Social Cohesion and Resilience in First Australian Family and Kinship Networks

The Ongoing Struggle against the “Deficit” Approach

A frequent problem of misunderstanding about the tenacity of First Australian family and kinship arises in estimations that regard First Australian communities as deficient. Although there are significant social problems in communities, such challenges do not derive from the lack of social interconnection. A major error is made by many policy makers that perceive First Australian communities through the deficit lens; they are often blind to the existing social cohesive properties that are put in place to deal with the numerous negative outcomes of colonization and to ensure their transcendence of the intersecting matrices of neoliberal oppression. This article particularizes and amplifies the importance of the cohesive properties that are present in families and kinship networks and that hold a community together. A proposed outcome of this activity is to ensure that researchers are better able to recognize, hence navigate and negotiate the research process with communities to ensure a more efficient understanding of the realities of First Australian existence. These understandings will influence policy making in the space of the appropriate support of First Australian communities. While the recognition of social cohesion may not, on the surface, appear to be particularly significant, this article draws attention to a dynamic process of the construction and reconstruction of identity, influenced by the lived realities and experiences that are presented in the narrative and experiences of First Australians. It explores the emotional and cultural investment in family and kinship relationships, identifying and particularizing the developmental features that are presented through progression of notions of the self-determination and cultural integrity.

Before undertaking research or developing policy that affects the daily lives of First Australians, it is important for researchers and policy makers to understand the levels of diversity that exist among First Australian communities and to be in possession of an accurate understanding of the construction of the unique family and kinship processes that exist therein. Such knowledge is often overlooked or misinterpreted and cannot be understood in essentialist terms, as is so often the case, but must be considered appropriately as highly diverse and complicated. Policy making affecting First Australians must first be appropriately understood so as to think about each community on a case-by-case basis. An awareness of the damage that is done by policy which takes a deficit approach to community welfare is necessary, and it must first recognize the strengths of the community in family and kinship networks instead of dwelling on the weaknesses and proposing that First Australian communities are defective.

The misperception of the imagined and “deficient” model of the First Australian community incurs damaging effects and is outlined below. While high incarceration figures and mortality rates continue to rise, Australian government policy has been roundly criticized for its inability to accurately comprehend First Australian contexts and for failing to understand the real problems of First Australian communities. This is especially the case with the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Dr. Marion Scrymgour in her lecture accused the then government of June 21, 2007, of a deliberate Northern Territory Intervention disinformation campaign. She further accused the government of inaction against the broader issues concerned with indigenous poverty. The then Prime Minister John Howard and Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough of staging a media conference for the sole purpose of creating an environment of panic. She stated “the Intervention approach was not therapeutic…it was race based and calculated to cause collateral damage.” She argued that child sex abuse is one aspect of child protection and that general child neglect and social dysfunction is an “underlying problem.” She accused Howard and Brough of a “PR campaign,” in which “they indiscriminately and irresponsibly labeled the male population in remote Territory communities as predators of the worst kind.” ¹

More recently, and in spite of its inaccurate perception of the “deficiency,” the Commonwealth has cut funding for 180 remote First Australian communities and in doing so threatens the health of their residents. Nigel Scullion, Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister, hailed “an historic agreement” where states of Australia will now fund only “essential services for two years.” ² Western Australia’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister Peter Collier suggests that “the loss of funding is not responsible for planned closures.” ³ The Minister refers to the “productivity” of communities suggesting that they were unsustainable in the future and referred to 69 of the 274 communities as “seasonal.” The sustainability of the community is based on solely on occupancy where it is offered that 42 communities have between five and ten occupants. Mr. Collier proposes that the government will determine closure of communities according to productive outcomes in health, society, and education of those communities. ⁴

Continuing Family and Kinship Connections

While they continue to struggle against the transgenerational traumas incurred by colonization, lack of proper funding, high incarceration, and the proposed “productive” model of neoliberal thinking is further damaging First Australian communities. As a reflection of family and kinship teaching methods, artworks are traditionally used to educate the younger generations about country and associated responsibilities. Paintings are offered in this way to educate the court system as well as the wider public about family and kinship relations and First Australian relationship to the land. One example of continuing family and kinship connections appear in paintings which are offered as evidence in native title cases of existence on country and these work in a multifaceted manner to strengthen the claimants’ petition for land. The requirement of cultural continuity is undermined by the enforced separation of First Australian peoples from their traditional lands and the ongoing petitioning for ownership of country through land rights is further demonstration of continuity with Tjukurrpa and country.

Paintings

The family and kinship networks that are under threat from lack of support continue to sustain First Australian communities. Separate from a ceremonial connection, painting country allows individuals and communities to maintain a physical and emotional connection to country and represent the family and kinship network. The use of paintings in native title land claims demonstrates that being physically absent does not preclude the First Australian community from continuing their cultural responsibilities. Anker similarly states that “the execution of the painting itself is also a manifestation of people continuing to follow the law” even when dislocated from the land itself. ⁵ Winter writes that “this connection [to land] may be expressed by doing paintings [or] ceremony.” One Ngurrara artist, Jukuna Mona Chuguna, claims that “painting brings my country up closer, true, it brings it closer to me.” ⁶ Painting often represent living culture or Tjukurrpa and familial and kinship relationships in iconic form. The challenge for spatial reclamation is a difficult one to overcome as the painted mode of representation presents difficulties for cross-cultural communication however. ⁷ There is a challenge for spatial reclamation of land, and the native title land claim process is fraught with obstacles for First Australian land claimants. The issues concern the task of having to prove a connection to land after decades of colonization and governance in a legal system that is wholly foreign to the traditions of the claimants. However, it is through First Australian paintings that communities prove their spatial connection to land, conform to the requirements of the Australian legal system, and establish social and cultural continuity and strengthened family and kinship connections. ⁸

Family and Kinship Networks: “One Community, Many Eyes”

As discussed above, painting country is a potent embodiment of direct action in family and kinship and caring for others through a shared value system. The unity apparent in painting country is also evident in the family mode where it forms an important cohesive component in communal relationships. In First Australian communities, kinship is established through the ways in which communities think of their association with each other and with the broader community. Such mechanisms of family and kinship operate successfully at grassroots level where it will ensure successful social cohesion in the community. It especially empowers young people through overseeing their ownership of responsibility and by extending support through kinship networks. Responsible community caring is accomplished by the successful transmission of knowledge of culture in First Australian communities. Recent research has shown by what means First Australian communities collaborate so successfully for family well-being and take a family approach through kinship connections to ensure social cohesion. It has been found to be the case that in most First Australian communities, there is a shared value system that enables bonding with each other. ⁹ There is also a sense of security, trust, and belonging that is derived from the process of caring for the children of the community. ¹⁰

The definition of a “family” is defined broadly according to the varying range of economic, political, and social complexities. ¹¹ In Australia, the concept of family is often examined using data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics, where family is defined as:

a group of two or more people that are related by blood, marriage (registered or de facto), adoption, step or fostering, and who usually live together in the same household. This includes newlyweds without children, gay partners, couples with dependents, single mothers or fathers with children, and siblings living together. At least one person in the family has to be 15 years or over. A household may contain more than one family. ¹²

Empowerment through Responsibility

The efficacy of First Australian kinship networks and the family approach of Tjukurrpa is demonstrated through the attitudes of young people who complain of being watched too closely by “too many eyes” and refer to “eyes that would always be watching.” The research shows how families are allowed to chastise each other children and such comments as these confirm this theme: “my brother and sister can growl at my kids—they have authority—they are raising them up as well as me.” ¹⁴ Grandmothers are closely involved and not only with their own grandchildren. “We still look after out mob, even though you don’t know them.” ¹⁵

The CFCA research finds that such a system of family responsibility contrasts with the more individualistic and fragmented approach to community life where each individual is responsible for one’s own family affairs. The family approach toward children successfully cultivates feelings of safety, trust, and self-confidence. It ensures the appropriate appreciation of discipline and offers positive role modeling. It was found that the family approach to child-rearing provides practical, social, and psychological support. In summary, the CFCA research finds that “It is better able to identify the possibility of risk, child-care support, stress coping mechanisms and offers security and trust in the local community.” ¹⁶

First Australian child-rearing approaches empower children with a strong sense of responsibility. Participants in the research project convey a strong sense of responsible parenting. Responsibility for each other is imparted through allowing unstructured play and by inculcating a sense of the responsibility for protecting others. ¹⁷ Female respondents convey the following knowledge: “That sense of responsibility empowers our children.” ¹⁸ It’s not a responsibility, its just being part of a family. ¹⁹ “There’s a pool of family that you can ring around that those kids are safe with and know.” ²⁰

Criticism of First Australian Parenting Practices

The research undertaken for the CFCA finds that there is a significant criticism by outsiders of the “empowerment through responsibility” procedure who claim that children are left open to risk if allowed to play unsupervised. Child autonomy is paramount to the welfare of First Australian communities. The extended-family-parenting-community approach permits freedom for young people to explore and to develop social skills. Australians suggest that the greater risk derives from overparenting and that the experience gained from endowing a sense of responsibility outweighs the risk of danger from distant supervision as the lessons learned during this phase will ensure that their children will know how to look after each other into the future. In First Australian, families and communities regularly reinforce the family responsibility to care for and protect each other, especially in times of difficulty and this notion is widely taught to from a very young age. Elders are role models and are responsible for passing down cultural values. They take a pivotal role in child-rearing, and they are valued for imparting knowledge of the practical aspects of life, society, and culture. Respect for others is instilled in early years of development ensuring strong bonds in grandchildren. ²¹ As one respondent states, “there is still that nurturing.” There’s always that though in her head of “Oh I’ve got to look after my little sister.” ²²

Kinship and Tjukurrpa: “They Bring Us Stories”

Tjukurrpa is a complex ideational structure that provides a single framework of understanding and gives expression to the ways in which knowledge is achieved and enacted. Tjukurrpa is intended to inform future generations about the intricacies of land-based knowledge (such as keeping places) and transmits and disseminates gendered knowledge, particularly restricted knowledge. One such example of painted land-based knowledge concerns the intimate relationship that exists between country and community especially concerning bush medicine and where in the landscape it may be found. ²³ Such detailed knowledge is imparted carefully with great thought and concern for the uninitiated. Painted knowledge, therefore, is a potent means of transgenerational communication as well as a procedure of continuity that aims to ensure an ongoing system of care and ownership. Within each dimension of knowledge, there also exists a complex political system of care and custodianship. It is this system that ensures the connection the country, and it is these knowledge systems that must be appropriately recognized by researchers and policy makers. First Australian female advocates in Minjungbal Country have demonstrated such care and ownership and the circumstances of these interruptions are examined further below in this article.

Tjukurrpa then, as is demonstrated above, is of primary importance as a mechanism of cohesion. Its significance is clearly visible in the paintings of country and is strongly present and enacted daily in community relationships. The characteristics of Tjukurrpa as a means of communicating a procedure of continuity that aims to ensure an ongoing system of care and ownership is also very effectively present in communities where it is inherent in First Australian family and kinship mechanisms that aim to protect against the ongoing pressures of colonization. It extends the system of family culture and identity and features sharing of cultural knowledge and a caring mentality through traditional activities. Kinship connections are dynamic processes that can adapt to new systems of communication and can take place by means of modern technology, through extending the process of “yarning” to incorporate technologies by phone or computer and in this way continue the teaching of traditional language to impart knowledge of country. ²⁴ In this way, the family and kinship model is shared in an online setting. Through devotion to spirituality, community members learn to find their place and are able to have confidence in the place they hold in the community.

The evidence of the CFCA research indicates that shared socially inclusive approaches to child raising ensures their well-being and finds that child autonomy and independence develops their skills. In this regard, elderly family members provide crucial support and the inherent welfare that is present in spiritual practices has positive results ensuring that there is social cohesion in the community. ²⁵ These findings are in direct opposition to the proposed weaknesses that are the subject of focus in the deficit model preferred by policy makers and politicians. The range of cultural strengths identified in CFCA research finding offers an understanding of the means of adequate parental monitoring, bonding, and attachment and identifies the challenge for non-First Australian policy makers, researchers and service providers is to understand how knowledge can be more effectively shared First Australian community well-being. To ensure the continued success of inherent kinship and family networks, the broader First Australian community must be involved as family decision-making is important and collaboration with communities to understand how they work is essential to effective policy making in affecting First Australians in the future.

Land Tenure Reform

First Australian communities are under additional pressure from the consistent efforts to excise their rights to land through land tenure reform, especially through the proposed provision of long-term leases that are negotiated with traditional owners in which the Australian Government aims to “provide certainty” for all land users including government. Through land tenure reform, it is proposed that improvements will be seen in public housing and maintenance of public housing, infrastructure, private business and investment, and home ownership.

However, an examination of the effect of and rationale for land tenure reforms have been met with skepticism by research that sees the effect of the policies as the transfer of large areas of land as that which will not increase productivity of the land and proposes to facilitate assumed economic benefits without consideration of the cultural importance of communal cohesion. ²⁶ Moreover, several Australian governments are engaged in reforming First Australian land ownership in Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales, and South Australia.

Minjungbal Land Rights

The debate about land tenure reform communal and individual and ownership and the economic benefits continues. In defense of communal ownership, First Australians have challenged the proposed reforms. In the field of First Australian land rights, a heuristic perspective recognizes the agency, integrity, and subtlety of communication practices in the process of protecting communal welfare. Often, this includes activism against the implementation of proposed economic changes. Heuristic research is that which involves the researcher at a personal level and seeks to produce research that is accountable to First Australian communities. ²⁷ It is crucial then to collaborate with First Australian researchers in order to gather sensitive First Australian narratives of their lived realities, particularly that which concerns land ownership. A research approach that takes a First Australian heuristic perspective is conducive to recognizing injustice. Recent research has found this approach to be a culturally appropriate methodology with which to bring forth and document highly sensitive narratives offered by First Australian activists who are politically, socially, and culturally active in the community against land encroachment. Evidence of such research consists of a yarning an informal research method which has revealed some important information which otherwise might not have emerged. It is a method that circumvents some of the ethical and social issues that are faced by researchers. ²⁸ The yarning method is aptly described as a “research tool that has benefits for researchers as it facilitates in-depth discussions in a relaxed and open manner providing a source of rich data and thick descriptions on a particular issue.” ²⁹ A heuristic approach that incorporates a yarning method has brought forth some important and sensitive knowledge using the yarning method to research womenfolk of the Minjungbal community near Tweed Heads in New South Wales. Bessarab and Ng’andu state that everyone has a story “which shapes and defines who they are or how they came to be who they are.” ³⁰ In oral histories such as the Minjungbal tradition, the meanings of stories are manifold and the tone of transmission is variable. In this context, stories serve to communicate cultural knowledge, to transmit history, to teach spiritual lore, and also to entertain. ³¹ Minjungbal teachings proposes that it is through the profound connection with land and active participation for land rights that First Australian women are most effective in repairing the colonial wound. A focus of this article is to clearly set out the knowledge that the key to resistance, resilience, and well-being finds support within the subtle yet robust teaching and learning that occurs within the context of First Australian female relationships. Strong social cohesion has been found in research exploring relationships to country, culture, and community. The complex systems of cohesion that are present in kinship relationships are explored further below in a selection of Minjungbal women’s narratives concerning relationship to country, family and kinship, communication, and recognition of land rights.

Relationships to Country

When approaching sensitive details concerning First Australian women, especially in cultural reclamation and land rights issues, a heuristic approach is useful. Heuristic research provides a unique insight into First Australian retraction of colonization through the reclamation of land. A heuristic approach is useful for exploring the intricacies of cultural family practices and provides a coherent account of the many interrelated issues concerning First Australian peoples’ ongoing cultural reclamation since colonization within an Australian context to develop a broad understanding of the many interrelated issues concerning the history of First People’s dispossession and First Peoples’ ongoing land rights claims since colonization.

Current research successfully explores the processes associated with relationship to country among women and the protection of it in advocating land rights on country. Yarning with Minjungbal women incorporates narratives of five women from the Minjungbal community of Tweed Heads in far northern New South Wales in a combined metanarrative of the interruption of transgenerational trauma. ³² Through a collaborative heuristic approach, it explores ties to country and culture, secondly within the relationships in Minjungbal community, and finally inside the dynamics of Minjungbal families. It demonstrates how Minjungbal women have experienced transgressions, resisted oppression, engendered healing, and encouraged social cohesion. ³³

In exploring women’s relationships to country, Minjungbal women speak about their intimate knowledge of the landscape. They identify the vitality of this connection as a fundamental one in facilitating their well-being. They continue to assert themselves in the fight for land rights, to effectively resist cultural assimilation, and to maintain a strong identity. Minjungbal women assert that their relationship to country supports their initiatives in claiming land rights. Moreover, they declare that connection to country provides a driving force of activism to protect country and the community against the negative impacts of land development. One Minjungbal woman explained that “it’s not that we’ve adopted the country, I think the country’s adopted us in a fashion.” ³⁴ “It’s almost like the land has sung me here. And I’m not going nowhere…I love it here. Why would I move when I have it all right here?” ³⁵

Family and Kinship and the Impact of Development

The strength and resilience of family and kinship networks are articulated clearly in a series of narratives concerning the impact of development and the fight for land rights. Minjungbal women describe the historical and continuing struggle to hold on to land rights in the Minjungbal area referring to a robust history of transgenerational land rights activism to achieve their aims. One narrator offers a personal history: “I can remember my mother helping to set up stalls, and my father’s time consumed by archaeologists and anthropologists when the Tent Embassy was in Fingal.” ³⁶ Other Minjungbal women spoke of their involvement organizing family demonstrations against development. In a different narrative, one Minjungbal woman referred to the process of women mentoring women: “Hey, this is your country, you get up. Cos the only way you’re gonna save any cultural heritage here is if you get up and have a say.” ³⁷ Further Minjungbal narratives explain that family activism is inherent to their very existence: “The fact that we were told that we had to stand up and be counted…who we are and all that business, that’s transferred down to where we are at today.” ³⁸ Subsequently, transgenerational activism has also proved to be important to Native Title rights.

The evidence presented in the narratives reveals the ways in which colonial injustice consistently aims to oppress and dominate the lives of Minjungbal women and that ongoing family and kinship bonds offer support in the resistance against such authority and is an important way to maintain the connection with country that supports the integrity of their culture. In an example of one particular concerted effort, Minjungbal womens’ narratives tell of how they strategically opposed the plans of developers against the building of a resort on Minjungbal land. As one Minjungbal woman observed in the 1980s, “when the Land Council started, I think a lot more of our community got involved, particularly with the issue of Fingal, because that’s an important part of our heritage…they were gonna build a resort there…and we, the community did get involved in stopping development.” Another Minjungbal woman agreed that “development concerns saw the families and community come together and fight for a common cause. If they didn’t, they would have been forced out of their homes.” ³⁹ These narratives express the importance of family and kinship and close communication mechanisms in driving the resistance against land tenure reform and proposed excision of land by developers.

Fighting for Land Rights: “Tooth and Nail”

Minjungbal tell of how they have continuously challenged developers in their attempts to procure ceremonial land. As one example of how they have had to protect their land rights, they narrate the details of one particular situation in 2002, when the Queensland Main Roads work planned a bypass to avoid Tugun from the Gold Coast Highway due to traffic congestion problems, and they proposed to build a new stretch of highway at the back of the Gold Coast airport. The women narrate that this is a place of recorded historical significance for Aboriginal people in the area in which they would gather food, socialize, and practice cultural traditions, and it was for this particular land right that Minjungbal female activists avow that they “fought tooth and nail.” ⁴⁰

One Minjungbal woman said that “we had our concerns about the burials there, we know they were disturbed in the past,” and so “we wanted to prove to them, that this was a unique site, as told to us by our old people and as recorded by the early explorers.” ⁴¹ Development consultation with the women was inadequate and was ultimately dismissive of the importance of the place. “We were not believed,” said one Minjungbal woman; however, “we knew different, we knew what our Old People had told us, and the proof is in the excavation reports.” ⁴² Despite protests and lengthy court battles, the project went ahead.

In a further narrative about an imposed extrication from Country through state imposed prohibitive measure on access to traditional Minjungbal lands, one Minjungbal woman explains in specific terms the means by which ceremonial land became a bypass. She stated “we had our ways of walking through the scrub here, meandering through our tracks and getting in there, to check on the condition of cultural sites…and to check that everything was in order there and there was no damage occurring.” ⁴³ However, due to the completion of the Tugun bypass, today “you’d be prosecuted if you get in there,” and so “they’ve essentially stopped thousands of years of continuing access into there.” ⁴⁴ Furthermore, tens of thousands of artifacts from the area have been moved off Country and are now housed in shipping containers indefinitely.

Redfern and the “Battle for the Block”

Similar struggles concerning enforced appropriation of First Australian land and extrication from country takes place in regions and cities across Australia. One notable case in point is the battle for the block in Redfern, an inner-city Sydney suburb. A strong sense of continuity and of durable kinship networks and of caring for community connects much of the First Australian Redfern community with a renowned reputation for presenting a formidable resistance to the social injustices inflicted by colonization. The population of Redfern grew dramatically after citizenship rights were granted to First Australian people following the 1967 referendum. It was owing to employers’ avoidance of the compulsory pay parity that the obligations of First Australian citizenship rights required that there was a massive influx of into the city. Many relied on the kinship network to provide accommodation. ⁴⁵ By 1970, Redfern was the largest First Australian community in Australia with a population of 35,000. The Empress Hotel known colloquially as “The Big E” formed a part of a hub of connection and assembly for the community where many would find relatives and friends. ⁴⁶ Subsequently, the meeting place was subject to regular police intimidation where many members of the community were arrested. Noted local Redfern activist, Mumshirl, who lived across the road from the Empress hotel, confirmed that the Empress was always more of a meeting place than it was a drinking spot. ⁴⁷ It was within this locus of community solidarity that First Australians of Redfern gathered its resources in support of each other.

As the commercial development of the Block commenced, First Australians have for some time foretold that there would be plans made to be pushed back once more to the fringes. The Aboriginal Housing Commission (ahc) produced plans to develop the “Pemulwuy Centre” on the Block, but the plans were never well received by the broader First Australian community and are the subject of much debate. ⁴⁸ The value of the project was disputed because the Pemulwuy plans relied on retail and office space to be developed on the AHC-owned block. Affordable housing, specifically for First Australians, was not a major consideration being dependent on the revenue raised by the retail and office space. DeiCorp, the company that the AHC subcontracted to build Pemulwuy, advertised on their website that “the Aboriginals have already moved out” and “Redfern is the last virgin suburb close to the city.” ⁴⁹ In response to the proposed plans, First Australian Redfern activists refused to move and defied development of the site. When construction was scheduled to begin on July 7, 2014, many supporters of the sit-in arrived to oppose the development of the site with the activists of the First Australian Embassy. ⁵⁰ Since that demonstration of solidarity, there has been an uneasy impasse and the battle for the block continues.

The Challenges

First Australian communities have much to impart to a broader society in imparting knowledge of ways to maintain and develop social cohesion. They have experience in issues of cultural assertion, resistance to acculturation. They express resilience and embody activism against ongoing social injustices and demonstrate both agency and the integrity of communication practices.

This article has shown how research has demonstrated that contrary to the implications of the Northern Territory Intervention, models of proposed deficiency and underfunding, that strong family and kinship networks, positive child-rearing methods, and subtle and strategies of open and ongoing communication ensure strong family cohesion within First Australian communities. Here, family community welfare is of primary importance, and in this respect, Australian society can learn much from the First Australian family and kinship model. Resilience, well-being, unity, and integrity of community are valuable attributes in a society contending with neoliberalism and the outcomes of colonization, migration, and multiculturalism and in understanding them they might offer a means of improvement in problematic circumstances and where social cohesion is difficult to establish.

First Australian family and kinship networks demonstrate solidarity of purpose against the encroaching development of state government’s neoliberal ideology that has led the state governments that overstate the economic advantages of mining development and moving from welfare dependency to self-determination and dismissing environmental and cultural heritage issues. The success of First Australian communities in halting development in sites of cultural significance such as the proposed development of the Liquefied Natural Gas Precinct Development at James Price Point, for one such example. The various cultural transmission modes that have been discussed above in First Australian communities, and the expressions of unity and cohesion that are represented in iconic form in paintings, necessitate more extensive understanding of the complex, varying and subtle methods of communication that ensure unity. In learning about First Australian, spatial belonging and the dimensions of family and kinship in sharing of knowledge to enhance cross-cultural communication is primary challenge for researchers and policy makers, as is the means to understand the inherent strengths of the First Australian community and the resilience, fortitude, and social cohesion that are established through the strong family and kinship networks that operate successfully in First Australian communities.