[csaa-forum] Howard's new Tampa

[John Tebbutt]

I've listened to the speech and looked at the article but the more I
see about the Pearson solution the more concerned I am about that it
(especially his concept of a Family Commission ­ a new moral inquisition).

(For Pearson on the Cape York Institute report including a link to the
report see: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1956147.htm)

The role of "left progressives", could be worthwhile to explore although I'm
wary of too much 'privileged' hand wringing. Ironically (inevitably)
arguments about "moral superiority" are couched in moral terms (the
'children-at-risk' discourse is a classic example: "how can you talk
politics and culture when children are being abused").

In regards to the current intervention first, for me, is the understanding
that the Howard government has not advanced indigenous rights domestically
or internationally. The record is appalling from Wik to the dismantling
public institutions to indigenous development (replacing ATSIC with ATSIS
and rolling indigenous issues into Family and Community Affairs). At the
same time Howard's antipathy to the NT land rights act is well known.

So in assessing the recent intervention I sit with the cynical (which it
seems includes many of the socially conservative see Melbourne's Herald-Sun:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22000375-661,00.html).

I think it's legitimate to look at the politics of Pearson's support. The
children-at-risk argument is never innocent even if we agree with its moral
basis. And is this all there is? Pearson's 90% argument clearly stakes out a
populist position while his constant exhortation to "get real" about issues
resonates with Howard's own 'practical reconciliation'. And Pearson himself
makes clear that this is an opportunity to push his solutions in Qld and NT.

In regards to these solutions I'd make two points:

1.I question practices such as conditionality on state payments to
unemployed, carers, people with disabilities, remote communities. This is
more often than not a regime of punishment (Centrelink's mutual obligation
is a good example). Successful conditionality requires massive intervention
and monitoring. I'm not convinced that it will, as Pearson has argued,
empower indigenous elders.

2.We need to examine how the discourse of 'welfare dependency' psychologises
social conditions. Cases of 'welfare dependency' can be documented but I
doubt the concept can be generalised as a social condition which, in the
end, tends to refuse 'remoteness' and other place-based conditions as sites
of legitimate dwelling.




On 2/7/07 11:18 AM, "Mark Gibson" <Mark.Gibson at arts.monash.edu.au> wrote:

>> I take back what i wrote earlier on this list about Noel Pearson. This is
>> really interesting:
>> 
>> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2007/1955255.htm
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> Paul Magee
> 
> Thanks for that reference Paul. I hadn't caught it before. Yes, a
> fascinating speech. A much more reflective Pearson than on Lateline or which
> we usually see in other media grabs. It's particularly good on the
> complexity of his relation with the progressive left (the 'us' generally
> taken for granted on this list). There's a very sharp para on this 'us' in
> Pearson's Griffith Review piece referenced at the same web address:
> 
> "They empathise with the plight of Indigenous people who face racism
> and other real injuries; they acknowledge what has happened through history
> and recognise that the present is not unconnected with the past. They
> understand the hypocrisy of the prescription to forget the past, especially
> in a country whose most famous lapidary exhortation reads: Lest We Forget.
> But at some point empathy and acknowledgement turn into moral superiority,
> and the relative failures of one¹s cultural and political opponents become
> the basis of accusations of insensitivity or racism. At this point, race
> becomes a useful club to beat the Neanderthals from the right, and racism
> serves the cultural and political purposes of the progressive accuser rather
> than the humanity of those subjected to it."
> 
> Is that not a fairly accurate characterisation? In questions after the
> speech, Pearson admits to feeling 'despicable' sometimes in casting
> aspersions on progressives (given that they at least care, where generally
> the conservatives do not). But ultimately, he says, the progressive position
> has 'done us no good'. For me, that's the challenge we need to respond to.
> We need to think before seeing this as just another opportunity to embroider
> our anti-Howard demonology.
> 
> There are a lot of parallels in all this with debates we've had in cultural
> studies. It's worth comparing Pearson's term for the progressive left, the
> 'morally vain' (one which he admits is 'hard') with Ian Hunter's criticisms,
> over a decade ago, of 'moral notables'. Going right back to the beginnings
> of cultural studies, it also resonates with Richard Hoggart's
> characterisation in 1957 of the 'middle class Marxist', who 'part pities and
> part patronises working-class people beyond any semblance of reality'.
> There's a great piece by Melissa Gregg on this, drawing in discussion of
> Howardism, in International Journal of CS 10.1.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
> 
> www.csaa.asn.au
> 
> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum