Aboriginal Agency and Marginalisation in Australian Society
It is often argued that while state rhetoric may be inclusionary, policies and practices may be exclusionary. This can imply that the power to include rests only with the state. In some ways, the implication is valid in respect of Aboriginal Australians. For instance, the Australian state has gaine...
Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
---|---|
Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Έκδοση: |
Cogitatio Press
2014
|
Στο/Στη: |
Social Inclusion
Έτος: 2014, Τόμος: 2, Τεύχος: 3, Σελίδες: 124-135 |
Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
Social Inclusion
B Discourse B Aboriginal Australians B Identity Politics B Performative B Difference |
Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
Σύνοψη: | It is often argued that while state rhetoric may be inclusionary, policies and practices may be exclusionary. This can imply that the power to include rests only with the state. In some ways, the implication is valid in respect of Aboriginal Australians. For instance, the Australian state has gained control of Aboriginal inclusion via a singular, bounded category and Aboriginal ideal type. However, the implication is also limited in their respect. Aborigines are abject but also agents in their relationship with the wider society. Their politics contributes to the construction of the very category and type that governs them, and presses individuals to resist state inclusionary efforts. Aboriginal political elites police the performance of an Aboriginality dominated by notions of difference and resistance. The combined processes of governance act to deny Aborigines the potential of being both Aboriginal and Australian, being different and belonging. They maintain Aborigines’ marginality. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2183-2803 |
Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Social Inclusion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.17645/si.v2i3.38 |