Peter Sutton

The politics of suffering: Indigenous policy in Australia since the 1970s

Like Kunitz and others (see below), I am prepared to run this risk because the time is over for tinkering around the edges of the problems discussed here. The trend of what is called Ìndigenous disadvantage’ in Australia does not show enough signs of improvement in critical areas to allow for any further complacency about the correctness of existing approaches; indeed, many Aboriginal people, both in my personal observation over 30 years and also on the available statistics, have actually suffered a decline in well-being in recent decades. There are, of course, others who have not, but in a number of places, especially but not exclusively remote settlements, there has been a dramatic decline into conditions of which most of the wider public is only dimly aware if at all. The contrast between progressivist public rhetoric about empowerment and self-determination and the raw evidence of a disastrous failure in major aspects of Australian Aboriginal affairs policy since the early 1970s is now frightening. Policy revision must go back to bedrock questions, with all bets off, if it is to respond meaningfully to this crisis. This means that everything, including the question of arti® cially perpetuating `outback ghettos’ 3 or other similar bureaucratically maintained institutions, the encouragement of corporatism as against the

Ronald and Catherine Berndt: An appreciation

Like many of my generation, I came to know Ronald and Catherine Berndt at a time when they were already established and eminent in their ® eld, and I was just beginning professional life. Between that period in the early 1970s and the time of their passing, I only ever found them to be encouraging, nurturing, and generous with their knowledge and wisdom, and I would like to pay tribute to both of them for that reason, although not for that alone. Ron’s and Catherine’s major academic contribution, many would agree, was in practising the craft of ethnography and publishing the results. There is no single `correct’ way of being an anthropologist. The health of an academic discipline depends in part on diversity, not on monoculture. It is a joint enterprise, not a charismatic religion, even when, as in the case of anthropology, it tends to attract people of strong and independent will. While others in the Australianist ® eld may have achieved wider reputations through their contributions to global theory, or by reason of the sophistication and depth of particular insights into aspects of Indigenous culture, the Berndts left a uniquely detailed, broadly based and geographically widespread professional ethnographic record of Aboriginal Australia as it was in their time. As Les Hiatt (1984:1) said of Ron, he was at that time `undoubtedly the foremost living authority on the social and cultural life of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia’. The Berndts’ professional interests were broad in subject matter as well as in geography. Their main efforts in the ® eld were devoted to localised ethnographic studies, some placed in a rich historical context; indeed, one of their books is a regional history (Berndt & Berndt 1954; see also R. Berndt 1962a; Lamilami 1974). They worked on certain aspects of applied anthropology, especially policy (e.g., R. Berndt 1971). They had long careers in teaching and in the promotion of research. Ron played a major part in the development of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, particularly during the heady years of its administration by Peter Ucko (1972 ± 80). Catherine, especially, but at times both Berndts, produced a number of educational texts for popular and school use. One thinks here of books like Pioneers and settlers, which was about Indigenous Australians, and The barbarians, which was not (Berndt & Berndt 1971, 1978). Their interests in global theory were selective, eclectic, conservative, and not overtly central to most of their writing. While most of their ® eldwork between

The Politics of Suffering: Aboriginal Health in Contemporary Australia

Public discourse on the notorious health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has long been politicised. Exercises in blame have distracted too much attention from the scientifically honest search for causation. The role played by quasi-traditional hygiene practices, for example, in causing high rates of early death from heart disease and kidney failure, is often downplayed or ignored. Instead, post-colonial collapse and its inter-generational perpetuation, while real, are given over-privileged places in causal theories. A taboo on discussing and acting on the need for cultural change is a major obstacle to closing the health gap. Serious changes in the Indigenous health profile require more than better service access. Without shifts in child socialisation leading to modernisation of Indigenous health cultures, more successful health practices and a major reduction of suffering are likely to remain elusive.