[contd.]

My point is that, pace Marx, civil society is better than no civil society. If it the arena for illusory equal rights, then so be it, it's a damn sight better than none at all, and as a woman, surely you would agree ?

The Arab Spring is in the process of building civil societies, as opposed to the dictatorships that they are striving to displace, and yes, that's called 'revolution'. Civil society, no matter how defective and partial, is the space between the isolation of individuals and the intrusion of the state, the space for voluntarily coming together with common purposes, the space for discussion and debate.

OLO is an expression of civil society - imagine a society without it, where the state dictates directly to us 'citoyens', and tells us what and how to think. Identity, diversity and unruly discussion find expression in civil societies. It appears that in your Utopia, Squeers, they will be absent, or have I misrepresented you, yet again ?

Joe

I understand your point, Joe; you prefer the blue pill.
I'm too busy to go on wasting my time anyway.

Joe,

I'm curious as to why you think Western society is so accepting of individuality? It seems to me, like all societies, to behave as a collective organism. It moves forward in step. It's extremely psychologically challenging to go against the herd...I know because I'm a homeschooler. Psychologically, I have to constantly look outside the square to justify my stance - it's an ongoing process and one where I tend to look beyond the paradigm and just take "life" into account. Every time, however, I come up trumps, but I'm unusual in that respect and most people wouldn't dream of deliberately seizing that sort of "individuality".

Regarding aboriginality in a mainstream setting. Yes, they are people making their way in Western society. They maintain close family ties as is their tradition, but also as a buttress against a society that has always marginalised them - or, as Clive James once wrote, regarded them as something between "a side-show and an embarrassment".

Yes, they are moving forward and attempting to take their place in mainstream society, but to do so they are required to "blend". Distinctiveness is a two-way street. Pride in their aboriginality is the proud psychological link they retain, but the reality is that they've been forced, in the main, to to rely on the close-knit fabric of kinship as a defensive mechanism against the mores of mainstream society.

Hi Poirot,

Spot-on ! Yes, individuality is difficult to maintain in any society, impossible in some, but at least in post-Enlightenment liberal democracies such as Australia, for all their faults, there is that space, the latitude, to think for yourself, to have your own preferences and opinions and interests. In concert with others, it allows for the fostering of that social space called civil society, or open society in Popper's terms, where people are relatively free to come together, act together, relatively free of the constraints imposed by state, religion, economy, ethnic group or family. Without the freedom to foster a civil society, how would unions or sports clubs or choral groups or rev-head groups or whatever ever get organised ? And without some room to move for individuality, with all the hassles it may cause and obstacles which may be put in its way, there would be no development of any civil society.

Yes, you're right, it's a constant struggle for Aboriginal people to negotiate their way in the mainstream, but in a real sense, that's 'OUR' problem, because after all, it's THEIR mainstream too, and if 'we' are uncomfortable with that, if 'we' think that Aboriginal people are just some sort of side-show, then 'we' have a lot of re-thinking to do to broaden our society and make it more hospitable - not just for Aboriginal people, but for all Australians: 'we are one, but we are many', as the song goes. A non-Anglo presence is legitimate and 'we' have to get used to it: it's not 'our' society alone, and never has been.

I'm not so sure that people have to blend, or even feel that they have to: they are what they are, they have the kinship that they have, that's how it is, and if other people don't like it, they can go to buggery. It's not really any of their business.

Joe

Joe,

As I said to a friend of mine recently, my thoughts are that Aboriginal people in mainstream Australia identify with a shared feeling of marginalisation and even downtroddeness, and because they are suffering that sense of isolation together, they form an alternative bond in concert with their indigenous consciousness....but it's not a step towards individuality - it's a collective idea as a defence in response to the mainstream paradigm.

The theory that we're all free in this society to choose which clubs, etc. we like is like being in a chess game. There exists a canon of appropriate moves and choices, but the reality is that those choices do operate under an umbrella of constraint. All human societies operate like that to a greater or lesser degree...and it's not possible to retain a sense of distinctiveness amidst the majority unless you stand either above or below the norm.

Poirot,

Well, people are many-sided - yes, they can form close bonds with other people, merging their individuality to an extent. But we all are individuals as well, we have our own experiences, thoughts, attitudes and private spaces, as well as our associations with others. Thank Christ.

Yes, in isolated settlements, Aboriginal people may tend to submerge their differences, at different levels as circumstances dictate: between siblings, within nuclear families, within extended families and within the 'community' as a whole. I guess we all behave like that if the circumstances permit or compel it.

But no two families, particularly those who have moved away from settlements to towns, and from towns to the cities, have the same experiences, or react to circumstances in the same way. Everybody is unique in that way, Black and White, each of us has to negotiate life within the framework of our own experiences and coping mechanisms. Just look at the differences between close siblings.

There is a rich spectrum of arrangements that we negotiate simultaneously, serially, unconsciously, between our individual privacy and our need to be with other people who we are comfortable with, who we may love. It's not either-or, individuality/individualism OR association/collectivity. In our daily lives, yours and mine, we experience a range of relationships across that spectrum.

Sorry, Poirot, you can't really squeeze Aboriginal people into a convenient 'collective-only' category for ideological purposes. They have individual attitudes and feelings, just like you :)

Cheers,

Joe