School of Social and Political Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12
-
ItemNew collaborations in old institutional spaces: setting a new research agenda to transform Indigenous-settler relations(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2019-07-03)Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people navigate the social and political order of the Australian settler state in ways that seek to increase their personal freedoms and political autonomy. For some groups this means seeking a firmer place within the social, political and economic life of Australia, and for others it means navigating away, towards a more distant relationship based in the resurgence of Indigenous nationhood. This navigation is composed of multifaceted and multidirectional relations between Indigenous Australians, settler Australians, and the settler state. As a discipline, political science must move beyond the study of settler institutions and begin to engage more comprehensively in research that considers the dynamics and structures of Indigenous-settler relations as a matter of priority.
-
ItemRelational Transformation and Agonistic Dialogue in Divided Societies(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2015-12)In societies emerging from conflict and violence, achieving a peaceful political settlement is an important goal. In most situations, however, achieving this goal is not enough to transform underlying conflicts rooted in history and identity. Rather, it is understood that what is needed in such situations is ongoing effort towards the transformation of underlying historical and relational conflict. But while high profile events such as truth commissions often become the public focus of a reconciliation process, in fact much of the effort towards conflict transformation takes place in lower profile dialogue processes. This article theorises a model of agonistic dialogue required for relational conflict transformation in divided and post-violent conflict societies. Described here as ‘sustained, intensive relational work’, this model draws from theories of agonistic democracy to argue for dialogue processes that are focused on engaging across deep differences in ways that can facilitate an enlarged understanding among former enemies.
-
ItemCan we reconcile? Understanding the multi-level challenges of conflict transformation(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2017-03)Reconciliation and conflict transformation require simultaneous effort across several socio-political levels. This article advances both a conceptual and an empirical argument to frame reconciliation and conflict transformation in these terms. First, the article draws on theories of agonistic democracy to argue for the intrinsic and potentially productive role of non-violent conflict in reconciliation efforts that accept conflict as both enduring and necessary. Second, the article contends that reconciliation is a multi-level task that requires ongoing attention and effort directed towards constitution building, institutional reform and relational transformation. The article concludes that, once conflict transformation is understood in these terms, reconciliation must be seen as a far more difficult and long-term endeavour than is usually acknowledged, requiring innovative political institutions capable of keeping open spaces for democratic political contestation.
-
ItemThe Limits of the Administration of Memory in Settler Colonial Societies: the Australian Case(SPRINGER, 2019-06)Settler colonial societies provide particular challenges for the instantiation of memory policy since the settler-colonial project was driven by a logic requiring the ‘elimination’ of Indigenous peoples and their time. This very fact challenges the legitimacy of the colonial mission for a better way of life and feeds the tensions at the very core of memory policies in these societies in coming to terms with the past. Focusing on contemporary Australia, this article first examines the challenges inherent to memory policy in settler colonial societies before reviewing three attempts at administering memory for future coexistence. This approach highlights the way public policies of memory can result in formal procedures rather than in historical narratives. This recognition of the ongoing contested nature of the settler colonial project leads to the suggestion for a different, more agonistic orientation to memory policy that is predicated on the persistence of this conflictual dynamic rather than on its resolution.
-
ItemConflict dynamics and agonistic dialogue on historical violence: a case from Indonesia(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2018)This article contends that the type of high-level political consensus needed to reach a peace agreement is often insufficient for rebuilding and transforming wider social relations. Consensus-focused processes tend to suppress divergent views and experiences of conflict, particularly among grassroots conflict actors, and risk deepening social divides by homogenising diverse memories of past violence, with potentially dangerous consequences. In response to these concerns this article advances an understanding of agonistic dialogue and explores an example of such dialogue in communal conflict in Indonesia. Building on an understanding of effective dialogue as sustained, intensive and relational, this article also underscores the need for effective dialogue to have politico-institutional support and to be locally driven and owned by actors who are legitimate and trusted in the eyes of conflict protagonists.
-
ItemWhose politics and which science? Rethinking the discipline in the context of Australian settler colonial relationships(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2019-07-03)In the United Kingdom and America, political scientists are involved in increasingly intense conversations about the implication of the discipline in racial and colonial hierarchies. As a recent volume by Bhambra, Gebrial and Nisancioglu begins, ‘the call to decolonise univeristies across the global north has gained particular traction in recent years’ (2018, 1). In the contemporary ‘post-race’ world, these interventions insist on the importance of naming and challenging ongoing inequalities and role of disciplinary knowledge in maintaining them. In 2016, Kennan Ferguson asked in Perspectives on Politics ‘Why Does Political Studies Hate American Indians?’, and in 2018, two key edited volumes were published: Dismantling Race in Higher Education edited by Arday and Mirza, and the Bhambra, Gebrial and Nisancioglu volume cited above (Decolonising the University). Most recently, Political Studies Review published two articles on the need for and possibilities of decolonising political science pedagogy in the British context of empire and race (Begum and Saina 2019; Emejulu 2019). The chair of the Political Studies Association of the UK responded in the same issue, acknowledging that ‘these two pieces challenge the discipline to be better at inclusivity’ and that ‘this issue is a key concern for political science’ (Wilson 2019, 207). ...
-
ItemRecognise what? The limitations of settler colonial constitutional reform(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2017-03)n settler colonial societies such as Australia, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have turned to constitutional reform as a means of addressing historical exclusions and colonial injustice. In practice, however, the promise of constitutionalism has revealed clear limits. This article explores these limits in the context of the current Australian campaign for the constitutional ‘recognition’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, where the loudest dissenting voices have come from Indigenous people themselves. In light of this, this article proposes a more agonistic engagement of diverse and dissenting opinions, with a view to opening up a more radical, decolonising space for constitutional politics.
-
ItemReconciliation, transformation, struggle: An introduction(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2017-03)
-
ItemNon-Indigenous Australians and the "Responsibility to Engage'?(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2017)National projects of reconciliation in settler colonial countries such as Australia are predicated on assumptions about non-Indigenous willingness to engage with the cultures and histories of Indigenous peoples. However, empirical research consistently finds such attitudes are far from universal. This article reports findings from focus groups with non-Indigenous peoples conducted at four locations around Australia during 2014. The goal was to see what ‘emergent’ discourses of reconciliation lay in the quotidian lives of non-Indigenous Australians. As with a comparable study conducted in Canada, this research used a poetics-rich approach to critical discourse analysis of the focus group discussions. It surfaced strong but complex themes, in particular a mode of ‘delegation’ and another of ‘embodiment’. We explore these themes with one eye towards Australia’s coming referendum on a constitutional amendment that would recognise the precolonial presence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
-
Item‘The Treaty’s Going to Give the Recognition that this Wasn’t Right' – Optimism and Pessimism in Non-Indigenous Attitudes to Treaties in Australia(ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2019-11-02)Like other settler-colonial societies, Australia over the last half-century or so has been the site for a lengthy and involved discussion about the need for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to reconstitute the relationship between them, recognising past injustices and forestalling future conflict. Unlike those other countries, however, Australia and its states lack a history of treaties and treaty law to ground that discussion. While the idea of treaty has been highly politicised over time, what such negotiations and agreements might mean in practice—what eventual treaties might do (in terms of recognition and reparation)—remains vague. This lack of certainty enables latent non-Indigenous attitudes to be activated in relation to any proposal for making treaties in Australia. Consequently, considering non-Indigenous attitudes to treaty is an important task as these sub-national initiatives move from discussion and planning to negotiation and implementation. This article begins to address a lacuna in understanding of non-Indigenous attitudes and considers whether these may be a potential, if volatile resource for policy advocates of treaty-making.