TY - JOUR
T1 - Caring for Country
T2 - History and Alchemy in the Making and Management of Indigenous Australian Land
AU - Pleshet, Noah
N1 - Funding Information: Fieldwork for this paper was supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation Dissertation Field-work Grant and the NYU Animal Studies Initiative. The writing of this article was made possible by a Guided Research and Writing Placement at the Australian National University’s Centre for Native Title Anthropology. I express my sincere gratitude to all Aṉangu who have taken time to explain their language and way of life. I especially thank Josephine Mick, Inawantji Scales, Hughie Cullinan, Maria Stewart, Lee Brady, Tapaya Edwards, the late Gordon Ingkatji, and the late Yami Lester. A version of this paper was presented to the Rangeland Biology and Ecology Seminars in Alice Springs. For conversations at that time, I thank Bill Lowe, Jocelyn Davies, Josie Douglas, Meg Mooney, James B. Young, and Fiona Walsh. My understandings of language benefited from conversations with Paul Eck-ert, Cliff Goddard, Celeste Humphris, Harold Koch, Fred Myers, and David Nash. For the reading of drafts and scholarly advice, I thank Ute Eickelkamp, Fred Myers, Nic Peterson, Summer Wood, Diane Austin-Broos, Julie Finlayson, Bruce Grant, Tess Loftus, Sally Merry, Yasmine Musharbash, Will Sanders, Beth Sometimes, and Bambi Schieffelin. My anonymous reviewers provided detailed critical commentary that corrected errors and shortcomings in my arguments. All errors that remain are my own. Funding Information: Fieldwork for this paper was supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation Dissertation Fieldwork Grant and the NYU Animal Studies Initiative. The writing of this article was made possible by a Guided Research and Writing Placement at the Australian National University's Centre for Native Title Anthropology. I express my sincere gratitude to all A?angu who have taken time to explain their language and way of life. I especially thank Josephine Mick, Inawantji Scales, Hughie Cullinan, Maria Stewart, Lee Brady, Tapaya Edwards, the late Gordon Ingkatji, and the late Yami Lester. A version of this paper was presented to the Rangeland Biology and Ecology Seminars in Alice Springs. For conversations at that time, I thank Bill Lowe, Jocelyn Davies, Josie Douglas, Meg Mooney, James B. Young, and Fiona Walsh. My understandings of language benefited from conversations with Paul Eckert, Cliff Goddard, Celeste Humphris, Harold Koch, Fred Myers, and David Nash. For the reading of drafts and scholarly advice, I thank Ute Eickelkamp, Fred Myers, Nic Peterson, Summer Wood, Diane Austin-Broos, Julie Finlayson, Bruce Grant, Tess Loftus, Sally Merry, Yasmine Musharbash, Will Sanders, Beth Sometimes, and Bambi Schieffelin. My anonymous reviewers provided detailed critical commentary that corrected errors and shortcomings in my arguments. All errors that remain are my own. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Oceania Publications
PY - 2018/7
Y1 - 2018/7
N2 - This paper traces the history of ‘caring for country’ tropes in writing about indigenous Australian land and land management. While ‘caring for country’ initially referred to dynamic land use and ownership practices, it progressively became a less historical, more primordial, conception of indigenous land ownership, use, and management. In reviewing constructions of ‘land’ in scholarly literatures and policy debates, I seek to explain how they interact with local indigenous practices and idioms. Drawing on examples from the cultural and linguistic fields of Aṉangu, speakers of Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, I examine a variety of concurrent uses of ‘country’, ‘caring’, or ‘nurturance’ and ‘caring for country’. A cross-linguistic perspective on these objectifications – in English, Aboriginal English, and central Australian indigenous languages – shows how they may attend selectively to the historical specificity of indigenous experience. But this, I argue, may be the key to their efficacy in intercultural projects. Coded messages in bilingual documents reflect a kind of agency whereby Aṉangu choose to leave equivocal histories unstated and thereby reconstitute government projects in terms that work for them. The referential flexibility around idioms of land and nurturance is a kind of alchemy in language and social life that is the condition of the success of actual land management activities. Terms including ‘country’ and ‘caring for country’ elide the socio-political dynamics that otherwise complicate actual rights and uses of land. That is why they can form the social basis of common activities, the production of ‘congeniality’ both within Aṉangu social life and at the interface with outsiders, in land management and other fields.
AB - This paper traces the history of ‘caring for country’ tropes in writing about indigenous Australian land and land management. While ‘caring for country’ initially referred to dynamic land use and ownership practices, it progressively became a less historical, more primordial, conception of indigenous land ownership, use, and management. In reviewing constructions of ‘land’ in scholarly literatures and policy debates, I seek to explain how they interact with local indigenous practices and idioms. Drawing on examples from the cultural and linguistic fields of Aṉangu, speakers of Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, I examine a variety of concurrent uses of ‘country’, ‘caring’, or ‘nurturance’ and ‘caring for country’. A cross-linguistic perspective on these objectifications – in English, Aboriginal English, and central Australian indigenous languages – shows how they may attend selectively to the historical specificity of indigenous experience. But this, I argue, may be the key to their efficacy in intercultural projects. Coded messages in bilingual documents reflect a kind of agency whereby Aṉangu choose to leave equivocal histories unstated and thereby reconstitute government projects in terms that work for them. The referential flexibility around idioms of land and nurturance is a kind of alchemy in language and social life that is the condition of the success of actual land management activities. Terms including ‘country’ and ‘caring for country’ elide the socio-political dynamics that otherwise complicate actual rights and uses of land. That is why they can form the social basis of common activities, the production of ‘congeniality’ both within Aṉangu social life and at the interface with outsiders, in land management and other fields.
KW - country
KW - indigenous Australia
KW - language
KW - natural resource management
KW - nurturance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047663382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047663382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ocea.5188
DO - 10.1002/ocea.5188
M3 - Article
SN - 0029-8077
VL - 88
SP - 183
EP - 201
JO - Oceania
JF - Oceania
IS - 2
ER -