. Ms Margarula said, “Traditional Owners must be allowed to make their own decisions about development on their country. Jeffrey has been speaking out to protect his country and we support him. He has always said no to mining at Koongarra and we support him when he says he wants to see that country put into the National Park. We want to see the same protection for Mirarr country.”

The Mirarr people have this month executed a renegotiated agreement for the existing Ranger mine, which was imposed on them in 1978. This agreement, along with provisions of the federal Atomic Energy Act, provides for the Ranger area to also be included into Kakadu National Park as the mine is rehabilitated. The executive officer of Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Justin O’Brien, said, “This action by the government is to be applauded, although the name of the bill incorrectly implies that this completes the national park. There is further work to be done and we still look forward to the day when all of Kakadu is included in the National Park and adequately protected from unwanted industrial development.”

 

 

 

These statements can be found on The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation website.

 

I do not wage labour, therefore I apparently not very am.

 

 

I was lucky enough to be the recipient of an Australian Post-graduate Award Scholarship (~ $20, 000 per year) for the first three and a half years of my PhD. I would not have been in a position to embark on a PhD without it.

Unfortunately three and a half years pass fairly quickly in anthropology. While I may have a full-draft, I have been finding it increasingly difficult to make financial ends meet.

 

“Okay Bree . . . so do you work at all?”

“I’m just finishing my PhD at the moment, in Anthrop –”

“So you don’t work — is what I’m asking?”

“Well not paid work, no, but I am only months away from finishing my thesis, which is definitely a full-time –”

“So you’re not working — is what I’m asking.”

“No.”

“Okay, thanks.”

 

The Australian welfare system does not recognise a PhD as a legitimate undertaking or enterprise. One must provide evidence they are looking for waged work to be eligible for any such benefits. Hence having found myself in my current situation — living on $244 a week while trying to finish my thesis, while also applying for full-time work.

I have added a Paypal donation button to the right hand side-bar, down below. Any such gesture of support will be received gratefully, and will go some way to helping me cover basic living costs as I embark on this final leg of the PhD.

I hope that I might be in a position to help others in the same way some day.

 

Kindliest of Regards,

 

Bree.

 

 

 

Prisons and poetry: Merry Christmas everybody, all the bodies.

 

 

Happy season of spending time with our loved ones. And thoughts with those incarcerated, who cannot. Last year about this time I wrote a similar-such post about Indigenous incarceration rates in the Northern Territory. This is a post of poetry.

 

The poems below are taken from, Poems from Prison (1973).^[1] The editor of the volume, Rodney Hall, was invited to comment on some manuscripts by prisoners at Parramatta Gaol. He declined to comment on the manuscripts but asked, rather, to speak directly with the men who had written them. His visit turned into many, and many into a series of fortnightly workshops.

 

‘Our meetings were described in the gaol magazine (CONtact) as: “highly informal and usually irreverent,” and leading to “a rapid maturing of the poetry being written here at Parramatta Gaol.” Highly informal indeed – most sessions are spent in a brilliant crossfire of wit and anecdote – and altogether irreverent. As to the maturing of the poetry, perhaps it has been simply the stimulus of finding an audience, but whatever the reason we’ve managed to get through a lot of work and the development has been remarkable. This book is the result’ (1973: x).

 

For what it is worth to know, all of the writers represented in the collection had been convicted of crimes of violence. The following poems were written by one Jack Murray.  Jack’s biographical note reads: ‘Born in Sydney 1940. Left school at twelve, started off on the wrong path, never really left it. Married with two sons. Realises poetry has opened a new world. Ambitions: to lead a completely uninvolved life’ (1973, p. 3).

 

Sometimes homesick

 

Snow taps at

the window

and sends me

into panic

 

I may fly

down to spain

to steal something

 

or shoplift

a parrot from

Harrods

 

to send you

in a letter

 

Did you  know

the snow killed

Napoleons white horse?

(how could you

I just made it up)

 

Yesterday

 

I bought a

stick-on face

for the hustle

 

the trick was

in the performance

they threw more

than fruit

 

Wrote some poems

from prison

read them over later

found I’d blundered

 

there is no more

room in my world

I’ve been here

before

 

the walls drip waste

its been too long

too much

 

 

(1973, pp. 3-4)

 

And the following, which is particularly fitting. Also by Jack.

 

Second year’s end

 

Reality is immovable as

a statue

rust-welded to a horse

fetlocks trapped

in stone,

the revealing of finality

so many miles

from home.

 

What premonitions go unheeded,

smiles the moon,

constant crown witness

against me

trudging

a thousand miles

round a stone room

where no swans swim.

 

It’s raining in the park

gently,

artificial tears fall

from the statue’s face,

stained

chalk-white by sweet shit.

Truth of another

kind.

 

 

(1973, p. 14).

 

 

 

Merry Christmas and to all a good night. And day. And year. Truly.

Warmliest of kindly regards,

 

Bree. x

 

 

 

---

[1] Edited by Rodney Hall, published by University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, QLD.

 

LIES: RADICAL FEMINISM IS [NOT] SEX

 

 

 

There is a new journal out. It’s called LIES: Journal of Materialist Feminism. It’s great. It’s interesting. It’s challenging. And I think you should read it.

 

‘LIES came out of our experience within struggles. The story of the journal is the intersecting narratives of our involvement with the occupations and strikes of recent years and the gendered fault lines that emerged within them. We met in the midst of these activities. We felt the need to organize autonomously as feminists. We started reading groups, held summer camps, met friends in other cities, and developed forms of mutual aid and solidarity. We did not want to go home, or maybe home suddenly felt like a more hostile place. Things got harder. But the more we read and wrote together, the more we desired a means to devise a theory and politics that is inchoate but at least our own. This journal is that: a way to communicate, to be overcome by the feminist commune, to survive with lesser pain or better pain, to become a more precise and effective force’ (LIES editorial collective 2012: 12).

 

This recommendation comes with a number of qualifications, however, because I do not share their approach to a number of key points at issue. It is, nevertheless, a great read and provides much food for thought. LIES makes a significant break with a number of familiar strands (or streams) of radical feminist thought. It also happens to be beautifully written, complete with citations and proper referencing! There are even moments of brilliance – not necessarily of ‘theory’ but communication. These essays communicate something urgent and important about the contemporary/current experience of (radical?) feminist women on the left, in the United States and also, I suggest, Australia.[1]

A few qualifying thoughts:

Firstly, I am not a materialist. An understanding and appreciation of the material conditions that characterise and shape the lived experience of particular people or aspects of the population is admirable, important and great. I tend to take more of a feminist-cognitive-anthropological approach to this issue or area of concern, however. Material things and conditions are only part of the story. Culture exists in the material world of ‘things’ but it also exists in our heads, or ‘minds.’ Much of the explanatory force of social reproduction lies in the ‘hows and whys’ of the way we learn – the way that we internalise certain associative understandings, how these come to be imbued with affective and motivational force and thus enacted and reproduced over time. The following alludes to the point I’m trying to make and to my general approach-of-thought on such matters:

 

‘A cognitive theory alone is not sufficient to explain either cultural stability or cultural change. One the other hand, it is a necessary part of any such theory, and one that has been overlooked in the dominant anthropological discourse. This “overlooking” – indeed, more active “erasure” – results from the confluence of several historical streams. It falls naturally from the dualism dividing the collective from the individual that is pat of our intellectual inheritance, and it is fixed in the modern disciplinary boundaries that define the turf that anthropologists and sociologists defend from incursion by psychologists and biologists. In the recent past of our discipline this territorial boundary marking was particularly evident in the symbolic anthropology of influential spokesmen like Schneider (1968) and Geertz (1973). “Though ideational,” Geertz declared of culture, “it does not exist in someone’s head (1973:10). The stream of though that separates individual from society is sometimes also joined by another one, equally deep in Western philosophy and folk theory: suspicion of peculiar entities like another’s thoughts and feelings that cannot be seen or poked with a stick.  This behaviouristic bias may be another factor that lay behind Geertz’s preference for analyses of the “hard surfaces of life” (Geertz 1973: 30) rather than something presumably softer, like ideas and feelings, that lie underneath the surface.

 

Most recently a new generation of cultural anthropologists has critiqued symbolic anthropology soundly for its characterization of culture, and especially non-European cultures, as unchanging and monolithic. The new preoccupation is with the shifting and inconsistent forms that culture can take. The irony is that by not questioning the symbolic anthropologists’ rejection of the private, psychological side of culture, the new generation is left without a convincing theory of either stability or change. How can actors invent, negotiate, and contest their cultural worlds unless they have internalized motives for doing so? And motives do not change from moment to moment: at its most absurd, this view makes culture change seem no different than changing clothes.

 

It is time for us to confront the contradiction in the definition of culture we have inherited as meaningful, symbolic, signifying, conceptual, and ideational, but not to anyone in particular, that has distorted the analysis, and required circumlocutions in the analytic language, of so many anthropologists over the last two decades. It is time to question the idea of culture as invented, negotiated, and contested by human actors strangely lacking in any long-range purpose behind their creative and transformative efforts. It is time to say that culture is both pubic and private, both in the world and in people’s minds. By bringing the knowing subject back into social process we can better account for what we have learned about culture so far and begin to develop a deeper understanding of the problems that still elude us’ (Strauss & Quinn 1994: 295-296).[2]

 

Secondly, the idea of ‘not-man’ is an important break from prescriptive conceptualisations of ‘woman,’ ‘women,’ ‘feminine’ and the like. However, to the degree to which ‘not-man’ derives meaning and significance from its opposition to – i.e. contra ‘man’ as a category of persons defined by their biological/anatomical/physiological features or characteristics – it continues to play into and reproduce delimiting and ultimately divisive gender dichotomies.

What is the substantive content of ‘man’ in terms of biology and physiology? It is not completely clear. (Though, admittedly, I have only read the first three essays!) Can a man (by anatomy, i.e. someone with a penis and testes, etcetera), who does not identify as queer, trans or cis, ever be ‘not-man’? If the answer is ‘no,’ then it seems that this distinction prescribes and therefore delimits categories of gender, and gendered subjects/subjectivities, in exactly the same way it claims not to be doing (at least for ‘not women’). This objectification and ‘staving off’ of ‘man’ is something that I am uncomfortable with and something that I find problematic in the essays that I have read.

Thirdly, the critical focus on ‘patriarchy’ as the historically significant forms of inequality and oppression is great, strong and impressive. My personal default approach is to see ‘patriarchy’ and patriarchal relations as but one significant, institutionalised form of systematic discrimination that leads to historical patterns of inequality, asymmetry of power relations, oppression, and so on. Patriarchy is not a ‘thing’ in itself – it is not in a cloud hovering above Cincinnati – it is an historically salient form or pattern of asymmetrical power relations (about which a great deal more could be said, but another time). This is not to suggest that the LIES collective does not recognise this fact. It is more a matter of focus and preference as regards terms of debate. Again, my default approach is to foreground the injustice of all forms of discrimination – any and all historical patterns of inequality, asymmetry of power relations, oppression and so on.

Anyway, enough with the caveats and qualifications. I look forward to hearing what others think. The first three essays are as follows and can be accessed/downloaded via the hyperlink: Editorial note;  Against the Couple-Form;  Against Sexual-Optimism. The rest of the essays can be found (as one-giant-document) on the LIES website, which is here.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Hence the moving-images above. The voice-over text is taken from the essay ‘Against the Couple-form,’ which is included in Volume One of LIES.

 

I should note that my intention is not to suggest that the spaces, places, events, people and/or social relations depicted in the video are in any way representative of those addressed and critiqued in the voice-over text. I am not actually sure that I can satisfactorily articulate why it is that I thought this particular combination of moving-images was fitting and/or leant itself to the voice-over text chosen.  Suffice to say that these moving images were all recorded over the course of one weekend in the company of good friends and lovely people. It just so happens that myself and a number of friends were actively thinking and talking through the essays, issues and ideas included in the first Volume of LIES. The band performing in the video is The Fighting League, for anyone interested.

 

[2] Strauss & Quinn 1994, ‘A Cognitive/Cultural Anthropology’ in Assessing Cultural Anthropology, edited by Borofsky, McGraw-Hill, New York.

 

This quote is kind of floating out of context here, but it also accounts for the various forces or patterns of social reproduction over time. Unable to stop myself, I have included another excerpt: ‘The durability of schemas for individuals has consequences for the stability of schemas historically, that is, their reproduction from one generation to another. First of all, when people enact the patterns they have learned, they recreate the public world of objects and events from which the next generation learns. . . . Of course, the durability of cultural understandings depends as well on social forces such as the workings of power and the inertia of institutions, but the cognitive-motivational story we have outlined cannot be ignored as part of a theory of social reproduction’ (Strauss & Quinn 1994: 291).