FREEDOM IS FREEDOM TO SIGNIFY IDENTITY
It is possible, using the materials of Stanner, to demonstrate that the there exist both 'strong' and 'weak' forces in Warumungu life. Clearly from his account, the relationship between father and son is a weaker relationship than that stronger relationship between Mother’s relatives and her children.
When things fail to align according to an ideal model, the comparative strengths of the relationships became manifest in ways it would not have had the proper forms of marriage taken place.
While this particular example can be conceptually supported by the work of Levi-Strauss on the role of the Mother’s Brother my view is that there is far more to Warumungu life than this.
Assigning mangaya may well involve a process which takes into account far more than the comparative strengths or weaknesses of the claims of fathers or mother’s relatives on the identity of children.
The range of factors which may be considered include other priorities such as positions which need to be filled in order to repair damage done to the social fabric by ‘corrosive’ factors resulting from contact with European life.
Attempting to ground Warumungu processes in Levi-Strauss’ exchange and alliance based views runs the risk of replacing one form of European conceptual prison-house (patrilineal descent) with another (alliance theory).
Rather than constructing mechanical models of how First Peoples should assign mangaya identities, on the basis of less than ideal data, the need is to stand back and accept that First Peoples must be free to manage their affairs by whatever means – and in accord with whatever priorities – they consider to be appropriate.
That is, they need to be free politically – free from secular models of modern anthropology and free from statutory definitions which seek to ‘fix’ them in culturally inappropriate ways.
Mindful of the fact I am not an indigenous Australian, in this piece i am, exploring a core issue, arising from our understanding of Warumungu Peoples Ways, in regard to their struggle to live according to their own cultural imperatives while captive within a modern nation-state.
I hope that, in so doing, i am providing a sort of conduit for the voices of senior men who may not otherwise be heard in this major conversation. In seeking to flag this issue, my hope is that their authoritative voices will soon replace mine. They are the true authorities on these matters, and my piece here is by way of a few introductory words.
To recap, the reason for my focus is that, firstly, we have particularly good ethnographical materials in regard to Warumungu Ways and, secondly, those are the Ways i am personally familiar with as a result of time spent in Warumungu country in the 1980s. During that time i came to understand something of the extent of their struggles, especially from the perspective of senior lawmen.
While there are all manner of issues which Warumungu people would like to see addressed my focus has to be on what presents itself to me as a core issue.
This core issue involves Constitutional recognition of the rights of First Peoples authorities (e.g. senior lawmen) in assigning an existentially high identity to members of their collective social world.
That is, the right of senior First Peoples, acting in community, to assign a particular Mangaya/Dreaming persona – and place in the scheme of things – as they determine to be appropriate.
By contrast, under the workings of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act, which provides a Western statutory definition of 'traditional Aboriginal owners' of land, the 'claimants' had to be grouped in 'local descent groups' formed according to a 'principle of descent' which they deemed relevant.
As things stand European notions of the role of ‘descent’ interfere with official recognition of this process of assigning Dreaming identities and roles in relation to Country.
Defining tradition owners by reference to ‘descent’ criteria (e.g. as members of a local descent group) impose culturally inappropriate conditions on the operation of First Peoples Ways.
First Peoples need to be able to do operate unencumbered by Western ideas when it comes to determining which people are related to which country to ensure that all parts of country are kept alive and properly cared for. Senior First Peoples are custodians of a system of law which originates in life itself.
To what extent an understanding of Warumungu Ways can be transposed to the lives of other First Peoples is not self-evident. This is a large continent and different groups of First Peoples may have had very different ideas about matters such as reincarnation of Dreaming ancestors.
My guess is, from reading about the disputes over who is included in major native title issues, many groups have this exact problem – 1. who counts as a significant person and 2. according to which criteria – indigenous and/or non-indigenous?
I am familiar with one case in the Illawarra, where i presently live, where a senior Wodi-Wodi woman faced serious challenges to the identity bestowed upon her by an Elder and by indigenous means. The challenges, it seemed to me, were framed in hard European terms.
WHOSE REALITY IS DOMINANT HERE?
There is a dismissive response from some anthropologists to the evidence that First Peoples core identities are signified by indigenous processes (and not by Western notions of descent) to exclaim "Ah, but that is only for ceremonial purposes!"
In other words, their really important reality is that which complies with European master narratives about kinship and descent.
This cue from the cross-cultural experts is then taken up by other Anglo-Australian authorities.
Having considered some of the issues raised by Stanner’s material, Justice Maurice – advised by his own anthropologist - wrote, in his Warumungu land claim report:
“What is prevented is the ceremonial use of the father’s mangaya.” (Maurice 1988:56).
He went on to conclude that Warumungu realities could be carved up in keeping with the specifications of modern European masters.
He wrote:
“The evidence of Aboriginal witnesses in this land claim establishes beyond doubt that patrilineal descent is fundamental the formation of Warumungu local descent groups.” (Maurice 1988:126)
and
“I find that those persons whom I have identified by name as members of Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by virtue of patrifiliaton are the traditional owners, within the meaning of the Act, of those several parts of the claim area with which those groups are traditionally identified …” (Maurice 1988:131)
Confronted with a complex living reality - like a surgeon finding more than he had bargained on when opening up his patient - the simple-minded model of patrilineal descent came to the rescue. Let's stitch this one up and move on.
One clear aim for First Peoples to consider in their struggle – as captives within a modern nation-state - is to break the nexus which allows others to provide 'authoritative' pronouncements - about First Peoples realities - which derive their authority from cultural master narratives originating in vastly different parts of life.
A role for non-indigenous people is to work towards opening up the space – or spaces – for First Peoples to be enabled to determine matters such as relations to country on their own terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment