Foundations for Reconciliation in Social Science: The Political Thought of C.D. Rowley(*).

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: Yardi, Ramola
• Date: 01 January 1998

We have inherited quite a grim history, as so many other nations have; and for many reasons we must learn to apply to the facts of our own past and to current attitudes the same sociological principles which is it so much easier for us to apply to situations elsewhere.(1) The time has come for a `Politics of Responsibility', for concessions and bargains with this minority: perhaps one prelude will need to be the admission of colonial guilt--with `apologies to the Aboriginal' who is still here and stronger than before.(2) It seemed to me paramount to establish the case, in each State and in the Northern Territory, for recognition of some degree of autonomy, and for a patient attempt at reconciliation and negotiation.(3) This paper argues that the current process of `reconciliation' has a longer history of political ideas in which the work of Charles Dunford Rowley (1906-85) is central. We document the contribution of Rowley to laying the intellectual and institutional foundations of reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of Australia. In his conclusion to The Remote Aborigines, for example, Rowley(4) refers to `reconciliation' as part of the rationale for his three-volume study and uses the term in a number of other places in this work.(5) Although Rowley does not explicitly develop the conceptual content of the term `reconciliation', close analysis of his writings demonstrates both a rationale for reconciliation and a number of its essential elements.

Background to reconciliation

The most recent official program of reconciliation began in 1991, when the Commonwealth Government decided to pursue a "process of reconciliation between Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community".(6) By establishing a national Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation with diverse membership, and funding a variety of public relations activities, the Labor government embarked upon an explicit political strategy involving community groups. Key goals have been to promote understanding and respect between communities, and to explore the prospects for a "document" of reconciliation such as a parliamentary resolution, legislation, constitutional preamble or treaty.(7)

It must be acknowledged, however, that neither the political idea nor the process of reconciliation originated with the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Indeed, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody claimed that the:

first step in the process of reconciliation, and the one that received the clearest endorsement of the Australian people, was the referendum in 1967 which demonstrated overwhelming acceptance for the view that Aboriginal people should be part of the national policy.(8) Just over a decade later, an important precursor to the current program is evident in the National Aboriginal Conference's (NAC) decision in 1979 to seek a treaty between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal people. In the same year, an Aboriginal Treaty Committee (ATC), comprising a number of influential white Australians (including Rowley), was formed to canvass the option of a treaty. From 1981-83 the subject of a treaty was also considered by the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.(9) Both the work of the ATC and the NAC consultations on the `makaratta', as it was called, established many of the later terms of debate about reconciliation.

Fundamental to the official reconciliation program has been a focus upon the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their relations with the Europeans. This orientation requires an understanding of indigenous cultures, as well as the origins of political conflicts, and historical accounts of the activities of key groups and individuals. It is also a process in which both indigenous peoples and other Australians share their different stories and historical narratives about the past. At a minimum, reconciliation suggests the need to acknowledge the less `heroic' side of Australian history, and specifically the iniquities and injustices inflicted upon the indigenous peoples. However uncomfortable these exchanges and insights may be, it necessarily entails coming to terms with what Prime Minister John Howard has denounced as the "black armband view of history". The Prime Minister's criticism indicates that both the broader concept of reconciliation and its specific Australian manifestations are the subject of contest by those who hold different notions of the significance and character of the problem.

In the most general terms, to reconcile is to resolve differences or heal and restore damaged relationships. But the means for achieving any personal, social, or political project of reconciliation depends upon how the problem is understood. The current problem in Australia is generally represented as one of overcoming the longstanding divisions and distrust between the indigenous peoples and the other, more numerous, largely white, European immigrant peoples. For reconciliation to occur, however, there has to be some recognition that the reconciling parties share a mutual problem, some agreement on the terms of the problem and that it is in the interests of the parties to reconcile their differences. It is here that key figures in Australian social science and history have played an important role in laying the foundations for possible reconciliation.

A number of social scientists in the disciplines of anthropology, history, sociology and political science have helped revise governmental perceptions of the problem and set agendas for its attempted resolution. By transforming the ways that white Australians have understood the condition of Aborigines and their relations with whites, and revising previously accepted explanations, these social scientists established the theoretical and cultural basis for reconciliation.([dagger]) In this regard, we argue that, through his studies of Aboriginal people, C.D. Rowley played a pivotal role in the history of Australian social science. Analysis of Rowley's writings indicates how one member of an earlier generation of engaged social scientists grappled with the ruling disciplinary prejudices about Aborigines. The aim was to shed more light on how whites and their governments had oppressed Aborigines and so lay the groundwork for more humane and just state policies. A key problem was that of illuminating the social construction of Aboriginality and demonstrating how certain kinds of disciplinary knowledge contributed to the maintenance of racial domination and colonial oppression. Rowley's particular strategy was to refine our knowledge of colonialism, indicate the role that knowledge and governments played in maintaining colonialism, and suggest the kinds of policies that would be needed to overcome this condition.

This is not to claim that Rowley's contribution was flawless, nor do we give any particular priority to white Australian initiatives. Indeed, Aboriginal writers such as Kevin Gilbert, Marcia Langton and many others have also contributed much to changing the outlook of white and black Australians. This paper has the narrower aim of examining a particular lineage of ideas in Australian social science and showing its influence upon government policy. Throughout this article we will demonstrate that although his work suffers certain limitations, Rowley's writings were instrumental in displacing accepted ways of thinking about both the past and present so that alternative futures for Aboriginal/white relations were possible.

Brief biography

Charles Rowley occupied a unique place in Australian social science as educator, colonial administrator, historian, social critic, public servant and policy adviser. Rowley graduated with an MA in history from the University of Sydney and after leaving university he became a secondary school teacher in rural New South Wales. During the Second World War he served in the military Directorate of Research, which was based in New Guinea. After the war he worked for the Commonwealth Government in the administration of Australian higher education. From 1951 to 1964 he was principal of the Australian School of Pacific Administration (ASOPA) in Papua New Guinea. During this period he developed a first-hand knowledge of colonialism and wrote three books on different aspects of the topic.(10) From 1964 to 1967 Rowley became the director of the `Aborigines in Australia Project' which was the first large scale research project to examine the relationship between Aboriginal people and white Australia. As part of this project he wrote three major books,(11) which were completed while he was Professor of Political Studies at the University of Papua New Guinea from 1968 to 1974. He wrote a further three books on Aboriginal issues, including one published after his death.(12) From 1974 to 1980, Rowley was chair of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and over most of the same period (1974-79) he was Director of the Academy of Social Sciences.([double dagger])

As a historian and social scientist, Rowley offered critiques of existing Aboriginal/white relations from a distinctive perspective. Our analysis will indicate: (1) his understanding of the crucial role of values in social science, (2) his comparative methodological approach, (3) his contribution to Australian social theory, and (4) his various proposals for policy reform. We shall also point out the evolution of his work and a few of the difficulties with it.

Values and value freedom

Rowley's inquiry into Aboriginal and State relations in the mid 1960s began with a dual critique of social science and government policy. Like a small number of other social scientists in Australia (see, for example, Hugh Stretton 1969), he was a strong critic of value-free social science, which had become the orthodoxy in the 1950s and 1960s. Regarding the study of Aborigines, Rowley wrote:

It is of course possible to make a scientific discovery...