Pubblicato online: 31 dic 2016
Pagine: 140 - 157
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/csci.96
© 2016 Jennie Buchanan, Len Collard, Ingrid Cumming, David Palmer, Kim Scott and John Hartley, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Some of the difficulties confronting a project like this are the consequence of a history of colonisation and institutional oppression of Aboriginal people in south-west Western Australia (Haebich, 1992; 2000; Haebich and Morrison, 2014). It is a history characterised by land theft (Reconciliation, n.d.); a history in which only a minority of the original, Indigenous population survived the first decades of colonisation (Green, 1984; Swain, 1993; Aboriginal Legal Service, 1995), and a history in which that population was then subject to a period of discriminatory legislation and the denigration of Noongar language and culture which lasted well into the late twentieth century (Haebich, 2000). More recently, Noongar language and knowledge has increasingly been celebrated in mainstream cultural life – festivals, theatre, music, literature, exhibitions and the like, along with numerous examples of general urban and street signage and, of course, Welcomes to Country. It has become a major denomination in the currency of identity and belonging in this part of the world.
What follows is a discussion of the challenges that have confronted the project since its inception. We begin with an exploration of the politics of sharing knowledge and language.
Such a history of denigration, pivoting relatively recently towards celebration and – some would argue – appropriation, has contributed both to the endangered status of Noongar language and to a degree of mistrust among sectors of the Noongar community towards wider society and, in some influential instances, a reluctance to share that knowledge with wider society:
Such an attitude is not exclusive to sectors of the Noongar community. The Native American Mardu people, among others:
Similarly, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) has argued that ‘their’ language, Palawa kani:
...
The TAC has argued that their approach is supported by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 31 concludes that Indigenous peoples have:
In various Indigenous communities there may also be barriers to the transmission of certain kinds of knowledge – barriers determined by such things as age, gender, genealogy, cultural status and rivalries or even levels of assertiveness. The effectiveness of at least some of these barriers may be threatened by a free and unrestricted global platform such as Wikipedia, even though such a platform may also bring liberation, freedom and growth and provide the basis for a new form of community.
On the other hand, there is also a strong history of sharing that continues to the present moment. Some Noongar have been working hard to see that knowledge is shared widely in public art, the naming of places, in schools for Noongar and non-Noongar and in the availability of language classes. For example: Noongar language classes are offered by the Noongar Boodjar Language Cultural Aboriginal Corporation:
Noongar language stretches across a vast area of the south-west Western Australia, from around Dongara on the west coast to approximately Israelite Bay in the south-east. There are numerous of dialects; the exact number depends upon the source consulted. The number 12 is often cited (e.g. O’Grady et al., 1966: 37-8; Tindale, 1974: 142). Interestingly, Tindale’s informants recognise few of these terms as names of dialects or groups, and most told him ‘Noongar’ was the language of the south-west, with regional variations suggesting fewer dialects than O’Grady, e al.’s work might suggest. Further, it has been cogently argued by Clint Bracknell (2016) that Tindale’s terminology may not in fact refer to language groups at all. In Wilf Douglas’s opinion there are four dialects (Dench, 1994). Daisy Bates (1985: 46), along with some contemporary south-west Aboriginal people, uses the term ‘Bibbulmun’ rather than Noongar for south-western Aboriginal people and language. She identifies 17 dialects, although she says ‘fundamentally they were one’. An edited version of some of Daisy Bates’s manuscripts (Bates, 1985) is held in the Battye Library and the National Library of Australia. The sections of her files relevant to Noongar language are II to IX and XII, ‘Language, grammar and vocabularies’. Discussion of totems and of kinship includes terms in local languages from all over Western Australia; songs and animal names in Noongar. Noongar Boodjar Language Centre:
Dialect difference may have been reduced by increased mobility in recent decades (Dench, 1994). Claims of strong diversity may be the result of mistakes and over-enthusiasm in early wordlists (Thieberger, 2004; Bracknell, 2016). In the 1840s, George Grey asserted that across the south-west ‘the language is radically the same.’
The 1996 Australian census tells us that Noongar was spoken at home by 163 people. In 2006 it was 213. In 2011 it was 369. Australian Bureau of Statistics: SIL (2015) Documentation for ISO 639 Identifier: Nys:
Noongar language was not a written down until the beginning of colonisation, and in those documents there is a vast variety of spellings. This is not surprising; English orthography does not accurately represent the sounds of Noongar, some of which can’t be captured by English phonemes or writing systems. Nevertheless, a rigorous set of guidelines has been established to match orthography to sound, and also to standardise the orthography itself (NBLC, 2015). The fact that some people rely on the written page and the English alphabet to learn Noongar has likely added to the range of dialects! The Noongar Boodjar Language Centre, among other authorities, stresses that learners need to hear language actually spoken, and acknowledges that:
In this project, we use the spelling ‘Noongar’, following the advice of institutions – and their advisors – such as the WA Department of Education and the Noongar Boodjar Language Centre, both of which rely on information collected from Noongar elders in the late twentieth century. Nevertheless, other ways the word Noongar is commonly written include
Wikipedia, like many modern encyclopaedias, applies standard rules regarding citations and sources. This method of validating material may also, when appropriate, apply to a Noongar Wikipedia. However, as Kelly (2009) has explained, written records have created inaccurate renderings of Noongar culture but were given greater credence than Noongar oral accounts; writing conveyed ‘official’ status (even when it was inaccurate).
Because of extensive experience of legislation and policy that punished cultural distinction, many Noongar people chose not to offer cultural information to outsiders (Bracknell, 2016: 16). This has sometimes been interpreted as evidence of a breakdown in intergenerational transmission of knowledge. However, in 2006, supported by evidence of continuing oral transmission of cultural knowledge, Noongar people succeeded in their native title claim. Further, research into intergenerational transmission of Noongar knowledge found that Noongar families have particular traditions that are shared according to specific protocols and relationships (Bracknell 2016: 15). Thus it would seem that oral and informal knowledge sources must be regarded as valid, at least until cross-referencing allows for differently weighted verification. The resistance by some Noongar to attempts by bodies such as the Noongar Language Boodjar Centre to agree on a single orthography, together with rivalry between elders and the closeness of the vote to support the Noongar Native Title Settlement, all point to continuing diversity of opinion and judgement within the Noongar community. As a consequence, recruiting people with the necessary language and knowledge skills, and the confidence to work and prepared to take the risk of it being inappropriately used, remains a significant challenge.
We have mentioned various challenges: access to technology; appropriate skills; issues to do with spelling; the oral nature of Noongar knowledge transmission; and a degree of mistrust or suspicion of rival Noongar or other people already involved. These all add up to a pressing question: who controls knowledge? Some Noongar are highly suspicious of any non-Noongar involvement, and of the use of global digital platforms beyond their control. Through its development Noongarpedia has become a site where all, regardless of cultural background, have the chance to shape and be shaped by the knowledge of others. In this way it has opted for an ‘open access’ approach to knowledge-sharing rather than a Noongar controlled approach or what has been called ‘Aboriginal Terms of Reference’. A similar protocol is used by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre in relation to the use of the revised language Palawa kani:
The concept of ‘Aboriginal Terms of Reference’ is one developed at Curtin University’s Centre for Aboriginal Studies to guide Indigenous research and teaching (Oxenham, 2000). This idea distinguishes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal domains, and outlines a number of principles. The first is:
This may appear to necessitate an exclusively Aboriginal – in our case, Noongar – control of editing and contribution, if not indeed readership. The concept of Aboriginal Terms of Reference is concerned with power relations: the politics of knowledge and wrestling for control. Proponents of Aboriginal Terms of Reference explain that its application depends upon the extent to which the activity or issue in question resides within the Aboriginal domain or at the intersection of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal domains. The intention is to assert and ensure Aboriginal authority and control.
We have already identified the close connection between Aboriginal identity and the perceived possession of even fragments of Aboriginal language and knowledge. However, Michael Chandler (2013) stresses a difference between knowledge (facts) and
Would such a belief lead some not to participate in Wikipedia activity for fear that (like high achievement at school) that is ‘acting white?’ Of course, Wikipedia is a recent phenomenon with a presence in a vast number of diverse cultures and races, and hardly a ‘whites only’ activity, but it may appear at first sight as a thoroughly ‘Californian’ enterprise. Chandler notes that international Indigenous scholars commonly claim that Indigenous ways of knowing (in contrast to Eurocentric views) are:
Abram cites Maurice Merleau-Ponty to remind us that perception and understanding involve a reciprocal exchange between our bodies and the world around us. Coming to know, coming to understand, coming to see, then, involves the body in ‘dialogue’ with the entities around us. He explains how people’s relationships in the world are formed by ‘a sort of silent conversation that I carry on with things, a continuous dialogue that unfolds far below my verbal awareness, and often, even, independent of my verbal awareness’ (Abram, 1997: 52).
Too frequently in our reliance on modern knowledge systems we assume that our words are the principal means through which we enter into dialogue. We assume that language (and thence reason) comes before perception – a contention thoroughly critiqued in the work of social theorist Niklas Luhmann (2000) – and that knowledge is formed by our minds and exercised upon our bodies. However, we learn language not so much mentally as bodily. Abram writes:
With sociologist Richard Sennett (2012: 199) we could say that Noongar knowledge has long involved a ‘conversation’ between boodjar, moort and katatjin, just as shaped by bodies and country as by words and ideas. Noongar knowledge systems draw us into a
The arts, performance, music and the creative experience – aesthetic systems founded in perception, not reason (Luhmann, 2000) – are, in some ways, more powerful than direct speech or didactic instruction. Many Noongar are familiar with longstanding traditions that make use of the body, arts and music as sense-making practices, establishing relations among people, country and what can or can’t be known. Indeed, for many senior Noongar, country, community, dance and ‘singing’ are inseparable. The practice of singing is literally a way of life, a way of bringing country to life and in turn the way one comes to life in country (Muecke, 1997; and see Muecke et al., 1984). Catherine Ellis (1985) put it clearly: for those Anangu old people with whom she worked, their view of the world, their insights, indeed their knowledge, are held in their music. Her mentor Ted Strehlow made similar observations about Arrernte. Outlining Strehlow’s poetics of song in Central Australia, Barry Hill wrote:
As for Arrernte, so for Noongar. Not only do Noongar see people as being brought into being by boodjar, but their ‘daily and yearly interactions with country are ‘communicative events’ (Rose et al., 2002). When travelling through boodjar, Noongar old people often call or ‘sing out’ to country to announce themselves. Music literally becomes the way of addressing country (Dunbar-Hall and Gibson, 2004). This also happens because singing
Maja van der Velden (2011) is critical of how ‘traditional knowledges’ fare in Wikipedia. She is sceptical of the way it ‘fragments’ Indigenous knowledge as a result of its classification system and compares it unfavourably to a database, TAMI (Text, Audio, Movies, Images), which ‘emerged from within the dilemma of the compatibility of digital technologies and Indigenous knowledges on the one hand and, on the other, the need to finds ways to keep knowledge of the elderly people of the community before they passed away’ (2011: 250). Van der Velden argues that the ‘Western ontology and taxonomy underlying Wikipedia’ insists upon the subjugation of Indigenous knowledges, and that its design is informed by a ‘representational perspective’ that sees ‘knowledge as out there’,
Perhaps fortunately for Indigenous Wikipedia users, van der Velden answers her own question:
Chandler (2013) writes that ‘holistic, relational and narrative-like’ views are fundamental to Indigenous ways of knowing. Similarly, a number of recent papers (Robertson et al., 2016; Collard and Palmer, 2015) compare scientific and Noongar knowledge systems and claim that narrative or ‘story’ is fundamental to Noongar knowledge. What follows is a story from a Noongar elder that stresses the importance of relationships in
This story illustrates issues to do with access to knowledge, and the importance of human relationships and context to that access. Although told in English, it uses a particular dialect and spelling (‘Mambera’, not ‘mamari’). It gives information and knowledge in a ‘global’ medium, but withholds the specific location and thus functions to illustrate a protocol. It suggests what information might not be appropriate in book (also relevant to a Wikipedia) and to a wider audience.
Marcia Langton, in a famous study that discusses representations of Aboriginality in film and TV, identifies three categories of knowledge construction:
An Aboriginal person interacting with other Aboriginal people in social situations located largely within Aboriginal culture,
White people who have never had any substantial first-hand contact with Aboriginal people,
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people engaging in actual dialogue and adjusting their models as they proceed. (Langton, 1993: 34-5)
It may be that there is confusion as to which of these applies to Wikipedia, by assuming it is type (2) when it may be both type (1) and type (3), makes some people reluctant to contribute and engage.
The choice to encourage young people’s adoption of new technology, as a way of expressing and creating culture and language, has not always sat well with senior Indigenous people’s ideas. The cultural differences between Noongar generations may therefore result in tensions for the Noongarpedia project. For example, the choice to spend time with young people, to invite them to translate and speak with their colloquial use of language, could subject the Noongarpedia to criticism that its knowledge work is not accurate or ‘proper’. Indeed, in other parts of the country, projects involving young people in new forms of cultural expression have been seen as breaking down culture and language (Palmer, 2010; 2013). Indeed, in the early stages of work such as this, there often appears to be some resistance to new forms of cultural expression, particularly by some senior people who are hurt by the idea that young people are keener to adopt new cultures, music, dance styles and technology and less inclined to want to practice old forms of law and culture. See the documentary ‘Nothing Rhymes with Ngapartji’ for an exploration of this tension in Pitjantjatjara communities
This reflects a long postcolonial pattern of outsider cultural systems standing in direct conflict with Indigenous systems. This may mean that young people and older generations are being pulled away from each other by the use of new technologies. For example, in Central Australia Kral (2014) has noted that, at times, ‘youth are often exhibiting a technological expertise impenetrable to the older generation. Hence, the gerontocratic norms of the past are undergoing a profound disturbance where the patterned habitual practice of elders exercising authority and exerting social control is under challenge.’ As Kral points out, while there are many positive aspects to the use of new forms of cultural expression, they can also ‘lead to intergenerational tensions as young people explore new patterns of behaviour, and older people come to terms with new cultural challenges’ (2014: 171).
However, some senior people appear to have a much more liberal view of youth culture and new cultural influences. One senior Pitjatjatjara woman said:
This chapter began with the significance of the historical context, and the consequent perceived need to assert a degree of control over culture and heritage. This may well help to explain the reluctance of some to contribute: ‘establishing control … is a way to draw boundaries around a community that’s trying to reconstitute itself’ (Robertson, 2014). At the same time, as Kral’s work demonstrates (2014; Kral and Schwab, 2012), failure to engage with new knowledge platforms, particularly platforms that Indigenous young people enjoy and are using, can lead to a paralysis in the relationship between the generations. Likewise, only accepting ‘traditional knowledge platforms’ that have become unreliable, difficult to manage or unpopular has resulted in the breakdown of relationships across the generations (see Muecke, 2004; McCoy, 2008).
As Kral points out, globally designed systems are being taken up by Indigenous young people and to fail to engage in them is to risk failing these young people:
The obstacles facing the Noongarpedia project have been many and varied. In part this reflects the original framing of the work and the research question: ‘why is there no Noongar Wikipedia?’ Is that a criticism of Wikipedia, or of Noongar? It is noteworthy that 16 years after its own launch, there is not a single Australian-Aboriginal language version of Wikipedia, despite the use of that platform by other Indigenous, First Peoples and minority languages around the world. Is Australia slow on the uptake? Is Wikipedia more trouble than it’s worth? Are Indigenous languages and knowledge systems incompatible with Wikipedia? Have Aboriginal speech communities got better things to do? The challenges facing the work reflect longstanding political tensions among Indigenous groups and between Indigenous and settler cultures. There are also ethical questions and practical impediments associated with any work supporting Noongar knowledge renewal and transmission. Many of the hurdles discussed in this chapter apply equally to work outside the digital space.
But not doing anything doesn’t resolve tensions, answer questions or relieve the challenges. The Noongarpedia Project has chosen test out these challenges by facing them head on, designing a ’pedia platform and carrying out work with Noongar community, tertiary students, primary schools and a range of other organisations. In a way reminiscent of both older Noongar conventions and the newer practices adopted by the global Wikipedia movement (Osman, 2013; 2015), the Noongarpedia team have chosen to engage with these questions by ‘having a go’. When confronted with hitches, ethical dilemmas and setbacks, the project chose to keep going, to try another way of approaching things and to bring critical interlocutors into the conversation.
As Gideon Digby (Wikimedia Australia) pointed out, this is in keeping with the way Wikipedia does business.
As Ingrid Cumming (Noongarpedia researcher) points out, there are elements here that are consistent with old Noongar conventions for resolving disputes about knowledge: