Introduction: Questioning Indigenous-Settler Relations: Reconciliation, Recognition, Responsibility

Maddison, Sarah; Nakata, Sana

doi:10.1007/978-981-13-9205-4_1

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Indigenous partnership policies are different to the extent that the political space in which they have emerged has been created in large part by Aboriginal community leaders and the First Nations publics they represent. Although policies to advance Australian Aboriginal self‐determination have historically been more gesture than substance (Maddison & Nakata, 2020), the Empowered Communities policy and Barkly Regional Deal appear to be engaged in genuine, if limited, devolution of decision‐making power to Aboriginal communities in place. For example the Barkly Regional Deal includes an ‘Aboriginal Community Statement’ which begins ‘We, the Aboriginal people from the Barkly region…’ (Commonwealth of Australia et al., p. 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impetus for some of these initiatives arose from Aboriginal leaders outside government, and their funding was justified in terms of supporting these leaders to take more control in their communities. Policies in this type create a strong impetus for settler social service actors to invest in trust and legitimacy across both regimes, which may protect against a paternalistic attitude towards Indigenous clients (Maddison & Nakata, 2020).…”

Section: Type 3: Indigenous Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commonwealth place‐based policies for addressing geographically concentrated disadvantage: A typology and critical analysis

Hart

Connolly

2021

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A suite of ‘place‐based’ Commonwealth policy frameworks to address geographically concentrated socio‐economic disadvantage foreground local knowledge and devolve some decisions to multi‐government and local agent governance bodies. We analyse these policies with reference to Dewey's theory of democratic experimentalism, focussing on how publics are constituted in place and enrolled in processes of deliberation and problematisation, and on how policy success is framed. We categorise ‘place‐based’ policies into three groups. Statutory collaboration policies enable coordinated intergovernmental investment in regional economic regeneration and enact broad publics through a concern with economic growth. Collective impact policies commission for social service integration and figure the users and providers of social services as their publics. Indigenous partnership policies are concerned with ‘self‐reliance’, economic participation, and empowerment among Indigenous people. We find that only the policies in the latter type clearly provide their publics with epistemic or decision‐making power. Further research on the implementation of collective impact policies would be necessary to determine their participatory scope, and statutory collaboration policies provide little opportunity for input from their publics. Our aim is to highlight the democratic significance of who is included in place‐based deliberations and what is deemed to be valuable.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Type 3: Indigenous Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commonwealth place‐based policies for addressing geographically concentrated disadvantage: A typology and critical analysis

Hart

Connolly

2021

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the core of ethical practice in cross-cultural RbT is creating the conditions whereby the power imbalances and exploitations brought about by colonization are not replicated within the project. Key to this is the role non-Indigenous team members must play in enacting “responsible, ethical and just relations” (Maddison and Nakata, 2019, p. 4), built on trust, respect, and reciprocity. Non-Indigenous practitioners need to remove some of the load from their colleagues and take some responsibility in “holding” a space where relations can unfold in productive and positive ways.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We frame relationality here as encompassing not only the interpersonal relationships enacted within the project (among, for example, team members, community participants, partners, and stakeholders), but also the "inevitable" relationships that exist at the structural level between Indigenous and setter in social, legal, and political life (Maddison and S. Nakata, 2019). This manifests as The Score works at the "cultural interface" (M. Nakata, 2007) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges, institutions, and practices surrounding theater, well-being, and sexual health.…”

Section: Ethical Context For the Scorementioning

confidence: 99%

Yarning Up Relations: Enacting a Relational Ethics in Cross-Cultural Research-Based Theater

Woodland

Bell-Wykes²,

Godwin

2022

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a reflection on The Score, a Research-Based Theater (RbT) project that has just begun, and some emerging ethical entanglements surrounding the work. The Score is a collaboration between First Nations and non-Indigenous artists and researchers, produced by ILBIJERRI Theatre Company—a leading First Nations theater company based in Melbourne, Australia. The goal is to create a community-engaged, participatory model for theater in health education that addresses sexual health for First Nations young people, to be delivered in schools, prisons, community centers and community health settings. Drawing on Indigenous and applied theater research methods, our article situates the discussion of ethics in RbT within the concept of relationality. Through a process of yarning (discussion), we explore the complexity of relations within the project and how relationality infuses all aspects of the project design. We argue that this approach is essential in ensuring respectful, accountable, and decolonial theater-research praxis.

show abstract

“…Paralleling the experience of Indigenous populations elsewhere, two centuries of concerted effort at elimination, dispossession, and disenfranchisement by colonial forces have wrought great violence against Indigenous Australians. Scholarship on Indigenous–settler relations in Australia documents the ongoing workings of colonial logics, which work to ignore, contain, and erase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, subjectivities, and claims to Country (Maddison & Nakata, 2020). Indigenous Australians, however, remain in existence—socially, culturally, and spiritually strong—owing to centuries of successful anti-colonial resistance, political organization, and cultural resurgence.…”

Section: Social Media Indigenous Activism and The Project Of Decolonizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“They Got Filters”: Indigenous Social Media, the Settler Gaze, and a Politics of Hope

Carlson

Frazer

2020

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media technologies have had ambivalent political implications for Indigenous peoples and communities. On one hand, they constitute new horizons toward which settler colonial forces of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and elimination can extend and strengthen their power. On the other hand, social media have also offered opportunities to resist and reject the violence of colonization and its ideological counterparts of domination and racial superiority, and work toward imagining and realizing alternative futures. In this article, we draw on insights from settler colonial studies and affect theory to chart the politics of “affect” through the stories of Indigenous Australian social media users. We first argue that the online practices of Indigenous social media users are often mediated by an awareness of the ‘settler gaze’—that is, a latent audience of non-Indigenous others observing in bad faith. We then outline two responses to this presence described by participants: policing the online behaviors of friends and family, and circulating hopeful, inspiring, and positive content. If “policing” is about delimiting the things of which online bodies are capable, then an affective politics of hope is about expanding a body’s capacity to act and imagining other possible futures for Indigenous people.

show abstract

Introduction: Questioning Indigenous-Settler Relations: Reconciliation, Recognition, Responsibility

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Commonwealth place‐based policies for addressing geographically concentrated disadvantage: A typology and critical analysis

Commonwealth place‐based policies for addressing geographically concentrated disadvantage: A typology and critical analysis

Yarning Up Relations: Enacting a Relational Ethics in Cross-Cultural Research-Based Theater

“They Got Filters”: Indigenous Social Media, the Settler Gaze, and a Politics of Hope

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About