Tamara A. Lipscombe, Antonia Hendrick, Peta L. Dzidic, Brian Bishop, Darren Garvey
{"title":"Colonial mechanisms for repudiating indigenous sovereignties in Australia: A Foucauldian-genealogical exploration of Australia day","authors":"Tamara A. Lipscombe, Antonia Hendrick, Peta L. Dzidic, Brian Bishop, Darren Garvey","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Foucauldian genealogical approach was used to explore the historical context surrounding Australia Day social tensions. Historic Indigenous-settler relations appear central to Australia Day events. Australia Day social contestation suggests unsettlement surrounding the ways in which Australian nationhood is predicated on colonial-settler privilege and exploitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignties. While modalities of colonial-settler power are identified, so too are Indigenous forms of resistance that serve to disrupt settler privileges. The findings indicate that settler determination of Australia Day acts to preserve settler sovereignty within the national mythscape as a mechanism in the colonial project and repudiation of Indigenous sovereignties in Australia. However, Indigenous forms of resistance challenge settler constructions of the Australian mythscape and nationhood.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"118 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A Foucauldian genealogical approach was used to explore the historical context surrounding Australia Day social tensions. Historic Indigenous-settler relations appear central to Australia Day events. Australia Day social contestation suggests unsettlement surrounding the ways in which Australian nationhood is predicated on colonial-settler privilege and exploitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignties. While modalities of colonial-settler power are identified, so too are Indigenous forms of resistance that serve to disrupt settler privileges. The findings indicate that settler determination of Australia Day acts to preserve settler sovereignty within the national mythscape as a mechanism in the colonial project and repudiation of Indigenous sovereignties in Australia. However, Indigenous forms of resistance challenge settler constructions of the Australian mythscape and nationhood.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.