Pluralism as a policy paradigm

[Harold Schiffman]

Pluralism as a policy paradigm

By John Rawnsley

Tags: aboriginal policy, equality, identity, Identity politics,
pluralism, race policy, self-determination, social policy, welfare,
welfare reform

In social policy there are no absolutes.  Broad labels such as
self-determination, mutual responsibility, etc. describe broad
policies subject to an integrated and complex web of forces, powers
and circumstances.  Certain labels might be ideal in theory but in
practice fall short.  Some may describe in a broad sense a set of
policies but in fact lack the substance for an accurate description.
An unfortunate aspect of the political market is that such
circumstances lead to a postering for position rather than an
articulation of policies and how they can be improved.  By its very
nature politics is continually at risk of becoming an equation between
different interpretations and positions rather than a collective
articulation of ways forward.

An example of a convuluted term is ’self-determination’.  The opposite
is seen as ‘mainstreaming’.  Both describe the tension between the way
Aboriginal identity is integrated into the broader and more dominant
parts of society and the way it is protected as a distinct and
seperate position.  One train of thought, put to me recently by an
Aboriginal person strong in traditional culture, is that Aboriginal
people exercise self-determination through retaining their identity:
language, relationships, etc, and nothing else.  I am told that ‘this
is self-determination’, meaning not some formal policy construct.
Contrast this with the policy label of ’self-determination’ which was,
in effect, the creation of thousands of corporate structures providing
services exclusively accessed by Aboriginal people.  The two
interpretations of ’self-determination’ are quite stark.


I put that the original ideal of self-determination occurs where
pluralism is valued and where pluralism finds balance.  Pluralism is
the value of more than one.  A minority is able to live with a
distinct identity concurrent to the influence of a more dominant
arrangement if those distinct identities find full expression, both in
the way it is protected and the way it connects.  If people are able
to retain self-determination in the limited interpretation of
‘language, culture, relationships’, as opposed to the ’corporate
structures’ paradigm then there must be the political, social and
economic space to do so.  Where there is paucity in our policy
analysis is how these intersect with the formal and informal aspect of
society, and how formal policies and different markets (economic,
political ,social) determine the intersection.

The reason why pluralism is so important is because the value of
identity is central.

Because contemporary policy and its approach to indigenous affairs
assumes two orders (Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal) it fails to
accommodate the fragmentation and social capital that bonds indigenous
groups.  It fails to account the importance of this and its changing
nature, and how these relationships can be accommodated in formal
policy.  Commentators often talk about the provision of individual
welfare (non-work payments) as a crucial plank that undermined
collective responsibility.  Pluralism is important because it allows
flexibility in terms of space between identity and the formal
constructs of policy.  If individual welfare undermined collective
responsibility then pluralism is relevant where it might integrate
control and authority over how welfare is distributed into the
indigenous identity normative order.  For example, in the 1960s/70s
formal policy on the basis of ‘equality’ allowed indigenous
entitlement to all welfare policies that applied to everyone.  If
welfare payments were at the discretion of indigenous governance
arrangements then principles of reciprocity (the need to work and the
need to work within a frame of collective responsibility) would have
been enshrined.

http://rawnsleyj.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/pluralism-as-a-policy-paradigm/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************