It's Not About What's Right

An essay on Australia's referendum regarding the Indigenous Voice To Parliament

October 14 demands that Australians make a compulsory ‘choice’ between two options: Yes or No to the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’. You can read the formal question put to voters here.

I

To those feeling torn as I am in relation to the present referendum, I suggest to you that the feeling is quite natural. From my perspective, it’s because the complexity of the context, hopes, fears, and values involved, in combination with uncertainty about the meaningful consequences of voting for either ‘side’, are not well addressed by either our collective conversation or indeed the ‘choices’ presented to us.

It is a tear befitting of a yes/no binary imposed onto complex terrain, magnified by inadequate preparation to meet the moment.

The word ‘torn’ comes from a word in the Greek ‘derein’ which meant ‘flay’. Poetically this offers a way in I find helpful. A body flayed is torn open, exposing raw flesh. And in my time on this land, beginning as an 11 year old boy, I have not encountered an issue so raw, reactive and choked in voice as that of reconciliation between those with roots to the land that came before, and those who took root after.

We are, it seems, stuck in an extended and extending moment with the relevance of language like ‘settler’, ‘coloniser’, ‘indigenous’ and their associated implications, for good and ill. As the national anthem now reflects: all of the peoples of Australia are most certainly not ‘young and free’. And yet the question remains whether or not, as the 2021 line two alteration implores, we are ‘one and free’.

That question will not be answered adequately by language alone, although language is important. As for oneness, it won’t be realised by picking the ‘right’ side in this referendum, despite tacit claims made by the official each. And with respect to free, I would suggest that the constriction of the overton window of ‘good opinion’ in whatever camp you find, indicates a thing or two about the quality of freedom experienced by voice in public and perhaps private exchange.

Unity and freedom, to name but two notions in play here, aren’t to be bandied around lightly. And I am not here to champion some aspirational caricature of either. But it’s worth raising that our relation to these existential and metaphysical dynamics are piqued by the politics of identity at levels of one people together, justice, and self-determination. If we don’t treat with the depth of meaning implied in this mix, we’re left reacting to currents far beyond the depth of our touch.

But indeed that is the situation we find ourselves in, reacting to currents beyond the depth of our conscious touch or understanding. When notions of reconciliation and the consequences of colonisation are invoked in some uncertain undertone of moral implication, one recognises the impulse to react, as is often the case in matters of pain, urgency, accusation and absence of trust. From this perspective too the feeling of torn is quite relatable: one wants to do the right thing, but one doesn’t know what that is, and one has to do it now, in reaction to happenings beyond one’s comprehension, out of one’s depth.

The present mechanism of referendum is itself overly coarse as an intervention toward addressing such depth, no matter if it’s a foundational tool of democracy. If it can’t be well operated by the collective, if discourse about the matter at hand lacks integrity, if education is more propaganda than real learning, and if our context for belonging itself is increasingly alien to us: then of what, really, is this referendum an indicator? The results will be provocatively interpreted in all manner of partial ways, as befits a tool for measurement grasped by clumsy hands. But this is a more or less banal point. Of deeper importance is the recognition that we are inadequate as a culture to perform the responsibility of democracy itself. We must invest more wisely in our collective capacity to craft and share voice before we are fit to name and instantiate, even for a moment, ‘A’ voice, let alone ‘The’ voice.

This last point is perhaps more general than specific, because of course we are where we are, and there is without question an authentic call to answer from a collective voice that has been displaced and mistreated.

Is that call well represented by this Indigenous Voice to Parliament? And is ‘Yes’ the right response in relation?

II

It is not clear to me which way to vote is the right way. As implied so far, real engagement with the question of ‘right’ is absent from acquaintance in the context of this referendum. Truthfully I am here to advocate that there is no ‘right’ way to vote, in an absolute sense. Rather I am here to advocate for a right ‘way’ to vote.

I will say this: discerning your right may make for a different vote than mine. I accept that, and have encountered dispositions I respect on each side, as well as ones I have less admiration for. But in my opinion there is something more important at stake here. That is, our capacity as a culture to remain in communication with real perspectives which differ from our own. After all, could there be something I’m missing? More philosophically: through what is the basis of care inherent to any perception rooted? What are the matters of real relevance at play? How are different perceptions formed, and what do they reveal about the greater whole of perception influencing the collective voice in referendum?

As we relate to this process of understanding we may come to a more or less coherent representation of the values and perceptions, as well as the needs and dreams for expression, which comprise the collective attitude. This essay is not up to the task of representing a broad coherence of collective attitude as it connects with the pragmatism of the political proposal in question. For that we need first an entirely different form of social process: one we are lacking. We need a form of institution as process worthy of trust, earned by virtue of communication of an altogether different quality than presently exemplified. The lack of such may indeed prove a core factor in a significant percentage of ‘No’ votes, meaning that the relatively particular moment of this referendum could serve as a happenstance outlet for frustration about a more general context. An articulation of that more general context requires an essay of its own, though my inclination is to foreground the core relevance of years of successive hollowing of authentic voice in integrous public exchange.

Nevertheless, under question in this referendum is whether the Indigenous Voice To Parliament, as presented to us, is an appropriate constitutional inexorable-pathway-to-institution by which to ‘make representations’ on behalf of Aboriginal people and their communities. Unfortunately we cannot discern whether the institution in its structure and process is appropriate or not, because by the proposal’s own official articulation, its ‘composition, functions, powers and procedures’ are to be determined after the fact of its instantiation in the constitution. We are ultimately left to discern with head, heart and gut whether its promise alone is enough.

Putting that aside for the time being, the first reflection I am drawn to make is the following:

What is of most significance to Aboriginal people ought in fact be of most significance to us all. The fate of this land is the fate of all who care for it. The complexities of climate, environment, deep cultural process—in short, the Commons associated with participation in this land—is of significance to us all. Therefore the scope of its interest, for those matters of greatest depth and potency of implication, cannot not be encompassing of matters pertinent to all inhabitants of this land. Therefore it is appropriate to question the appropriateness of a permanent constitutional institution whose members, I believe I am right in representing here, will be defined at least in terms of lineage which excludes the lineage of other Australians. A short hand way the majority of the population comprehends this selection criteria is in terms of race. And while the distinct cultural knowledge and intelligence transmitted through distinct lineages at the level of culture have value and meaning often not connoted by the label race, there is ample room for reasonable hesitancy here. And in that context, I have sympathy for a vote of ‘No’.

This argument for hesitancy has nothing whatsoever to do with the desire to, and necessity of, recognising and valuing indigenous peoples, cultures, knowledge, history and living reality in the fullness of its unique value, tragedy, and potential for irreplaceable, vital contribution. Since the white human came, the black human’s voice has not been treated as equal with respect to treatment of country or people. As far as I can tell, it is not the same as it was. But it is not for me to say what the reality now is, and there is no shutting the book of history when it remains in process, inexorably influenced by the pages which came before. What I will stand for is that in life, rather than in books, the endings I care most about are one’s that birth new beginnings. I am for that kind of ending, and I care about the process of affirmation and creation associated with the vitality of that beginning. I will stand and address with any I meet in process with all of that, and I do so without shame or guilt.

My personal belief is that the knowledge and wisdom inherent in the culture of indigenous Australians is of critical importance to the existential becoming of the ecology of this land, and the vitality of spirit that breathes in those who live here. I am sympathetic to the heart which connects the valuing of Aboriginal Australians to the proposal in question, and is drawn to ‘Yes’ in order to signal such. But I also affirm the heart which likewise values, but beats in tandem with other processes which are unconvinced by the proposal in question.

Additionally, the argument for hesitancy is not desiring to overlook the motivation and criticality of the desire for communities, indigenous or otherwise, to self-determine matters appropriate to their common wealth and interest. But this point raises tremendous complexity and speaks to the less spoken affect of tearing which is at stake in this referendum. That is on the one hand the nature of the relationship between communities of sufficiently distinct desire for self-determination, and the cultural processes which constitute the nature by which such communities interact regarding matters of need, as well as sameness and difference of interest in vision and valuation. Such differences are of profound relevance to the identity of shared cultural and political body as such.

To my sensing, the question of the nature of the union of this land drums profoundly in the subtext of this referendum—and among a number of the prominent activists associable to the public broadcasting of the Yes campaign, it’s a lot more up front than mere subtext. In my view therefore one is justified to wonder just what is potentially at stake, and that it is inappropriate to hand wave this point away.

To be clear, I am not here to de facto assume the justice of unionism over separatism with respect to visions of prosperity and justice in this land. But I do not hold in high regard the mechanism of this referendum and the associated communicational context which ultimately constitutes it. I do not think it is adequate to address the deep and universal factors in play. The reality however is that a vote for ‘No’ does draw into question the possibility of de facto cultural momentum which, from the perspective of the ‘Yes’ aligned, constitutes a vote against changing an inadequate status-quo. And I do not believe the status-quo is adequate.

Rather plainly then, what about shaking it up? If it’s all inadequate, maybe change toward something (?) makes sense?

My problems here are one of the gut and one of the mind, which are of course names for aspects of the same thing. At the level of mind, I am sceptical that our maturity in governance structure and psychology is fit to integrate a distinctly lineage based identity group institution with unique constitutional instantiation, into a generative (opponent processing) relationship without collapsing into a degenerative (adversarial) relationship. Thus I am sceptical about the proposition offered as a functional process to go ‘toward’ anywhere worth going, for anyone.

At the level of gut, I am sceptical that the current political identity and activist mind which orients and conditions the promise of the Indigenous Voice To Parliament is especially apt to bring about advice (’representations’) regarding matters of deep societal complexity. There is promise to bring perspective from the ground about matters which matter to relevant communities, and I have no doubt whatsoever that perspectives from those communities have irreplaceable and existentially critical value to contribute, with respect to both dynamics of more isolated and more interdependent relevance. Is this the right pathway to dignify the contribution of those voices? I am sympathetic to the hope that the answer is ‘Yes’.

But has this proposal shown (or even suggested) how it would be meaningfully different to other institutional processes for representing indigenous needs and values? Other than by virtue of its right to make ‘representations’, constitutionally enshrined and therefore ‘permanent’, it seems to me it has not. It is intentionally blank on the question, and I do not agree with the decision to remain so blank. As mentioned earlier, its ‘composition, functions, powers and procedures’ are apparently subject to determination after the fact. And it is not enough for me that this is apparently par for the course in such matters of constitutional change. There is still a meaningful lack.

And lack very well may be the sensation, unfortunately, which persists for a time as an accompaniment to the memory of this referendum—on each side of this un-ready divide.

III

I am left in reflection about the affects, qualities and patterns of our cultural zeitgeist, particularly as they have manifested in the nature of the ‘conversation’ that has been ‘shared’, quite ironically, about ‘The Voice’.

Has its nature and conduct been sufficient for orienting wiser steps along the way, in consideration of the energies involved? And what, even, would be marks of such sufficiency?

What can we say about the right conditions—the right atmosphere—of sharing voice?

First of all, you might ask, sufficient for what? I say at least: sufficient for real participation in understanding—real Education rather than propaganda, and real Contribution of relevant perspective as part of a mutual learning process—the relation between which is critical for the mores of Belonging to hold and adapt.

And there, really, is the rub. I do not believe our process of relating with the question of this referendum has yet been conducive to our Belonging together in this land. And truly, I do not believe it will be politics that comes to the rescue. It is more likely to break the country apart if we rely on it to be the measure of Voice.

There remains, irrespective of the outcome of the vote today, opportunity to share voice together in a such a craft that the nature of Belonging itself is tended and made in its weave. It may begin in the very Way of the vote, irrespective of choosing ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ That is, through consultation with the varied energies of psyche as your own private many of one. It is a process that even as it ends, invites a new beginning.

And I say again, I am not here to broadcast advocacy for a ‘right’ way. That is yours to discern, and it seems to me there are relational fields at work requiring a nuance of interpretation. I will say however that I will not be vesting my position based on the purity of our incumbent processes, nor their evidenced merit for meeting the needs of all communities and this culture. Regrettably however, my sensitivity is that the proposal in question in cut from the same cloth.

I am advocating for a sincerity of dialogical process with your head, heart, and gut. There need be no dichotomy here between good and evil. It need not be racist and ally, reconciler and divider, indigenous and settler, inexorably and forever. We can be more than these divides which rhetoric risks perpetuating.

Discernment on the Way,