Freeing the ‘Aboriginal Individual’: Deconstructing ‘Development as Freedom’ in Remote Indigenous Australia

Listen, learn, build, deliver? Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy in the National Disability Insurance Scheme

“…As described previously, decontextualisation was the government's key discursive approach for characterising Aboriginal people, through portraying their current experiences of disadvantage with little reference to social and historical causes. Decontextualisation portrayed Aboriginal culture as an “obstacle to the development and wellbeing of Aboriginal people” (Bulloch and Fogarty : 80), either by viewing Aboriginal culture as implicitly risky or by creating standardised policy options that render Aboriginal culture a barrier to engaging in services (Howard‐Wagner ). To combat these narratives, many Aboriginal organisation submissions provided contextualisation by explaining the current circumstances of Aboriginal people within their historical and social contexts.…”

“…Discursively, disability policy is generally underpinned by different principles to Aboriginal policy. Many Aboriginal policies, including the Northern Territory Intervention, have attempted to control Aboriginal people through welfare payments and excessive policing to encourage “good choices” (St Guillaume & Thill ; Bulloch & Fogarty ). This policy focus arises from governmental discourses framing the disadvantage of Aboriginal people as due to individual psychology and poor choices (Marston et al ; Howard‐Wagner ).…”

Closing the Gap: Examining how the problem of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage is represented in policy

“…The focus on improving socioeconomic outcomes arguably reflects a specific understanding of the good life, where economic independence and participation in the mainstream economy are considered the hallmarks of success. Yet, this is at odds with how many Aboriginal people conceptualise the good life, where connection to country, family, community and language, as well as the freedom to pursue culturally relevant livelihoods, are viewed as equally important (Dodson 2007;Bulloch & Fogarty 2016;Altman 2018). It is also at odds with the findings of Howard-Wagner (2019), which suggest that simply improving socioeconomic outcomes does little to address other aspects of disadvantage such as racism, dispossession, family dislocation and social exclusion.…”

“…It is also at odds with the findings of Howard-Wagner (2019), which suggest that simply improving socioeconomic outcomes does little to address other aspects of disadvantage such as racism, dispossession, family dislocation and social exclusion. Authors such as Dodson (2007), Marks (2008), Bulloch and Fogarty (2016) and Altman (2018) have argued that the focus on socioeconomic indicators is nothing more than thinly veiled assimilation, given that participation in the mainstream economy is premised on individual wealth building, which is fundamentally at odds with collectivist approaches.…”

Ambivalent moralities of cooperation and corruption: Local explanations for (under)development on a Philippine island

“…As such, development is a prescription not only for material aspiration but also for moral endeavour. Yet, in everyday practice, ideals of development can often take on an aura of cultural and moral neutrality (Bulloch and Fogarty ). This is in part because meta‐narratives of development are globally so oft‐repeated and, as a result, so cross‐culturally translatable, they appear as universal common sense.…”