[csaa-forum] Howard's new Tampa

[Mark Gibson]

I'd agree with much of this, John -- particularly the point about Howard's
record on indigenous issues and our right to be cynical :-)

I'm not so sure about your criticisms of Pearson's '90% argument' -- ie. the
aspiration of getting large majority support for 'decent propositions' on
indigenous affairs (on the model of the 1967 referendum), rather than just
the 51% support needed to force things through against the conservatives.
Why is this 'populism'? It could just as well be seen as textbook Gramsci.

On the conditionality of welfare payments, yes, of course, it's deeply
problematic. The only point I would make is that unconditional payments may
be too. Can we have a clean conscience about helping to sustain cycles of
addiction, for example, just because the individuals or groups in question
have 'made their own choice' to destroy themselves? I think I might agree
with Pearson that there is a kind of indifference in that, a valuing of
correctness of position over concern for the outcomes.

You could also turn around the charge of psychologism in ideas of welfare
dependency. Is there not also an implicit psychologism in invoking 'social
conditions'? ie. internalisation of trauma etc. I take Lisa's point about
the difficulty of understanding extremes of dispossession, poverty etc. from
a position of comfort and privilege (although I think Pearson is probably
better placed to know about these things than we are on this list). We can
never really know how people process such experiences. But trauma is not
absolutely determining of cultural responses. Pearson points to the example
of the Jews. There should be no tolerance here of trite formulas ('just pull
yourself together' etc.), but I wonder if we could take a more open view of
these issues. Is there any value in invoking trauma just to close an
argument? Aren't we also closing horizons in doing so? And, again, for just
the people we are advocating for?

Mark

On 3/7/07 10:10 AM, "John Tebbutt" <john.tebbutt at latrobe.edu.au> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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