indigenous policy
8 Jul 2009
The Pearson Influence
Noel Pearson changed the Aboriginal welfare debate. Now a new collection of his writing proves he's still a thinker you can't ignore, as Eve Vincent found out
In the late 1990s, journalist Nicolas Rothwell came across a dog-eared document. Rothwell describes this 80-odd page photocopy of an early version of Cape York leader Noel Pearson’s Our Right to Take Responsibility as a "soaring, intense text". He transcribed the entirety in shorthand, immersing himself for hours in Pearson’s thought-world. "Sparks of genius" flew. Indeed, Pearson went on to ignite a debate that has transformed Australian public discourse and policy making — and the white heat hasn’t gone out of it yet, nine years since it was published.
Now Pearson has released a collection of essays, columns, position papers and speeches titled Up from the Mission, and his views still make for an exciting, even electrifying read. Even though Pearson’s analysis of the interrelated issues of alcohol abuse, state dependency, passivity and responsibility is no longer revelatory, this book raised my hackles, offended and confronted me. It also persuaded me, deepened my understanding of contemporary Aboriginal realities and confirmed my opinion of Pearson’s import.
In this collection, comprising writings drawn from points throughout his career, Pearson’s work is many things. To begin with, it is varied and unpredictable, and yet remarkably coherent, given the long period it covers.
Where Pearson is unpredictable is chiefly in style and mood. He is at turns methodical, impassioned, nasty, intellectual, and inspired. More than the volatility, what makes an impression is just how involved Pearson is: this bloke is in it up to his elbows. The choice of front cover image conveys this too. A high-level powerbroker, Pearson, the politician, could have been pictured looking serious in a suit at any number of meetings or public moments. Instead he is captured with a hand outstretched; offering. There is a sweaty slick across his face, and he is wearing a chaotic painted t-shirt. This is Pearson, the activist.
Pearson also has unpredictable responses to a range of political issues and actors. For example, he cannot make up his mind what he thinks of the Apology: he turns the moment over and over, scrutinising, intuiting. Other pieces are less engaging — Pearson comes to some conclusions too quickly — yet the point is that he is a thinker, not an ideologue, however neatly (and perhaps problematically) his critique of the apparatus of the welfare state aligns with neoliberal political philosophy.
In terms of coherence, Up from the Mission traces the fascinating evolution of both Pearson’s thought and political strategy. The centrepiece of his intellectual project is the essay titled "Our Right to Take Responsibility", based on material taken from that earlier book. In it, unusually, Pearson writes for an Aboriginal readership: "We need to face up to reality," he tells his readers. Here Pearson outlines his understanding of the disastrous consequences of remote Aboriginal Australia’s entry into the welfare state in the 1960s. Two themes dominate.
The first is his insistence that social problems, such as grog addiction, be treated as a condition in their own right and not as symptoms to be attributed to the historical experience of colonialism. Quite obviously, Aboriginal social positions are the result of colonial and racial domination. But Pearson argues that causal meta-narratives obscure more than they reveal, and certainly offer little hope for the recovery of individual lives to states of health and meaning. Further, Pearson sees that this explanation involves conceding power to racism. "As bad as racism is we cannot allow it to reduce us to being treated — and seeing ourselves — as if we are not fully capable people in our own right."
The second theme is the insidious, destructive effect of welfare dependency, what some call "sit down money" and Pearson terms "passive welfare". Pearson perceives that a perverse relationship undergirds the welfare arrangement. "Welfare involves a superior power having all of the rights and all of the responsibilities to make decisions and take actions on behalf of relatively powerless people." Welfare, then, is a method of governance whereby marginalised recipients are "helped" — read managed — by people with resources. It becomes in both parties’ interests to perpetuate the relationship: the empowered hoard the power to help, and recipients — says Pearson — become attached to an image of themselves as victims who need and deserve assistance. Immersed entirely in a passive welfare economy and sociality it becomes difficult to imagine oneself as an architect of one’s own future, as a responsible, consequential social being.
Armed with an understanding that ran counter to much Aboriginal action on the national political stage (although, significantly, he found his views widely held at the community level), Pearson then set about positioning himself as a credible force for change. There are two moments that Pearson touches on in Up from the Mission which help explain his rise to influence.
It is well known that Pearson has broken with the Left, which since the late 1960s and 70s — the era of the student Freedom Rides and the land rights protest movement — has been seen as the natural ally of the Aboriginal struggle. In "Talking to the Right" (2004) he credits Mabo case laywer Ron Castan QC with teaching him that people from conservative rural and regional Australia have much in common with Indigenous people: not only do they face similar issues based on shared experiences but many genuine, and I would add historically rooted, relationships and friendships exist in these places.
Secondly, in the introduction to this collection, Pearson explains a crucial change of tack after Beazley lost the 1998 election. At that point he faced a stark choice: was the Indigenous leadership content to commentate and wait? Or should it consider dealing with the Howard government, despite its undeniabe contempt for Aboriginal rights-based claims for justice? Pearson chose the latter path, and set about translating his ideas and critiques into viable policy positions, many of which are now taking shape in the alcohol management and community-administered welfare quarantine trials underway in Cape York communities.
In assessing this collection of writing, a number of reviewers have dwelt upon Pearson’s favourable assessment of Howard, and I suspect there is an element of titillation at work here ("Check this out — an Aboriginal person likes John Howard!") and it’s not an angle that I find interesting. Rather, for this review, I have time to touch on just one other important piece in addition to Our Right.
In 2008 Pearson published a long, complex essay entitled "White Guilt, Victimhood and the Quest for a Radical Centre". Here he develops his analysis of the corrosive effects of what he calls the "victim" mentality mentioned above. He argues that the political viability and efficacy of this identity is sustained by the liberal Left’s "morally vain" attachment to the Aboriginal cause. He accuses the Left of infantalising Aboriginal people as hapless victims of a terrible history so as to maintain a sense of superiority over their political opponents (crudely, Right-wing racists who deny history).
Pearson wants Aboriginal people to be held responsible — indeed to feel more responsible — for their own circumstances, to be more accountable to their own families and communities. Extremely frustrated with historical determinism, he advocates a more careful conception of the relationship between structural disadvantage and individual creativity. As he puts it in a 2008 speech to the National Press Club, "The past is strongly with us in the present. But … we must also look to the future. Although our inequality and dysfunction have larger structural causes, they are ultimately realised in the behaviour of real human beings — who have the potential for insight, organisation and agency." He also says that class is a greater determining factor than race, in terms of life chances.
It has become commonplace to talk about a paradigm shift in Aboriginal affairs. But the old paradigm, the old faiths, have not simply disintegrated, broken up and drifted away. The ideas and institutions that form the bedrock of the self-determination era creak and groan under pressure but they are still there. Pearson’s insights spring to mind all too often in conversations and forums where Leftists seem to me possessive about Aboriginal people and issues: "they" are ours to worry about, to care for, to talk and know about.
But Pearson’s depiction of the deeply felt sympathies and agonies of the Left suffers from being a caricature. Anthropologist Emma Kowal unravels the question of moral vanity in a short article in a 2008 Australian Anthropological Society Newsletter. Kowal argues that the liberal Left is interested in maintaining the moral superiority, not of themselves, but of their position in its own right. "In the logic of the self-determination era, it was morally right to change the "circumstances" of Indigenous people, but immoral to change Indigenous people themselves," writes Kowal. To want Aboriginal people to change was the desire animating a previous, racist era: it was assimilationist in intent. So Pearson overstates his case here, but does not miss the mark entirely.
Another area in which Pearson needs to take more care is in his recent writing looking at the fate of 1970s Aboriginal radicalism. Pearson is not only mean-spirited as he goes about mocking radical posturing, he fails to step us through what happened. The very projects and people he says are steeped in "victim politics" were originally energised by dreams of self-organisation, self-rule and self-salvation — and that rhetoric at least squares with Pearson’s vision. (Granted, their separatist ideals are entirely out of step with Pearson’s hope that Aboriginal people will "come in" to the nation.) Pearson frequently says that what he advocates amounts to real self-determination, and that real self-determination is hard work. What he seems to be criticising then is faux self-determination, an elaborate facade in which white people continue to run the show.
Since Up from the Mission was published in early June, I have visited Cape York, and been to the Laura Festival where mobs from across the Cape, north Queensland and the Torres Strait danced new and traditional dances. Old men directed their dancers with earnest concentration; a young woman from Lockhart River performed with such confidence, power and energy that the crowd surged, and was lifted and suspended in the swirling, cross-hatched coloured night lights from the stage, while her countrymen and women screamed with pride; the young fellas sported curling, fluorescent blonde rats tails after visits to the festival’s mobile hairdressing unit where Aboriginal trainees spent hours practising their craft on patient customers. Despite glimpses of other lives I failed to find the anecdote I admit I was waiting for, something to "use" in this review. What do I know of the material lives, the inner-lives, the aspirations and frustrations of the people I encountered briefly in the dust, under the shadow of an escarpment painted with Quinkin spirits?
I could have written an entirely different review, holding out against Noel Pearson’s interpretations and vision, rejecting his moralism, his normalising, his punitive proposals. But here is someone with an inkling of how to repair something that’s damaged. What would it mean to want him to fail?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
everyone depends on the “state”, just ask the police in NSW demanding more money and not doing their duty.
So nice of Noel to leeave a bunch of Aborigines who are already the most disadvantaged without any safety net !!
Wow, thanks Noel.
Ask him if he knows the meaning of magical Negro.
Interesting and forthright review, showing some courage in daring to counter the left-liberal orthodoxy about Pearson in the journalistic heartland of those who often loathe him for ideological and personal reasons.
Pearson’s document, Our Right to Take Responsibility, could quite possibly turn out to be regarded as the most important piece of Aboriginal writing to emerge in the twentieth century, for its combination of logical analysis, original thinking, courage, realism and ethical commitment to the pursuit of truth, justice and honesty.
I can’t see that it has any real rivals.
Kowal’s argument has no validity: if we avoid criticising Aboriginal people, and refrain from holding them accountable for their actions, just because others in the past have sometimes, or often, had assimilationist motives for doing these things, then we ourselves are cowardly, perverse and morally bankrupt.
Expat: Pearson is actually struggling to create a real safety net for Indigenous people in Australia - one that enables them, individually and collectively in their groups, to build the self-awareness, resilience and personal resources and group wealth that will permit them to survive and flourish.
Bob Durnan
(This comment has been edited)
Noel threw out the baby with the bath water !
If Aborigines as Mr Pearson insists, want to be relevant they must stand up for issues outside of themselves (not likely for the most disadvantaged), but something like
Cant Trust Genocidal nation: More foreign students killed in Australia than government admits: Report
Or fight the implementation of HREOAC1986, which corrupt judges and politicians have been hiding away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ&feature=channel_page
(This comment has been edited)
(Comment deleted)
Call me stupid, and shallow, but I would have alot more respect for Noel if he wasn’t so fat.
why did you delete my comment? i thought it was “the most important piece of Aboriginal writing to emerge in the twenty-first century, for its combination of logical analysis, original thinking, courage, realism and ethical commitment to the pursuit of truth, justice and honesty.”
btw, i have no idea what those slogans mean either, they just sounded intellectual as i copied them from the other comment……which seems to be the case in politics these days.
They should all be charged with plagiarisation !!
(Off-topic comment was deleted.)
Well. from a half-caught comment from Phil Adams the other night, it would seem that Noel Pearson is to join the Liberals in Canberra, so his neo-liberal agendas may well have found their natural home.
Personally, I can not stand the man or his ideas. I was very upset when he joined Mal Brough in pulling the wool over Galuuway Yunupingu’s eyes in relation to the NT Invasion and Military Occupation, which left Galuuway much reduced n the eyes of his community of Yolgnu, and having to try and find a new equilibrium. It did not take him all that long really, I suppose, to realise that he had been hoodwinked by Brough and Pearson.
A real Angry Man, that is Noel Pearson. Sure, some of his ideas are not all that far out, but some verge on Fascism.
It is just a pity that Rudd and Macklin also seem to have swallowed his bile, and that Indigenous affairs will be suffering from his malign influence for many years to come.
I am in full agreement that all Indigenous peoples very much need self-respect and pride in themselves, and the education and jobs to maintain a decent living, but I just do not accept that Brough/Pearson/Rudd/Macklin have any idea how to bring that about.
So far, not one thing that Rudd and his mob have instituted to great fanfare, and not just in Indigenous affairs, has worked. Not one thing!
So it really is back to the drawing board, for all of them, and I sincerely hope that the ideas of Pearson are not given undue attention in the process.
But Macklin in particular seems totally welded to failed policies, and now has her back up, totally ignoring the results of her own enquiries,
listening still to such people as Noel Pearson, that Right Wing ex-President of Federal Labor, Mundine, and people like Marcia Langton, who seem to be virulent man-haters all. None of them seem to have accepted the findings that most of the Brough insinuations and accusations in regard to Indigenous men in the NT, and his excuse for ‘Invading’, were just plain WRONG!
But Pearson seems to think the answer is to just get everyone hopping MAD!!! My hat, my hackles rise when I listen to him. Dazza.
Whatever you think of Noel, there is a unique opportunity at the moment to build that “bridge” between “sit down money” and community, later individual, self-sufficiency.
That opportunity is re-forestation and setting up a viable timber insustry as a by-product. There is plenty of domestic and overseas capital interested in offsetting corporate carbon footprnts.
Now we need some social entrepreneurs to develop business cases and pilot projects.
Then the rest of the nation can throw in the skills and toil to make it a reality.
(comment deleted)
a good review eve. I look forward to reading the book.
There was a defining moment in my understanding of indigenous affairs was seeing Pearson speak in north Queensland in 1997. He made a compelling argument on how the broad Aboriginal aspiration of cultural maintainance was linked to economic independence. I was impressed by how Pearson engaged a hostile audience. How he explained how he was happy to hear another analysis, to engage in an exchange ideas and be convinced of a different perspective. He said that he was all for rebellion he just wanted to know what the next step in the program of action was.
Other than “you’re a cunt Pearson’ , no ideas were forthcoming. After he finished i asked a friend what he thought of the speech. He replied “he’s pretty much a white guy.’ This for me was a telling moment. It was a tension i see repeated in many conversations i have with ‘the Left’ on indigenous affairs. It starts with an anti-intellectual rejection of debate, the labelling of ideas that challenge your analysis as racist or sinister, deny evidence, and conclude with a rehashing of a 1970’s strategy for change that has been proven ineffective.
Thank you dazza for providing an example. Pearson is:
- a potential Liberal Party member
- a neoliberal
- pulls the wool over people’s eyes
- hoodwinks
- is bordering on facist
- excercises a malign influence
- a man-hater
- a supporter of invasion
- and his strategy for change is to ‘get everyone hopping mad’
I must have missed something Dazza. Which of pearson’s ideas do you disagree with, why, and what is your alternative program of action. It is easy to find names to call someone you disagree with. Good ideas for change are harder to come by. And did I miss evidence that the ‘Little Children are Sacred’ report was incorrect and its description of wide spread abuse on remote communities was false. Or similar evidence that demonstrates the 6 or so reports that preceded that one were false too. Denying inconvenient facts doesn’t make them go away - it just destroys your credibility.
The NT intervention provided an opportunity for the political Left to argue a new way forward. But strangely people insisted on arguing for a maintenance of the status quo. Support for a policy perspective that has 30 years of evidence demonstrating its ineffectiveness. The main reason why was a failure of governance. The State abrogating its responsibilities in areas of education, health, employment, economic development, capacity building, housing, child protection etc. and justifying it with the cry of ‘Self Determination’. It was an outsourcing of core responsibilities of the State to communities that have the least capacity to manage them. Generally speaking, a return to this era seems to be what the Left is arguing for and i cannot for the life of me understand why.
The culture war in indigenous affairs is not over… but the combatants who persevere on the sidelines delivering salvos from both left and right are looking increasingly silly. I don’t agree with many policy decisions on indigenous affairs in the last few years but i am relieved that there is a shift from ideologically bound policy inertia to a discussion of ideas that might create change rather than maintain an intolerable status quo. It is undeniable that Pearson can rightfully claim a share of the credit for this change.
(comment deleted)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ&feature=channel_page
Btw, this is NOT a war, this “cultural” war should be over with the enactment of HREOCA1986. Ms Kowal is correct, the “left” is perpetuating this so-called cultural war for its own benefits much like the situation in Gazza
Does Labour have a majority in the Senate? This should be over
We will try to get it moving very soon
Definitely, Pearson has helped dilute an already unused Racial Discrimination Act 1975, not an honor i would accept.
The fact that we are differentiating it into Indigeneous Affairs in 2009 shows the “cultural” war is chasing its tails and going nowhere fast
Pearson’s idea’s are fundamentally flawed. The only thing Pearsons rise and sustainability refects, is the fact that Australia is still ill equipped to deal with race relations. Infact if race relations came to a head here, Australia would see congealed civil unrest perhaps leading to civil war.
Sadly Noel has had to appeal to the right wing, because the left have failed so terribly, and have proven themselves useless. Thats the neglect of the broader community, partic. gov.
It speaks of the times and failed non Indigenous mechanisms, rescourses and momentum to engage Aboriginal people. It relflects political immaturity and the sensationalist response of the masses along with minimal dedication from governance or economy.
What he perceives in remote nth QLD is not unique to that area; it exists right here in urban Australia.
And Eve, I consider it an absolute insult that although the majority of Aboriginal Australians reject his politics, you would seek to validate him on some level. As if our communities have not already had various realisations and were not building towards - although resource poor, I might add- addressing these matters in a culturally sensitive manner.
There are very specific reasons as to why Aboriginal Leadership throughout history have not endorsed or taken Pearsons approach. That history in itself is incredibly complex.
Both you and Noel have taken much of the context out of this argument, omitting legacy and maintaining what appeals to you.
It is tyrannical at worst and childish to say the least, because people, especially those subject to these imposed agandas, are dependant on online ‘newspapers’ such as the New Matilda to properly explore this issue within intellectual spheres that we can not access.
EarnestLee, this is not a unique opportunity, a predictable outcome is and has always been. Read the blueprint of Aboriginal Affairs over the last 150 or so years. There is a cycle larger than thirty years back to the 70’s.
And Collins, dont be so melodramatic, no one argued for the status quo, as you well know. Cheap shots do not reflect intelligence. Nor does stealing quotes from the likes Langton.
(What was expat said about plagarism??)
There in lies another reason I detest the thought that any of you democratic or otherwise, influence the lives of my children ; ancestors, history, future etc.
I have a question: does ayone know of a considered response to Pearson’s approach to these matters? I want to be able to refer students to some of the various ways of thinking about these issues. Pearson is a good clear thoughtful writer. Who is is equally good but with different views?
@willettg:
the racist judges have thrown them in jail as political prisoners; eg Lex Wotton, on monday we will accuse the Australian government for inciting racial violence and making political prisoners in the Federal Court.
if students want to know more about indiigenous and australian history, they should keep an eye out for the Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/judicial_system/index…
and see how race relations came to this point…Years 10 and above of course, dont wanna dramatise the little ones.
go to the youtube channel and keep an eye out for the submission that the racist senate will keep hidden
(comment deleted)
Some of what Pearson says should be taken on board but he does himself no favours by pandering to the right. These are the people who write off disandvantage into the deserving and underserving poor. There are areas in Sydney where there are generational unemployment problems that are not aboriginal. This would show a general lack of serious resources to stop the cycles of poverty that are endemic in some areas of society.
Proper infrastructure and educational oportunities for all are being made a mockery of with current school funding and now the spectre of demonising the poorly performing schools instead of fixing the problem.
The risk of following only what Pearson states and ignoring other voices in the community will allow aborigines to be classed as the underserving poor and the masters of their own disfunction. This will give governments the excuse to not take effective action and fumble along with symbolic gestures instead of physical action and I don’t mean physical action as sending in the troops, I mean send in the builders. Its hard to feel proud about living in slum conditions in a first world country.
The solutions will contain a little bit of Pearson and a lot of what every person in Australia should expect from their government in the way of services and infrastructure.
willetg: look at Kevin Gilbert ‘because a white man’ll never do it” and other works. Oodgeroo Nunnucal (in the context of how you percieve your Shakespeare, as oppose to outdated methods).
Nicole Watson and Larrissa Berherent provide some real insight. Aileene- Morton Robinson and Irene Watson(SA) provide analysis and solutions, which are fundamentally at odds with Pearson, though not a direct response. Look at the works of NAILSMA and if you consider CYI as a middle man, between gov and grassroots; take a look at what NAILSMA are doing within that context. Actually read any Murrandoo Yanner speech from any era, listen to any Archie Roach song, check out Foleys Website and reconciliations resistance web. UN reports on global Indigenous peoples, community meeting minutes -to scope the complexity of issues.
There is just so much that it is insane that Pearsons work carries such weight.
oh and alot of what Pearson says is by no means original, it is regurgitated from former leaders, obvioulsy dressed for the right.
I see a lot of Gilberts thinking and style in Pearson. Mansell…Perkins…
Foley spoke about the Aboriginal econonmy 20 yrs back and before him, as far back as 1930’s, the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association were addressing such matters. John Maynard- who I forgot to mention- is also well worth a look. His grandfather Fred Maynard was part of the AAPA.
In the end capitalism is not a sustainable system. Pearson knows that, he manoeuvres for immediate power and direct response, and uses the right wing to do it. Be careful submitting to his desire .
Tom, that comment was stupid and shallow. Indeed it is also mildly racist given the clear differences in body shape and image within the Aboriginal population.
There are couple of points that are worth making about Noel Pearson. Firstly all the white folk like me writing on this site must acknowledge that he writing from within Aboriginality. His arguements are in that sense automatically valid. After nearly 20 years working with Indigenous young people I agree with Noel to the point that solutions must arise from Indigenous people themselves. At least Noel is giving it a go, even though I will go on record as saying I think he dead wrong about a lot of things.
I fear also that Noel has been an enabler for those white leaders who seek to blame Indigenous people for the socio-economic position, for the self-harming behaviours that have arisen from the stolen generation and the ongoing struggle of aboriginal people to raise their educational, economic and social status.
Those who want to quell Noel Pearson’s voice are in denial of the democratic differences within the Aboriginal population. I see this dialogue as a good thing and likely the best source of real solutions to the range of problems afflicting our Indigenous brothers and sisters.
Keep talking Noel, even when you are wrong, you are talking about the right stuff.
Aletha,
“EarnestLee, this is not a unique opportunity, a predictable outcome is and has always been. Read the blueprint of Aboriginal Affairs over the last 150 or so years. There is a cycle larger than thirty years back to the 70’s.”
When was millions of private capital dollars available historically?
I well remember Whitlam’s generosity with public money on the “Block” in Redfern, Sydney, in the 1970s. This degenerated to a condemned state over time.
What new models are you proposing?
(Noel Pearson) he’s got energy and he uses it trying to work out solutions to problems no one else has been able to… he can carry his weight Tom…
but yeah, middle-class welfare … it’s enabled a lot of people to look down on others less fortunate…. and the class system is alive and well…
those “who have” adore the status quo….
single mothers too are those who most often haven’t had the benefit of a loving husband and provider and they have had to make hard decisions for themselves and their children; their efforts go largely unrecognised by some who are ignorant of potential misfortunes life can bring upon one……