Assembling Belonging
Our Lands, Our Waters, Our People, All Living Things are connected. We implore
people to respect our Ruwe (Country) as it was created in the Kal-do-winyeri (the
Creation). We long for sparkling, clean waters, healthy land and people and all living
things. We long for the Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea Country) of our ancestors. Our vision is
all people Caring, Sharing, Knowing and Respecting the lands, the waters and all
living things ("Ngarrindjeri Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea County) Strategy").
Introduction
This paper draws on stories about belonging and dispossession through a contact zone
perspective: A ‘contact’ perspective emphasises how subjects are constituted in and by their
relations to each other. Pratt argues that such a perspective treats ‘the relations among
colonizers and colonized or travellers and ‘travelees’, not in terms of separateness or
apartheid, but in terms of co-presence, interaction, interlocking understandings and practices,
often within radically asymmetrical relations of power’(M. L. Pratt). The contested terrain of
belonging in the lower Murray River, Lakes and Coorong in the South East of South
Australia and the agency asserted by Ngarrindjeri as First Nation’s citizens of this area will
be examined in relation to the settler stories of belonging that are sanctioned through
uncritical public recognition in this contested and politicised contact zone. Investigations
concerned with the coupling of State and Ngarrindjeri sovereign standpoints in the contact
zone will also be examined as co-present asymmetrical relations where both standpoints enter
the space with the ‘governance of the prior’(Povinelli).
This article explores the processes by which Ngarrindjeri’s presence in this space has
historically been erased through a range of mechanisms such as, the technique of palimpsest
in colonial narrations of belonging, as well as, visual imagery that represent Ngarrindjeri’s
purported extinction. There has been little shift since 1880 when Johnstone painted Evening
Shadows Backwater of the Murray, South Australia that represented the ‘passing of
Ngarrindjeri’ to the current Save the Murray River online and media campaign that omits
Ngarrindjeri voice in the political war over water allocations from the Murray River. The
representational mode in this campaign will be examined in the final section of the paper to
highlight how Indigeniety and settler narratives of belonging are contested in the contact
zone.
(HJ Johnstone 1880, Evening Shadows Backwater of the Murray, South Australia)
Past and present representational practices of positionality of Indigenous sovereignty
and settler narratives stories of belonging can be read through the notion of composition. In
painting, images emerge through compositions that are demarcated by positive and negative
spaces. You must have a negative space in order to superimpose a positive; that is, an image
1
is defined as the painting. But it is the entire composition that makes up a painting and not
just the image bought forth by the negative shapes that defines its borders. In this paper, I will
apply this notion of composition and how representations rely on positive and negative
spaces that constitute and super impose settler narratives. The complexity of belonging
explored throughout this paper highlights the tenuous notion of belonging and how it is
assembled and re- assembled across time and space.
Contact zone
By employing Pratt’s contact zone as a compositional device to examine the modes of
assembling belonging it is possible to navigate the borders of governmentality (Foucault) in
Australia that centralise Anglo-centric identity through super-imposed representations of
what constitutes a citizen in the western imaginary. As a theory, a contact zone perspective is
useful to examine the ways in which multiple identities are etched out. Natural Resource
Management of lands and water is of particular interest in this paper as it is a zone where
Ngarrindjeri resistance is employed through political and legal activities concerned with
caring for Ngarrindjeri Country that is negotiated with State departments that manage lands
and waters through quantitative methods. The contact zone brings to the foreground the
asymmetrical relationships that are built into the power relations (Pratt 156) in this space. It
also allows for an examination of the different modes of engagement with a space where
epistemological distinctions are drawn between a Land ethic of care and a scientific
quantitative management approach in the lower Murray River, Lakes and Coorong in the
South East of South Australia.
The idea of the contact zone can be elaborated as a decolonising space of crosscultural communication and action, and hence a space for alternative possibilities to those
demanded by old and new formations of colonisation. However, challenges remain as
Lyotard argues, that ‘the grand narratives of legitimation which characterise modernity in the
West...are cosmopolitical, as Kant would say. They involve precisely an ‘overcoming’
(dépassement) of the particular cultural identity in favour of a universal civic identity.’
(Gandhi). The universalising characteristics of western modernism that ‘sanitise[s] colonial
memory’ (Birch) places Indigenous sovereignty into the negative space thereby
superimposing an Australian Anglo-centric identity that is pitched as universal and read ‘as
[the] socially marked embodiment’ of nationhood (Butler 16).
Conversely, Carter highlights an alternative assemblage of belonging ‘where the
greatest differences can be expressed simultaneously and, instead of cancelling each other
out, be instantaneously transferred from one side to the other’ (P Carter). On the other hand,
Read argues that belonging in Australia is possible through living in ‘parallel’ with
Indigenous people and argues that non-Indigenous people can have ‘deep-relationship’
(Read). This struggle to position settlers rightfully and authentically as belonging only
highlights an insecurity to belong that often only serves to erase Indigenous sovereignty. The
contact zone provides a conceptual framework for examining contemporary Indigenous
struggles against old and new forms of colonisation that put into sharp relief settler modes of
belonging and how it is enacted through particular mechanism, such as the management of
land. The contact zone is as Pratt argues a ‘space of colonial encounters, the space in which
peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and
establish relations, usually involving conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and
intractable conflict’(M. L. Pratt). The next section highlights ways in which Ngarrindjeri
focus on recognition of sovereignty without disrupting the possibility of a pluralist position
on belonging for all citizens.
2
The contemporary political space
In the current political space Ngarrindjeri are asserting through contract law their
sovereign claim to belong as First Nations peoples. These contracts are Kungun Ngarrindjeri
Yunnan Agreements (KNYAs) that translates ‘Listen to Ngarrindjeri Speak’. One of the key
elements is recognition of Ngarrindjeri’s embodiment of Ruwe/Ruwar as the spiritual and
philosophical framework of belonging as Ngarrindjeri to Sea/Country (Steve Hemming and
Daryle Rigney). Ngarrindjeri’s efforts to care for Country are intertwined with Ruwar
spiritual wellbeing where the health of the rivers, waters and lands directly impact on
people’s minds, souls and bodies. Ngarrindjeri never ceded sovereignty of Country and
despite repressive government regimes Ngarrindjeri have always enacted agency informed by
a commitment to care for country both overtly and covertly.
(Ngarrindjeri Country: Meeting of the waters. Image: B MacGill)
Due to dramatic environmental shifts and the impact of global warming we have moved into
an era where Ngarrindjeri are directly negotiating with State and Federal government about
natural resource management in order to ensure that Ngarrindjeri’s ethical obligations are
enacted within legislation and policy (Steve Hemming and Daryle Rigney "Ngarrindjeri
Ruwe/Ruwar: Well-Being through Caring for Country"). Ngarrindjeri knowledge has become
increasingly useful to the State regarding how to manage the environmental crises currently
facing the Murray River system. Ngarrindjeri have entered a new era of recognition that
enables an exercise of agency and authority through the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority
(NRA), namely the constituted governance system within the Ngarrindjeri nation, to
negotiate, and engage with the political leaders of the Australian nation (Hemming et al.).
The Ngarrindjeri Nation Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan (Caring for Ngarrindjeri Sea Country and
Culture) document below is an example of Ngarrindjeri assertion of belonging as sovereign
people. This is a key text that reflects Ngarrindjeri values and standpoints and operates as a
Ngarrindjeri policy document.
3
(Ngarrindjeri Nation Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan)
The application of contracts, as well as policy texts such as Ngarrindjeri Nation
Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan, coordinated policy documents with the State and Statements of
Commitment with the State is a strategic enactment to politically belonging within a western
paradigm that is assembled through (Bennett and Healy) negotiating with the State as a
means to express Ngarrindjeri sovereignty.
Ngarrindjeri governance and stories of belonging
Ngarrindjeri stories of place and connection to ancestral landscapes embodied in the
philosophy of Ruwe/Ruwar disrupts the assuredness of settler imaginaries of belonging.
Settler narratives of belonging include stories of building, shaping and changing the nature of
landscapes, and when referenced, they tend to frame Indigenous people through the use of the
past tense. Interestingly, both story telling positions are established through their own sets of
values that emerge from the ‘governance of the prior’ (Povinelli). One is an artificially
transplanted set of values and laws and the other emerges from sets of values and laws that
are grounded in a land ethic from time immemorial. Povenelli states:
If in creole nationalism the preeminent question is how a settler can
claim the right to own and govern the land, then the answer isn’t found in
the governance of the prior per se, but in how the prior is split across two
narrative formations of truth-value: the tense of the settler and the tense
of the indigenous. The truth-value of the indigenous-aboriginal-native
(genealogical) voice is figured in the past perfect, while the truth value of
the settler (autological) is figured in the unmarked present or future
anterior. This division of the tense of the nation bifurcates the sources
and grounds of social belonging in such a way that the mutually
implicated (the settler colonial and indigenous as dialectical characters)
are transformed into differentially valued and assessed past and future
truth-values (Povinelli 23).
Truth-values are measured on their falsity or truth as a statement and in this case, settlers’
claim of belonging is granted greater value through the quantity of nationhood narratives that
inform the public imaginary (Anderson). Indigenous genealogical narratives remain
positioned in the background rather than in the foreground of settler public imaginaries. An
example of this is demonstrated in the section below regarding signifiers of occupancy and
resistance in relation to the infamous Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission.
Public places and the representational features of belonging
4
The absence of physical evidence of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal
Commission and the controversy and resistance by Ngarrindjeri regarding the building of a
bridge on sacred land between the wharf at Goolwa and Hindmarsh Island (Kumarangk) is an
excellent demonstration of whitewashing. Under the bridge sits a boat and a small plaque
celebrating the building of the bridge. Hidden away behind the wine centre and not within
visual distance of the wharf where tourists sit is the visual representation of resistance by
Ngarrindjeri regarding the erection of the bridge (image below on the right). You only find
this signifier of resistance by Ngarrindjeri if you are lost.
(Bridge to Hindmarsh Island from Goolwa. Photos: B MacGill)
(Kumarangk: signifier of Ngarrindjeri resistance)
Gender, Ontology and the embodiment of belonging
The Australian State is gendered, raced and classed. Derrida’s thesis on logocentrism
of Western knowledge further explicates the dualism inherent in legal thought where
objectivity and truth trumps subjectivity and standpoint (Harding). This is most evident when
a group of Ngarrindjeri female Elders fought against the State in an effort to protect
Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) from being connected to Goolwa on the mainland by a
bridge. This area is a liminal space and a heritage landscape that contains stories of
connection and belonging that are sacred by nature. A concrete steel bridge was built after the
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission deemed these Elders as ‘fabricators’ of sacred
stories. The beliefs of sacred women’s spaces of this specific area were desecrated by the
concrete pylons and the bridge that de-sacralised the liminality between the island and the
mainland, as well as the sky and the land. Given the gendered paradigm of law ‘the very
system of gender representations harms women by defining and enforcing a “reality” in such
a way as to make legal redress difficult if not impossible” (Cornell Beyond Accommodation
20, in Troup 1993, 71). Derrida’s challenge to western metaphysics and his extrapolation of
the emergent ontological frame of the law supports the position that the law is not about
justice but the reestablishment of, in this case, the asymmetry of Ngarrindjeri women’s
location in society.
In an attempt to claim connection to Country and sovereign rights of belonging and
holders of stories of the cultural landscape during the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal
Commission the Ngarrindjeri Elders endured a contemporary crucifixion of personhood. The
principle of a Ngarrindjeri ethics of care grounded in Ruwe/Ruwar regarding non-disclosure
of particular stories of an area was decimated by a patriarchal white legal and political system
that privileged economic expansion and the annihilation of any woman that threatens the
foundation of the western legal system (for a summary of the case see (Turnbull).
One of the many reasons why this case failed was because these stories contain
mystery and cannot be proven; an anathema to the State and the mechanisms of the law. This
5
is not so much about the individual actors, whether they are male or female that exists on
either side of the debate, but about the gendered state of the law and the mechanisms by
which the legal system is unbendingly entrenched in a white patriarchal ethic that maintains
gendered and raced ontologies. Furthermore, any philosophical paradigm that attempts to
engage in equalising law and care is dismissed in court, let alone a position where an ethic of
care is grounded in connection to Country where the land is embedded as an active agent
within a connected network between human and non-human actors.
Simons remarks ‘ 'it's about the stories we tell to bind us to the land and what happens
when those stories clash' that the theory of the contact zone developed by Pratt is useful to
describe social spaces ‘where disparate cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other,
often in highly asymmetrical relations of dominance and subordination’ (4). Post the
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission the Ngarrindjeri Elders called a meeting to
invite those with capacity to engage in a new strategy for negotiating with the State
(pers.comm Rigney 2012).
Consequently, many Ngarrindjeri community members engaged in a process of
strategically re-structuring that led to the development of the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority
(NRA). In this context, the re-assembling of new ways to engage in the State involved new
possibilities of agency that included border crossing between the State and a Ngarrindjeri
standpoint. This reflects Deloria’s politics on the boundaries approach where:
…in the construction of a postcolonial nationalist claim indigenous
people draw on an outside-the-boundaries identity (tribes as distinct
“corporate bodies”) as well as inside-the-boundaries identity (tribes as
distinct as “minority groups”) to help them “pivot the power
structure”…(Bruyneel 146).
Pivoting the power structures and working across borders requires emotional labour
(Hoschild) that is unsafe where ‘one is always at risk’ (hooks, 1990, p. 149). Haig-Brown
argues that the emotional labour in the contact zone is ‘engaging in the painful work of
contextually and temporally situated coalition work’ (Haig-Brown, 2001, p. 31). This
coalition work exhausted many individuals involved in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal
Commission. After the 1990s Royal Commission the Ngararindjeri Regional Authority
moved into a new phase of border work that required the development of political literacies
that can be mobilised in each assemblage that has to be negotiated with the State.
Sovereign responsibility
Ngarrindjeri never ceded sovereignty and this unresolved truth-value underpins
relations today where Ngarrindjeri’s belonging and connection to the Lands, Waters and
Country in the Lower South East of South Australia disrupts State sovereignty. However,
when the non-Indigenous public, the government or legal agencies conceptualise sovereignty
they assume and privilege State sovereignty as the only definition of sovereignty that shapes
the political, social and legal life of a governed nation. This conception of sovereignty fits
within an international construction of sovereignty mobilised through colonial rule that
superimposes State sovereignty as the only conceptualisation of sovereignty.
Conversely, Ruwe/Ruwar (land/body/spirit) informs Ngarrindjeri sovereign
responsibility and is assembled through policy documents and contracts within the political
boundaries of Australian constructions of nationhood. Contestation over who belongs
rightfully in this space remains as Indigenous sovereignty disrupts liberal capitalism’s
6
premise of atomistic individualism and property ownership. In the contact zone of Natural
Resource Management where negotiations between the State and Ngarrindjeri occur,
Ngarrindjeri standpoints are routinely repealed through the machinations of governmentality
(Foucault) that re-inscribe structures through mercurial policies around Natural Resource
Management. Policy is defined here in terms of:
… ‘any course of action (or inaction) relating to the selection of goals,
the definition of values or the allocation of resources,’ policy is,
therefore bonded to the exercise of political power. This reassures
contestation, conflict, differing interests and competing views,
reflecting asymmetries in power, representation and voice, and in a
political milieu fractured by divisions of class, race and gender. There
is an inextricable link between policy, and policy making, and politics
as the art of government. (Doherty)
The systems of power that operate through race, gender, class and the environment are
governed by a neo-liberal logic that overshadows an ontology that is rooted in a Land ethic of
care. The Ngarrindjeri philosophy of Ruwe/Ruwar is the mind, body, spiritual enactment of
belonging to human and non-human entities. Despite resistance by the State, this concept of
Ruwe/Ruwar is gradually infiltrating Natural Resource Management plans that signify an
intervention into the colonial archives. The urgency of the environmental crisis concerning
the Murray River and surrounding lands calls into play a need for settlers and First Nations
people to create a healthy country (Ngarrindjeri Tendi, Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee and
Ngarrindjeri Native Title Managment Committee). The Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority
remain committed to the understanding of Ruwe/Ruwar in negotiations and how it expresses
life, how to live and the connection between material, spiritual, human and non-human
actors. It is a process of perpetuating the practice of belonging through connectedness.
This notion of connectedness is shared in a reconciliatory manner by Ngarrindjeri
Elders who consistently extend opportunities for settler Australians to understand
Ruwe/Ruwar. Connection to Country and the enactment of belonging can be understood
through the practice of weaving. Weaving has deep cultural and metaphorical significance
and as Ngarrindjeri elder Aunty Ellen Trevorrow notes it also involves learning from stories:
There is a whole ritual in weaving, from where we actually start the centre part of the
piece, you’re creating loops to weave into, then you move into the circle. You keep
going round and round creating the loops and once the children do those stages
they’re talking, actually having a conversation, just like our Old People. It’s sharing
time. And that’s where our stories are told (Bell 44).
Bell states the ‘weaving metaphor also acknowledges that strength resides in the
interweaving of materials, that new items can be incorporated and interpreted within the
stories told by the old people’ (Bell 594). The image below is part of an art work by
Ngarrindjeri on Hindmarsh Island as an act of resistance against the ‘fabrication’ myth that
played out in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission. It is a signifier of resistance
and an image that resonates with the practice of weaving employed by both men and women.
7
(Weaved mat on Gate Art: Hindmarsh Island. Photo: B MacGill)
As in Weaving, new items can be incorporated into stories including new ways to
negotiate with settler Australia. However, danger of erasure through the silencing of
Ngarrindjeri voice as First Nation citizens is an ongoing colonial practice. Povinelli also
highlights the dangers of privileging an origin of belonging position. The ‘geontological’
spiritual connection to Country as the negotiating framework for recognition and rights can
be problematic as ‘origin stories are interpreted as origin-myths, and these origin-myths are
used in liberal politics of cultural recognition to differentiate the practices of the present from
the practices of the past’ (Povinelli 22). Whilst it remains significant to engage in differing
paradigms of belonging it is dangerous to imagine only that which had belonged before as the
entry point into negotiations with a system, such as the Australian State around rights. (For
further discussions and detail on the specifics of Ngarrindjeri negotiating practices refer to
Hemming, Rigney and Berg 2010, 2011, 2012).
Assembling Belonging
In a similar vein to the omission of Ngarrindjeri resistance and sovereignty in the
tourist area next to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge discussed above, the current war over water
allocations from the Murray River between South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and New
South Wales also negates Ngarrindjeri stories of belonging. The current Fight for the Murray
campaign focuses on settler narratives of belonging which are represented through a variety
of media and online forums. The public sees and reads via online documentaries and via TV
adds stories by farmers, irrigators and wine makers who make desperate calls to save the
Murray River. The online and media campaigns are designed to mobilise public action and
receive signatures for support for this campaign. The fight over water allocation for South
Australians is of interest as it highlights a significant shift in the narrative tense of these
settler stories.
The narratives deployed are based on the idea that the farmers, irrigators and wine
makers are the custodians of the area. This term is used by Ngarrindjeri elders in their
negotiations with the State. Significantly, this term has now been employed by nonIndigenous politicians and other actors such as those selected for the Save the Murray
8
campaign who are involved in land management. As outlined in the first section of this paper,
Povenelli states the settler subject’s narratives apply the present tense or future anterior in the
Derridian sense. But in the Fight for the Murray campaign there is a new shift in tense which
highlights a move from the present/future to the ‘genealogical’ voice in the past perfect. This
brings forth the image of a new ‘custodian’ of the Murray River. Truth-value shifts from the
settler/indigenous bifurcation to one position, thus usurping apriori rights of Indigenous
sovereignty and the governance of the prior.
The narrators and story tellers that are selected for the Save the Murray campaign
refer to their rightful belonging through a custodian dialogue that usurps Ngarrindjeri claims
to sovereignty in the area. They locate themselves as the rightful First (white) nation’s people
of the area. Their narratives replicate Ngarrindjeri words like ‘custodian’ and ‘carer’ of the
country and land. They are responsible for the wellbeing of the area and they know ‘how best
to care for the land and water’. They call South Australian citizens to help them defend their
rights to belong as the caretakers of this water system (http://fightforthemurray.com.au/ourstories). As Henry Jones, the fisherman that has fished the river for 50 years and is a fourth
generation fisherman states, ‘I know how it works and why it works and why it’s not working
now’.
This dangerous slippage of tense is another mechanism that the State has mobilised to
uncritically apply as a motivating mechanism to ensure public empathy of what is constructed
as a human right. However, interestingly, the environment remains constituted as a problem
that these (white) ‘custodians’ can fix and thereby land and water remain ontologically as a
non-entity. Thus the move to declare custodianship in this context is unveiled by its failure to
position land and water as actors that have agency in the way in which Ngarrindjeri position
land and water within Ruwe/Ruwar ethics of care.
The examples of the hyper-real stories settler narratives employ to superimpose
belonging only serve to highlight the discomfort of not knowing if you belong or don’t
belong. Watson claims that non-Indigenous people need to find their ancestral roots and
stories of belonging and not claim rights to belong through assuming that it is possible to
belong as colonists. This point resonates with Carter’s point. He states that:
In affiliating to others’ country, it seems essential to declare where one
comes from-even if-, in the rhetoric of nation building; the past life of
migrants must be annulled. The implication of this declaration is that
creativity exercised at this place will stage a conversation with those who
have departed; just as the outside artist is, from the perspective of the
environment whence they came, classified as departed and ghostlike.
There emerges from this dialectic the recognition of the doubled or
multiple identities of selves and places. To endow this ambiguity with
epistemological significance, to appreciate it as a technique for letting
back into the design of the future a complex emotional domain whose
elements always come from somewhere else (even when that somewhere
else is here) seems to me to give a better account of historical,
environmental and spiritual realities in a global context. Because of this,
it suggests new ways of thinking the boundaries of places and the
communities who produce and enjoy them (Paul Carter 21).
These contested ideas emerge through the struggle and discomfort for those settler
societies in colonised lands that continue to tussle over in the hopefulness of connection.
9
Arguably, belonging is the assemblage of locatedness through acknowledgement of injured
sites and peoples (Gruenewald), the process of creating in context with family and
communities and knowing the stories of belonging from one’s own heritage. These emotive
enactments of responsibility to understand and know about locatedness assemble in the
contact zone.
Conclusion
Contact zones in colonial contexts have both a spatial and a temporal dimension that
shape the borders of belonging. Contact perspectives intersect relational sites where
Ngarrindjeri fight for recognition of an untold public history, by mobilising rights never
previously granted by the State in order to shape the future as First Nation’s people.
Understanding ethical obligations to Country as an enactment of belonging includes as
Graham calls ‘a habitus of woven stories, a discursive locus where belonging is figuratively
defined and renewed’ (Paul Carter 30). Through drawing out the conditions of belonging it is
possible for settler Australians to assemble place making through acknowledgement of their
ancestral heritage and thereby as Carter argues provides the ‘critical precondition of gaining
lawful access to country here’ (Paul Carter 30).
Conversely, settler society’s hyper-real stories of belonging that shadow Indigenous
sovereignty only serves to highlight settler insecurities. Ngarrindjeri negotiations over rights
and recognition with the State are shadowed by this dépassement that unnecessarily inhibits
the possibilities of plural understandings of belonging. The use of stories that further
bifuricate the nation through shifting tense structures has to be challenged as identities merge
towards abstraction. On the other hand, Ngarrindjeri positions of plural possibilities of
sharing space are shaped by contractual negotiations that require envisioning all parties as
equal in a shared space.
Bibliography
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso,
2006. Print.
Bell, Diane. Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A World That Is, Was and Will Be. Melbourne: Spinifex, 1998.
Print.
Bennett, Tony , and Chris Healy. "Introduction: Assembling Culture." Assembling Culture. Eds.
Bennett, Tony and Chris Healy. New York: Routledge, 2011. 1-45. Print.
Birch, Tony. ""Come See the Giant Koala": Inscription and Landscape in Western Victoria." Meanjin
58.3 (1999): 61-72. Print.
Bruyneel, Kevin. The Third Space of Sovereignty. The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.- Indigenous
Relations. Minnesota University of Minnesota Press, 2007. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 1990. Print.
Carter, P. Living in a New Country: History, Travelling, Writing. London: Faber and Faber, 1992. Print.
Carter, Paul. "Care at a Distance: Affiliations to Country in a Global Context." Lanscapes and
Learning. Place Studies for a Global Village. Eds. Somerville, M, K Power and P. de Carteret.
Rotterdam: Sense, 2009. 21-33. Print.
Doherty, R. "Critically Framing Education Policy: Foucault, Discourse and Governmentality." Why
Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. Eds. Peters, M. A. and T. Besley. New
York: Peter Lang, 2007. 193-203. Print.
Foucault, Michel. "Governmentality." The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Eds. Burchell,
G., C. Gordon and P. Miller. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. 87-104. Print.
10
Gandhi, L Postcolonial Theory. A Critical Introduction. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1998. Print.
Gruenewald, D. "The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place." Educational Researcher 32.4
(2003): 3-12. Print.
Harding, Sandra, ed. Introduction: Eurocentric Scientific Illiteracy – a Challenge for the World
Community. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993. Print.
Hemming, Steve , and Daryle Rigney. "Unsettling Sustainability: Ngarrindjeri Political Literacies,
Strategies of Engagement and Transformation." Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural
Studies 22.6 (2008): 757-75. Print.
Hemming, Steve, and Daryle Rigney. "Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar: Well-Being through Caring for
Country." Mental Health and Well Being. Educational Perspectives. Eds. Shute, Rosalyn, et al.
Adelaide: Shannon Research Press, 2011. 351-56. Print.
Hemming, Steve, and Daryle Rigney. "Ngarrindjeri Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea County) Strategy." Innovation
for 21st Century Conservation Eds. Figgis, Penelope , James Fitzsimons and Jason Irving:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2012. Print.
Hemming, Steve, et al. "Caring for Ngarrindjeri Country: Collaborative Research, Community
Development and Social Justice." Indigenous Law Bulletin 6.27 (2007): 6-8. Print.
Ngarrindjeri Tendi, Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, and Ngarrindjeri Native Title Managment
Committee. Ngarrindjeri Nation Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan: Caring for Ngarrindjeri Sea Country
and Culture. Meningie, South Australia: Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association, 2006.
Print.
Povinelli, Elizabeth A. "The Governance of the Prior " Interventions 13.1 (2011): 13-30. Print.
Pratt, M. Imperal Writing and Transculturalism. London & New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.
Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routlege, 1992.
Print.
Read, Peter. Belonging. Australians, Place and Aboriginal Ownership. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press, 2000. Print.
Simons, M. The Meeting of the Waters - the Hindmarsh Island Affair. Sydney: Hodder Headline, 2003.
Print.
Turnbull, David. "Narrative Traditions of Space, Time and Trust in Court: Terra Nullius, ‘Wandering’,
the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim, and the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Controversy." Expertise
in Regulation and Law. Ed. Edmond, Gary. Ashgate: Aldershot, 2004. 166-83. Print.
11