Reconciliation

“Life is either a daring adventure, or it is nothing at all.” Helen Keller

The process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is a daring adventure, which makes it a step too far for most Australians.

We Australians, contrary to the popular myths, prefer certainty and stability over daring adventures, which is why the process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous has been, and will continue to be, discontinuous.

I say discontinuous to dispel any thoughts that non-Indigenous Australians have made no contribution to reconciliation, but in doing so acknowledge the stilted stuttering nature of those contributions.

More than our efforts being discontinuous though, to my eye we have lost sight of what reconciliation should be attempting to achieve, to the extent that it is now not occurring at all; in its place is accusation, argument and disagreement, with each non result from any negotiation considered a failure of reconciliation – which it isn’t.

The most obvious point that I think people get wrong when discussing reconciliation is this – we treat reconciliation as a noun, when it would be more productive to treat it as a verb.  Rather than thinking that we have reconciliation, or that we will get reconciliation, or achieve reconciliation – instead we need to do reconciliation.  This point is not simply semantics; we need to value the activity itself that leads to a result.

Why does this matter?  If reconciliation is a verb, if we treat it as something to be done, then the first test is whether we are doing it.  By suggesting that reconciliation is a noun, a thing we get, we lose sight that there is value in the actual process of reconciling, regardless of where that process leads us.  There is value in sitting down, literally and metaphorically, and working through our differences. In the case of reconciliation, this means the differences between our cultures and how we perceive the world, and thence differences in how we select solutions to issues that bedevil us.

Let’s look at a common usage of the word reconcile, as in, to reconcile two sets of figures.  Such a reconciliation is not simply a matter of adding up two sets of figures and differencing the two.  Each entry in one column needs to be compared to its corresponding entry in another column, and where there is a difference then each of the two figures needs to be explored to understand its origin before coming back and comparing the two again.  Where a corresponding entry is missing then it is not enough to simply note this; the gap itself needs to be explored to understand why it exists.

Reconciliation of this type does not always result in equalisation.  Although it is nice if the two sets of figures exactly correspond, those more familiar with the process appreciate that sometimes they just never will, and what ultimately is required is to understand and be able to account for the differences.

So too with the reconciliation of two cultures, where the varying elements that comprise a culture need to be held against each other with the differences more than just noted but discussed and explored.  This is a vast intellectual exercise, made harder by the rate at which the non-Indigenous cultures are evolving and therefore it is best undertaken with widespread engagement – with a focus on vigour rather than rigour.

This is why I say that in spite of the talk of the need for reconciliation, I see very little activity reflecting that need.  I see very little discourse or commentary on the differences between our cultures, the origin of those differences and then most importantly, how we should interact given the existence of those differences.

We certainly hear more now than we once did of the traditions and the rationale behind the practises of Indigenous culture – a necessary input to reconciliation, but on its own this is not reconciliation.

What I see are attempts, from both sides, to state the primacy, as in the excellence, of their culture in an attempt to assert dominance over the other; from my perspective, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous are culpable of this behaviour. This behaviour does not form part of or contribute to reconciliation, and will not lead to a deeper mutual understanding.

On the non-Indigenous side the reaction to reconciliation falls into one of three categories; the first contains the greatest number, including myself, and are the idle, the apathetic, the disinterested; the second are the antagonistic, who shut down any discussion – think federal National Party politicians; the third are the cheer leaders for Indigenous culture, who champion every element of aboriginal culture as being superior to their own, and who, contrary to their endearing sentiment, contribute no more to reconciliation than the idle or the antagonistic.

The result of our reaction being one of these three types is there is no one willing to state the non-Indigenous case in a constructive manner.  I see no-one with an understanding and appreciation of who we are, of the principles and history that frame our view beyond the slogans of ‘Aussie values’, who is willing to continue to hold to those views while engaging with Indigenous voices.  Reconciliation is not a matter of copying one set of figures over another, it is a matter of holding one set of figures while comparing to another.

The reconciliation of cultures that I envisage is a grand adventure.  Why - because it fits the definition of an undertaking with an uncertain outcome.

An adventure is when there is no certainty that your objective is likely to be achieved; to be truly adventurous, the objective, indeed the outcome, must not only be uncertain, but unlikely.  The act of reconciling two cultures based on very different and to some extent antagonistic paradigms is an activity with an unknown outcome; and it is this element that Australian’s so struggle with.

Australians have been asked to commit to a process where not only the chances of success are unknown, but what success even looks like has been left undefined.  Criticism of Australians for not participating in reconciliation is itself a failure of reconciliation as it displays a lack of understanding of one of the cultures.  Collectively, Australians don’t rally to support a process that in their eyes has no definition, no framework and no measure of success.

If I am correct with asserting that the failure to engage with reconciliation is due to an aversion to daring adventure, the challenge becomes how to structure the conversation without limiting its purpose or scope.

Is it asking too much of the people urging participation in reconciliation to outline where we are headed, what are we aiming to achieve?  Reconciliations are not performed for their own sake, but to achieve an objective.  Outlining possible end points of the process will take away the adventurous dimension that limits participation.

What is the shape of the future that we are trying to construct?  Is the outcome of reconciliation changes to the laws that govern us, changes to our education system, changes to our way of life?

The continual criticism of non-indigenous for not reconciling with Indigenous has changed what should be a discussion into a debate, with the criticism containing an implicit expectation that given the history of exclusion and brutality experienced by Indigenous people their position must now be accepted as the default in areas of contention, as a way of evening the score.  Such a viewpoint discourages the very participation that is essential for reconciliation.