Aboriginal women: we have voice, don’t speak for us

In today’s post, Summer May Finlay makes the case for a facilitative approach to policy influence and change for people whose voices are silenced.  Specifically, she calls on the feminist movement in Australia to ally with rather than speak on behalf of Aboriginal women.  A Yorta Yorta woman, Summer specialises in health policy, qualitative research and communications, and is a popular blogger with Croakey. She is speaking at Putting Women at the Centre: A Policy Forum on 16 August. You can follow Summer on Twitter @OnTopicAus

I am Aboriginal before I am a woman. I find that many Aboriginal women seem to be the same. I would suggest that this is because the Aboriginal community is collective rather than individual and because Aboriginal women view ourselves as very different than how the mainstream view us.

Our approach to policy takes a collective approach. Women’s issues are related and linked to men’s issues. This was evident in Aboriginal women’s response to Bill Leak’s racist cartoon which portrayed Aboriginal men as drunks and useless fathers. There was an outpouring of support from so many Aboriginal people including mothers, sisters and daughters under the hashtag #IndigenousDads. #IndigenousDads celebrating Indigenous fathers and seeking to undermine this stereotype. This is because the stereotype about our men hurt our women because it hurt our community.   This does not mean that there aren’t women specific issues but what it means is that to be whole as a person, the community has to be whole. We seek holistic policy which is inclusive rather than exclusive.  This is supported by the 1989 National Aboriginal Health Strategy definition of health:

“Aboriginal health means not just the physical well-being of an individual but refers to the social, emotional and cultural well-being of the whole Community in which each individual is able to achieve their full potential as a human being thereby bringing about the total well-being of their Community.”[1]

We see that definition embodied in many of the conversations Aboriginal women have about family violence. Our connections to community, kinship and Cultural obligations can make it more challenging for Aboriginal women to leave family violence situations. And typically like many women in these situations they love their partner.  Aboriginal women, for these reasons and others, often seek not just to ensure that there are supports for women and children who are victims of family violence but that there are support mechanisms for their partners as well. These men are our brothers, father, cousins, and uncles.

The reality is that research and policy tends to focus on the victims, and little resourcing is put into prevention and early intervention programs. The drivers of family violence awareness have been non-Aboriginal women – with little to no input from Aboriginal women. It is therefore no surprise that the agendas don’t align. Without investing in these programs to support our men, we are going to continue to see victims. As a victim of domestic violence, I wish I hadn’t needed support programs. I wish that when my partner sought help that there had been adequate options. There were not. If there was an increase in funding into research and programs with the aim of reducing the number of victims, without taking funding away from supporting victims, we would have healthier and happier communities.

Now you will probably notice that I haven’t used statistics. I believe that at times, when the statistics are well known, the focus should be on solutions. If we continue to focus on the numbers, it can reinforce negative stereotypes and overshadow solutions. It also frames Aboriginal women in deficit rather than focusing on our strengths.  The notion of Aboriginal deficit has been part of the discourse since invasion.[2] [3] [4] The Aboriginal identity has been created by the invader. This identity has become accepted as reality for most Australians as their understanding of Aboriginal identity, which is based on the “Eurocentric representation”.[5] [6] We are also often misrepresented and framed as the “other” with dominant culture as the normal. [7] [8] [9]  

By “othering” us, we are seen as the cause of our own deficit rather than understanding that Aboriginal Peoples have faced dispossession from land, racist policies and have been impacted by many other social and political factors. When the characteristics of a group seen as “other” vary from that of the dominant culture, they are judged as being less than those of the dominant culture. Aboriginal women are often seen in this light. We are seen as victims. We are often seen as the cause or at the very least implicit in the creation of their own issues. This deficit approach ignores the strength of Aboriginal women and is reflected in media and policy.  The mainstream feminist agenda has done little to redress this.

So where to from here? How do we move forward and include Aboriginal women’s values in women’s policy? We need appropriate support from other women to assist us in driving policy. We need non-Aboriginal women to be good allies. To be a good ally, women who belong to the dominant culture need to recognise the power imbalance between Aboriginal women and themselves. It’s not good enough to have the “right” intentions, as the process is what leads to positive change – not just good intention. Once the power imbalance has been recognised, we need them to stand with us when we seek to have input into policy.

In stage terms, when non-Aboriginal women hog the limelight or become our spokespeople, Aboriginal women do not recognise ourselves in the stories being told about us. When the stories are wrong, the solutions are wrong, which further helps to maintain the status quo or even may disadvantage us further.  We need to have Aboriginal women as producers, writers, actors and directors, while non-Aboriginal women should act as facilitators, benefactors and backstage crew. When our allies support us in appropriate ways it will lead to effective and sustainable solutions.

[1] National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. Definitions. http://www.naccho.org.au/about/aboriginal-health/definitions/ accessed 10th April 2016.

[2]  Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S. and Fogarty, B. 2013. “Discourse, Deficit and Identity: Aboriginality, the Race Paradigm and the Language of Representation in Contemporary Australia”. Media International Australia, vol. 49. Pp. 162-173.

[3]  Banerjee, B. and Osuri, G. 2000. “Silences of the media: whiting out Aboriginality in making news and making history”. Media, Culture & Society, vol. 22, pp. 263-284.

[4] Moreton-Robinson, A. and Nicoll, F., 2006.  “We shall fight them on the beachers: Protesting Cultures of White Possession” Journal of Australian Studies vol. 89, pp. 149-160.

[5] Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S. and Fogarty, B. 2013. “Discourse, Deficit and Identity: Aboriginality, the Race Paradigm and the Language of Representation in Contemporary Australia”. Media International Australia, vol. 49. Pp. 162-173.

[6] Banerjee, B. and Osuri, G. 2000. “Silences of the media: whiting out Aboriginality in making news and making history”. Media, Culture & Society, vol. 22, pp. 263-284.

[7] Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S. and Fogarty, B. 2013. “Discourse, Deficit and Identity: Aboriginality, the Race Paradigm and the Language of Representation in Contemporary Australia”. Media International Australia, vol. 49. Pp. 162-173.

[8]  Banerjee, B. and Osuri, G. 2000. “Silences of the media: whiting out Aboriginality in making news and making history”. Media, Culture & Society, vol. 22, pp. 263-284.

[9] Bamblett, L. 2011. “Straight-line stories: Representation and Indigenous Australian identities in sports discourse”. Australian Aboriginal Studies, vol.2 pp. 5-20.