Beyond savagery : the limits of Australian 'Aboriginalism'

Kay J. Anderson; Colin Perrin

Beyond savagery : the limits of Australian 'Aboriginalism'

Kay J. Anderson
, Colin Perrin

Institute for Culture & Society

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Colonial representations of the supposedly savage condition of indigenous peoples have provided the basis upon which a now familiar account of colonial discourse has been elaborated. Recalling a European idea of savagery that goes back at least four hundred years, if not to ancient depictions of barbaric savages,1 this account has drawn upon Edward SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s analysis of a complicity between the formation of colonial knowledge and the exercise of colonial power in the discursive ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“constructionÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ of racialised Others.2 To condense greatly, the theoretical debt here has been to Michel FoucaultÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s conception of discourse and his notion of dividing practices.3 And together these have provided the basis for a powerful account of how the construction of indigenous peoples as savages has served to justify their colonial dispossession and oppression. The most basic claim hereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat racial stereotypes were invoked to support the colonisation of lands occupied by indigenous peoplesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âis irrefutable. But the specifically constructivist elaboration of this claim has turned it into a ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“logicÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ that has come to define colonialism, in its capacity to construct Others, as a power that saturates, and indeed exhausts, the colonial ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢. Such an encounter has thus been simplified to the extent that its very character as an encounter has been effaced. It is, moreover, on account of this simplificationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âaccording to which discourse remains fundamentally indifferent to, and so unaffected by, what it encounters or fails to encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat the history of colonial encounters with indigenous peoples has been generalised into what Cole Harris has described as an ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“amorphous imperial soupÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.4 Our aim in this essay is not, however, to offer yet another attempt to rectify the empirical simplifications and generalisations of constructivism. Rather, in the context of an ongoing concernÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âin cultural studies and elsewhereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âwith the limits of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourseÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ and of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourse analysisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢,5 our attempt to restore to the Australian colonial encounter something of its specificity is impelled by a concern with how constructivism endows colonial discourse with a power that is not just empirically, but also theoretically, unsustainable. Critically addressing the prevalence of constructivist accounts of the colonial encounter in Australia, we draw less upon SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s description of the power of discourse and more upon Homi BhabhaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s attempt to elicit its limits.6 For this encounter, we will argue, provides a salient, if not a crucial, instance of the failure of colonial discourse to construct indigenous peoples according to an idea of savagery that, as Bain Attwood has put it, refers to ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“a place which Europeans ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ left behind in order to assume ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã…"civilisationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.7

Original language	English
Number of pages	24
Journal	Cultural Studies Review
Publication status	Published - 2008

Keywords

Aboriginal Australians
Australia
colonialism
constructivism
indigenous peoples
oppression
savagery
stereotypes

Cite this

@article{3721604ec2c747e6b1d8da185ef0f706,

title = "Beyond savagery : the limits of Australian 'Aboriginalism'",

abstract = "Colonial representations of the supposedly savage condition of indigenous peoples have provided the basis upon which a now familiar account of colonial discourse has been elaborated. Recalling a European idea of savagery that goes back at least four hundred years, if not to ancient depictions of barbaric savages,1 this account has drawn upon Edward Said{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢s analysis of a complicity between the formation of colonial knowledge and the exercise of colonial power in the discursive {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“construction{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢ of racialised Others.2 To condense greatly, the theoretical debt here has been to Michel Foucault{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢s conception of discourse and his notion of dividing practices.3 And together these have provided the basis for a powerful account of how the construction of indigenous peoples as savages has served to justify their colonial dispossession and oppression. The most basic claim here{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}that racial stereotypes were invoked to support the colonisation of lands occupied by indigenous peoples{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}is irrefutable. But the specifically constructivist elaboration of this claim has turned it into a {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“logic{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢ that has come to define colonialism, in its capacity to construct Others, as a power that saturates, and indeed exhausts, the colonial {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“encounter{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢. Such an encounter has thus been simplified to the extent that its very character as an encounter has been effaced. It is, moreover, on account of this simplification{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}according to which discourse remains fundamentally indifferent to, and so unaffected by, what it encounters or fails to encounter{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}that the history of colonial encounters with indigenous peoples has been generalised into what Cole Harris has described as an {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“amorphous imperial soup{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢.4 Our aim in this essay is not, however, to offer yet another attempt to rectify the empirical simplifications and generalisations of constructivism. Rather, in the context of an ongoing concern{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}in cultural studies and elsewhere{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{\^a}‚¬{\^A}with the limits of {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“discourse{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢ and of {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“discourse analysis{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢,5 our attempt to restore to the Australian colonial encounter something of its specificity is impelled by a concern with how constructivism endows colonial discourse with a power that is not just empirically, but also theoretically, unsustainable. Critically addressing the prevalence of constructivist accounts of the colonial encounter in Australia, we draw less upon Said{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢s description of the power of discourse and more upon Homi Bhabha{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢s attempt to elicit its limits.6 For this encounter, we will argue, provides a salient, if not a crucial, instance of the failure of colonial discourse to construct indigenous peoples according to an idea of savagery that, as Bain Attwood has put it, refers to {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‹{\AA}“a place which Europeans {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‚{\^A}¦ left behind in order to assume {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}…{"}civilisation{\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}‚{\^A} {\~A}ƒ{\^A}¢{\~A}¢{"}{\v s}{\^A}¬{\~A}¢{"}{\v z}{\^A}¢.7",

keywords = "Aboriginal Australians, Australia, colonialism, constructivism, indigenous peoples, oppression, savagery, stereotypes",

author = "Anderson, \{Kay J.\} and Colin Perrin",

year = "2008",

language = "English",

journal = "Cultural Studies Review",

issn = "1446-8123",

publisher = "UTS ePRESS",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond savagery : the limits of Australian 'Aboriginalism'

AU - Anderson, Kay J.

AU - Perrin, Colin

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Colonial representations of the supposedly savage condition of indigenous peoples have provided the basis upon which a now familiar account of colonial discourse has been elaborated. Recalling a European idea of savagery that goes back at least four hundred years, if not to ancient depictions of barbaric savages,1 this account has drawn upon Edward SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s analysis of a complicity between the formation of colonial knowledge and the exercise of colonial power in the discursive ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“constructionÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ of racialised Others.2 To condense greatly, the theoretical debt here has been to Michel FoucaultÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s conception of discourse and his notion of dividing practices.3 And together these have provided the basis for a powerful account of how the construction of indigenous peoples as savages has served to justify their colonial dispossession and oppression. The most basic claim hereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat racial stereotypes were invoked to support the colonisation of lands occupied by indigenous peoplesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âis irrefutable. But the specifically constructivist elaboration of this claim has turned it into a ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“logicÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ that has come to define colonialism, in its capacity to construct Others, as a power that saturates, and indeed exhausts, the colonial ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢. Such an encounter has thus been simplified to the extent that its very character as an encounter has been effaced. It is, moreover, on account of this simplificationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âaccording to which discourse remains fundamentally indifferent to, and so unaffected by, what it encounters or fails to encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat the history of colonial encounters with indigenous peoples has been generalised into what Cole Harris has described as an ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“amorphous imperial soupÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.4 Our aim in this essay is not, however, to offer yet another attempt to rectify the empirical simplifications and generalisations of constructivism. Rather, in the context of an ongoing concernÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âin cultural studies and elsewhereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âwith the limits of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourseÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ and of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourse analysisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢,5 our attempt to restore to the Australian colonial encounter something of its specificity is impelled by a concern with how constructivism endows colonial discourse with a power that is not just empirically, but also theoretically, unsustainable. Critically addressing the prevalence of constructivist accounts of the colonial encounter in Australia, we draw less upon SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s description of the power of discourse and more upon Homi BhabhaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s attempt to elicit its limits.6 For this encounter, we will argue, provides a salient, if not a crucial, instance of the failure of colonial discourse to construct indigenous peoples according to an idea of savagery that, as Bain Attwood has put it, refers to ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“a place which Europeans ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ left behind in order to assume ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã…"civilisationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.7

AB - Colonial representations of the supposedly savage condition of indigenous peoples have provided the basis upon which a now familiar account of colonial discourse has been elaborated. Recalling a European idea of savagery that goes back at least four hundred years, if not to ancient depictions of barbaric savages,1 this account has drawn upon Edward SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s analysis of a complicity between the formation of colonial knowledge and the exercise of colonial power in the discursive ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“constructionÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ of racialised Others.2 To condense greatly, the theoretical debt here has been to Michel FoucaultÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s conception of discourse and his notion of dividing practices.3 And together these have provided the basis for a powerful account of how the construction of indigenous peoples as savages has served to justify their colonial dispossession and oppression. The most basic claim hereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat racial stereotypes were invoked to support the colonisation of lands occupied by indigenous peoplesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âis irrefutable. But the specifically constructivist elaboration of this claim has turned it into a ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“logicÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ that has come to define colonialism, in its capacity to construct Others, as a power that saturates, and indeed exhausts, the colonial ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢. Such an encounter has thus been simplified to the extent that its very character as an encounter has been effaced. It is, moreover, on account of this simplificationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âaccording to which discourse remains fundamentally indifferent to, and so unaffected by, what it encounters or fails to encounterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âthat the history of colonial encounters with indigenous peoples has been generalised into what Cole Harris has described as an ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“amorphous imperial soupÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.4 Our aim in this essay is not, however, to offer yet another attempt to rectify the empirical simplifications and generalisations of constructivism. Rather, in the context of an ongoing concernÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âin cultural studies and elsewhereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âwith the limits of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourseÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ and of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“discourse analysisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢,5 our attempt to restore to the Australian colonial encounter something of its specificity is impelled by a concern with how constructivism endows colonial discourse with a power that is not just empirically, but also theoretically, unsustainable. Critically addressing the prevalence of constructivist accounts of the colonial encounter in Australia, we draw less upon SaidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s description of the power of discourse and more upon Homi BhabhaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s attempt to elicit its limits.6 For this encounter, we will argue, provides a salient, if not a crucial, instance of the failure of colonial discourse to construct indigenous peoples according to an idea of savagery that, as Bain Attwood has put it, refers to ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“a place which Europeans ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ left behind in order to assume ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã…"civilisationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã‚Â ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢.7

KW - Aboriginal Australians

KW - Australia

KW - colonialism

KW - constructivism

KW - indigenous peoples

KW - oppression

KW - savagery

KW - stereotypes

UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/507754

M3 - Article

SN - 1446-8123

JO - Cultural Studies Review

JF - Cultural Studies Review

ER -

Beyond savagery : the limits of Australian 'Aboriginalism'

Abstract

Keywords

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this