You are not logged in.

Duplicity of meaning

Neale, Timothy 2011, Duplicity of meaning, Griffith law review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 310-332, doi: 10.1080/10383441.2011.10854700.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Duplicity of meaning
Author(s) Neale, TimothyORCID iD for Neale, Timothy
Journal name Griffith law review
Volume number 20
Issue number 2
Start page 310
End page 332
Total pages 23
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Place of publication Abingdon, Eng.
Publication date 2011
ISSN 1038-3441
Summary This article considers the ‘duplicitous’ functions of the word ‘wild’ in the arguments over the Queensland’s Wild Rivers Act 2005. Certain traditional owners, environmentalist and state groups have deployed the term pragmatically, simultaneously endorsing its usage (through repetition) and disavowing its colonial associations (through explanation) against protestations by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. In a sense, this ambivalent ‘duplicity’ is entirely consistent with relations between the settler-colonial nation state and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander polities – relations aptly characterised by Povinelli as shaped by ‘the cunning of recognition’ – which stratify relations between groups through the endorsing of ‘tradition’. Thus ‘the Indigenous’ can be posited both as one political minority amidst a multicultural polity and as a pre-modern and endemic precursor of the settler-colonial nation, constitutively conservationist ‘first Australians’. Arguably, in the legislation’s ‘recognition’ of the ‘wild’ past, Indigenous peoples – who were known in nineteenth century Queensland as ‘wild blacks’ or ‘myalls’ (meaning those who resisted leaving their lands – and ‘could be shot with impunity’) are recouped as the nation’s first caretakers of ‘pristine’ waterways. However, this article regards the current use of this ambivalent word as also potentially authorising those recognised through this mythic form, providing a limited and uncertain opportunity for traditional owners to ground a form of sovereign right in lands and waterways. Against totalising settler-colonial critiques of hegemony, this article argues that the Wild Rivers legislation does not forget indigeneity, but rather relies on indigeneity. While much research concerning ‘natural’ ideologies such as ‘the noble savage’ has worked to show that faith in a belated era of historical fullness or presence can serve to evacuate the present of material details, it may also be that the ‘wild’ can also offer Indigenous peoples a valuable political authority to, in the words of Courtney Jung, ‘contest the exclusions through which it has been constituted’.
Language eng
DOI 10.1080/10383441.2011.10854700
Field of Research 1801 Law
160104 Social and Cultural Anthropology
Socio Economic Objective 970116 Expanding Knowledge through Studies of Human Society
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type X Not reportable
Copyright notice ©2011, Taylor & Francis
Persistent URL

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: Alfred Deakin Research Institute
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 79 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 12:24:52 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact