| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
163059
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article contends that the type of high-level political consensus needed to reach a peace agreement is often insufficient for rebuilding and transforming wider social relations. Consensus-focused processes tend to suppress divergent views and experiences of conflict, particularly among grassroots conflict actors, and risk deepening social divides by homogenising diverse memories of past violence, with potentially dangerous consequences. In response to these concerns this article advances an understanding of agonistic dialogue and explores an example of such dialogue in communal conflict in Indonesia. Building on an understanding of effective dialogue as sustained, intensive and relational, this article also underscores the need for effective dialogue to have politico-institutional support and to be locally driven and owned by actors who are legitimate and trusted in the eyes of conflict protagonists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
120789
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In many ways, the structural violence of settler colonialism continues to dominate the lived experience of Indigenous populations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in contemporary Australia. One aspect of this structural violence concerns the regulation of Indigenous identity, today perpetuated through state monitoring of the 'authenticity' of Aboriginal people. This article argues that the contest over Indigenous identity perpetuates a form of symbolic political violence against Indigenous people. It considers the ways in which structural violence against Indigenous identity has featured in Australia's settler colonial regime and examines the particular violence faced by urban-dwelling Aboriginal people, who endure much contemporary scrutiny of the 'authenticity' of their Indigeneity. As a case study, the article examines the symbolic violence associated with a particular legal case in Australia and, in light of this analysis, concludes that settler colonies could make a decolonising gesture by legislating for the protection of Indigenous identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|