Cruelty and sentiment in the oikos
drafting …
On February 12th, an estimated two thousand people converged on Australia’s Federal Parliament complex to protest against what has, quite plainly, become known as the Intervention. It should not go without saying that this particular euphemism derives not only from the discourses surrounding ‘failed states’ – and the reference to such was more than explicit – but also that of drug rehabilitation programmes in which, as the exercise claims, someone is helped to recognise the extent of their problem. The convergence of a humanitarian militarism with welfare and medical practices – literally, Intervention teams consisting of nurses, soldiers, doctors and police – turns around the proposition of a failure of self-control. Indigenous self-determination has failed. Multiculturalism has failed. Aborigines cannot control themselves when exposed to pornography. Or alcohol. Or children. And so on.
Or so it is made to appear, despite the absence of any quantitative evidence on rates of child abuse, alcoholism and the apparently deleterious effects of pornography that are not conditioned by a very particular, and prior, demarcation between public and private domains, the organisation of what appears, when and how.
When the editors of the Age chose to illustrate an article on the apparently exceptional problem of indigenous alcoholism during the first moments of the Intervention with a photograph of two indigenous people carrying alcohol down some street, the implication was in no way borne out by what was actually in the photo, though the insinuation of alcoholism was nevertheless clear. I have no doubt staff of the Age have, also, procured similar amounts of alcohol, though I cannot be sure. What I do doubt, and why it is impossible to know for sure that they have, is that, having made such a purchase, they were obliged to haul it by foot – and so risk the possibility of being photographed – rather than transport it by car or taxi.
This is the mediatised accompaniment to the charge of public drunkenness. What makes both of these possible is not what they can be harnessed to provide evidence for; though they so often are, precisely because ideologies of abstract equality serve as the ground for the accusatory, as well as laws. In other words, both rich and poor will be denigrated (or arrested) when they sleep under bridges. Social workers and the judiciary have not descended on, say, Toorak to interview residents about their experiences of child abuse or alcoholism – and one can only speculate whether they would be be allowed through many, if any, front doors so that they might.
Poverty pushes people further into the public gaze – whether in parks, in the spaces downstairs of public housing estates, on streets, or through the statistical constructs that can be collated from encounters with government welfare, health and policing agencies –, not as celebrities famed for their apparent individuality, but so they might serve as anonymous and defamatory illustrations of seemingly collective attributes.
But for this egalitarian and cruel gaze to be truly egalitarian, and not simply cruelty instrumentalising notions of equality (though there is that, too), there must also be moments of compassion, embrace, recognition of another kind. Being made available for an accusatory, and oftentimes punitive, public gaze is to also be available for sentiment of another kind or, simply, a sentimentalisation. Sentiments about home, family, intimacy and nation slung around eachother. […]
When around two thousand people converged on the opening of the new Parliament on February 12th to protest against the Intervention, there was very little coverage of that event that was not folded back into the event of the ‘apology’. Suggestions of a media ban on reports of the protest are not without grounds. Indeed, the Age went so far as to edit one of its online articles to remove references to it, magically transforming the protest into a gathering to hear the ‘apology’.
How somebody with academic training and an interest in Indigenous issues can claim that there is an “absence of any quantitative evidence on rates of … alcoholism” beggars belief, regardless of what the author mysteriously refers to as available data being “conditioned by a very particular, and prior, demarcation between public and private domains, the organisation of what appears, when and how.”
Just because Jennifer Martiniello chooses to manufacture ‘facts’ seemingly out of thin air doesn’t mean we should believe her or defer to her. (See her absurdly wrong assertion that “… statistics show that only 15% of Aboriginal people drink alcohol, socially or otherwise, compared to around 87% of non-Aboriginal Australians.”
Statistics show no such thing: the most thorough survey of Australian drinking behaviour was carried out for the Commonwealth Health Dept in 1994: it showed about 33% of Aboriginal people over 15 then drank regularly (at least once per week), as against approx. 45% of non-Aboriginal people; about 29% of Aboriginal people drank less regularly (as against 27% of non-Aboriginal people); this shows us that around 62% of Aboriginal people drank alcohol sometime in a year; as against 72% of non-Aboriginal people (and incidentally as against Martiniello’s figure of 15% of Abororiginal people drinking at all). Around 15% of Aboriginal people had never drunk, as against 13% of non-Aboriginal people; the other approx. 22% of Aboriginal people were ex-drinkers, as against 15% of non-Aboriginal people].
If you are interested you could try reading publications listed on Curtin University’s National Drug Research Institute site at . You could start with Saggers & Gray in their INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIAN ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ISSUES: Research from the National Drug Research Institute in which they state on p. 137 “Available evidence indicates that the pattern of drinking among Indigenous peoples differs significantly from that found in non-Indigenous populations. In Australia, for example, although a greater proportion of the Indigenous population does not consume alcohol, among the proportion that does, more people do so at harmful levels.” This book, fully available on the website, is a very useful starting point. Or you could consider http://www.ndri.curtin.edu.au/pdfs/naip/naip011.pdf
.
As for data re child sexual abuse & neglect, a good starting point would be the Centre for Remote Health publication by MITCHELL, J., PEARCE, R., STEVENS, M., TAYLOR, J. & WARCHIVKER, I. (2005) Indigenous populations and resource flows in Central Australia: a social and economic baseline profile, Alice Springs: Centre for Remote Health. See the site at http://crh.flinders.edu.au/research/publications.htm
Bob Durnan [February 17, 2008 @ 4:16 am]
There is something mysterious about statistics. They assume categories as given when those categories are anything but, they are premised on who might and might not be available for the filling out of questionnaires or answering questions, one can always choose which temporalities to sort them into and make comparisons between …
In short, they obscure their own conditions, and generally speaking are a form of rhetoric (persuasion) I’ve little time for haggling over. And I don’t recall mentioning Jennifer Martinello.
But let me get this right: you’re saying that according to these stats, the proportion of indig people who drink is less than that of non-indig people. But that, of those indig people who do drink, they tend to drink at greater levels …
But, here’s the problem with stats and the apparent self-evidence of categories. Might one not re-sort this according to income levels, and find that poorer people tend to get wasted more on alcohol (and cheaper things such as glue, petrol); richer people on, say, more salubrious substances? (And, given that indig people tend to be poorer, that they tend fall on one side of the scale of drinking a lot is not surprising at all. Also, I doubt, say, corporate types would fess up about how much cocaine they take to any researcher.)
In other words, the problem with this kind of research is that indigeneity is presented as the determining factor, alcohol as the only substance, etc. Ideological subtext: Aborigines cannot control their liquor, themselves.
On child abuse stats, there is a very significant issue here about what is made public and that which stays private, behind closed doors. Significant and determining. This is what I mean by statistic being conditioned by a very particular, and prior, demarcation between public and private domains, the organisation of what appears, when and how. That applies also to questions about domestic violence - patterns of reporting, the very architecture of housing and numbers of residents, proximity to police and welfare agencies … these all condition statistical results.
ps. I have not encountered such volumes of alcohol consumption in AU, anywhere, as I have here in London. Really. The issue, and the problems that are construed as a consequence of drinking, is otherwise. I doubt you’ll agree, since I take it you work in in drug rehab, but we will continue to disagree.
s0metim3s [February 17, 2008 @ 2:55 pm]
My apologies about the Martiniello comment. She was carrying on in one of your links, & I thought it relevant to this piece.
I was more concerned about your apparent neglect of the voluminous available data relevant to the debate around Indigenous alcohol consumption than I was about your allusion to the mystery of statistics - I simply thought that your way of expressing yourself was somewhat obscure.
As for the mystery of stats, you may or may not be aware that there is a strong current of denial about the actual extent of Aboriginal alcohol problems, from the ’see no evil’ school of Aboriginal supporters, who continually promulgate the fact that overall a smaller proportion of Aboriginal people drink at all, whilst failing to point out that a very high per centage of actual Aboriginal drimkers consume alcohol at disastrously unhealthy levels. (Martiniello is notoriously at the extreme end of the denial spectrum). Thus the proportion of Aboriginal problem drinkers is much higher than the proportion of non-Aboriginal problem drinkers, from whatever classes they are drawn. Now undoubtedly class & income are intimately related to this, but this is somewhat obvious and in no way lessens the disastrous consequences for far too many Aboriginal families.
By the way, questionaires are not the only means of quantifying these things. Researchers at the NDRI, & Peter d’Abbs’ work at the old Menzies School of Health Research, have both measured consumption in Aboriginal-only settings by tracking the consumption rates based on whole-sale & retail sales figures.
Ultimately Aboriginal consumption at problematic levels outweighs that of non-Aboriginal people of similar economic status significantly, despite the fact that fewer Aboriginal people drink alcohol.
Sadly I do not work in rehab, although I have worked on alcohol research (as well as drug/alcohol policy, program management and preventative & education programs) at times in the past as well as conducting my own personal investigations of the pleasures & problems associated with substances.
Bob Durnan [February 17, 2008 @ 3:54 pm]
I think statistics are a game people imagine will settle every question, when they only precipitate more. Which is as it should be.
And, the connection between income and alcohol might be obvious, in one sense - but in another, it does not go without saying, given this subtext (or, is it the overdeterming text?) which equates indigeneity with alcoholism. (And let’s not forget that indigenous people are ‘over-represented’ in some of those lower income brackets.) And, I seriously doubt ‘Aboriginal-only settings’ would tell us anything about Aborigines and alcohol as such, though it purports to - it would only tell us something about those indig people in that place.
But it’s this notion of “at problematic levels” that needs to be unpacked. Beyond the game of denials, insinuations, racialisation and slander that statistical squabbles continue to revolve around.
When does it appear as a problem? And when does it not? Because it occurs in a public space? Because someone is not being a ‘productive member of society’? Why do some people literally try and drink themselves to death? Or become violent? Or fall asleep?
These questions are not really answered by abstinence approaches, bans on alcohol or ‘dry areas’. At best, they’re relocated. At worst, a whole lot of things - some of which I would regard as problems, others not - are tossed around together and packaged up as justifications for racism. And this is what is happening. This is the context that overdetermines all others.
s0metim3s [February 17, 2008 @ 5:01 pm]
While it is certainly important to demolish the double standards surrounding establishment outrage over Aboriginal drinking & rates of child abuse in Aboriginal communities, that is ultimately a secondary question. There is undoubtedly too much alcoholism & child abuse going on. The primary question is what to do about it.
The issue of the Intervention is about the re-establishment of paternalism and the junking of Aboriginal self-determination. Advocates of the Intervention claim some early victories over the problems and use that to justify the entire agenda. The problem, however, is that authoritarian paternalism of the nature embodied in the Intervention is highly desructive of community and of the ability of individuals to function independently in society. It’s like putting people in jail for breaking the law. It’s hard for them to break the law while they’re in jail, but the jail environment renders long-term prisoners dependent on the imposed structure removes their ability to function outside jail. As a result, release from jail simply results in them committing more crimes and going back inside.
There is even more, however. The Intervention, as conceived by Howard & Brough, was about genocide. They are part of a section of the political establishment that has decided that the problems of Aboriginal people in Australia stem from the fact that they are Aborigianal. The solution is forcible assimilation, to make Aboriginal people just like White Australians, only poorer & with darker skins. The Intervention was designed to establish the necessary controls over Aboriginal people to enable forcible assimilation to succeed.
And it is not coincidental that the Intervention, while being of doubtful medium-term efficiacy (and no long-term efficiacy) in addressing problems of Aboriginal people, will be very efficatious in depriving Aboriginal people of their land rights and opening up wide areas of the Northern Territory to mining of uranium and other minerals.
The only strategies which have a snowflake’s chance in hell of successfully addressing problems of alcoholism & child abuse in Aboriginal communities are ones that are owned by and under the control of Aboriginal people. But this isn’t on the agenda of either major party in Australia today. The best that can be said about the new Labor Government is that it doesn’t appear to embrace the genocidal agenda of Howard & Brough. Its authoritarian paternalism, however, carries the clear danger of achieving that end through a more lengthy process.
Ablokeimet [February 18, 2008 @ 11:19 am]
Undoubtedly, “too much alcoholism & child abuse going on” - but one instance is already “too much”, and “too much” irrespective of where it happens, surely.
But you’re right about the paternalism, the mining, etc.
s0metim3s [February 19, 2008 @ 3:24 am]
I would be interested in hearing how Ablokeimet imagines that “the Intervention, … will be very efficatious in depriving Aboriginal people of their land rights and opening up wide areas of the Northern Territory to mining of uranium and other minerals.” Care to enlighten us? Or is this simply an intuition?
Bob Durnan [March 1, 2008 @ 5:33 am]
Bob has asked his question in a civilised manner, which is better than I’ve seen from some contributors on other blogs. So I’ll treat it seriously.
The Intervention will undermine land rights in two ways. First of all, part of the intervention involves the compulsory acquisition of 5 year leases on selected stretches of Aborinal land, with 99 year leases being mooted to follow. The purpose of this is to undermine traditional Aboriginal land tenure and institute individual land ownership. The five year leases are to facilitate the construction of housing for individual Aboriginal families, while I am assuming that the 99 year leases that are being discussed behind the scenes will be so that Aboriginal people can either “buy” a 99 year lease on an individual house or rent it from the Government, who will own the 99 year lease. Either way, traditional Aboriginal land tenure will be replaced by capitalist real estate as the operative relations on a day-to-day basis.
The second way in which land rights will be undermined is via the coercive effect of the welfare quarantining & other aspects of the Intervention, which will interfere with the transmission of Aboriginal culture. Since land rights are only recognised for groups which can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the capitalist courts, a continuing attachment to their traditional land, the Intervention will serve to undermine the credibility of land rights claims in the courts.
Another consideration when judging the proposition for 5 year leases to facilitate re-housing selected Aboriginal communities is the track record of both public & private sector builders when constructing housing in Aboriginal communities. Building is a crooked business, civilised only by the CFMEU, the construction union. Unfortunately, house building is almost entirely ununionised and all sorts of rorts proliferate - as anyone who has ever had to deal with a builder knows. In this environment, Aboriginal communities are seen as easy marks and get even more shoddy treatment than your average couple building their first home in the outer suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. Appalling construction standards and outrageous overcharging are the order of the day, as racist contempt for Aborigines combines with the wish to make the highest possible profit.
This has been going on for decades. Combined with the fact that the typical home design in Australia suits the nuclear family rather than the extended family typical in Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal housing tends to get into a run down condition very quickly. In a context of land tenure based on capitalist real estate, it can be expected that this would result in the eventual displacement of Aboriginal people from their traditional lands - or their endurance of appalling conditions in order to remain there.
The solution to this is twofold. First, Aboriginal housing must be designed in collaboration with Aboriginal people, so that Aboriginal living patterns can be accommodated without overcrowding. Second, Aboriginal people must be offered and given building trade apprenticeships in substantial numbers, so that Aboriginal communities can do their own construction if they desire and not be reliant on racist building contractors.
The answer is to be found in self-determination, not assimilation.
Ablokeimet [March 2, 2008 @ 12:44 pm]
[Thank you Abloke. I believe that my edited version of your piece – see below - may be more accurate, and the changes will explain my position.]
The Intervention will [effect] land rights in [certain] ways. First of all, part of the intervention involves the compulsory acquisition of 5 year leases on [those very small] stretches of Aboriginal land [on which significant amounts of publicly funded housing and other infrastructure are located [(i.e. not including outstations)], with 99 year leases being mooted to [possibly] follow. The purpose of this is to [immediately enable streamlined development of infrastructure (including large amounts of government owned welfare housing) in the communities and eventually, where TOs so wish], individual land ownership. The five year leases are to facilitate the construction of housing for individual Aboriginal families, while I am assuming that the 99 year leases that are being discussed behind the scenes will be so that Aboriginal people can either “buy” a 99 year lease on an individual house or rent it from the Government, who will own the 99 year lease. Either way, traditional Aboriginal land tenure will be replaced by capitalist real estate as the operative relations on a day-to-day basis. [Government owned welfare rental property is capitalist real estate?]
The second way in which land rights will be undermined is via the coercive effect of the welfare quarantining & other aspects of the Intervention, which will interfere with the transmission of Aboriginal culture. [Abloke hasn’t explained the cause & effect here. In fact recent initiation ceremonies at the IM community in which I live were considerably more sober this year than the previous year, and many people are living more focused and clearer thinking & healthier lives, so it is quite probable that the Intervention will contribute to the strengthening & survival of Aboriginal culture, rather than to its weakening]. Since land rights are only recognised for groups which can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the capitalist courts, a continuing attachment to their traditional land [you are getting confused with the provisions of the Native Title Act here. The ALRA NT of 1976, which covers almost every Aboriginal community in the NT, does not require continuing attachment to be proved], the Intervention will serve to undermine the credibility of land rights claims in the courts [factually incorrect – can you cite any legal authority for this statement? It may have a tiny impact on some Native Title claims in the NT, but will not effect Land Rights claims].
Another consideration when judging the proposition for 5 year leases to facilitate re-housing selected Aboriginal communities is the track record of both public & private sector builders when constructing housing in Aboriginal communities. Building is a crooked business, civilised only by the CFMEU, the construction union [I won’t dignify that sentence with any comment]. Unfortunately, house building is almost entirely ununionised and all sorts of rorts proliferate - as anyone who has ever had to deal with a builder knows. In this environment, Aboriginal communities are seen as easy marks and get even more shoddy treatment than your average couple building their first home in the outer suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne [although there is some truth in what you say, it is also a fact that many of the builders are OK and do a good job; others not so]. Appalling construction standards and outrageous overcharging are the order of the day, as racist contempt for Aborigines combines with the wish to make the highest possible profit.
This has been going on for decades. Combined with the fact that the typical home design in Australia suits the nuclear family rather than the extended family typical in Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal housing tends to get into a run down condition very quickly [Many of the houses designed by Tangentyere Design & other progressive architects have been built to accommodate extended family groups, with up to 6 bedrooms, large verandahs, clustered dwellings & other features to accommodate needs of visitors during periods of high density occupation. These designers in the 80s developed specifications for tough and appropriate fittings and materials, and all this was done in close consultation with the people for whom the houses were being designed. I many instances, labouring jobs and apprenticeships for family members of the tenants were included in the contracts, and the building contracts were always closely supervised to ensure quality product. However generally these dwellings have not proven to be any more durable or healthy for residents than other dwellings designed and built by mainstream operators]. In a context of land tenure based on capitalist real estate, it can be expected that this would result in the eventual displacement of Aboriginal people from their traditional lands - or their endurance of appalling conditions in order to remain there. [This is a ludicrous statement. Much less than 1% of Aboriginal land is covered by the 5 year leases, as the communities occupy only a tiny proportion of Aboriginal land. Very few TOs will ever buy rather than rent. Outstations & their housing are not covered by the Intervention or the 5 year leases. If a TO did fail to meet payments and lose their house in a community, some TOs could move to an outstation or set up a new one. Mining royalties are often used for this purpose. If there are impacts like those described by a bloke in this worst nightmare, they will be very small in number, and the problems created will be far less than the problems solved in all this, as under the Intervention the vast majority of Aboriginal people are getting much better housing by virtue of the $800 million-plus being invested in remote community housing maintenance, upgrades, extensions, renovations and new houses over the next 4 years]
The solution to this is twofold. First, Aboriginal housing must be designed in collaboration with Aboriginal people, so that Aboriginal living patterns can be accommodated without overcrowding [as explained above, this has been tried in many cases, without producing appreciable differences in outcomes]. Second, Aboriginal people must be offered and given building trade apprenticeships in substantial numbers, so that Aboriginal communities can do their own construction if they desire and not be reliant on racist building contractors [This has also been tried, again without many good outcomes. The actual needs are different to what you suppose. They probably include new, effective Aboriginal leadership; massive government support for Aboriginal safety/security, sobriety, health, education and training, plus Aboriginal determined radical adaptation to current circumstances, such as sedentary living in groups of more than one extended family in a welfarist/capitalist economic environment, technologically sophisticated machines, addictive substances, harmfully fattening foods, and a very dominant, aggressive & pervasive colonial culture.
The answer is to be found in self-determination, not assimilation. [This is for Aboriginal people to decide & practice – including in what proportions, not for us to mandate]
Bob Durnan [March 7, 2008 @ 2:33 am]
Where to begin?
The distance between self-determination (as it unfolded as a version of multicultural recognition) and assimilationism is not so great. See here. There’s a need to go well beyond contractarian approaches, and it’s really boring when people who apparently disagree on so much (Abloke and Bob) nevertheless concur on this. Boring, because it just produces interminable spats between (white) nationalists, really.
But a remark on another bit - when Bob feels it necessary to remark that there are “stretches of Aboriginal land [on which significant amounts of publicly funded housing and other infrastructure are located” - and various Ministerial and government statements have said something along similar lines - the intimation is obvious.
Being “publicly funded”, there is a claim to rightful ownership, an invitation to the ‘Australian taxpayer’ - hardworking, dutiful, etc - to assume some sense of that rightfulness. Not only does it elicit a good deal of forgetting - about how rights to property are assembled in the post/colony - but it carries with it resentments that can turn nasty, or I should say are already more than nasty: ‘I work hard, pay my taxes. Those Aborigines not only get publicly-funded infrastructure, but sit around not working and wreck their houses - unlike me’.
So, let me be very clear - there are countless other fora for peddling anthems to work. Indeed, Rudd’s persistent homage to “working families” dominates the AU landscape, and much of the world. Take that shit elsewhere. I see no reason to be polite about rubbish when its nastiness is cloaked by it being so widely assumed.
s0metim3s [March 7, 2008 @ 12:20 pm]