Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythms of neoliberal

University of WollongongResearch Online

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) - Papers Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

2011

Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythmsof neoliberal discourseColleen McGloinUniversity of Wollongong, [email protected]

Jeannette StirlingUniversity of Wollongong, [email protected]

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:[email protected]

Publication DetailsMcGloin, C. & Stirling, J. (2011). Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythms of neoliberal discourse. Cultural Studies Review,17 (1), 296-319.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/



http://ro.uow.edu.au

http://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers

http://ro.uow.edu.au/asd

Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythms of neoliberal discourse

AbstractNotions of culture, cultural diversity and cultural safety have again come to the centre of higher educationawareness in Australia. The Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 ensures thatAustralian universities have a legal and pedagogical obligation to effectively support the language and learningrequirements of international students. The Final Report on the 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education(hereafter referred to as the Bradley Report) recommends a range of initiatives geared to make Australianuniversities more competitive in the global market place while also becoming more accessible for Indigenousstudents, domestic students of ‘low socio‐economic status’, and other identified equity groups.1 At thefrontline of all these initiatives, both proposed and implemented, are those who design, coordinate and teachcurricula in the multicultural environs of our university classrooms.

Keywordstwo, rhythms, academe, dancing, feet, discourse, left, neoliberal

DisciplinesArts and Humanities | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication DetailsMcGloin, C. & Stirling, J. (2011). Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythms of neoliberal discourse.Cultural Studies Review, 17 (1), 296-319.

This journal article is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/266

http://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/266

Cultural Studies Review volume 17 number 1 March 2011

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/csrj/index pp. 296–319

Colleen McGloin and Jeanette Stirling 2011

ISSN 1837-8692

Two Left Feet

Dancing in Academe to the Rhythms of Neoliberal Discourse

COLLEEN MCGLOIN AND

JEANNETTE STIRLING UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

—INTRODUCTION

Notions of culture, cultural diversity and cultural safety have again come to thecentre of higher education awareness in Australia. The Education Services forOverseasStudents(ESOS)Act2000ensuresthatAustralianuniversitieshavealegaland pedagogical obligation to effectively support the language and learningrequirements of international students. The Final Report on the 2008 Review ofAustralian Higher Education (hereafter referred to as the Bradley Report)recommends a range of initiatives geared to make Australian universities morecompetitive in the global market place while also becoming more accessible forIndigenous students, domestic students of ‘low socio‐economic status’, and otheridentifiedequitygroups.1Atthefrontlineofalltheseinitiatives,bothproposedandimplemented, are those who design, coordinate and teach curricula in themulticulturalenvironsofouruniversityclassrooms.

Colleen McGloin and Jeanette Stirling—Two Left Feet 297

Thequestionweexploreinthisessayishowtorespondsubstantively—andethically—tothesortsofinitiativessketchedabove.Howdowebestmeettheneedsofall our studentswhile stepping through our roles to the sometimes discordantrhythms that can resonate through the hallways of Australian universities? Weengage this question through discussion of one of the more recent initiatives inAustralianhighereducation:themovetointroduceIndigenousculturalcompetenceinto national curricula. Through the following discussion we examine currentmodels of cultural competence and consider some of the conceptual and policyframeworks shaping its implementation. We also contemplate, in our criticalawareness of neoliberal discourse’s endorsement of cultural competence, how, asnon‐Indigenous academics, we continue to negotiate a speaking position fromwithin teaching contexts to which, culturally, we do not belong, yet are ethicallycommitted. In an effort to move beyond the current orthodoxy of culturalcompetence,wewanttobeginaconversationaboutspeakingpositionsthatrefusesto disarticulate culture fromgender, age, class, sexuality and other considerationsthat inscribe subjectivity. Our aim is to understand the underpinnings of ‘culturalcompetence’ as a contemporary preoccupation and to unmask the relations ofpowerthatgiverisetoitsdiscursiveauthority.

We situate this article within the current debates surrounding culturalcompetenceandtheBradleyReportwhiledrawingfromvarioustheoreticalinsightsintowhatmightconstituteanethicsofmindfulnesstowardsstudentsfromdiverseculturalbackgrounds.Weraisequestionsaboutwhether,orhow,modelsofculturalcompetence can be useful, or if such programs are always constrained by theinstitutionalrelationsofpowerthatorganisetheirimplementation.Wehavefoundthat a neat and systematic reviewof the existing literature is beyond the focus ofthis article: the iterations of cultural competence are diverse, often disciplinespecificandspeaktomultiplefoci.Rather,weexaminetheimplicationsofthepolicyas it currently stands. Our discussion is therefore dialogic and we deploy themetaphor of dance to choreograph our experiences of teachingwhich underscoreourconcernsaboutculturalcompetenceprogramsintheircurrentformations.

Navigating the culturally diverse terrain of today’s university teaching andlearning spaces is complex. It is particularly so in a climatewhere class sizes areincreasingandmanyacademicsarebeingrequiredtodomorewithfewerresources

VOLUME17 NUMBER1 MAR2011298

while simultaneously remaining innovative in their teaching practices andproductiveinresearchoutput.Toagaindrawonthemetaphorofdance,thecomplexchoreography of the classroom should, at least notionally, aspire to some sort ofsynchronous and meaningful relationship between words and acts, policy andpractice: between conceptualisation of the required steps and execution. Therhythms of these choreographies should also draw students, all students, into thechallenges,excitementandcreativepleasuresoflearning.Thisarticle’smetaphoricalreferencepointisbynomeansatrivialisationofthesubjectmatter.Onthecontrary,it suggests the deftness of movement required as we navigate, albeit, at timesawkwardlyandanxiously,attemptstoreconcileourconcernsaseducatorswiththeprevailingdiscursiveterrainthatregulatesmuchofwhatwedoandhowwedo it.In relation to our disciplinary backgrounds in cultural studies, we see this as animportant discussion, one thatmust be understood in the context of institutionalpower,thepoliticsofidentityandoftheoverarchingdiscoursesofneoliberalism.

—FINDING THE RHYTHM: POLICY, PERFORMANCE AND PRACTICE

The Bradley Report’s authors outline the vision for national higher education to2020.Theyarguethattorealisethisvision,‘Astreamlinedsystemwithclearerrolesfor the Australian and state and territory governments, greater and fairer choice,moreeffectiveregulationandgreater flexibilityofprovision isneeded.’2Whilenotprescribinganyformalrestructuringprocessesassuch, thereportpaneldevelopanarrative of progressive institutional policies that mobilises the language ofneoliberalist discourse. To be successful in attracting government funding,institutionsareadvisedtofosterinnovativeculturesthatareneverthelessregulatedat a semantic level by words such as ‘accountability’, ‘competiveness’ and‘performanceindicators’,andatthepolicylevelbytheeconomicimperativesofthenationalandinternationalmarketplace.

In key areas our home university has pre‐empted some of therecommendationsof the report:mostnotablywith initiatives toprovide access tohighereducationforequitystudentsandthoseof ‘lowsocio‐economicstatus’ fromregionalandremoteareasthroughanetworkofaccesscentresestablishedin2000,andthroughanIndigenousCentre,locatedonthecentralcampustoprovidesupportand mentoring for Indigenous students as well as delivering Indigenous studies


subjects to the regional network. These are the areas inwhichwebothwork andwherewehavenotedoverthepastfewyearsgrowingtensionsbetweenimperativesto increase access for equity and Indigenous students, and seemingly irresolvabledifficultiesinsustainingprogramsthatfacilitatesuccessfultransitionandretentionin a higher education environment.We argue that, at least in part, some of thesedifficulties can be traced back to the increasing corporatisation of universitieswithinthematricesofneoliberalistdiscourseandhighereducationmanagement.

On one hand, the managerial language of the Bradley Report is a call forgreater transparency of practice and draws on various regimes of surveillance—performanceindicators,externalandinternalauditsandreviews—tomeasureandpoliceaccountability.Ontheotherhand,andasotherresearchershavenoted,thisisalanguageeconomythatfostersaclimateofdistrustandsuspicionandanurgency‘to be seen’ to be compliant.3 Indeed, so much time can be spent benchmarking,organisingandattendingreviewmeetings,writingapplications forvariousawardsandcitationsthatsignifytheindividual’scapacity,andbyextensiontheinstitution’scapacity, formarketable excellence, that teaching academics can endup feeling asthoughtheyareplayersinscenesreminiscentofFritzLang’s1927filmMetropolis:workersonlytheretoservicetheapparatus.

Stephen Ball effectively captures this scenario with his argument that the‘policy technologies’ of higher education, with their attendant demands for‘performativity’,create:4

acultureandamodeofregulationthatemploysjudgements,comparisonsand displays asmeans of incentive, control, attrition and change—basedonrewardsandsanctions(bothmaterialandsymbolic).Theperformances(ofindividualsubjectsororganizations)serveasmeasureofproductivityoroutput,ordisplaysof‘quality’,or‘moments’ofpromotionorinspection.As such they stand for, encapsulate or represent the worth, quality orvalue of an individual or organization within a field of judgement. Theissueofwhocontrolsthefieldofjudgementiscrucial.5

Hesuggeststhatratherthanproducinganintegratedandsustainableteachingandlearningenvironment,theseregulatingtechnologiestoooftenresultin‘spectacle,orgame‐playing, or cynical compliance’:whathe calls ‘fabrications’ comprisedof theprivilegedsignifierssanctionedbyanorganisation.6Pressurestobecompetitive,to


identify and realise key performance indicators, to be constantly innovative,entrepreneurial and so on, comprise the apparatus—the policy technologies—stillgoverningmanyofourprofessionallivesin2011.ItisanideathatColleenMcGloinexplores in relation to the cultural politics of teaching awards in an increasinglyindividualisticandcompetitivehighereducationclimate.7

In the past fifteen years or so there has been a growing body of scholarlyworkthatengageswithhighereducationpolicyasdiscourse.FollowingtheworkofMichel Foucault, much of this work has set about examining the ways educationpolicy language constitutes academic workers as subjects. Foucault expressedreservations about merely treating discourse ‘as groups of signs (signifyingelements referring to contents of representations)’. He insisted that any analysisshould entail consideration of discourse as a set of practices ‘that systematicallyformtheobjectsofwhichtheyspeak’.8ItisatthislevelthatresearcherssuchasBall,Bronwyn Davies, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren and others engage with policy asdiscourse through examining those practices that derive from the fusion ofneoliberalist discourse and the language of higher education management.9 Invarious ways, all express concerns about the consequences of a free marketfundamentalism that produces what McLaren calls the ‘pedagogical unsaid’, orhidden curriculum, that glosses over the embodied exigencies of teaching andlearningwhilesimultaneouslymimingacriticalawarenessofculturaldiversity.Wewill return inmore detail to the embodying nature of teaching and learning. Fornow,wewanttonotethisasaframingdevicefordiscussingtheto‐ingandfro‐ingwedo inour teachingpractice asweattempt to ascertain, acknowledge, relate to,andaccommodatethemultiplespeakingpositionsofourstudentswhilenegotiatingour own positionalities within the ever‐changing sociocultural rhythms ofcontemporaryacademiclife.

Daviesarguesthatanyexaminationofthisfieldmusttakeplaceatthelevelsofboth‘rationality’and‘desire’:

It isnotachoicebetweencomplianceandresistance,betweencolonizingand being colonized, between taking up the master narratives andresistingthem.It is inourownexistence,thetermsofourexistence,thatwe need to begin thework, together, of decomposing those elements of


our world that make us, and our students, vulnerable to the latestdiscourseandthatinhibitconscienceandlimitconsciousness.10

While acknowledging both the possibilities and constraints of engaging policy asdiscourse, Carol Bacchi nonetheless affirms that this is a productive line ofinterrogationpreciselybecauseitallowsustoidentifyandthinkaboutthevariouswaysthatpolicy‐as‐discourse limitsandpermitswhatcountsas intelligiblespeechinthecontextofproposedreforms.11

Of course, Foucault’s work also provides ways to explore questions abouthow we as constituted subjects locate ourselves in relation to the policytechnologiesofourworkplace:howwenavigatewhathecalls the ‘gamesof truth’governing our professional identities and our institutional practices. For Foucaultthis is serious business. The ‘care of self’ is intimately entwined with how weunderstandthoseregimesof ‘truth’thatrecruitandgovernusassubjects;inotherwords,thoserelationshipsofpowerthatallowustospeakorkeepussilent.12ThesegamesoftrutharenotmerewordplayorsemanticamusementsforFoucault.Onlythroughunderstandinghowtheyshapethepracticesconstitutiveofself‐formation,canwebegintoreconstituteidentityandsubjectivity;begintoaskquestionsabouthowwegovernandhowwearegoverned.13Or,asMichaelPetersputsit,developagreater awareness about ‘the ethics of self‐constitution’ in relation to the widerdiscursive frameworks.14 Lew Zipin and Marie Brennan cover similar grounddrawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habitus to explore questions of how torenegotiate in ethicalways thosepolicy initiatives that demand compliance at thecost of silence. They argue the necessity for a ‘reflexive search for criticalmindfulness—ourown,andthatofcolleagues’aswegoaboutourworkasteachers,researchersandcitizensinourworkplaces.15

Alain Badiou provides another dimension in our search for an ethicalpractice of cultural competence,which complicates further our concern regardingcompliant lip service to current conceptualmodels.Badiou critiques the ‘mindlesscatechism’ of ethics and its absorption byWestern capitalism into a conservativeconsensusofhumanrights.Heremindsusthatinadvocatingforanethicalpractice,weriskreturningtotheverymodelofneoliberalismweareundermining.16Badioucallsforan‘ethicsoftruths’,orof‘processesoftruth,ofthelabourthatbringssometruthsintotheworld’.17


Although drawing on different theoretical frameworks andmethodologicalapproaches,thepressingissueattheheartofmuchresearchintohighereducationpolicyproducedovertheselastfifteenyearsishowtoworkwithpolicyasitshapesourpractices,andhowtodosoethically,substantivelyandtruthfully.Perhapstheseareold‐fashionedterms,notinthespiritofmuchcontemporarytheoreticalworkincirculation, and we register the on‐going philosophical challenges to them in thelightoftheirabsorptionbycontemporarydiscoursesofneoliberalism.Nevertheless,theyoccupyanundeniableandcompellingplaceintheconcernsthatexercisethosewho research in this area—as, indeed, they do for us in this article—and as suchdemandattention.Whatwearenotingherearetheseeminglyirresolvabletensionsthatresideinthegapbetweenpracticeandtheory.Itisthesetensionsthatdriveusto search for more satisfactory possibilities that might better ‘choreograph’ ourmovements through the contestatory terrain of our work lives, make us bettereducators,andprovidethebasisforanewlanguagethatresiststhemorereductivedemandsofcorporatemanagerialism.

We worry that rather than fostering mindful responses shaped by theidea(l)s of social justice and equity central to the Bradley Report’srecommendations,thekindofapparatusfosteredbytheseconditionsofpracticecantoo often reduce impulses for academic innovation to a series of ‘box ticking’exercisessoradicallydisconnectedfromthebusinessofcrediblepracticethattheymerely conform to the letter of the recommendations and so stand in place ofsustainable and ongoing implementation. In this climate, ‘innovative’ and‘competiveness’canbecodefordoingmorewithreducedfundingandinfrastructureor developing a model that looks good for the semester relevant to careerprogressionandthenfallsbythewayside.AsChristineAsmarandSusanPagepointout, while recommending initiatives to increase Indigenous access to highereducationandidentifyingtheneedforuniversitiestodevelopculturalcompetenceatcurriculaandstaffinglevels,theBradleyReportissurprisinglycircumspectabouthowtheseaimsaretobeachieved.18AsmarandPagearguethatthenationalpushtoincorporate cultural competence into curricula and the wider higher educationenvironment is too importantan initiativeto fallpreytoahastyandnon‐reflexiveutility in the guise of considered compliance. They are concerned there are notenoughIndigenousstaffintheuniversitysystemtoadequatelyrealisetheinitiative.


Weareconcernedthatthepressurestoneverthelesscomplywillultimatelyresultinamodelthatfallssignificantlyshortoftheintendedoutcome.

—’SAMPLING’: THE RHYTHMS OF SOME MULTICULTURAL CLASSROOMS

Sample one

Inarecentseminarfora200‐levelIndigenousStudiessubject,alight‐skinnedmalestudent who publicly identified as Indigenous and was known to come from afinancially comfortable middle‐class family took issue with another student, thevisiblynon‐AnglodaughterofVietnamese ‘boatpeople’whoarrivedinAustraliainthe early 1970s. In a tutorialwhere discussions focused around issues of colonialpolicy,theinterchangebetweenthesestudentsproceededasfollows:

Vietnamese Australian student: ‘I understand what it’s like to bemarginalisedandotheredinthiscountry.MyparentscamehereonaboatwithnoEnglishandworkedsohardjustsowecouldsurviveandIcouldhavethebenefitofaneducation.’

Indigenousstudent: ‘Allduerespect,butyoucouldn’tpossiblyunderstandwhatit’sliketobeIndigenousinthiscountry.’

The unfortunate outcome of this silencing of the Vietnamese student’s narrativeresulted in her becoming noticeably distressed and leaving the room.Notwithstandingthegenderrelationsatplay,thisinterchangebringsintoviewwhatwe see as the dangerous hierarchies of suffering that result from the competingforces integral to the neoliberal discourses informing current models of culturalcompetence. We suggest, and indeed, the literature suggests to us, that culturalcompetence as it is marketed in many Australian contexts sets up hierarchies ofdifference whereby certain narratives override and, in many instances, silenceothers. Clearly, the Vietnamese student sought to relate, empathise and share herown knowledge ofwhat it is like to be positioned as an ‘outsider’. To be fair, theIndigenous student’s response was respectful in tone; the problem is that thehierarchy of suffering was already in place: the Vietnamese student could notunderstandregardlessofphysicaldifference,becauseoneculture tookprecedencein thiscontextoveranother,andonesetofhistoriesassumedmoresuffering thananother.


Sample two

One of the authors was teaching a subject in Indigenous Studies. There wereIndigenousstudentsknowntoherinthecourse.Ofthetwenty‐twostudentsintheclass,onewasablackwomanfromKenya.Inanefforttoapplyanddemonstrateanethics of teaching that demonstrated inclusivity the teacher invited the student,when it became her turn, to give a class presentation that focused on her ownculture. This was a successful exercise. The student was pleased to impart herknowledgeand theclass interested to receive it.Amutual interchangeof teachingand learning occurred.However, towards the endof thepresentation, the teachernotedthesilenceofanotherwisevocalIndigenousstudentwholaterconfidedthathefounditdifficulttosayanythingwhenablackpersonwasspeaking.

Sample three

In the university Indigenous Centre a computer lab is provided for use byIndigenous students. On a few occasions Asian students from a language collegelocated within the university were seen working on the computers in the lab,probablywhenthecomputersintheirlabwereallinuse.Theinternationalstudentlanguage centre and the Indigenous Centre are immediately adjacent, sharing thesamebuilding.The internationalstudentswere forcefully toldbysomeIndigenousstudents that they could not use the Indigenous lab as ‘this is a “safe space”designatedforIndigenousstudentsonly’.

Sample four

In a first‐year Women’s Studies subject comprised of domestic and internationalstudents fromdiverse cultural backgrounds, an Indigenous consultantwas invitedtospeakwiththeclassinalectureformataboutAboriginalhistoriesandtheStolenGenerations. Through a series of personal anecdotes the speaker, rather thandrawingstudentsintoadeeperconsiderationandunderstandingofthecatastrophicconsequences of colonialism for Aboriginal peoples, made them feel directlyresponsible for the policies. Many of the international students—most from non‐Englishspeakingbackgrounds—shutdown,unabletofindapointofconnectionortorelatetheanecdotestotherecommendedreadingsforthissectionofthesubject.A significant proportion of the students were young women from Islamicbackgrounds, who felt so overwhelmed by the speaker’s comments and


observations that theywere completely silenced, feeling unable to speak orwriteaboutthissectionofthesubject;twowithdrewfromthesubject.

Theseexamplesarebutglimpsesofthedailyterrainofourteachingpracticeswherecurrent discourses of cultural competence do not fit with what we see andexperience,andwherethevery ideaofcultural ‘competence’as itcurrentlystandssetsup its ownbinarisms thatdisarticulate thehistories andnarrativesof certainstudents, rendering learningspacessafe forsomeandnotothers.Thesesituationsoccur often enough to inspire us to consider possibilities for praxis wheremindfulness of differential histories, beliefs and experiences can be in some wayinstitutedwithout negating difference or resorting to essentialism.We are awarethatthissoundssomewhatutopianandreiteratethatweseethisarticleasastartingpoint for discussion rather than a prescription for alternative ‘programs’.We arealso cognizant that, inpractice, there is anegotiation thatoccurs ineach situationwhere any idea(l) of ‘competency’ is contingent on farmore than current culturalcompetence programs can offer as packages for learning. In other words, if it isculturally sound or competent to understand the complex histories of Indigenouspeoplesinordertounderstandthespecificneedsofthatgroup,thenhowdowe,aseducators, respondwhenweare facedwithstudentswhoarenotdirectlyaffectedbythathistoryand,becauseofthepervasivenessofthediscourse,silenceothersasillustratedinthefirstexample?

On theotherhand, howdoweensure a speakingposition for the silencedIndigenousstudentwhofeelssheorheisnot‘Indigenousenough’becausesheorheis light‐skinned? And how do we teach Indigenous students that the colonialviolenceexperiencedbyIndigenouspeople intersectswiththeappallingtreatmentofChinesepeopleduringtheearlycolonialperiodandcontinuestoinformtheanti‐Asian sentiment often expressed today?We are notmaking accusations of racismhere,butnotinghowideasofculturalsafetyareinternalisedastheyarenowplayedoutinpublicspacesinwaysthatexcludedifference,preciselyastheypurporttobeinclusive.Atthecoreofourinquiryaretwocentralquestions:howdoweeffectivelynegotiate (with a view to deconstructing) the hierarchy of cultures that is set inplacethroughculturalcompetenceprograms;andhowdowedothisandalsolocateaspeakingpositionforourselves?Specifically,howdoweheedthecall forgreatercultural competence in themulticultural environment of the Australian university


system?How,asnon‐Indigenousacademics,canwebestrespondeffectivelytotheBradley Report’s finding on access, retention and success for Indigenous studentswithoutresortingtoa‘boxticking’responsetoacomplexandurgentissue?

—CULTURAL COMPETENCE: WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

The term ‘competence’ derives from the Latin competentia which translates asexpertise. This definition raises the question: how does one acquire culturalexpertise?And,ifonecan,howdoessuchanattributetranslateacrossthemultiplesites and contexts comprised in our teaching? In order to tease outwhat culturalcompetencemeansinitscurrentmanifestationintheAustralianuniversitysystem,andtoconsiderhowitmightexceedthelimitationsofitsneoliberalpreoccupationstoacquiresomeusefulnessinaddressinginstitutionalisedracism,weneedfirstlytobrieflyoutlinetheterrain.

Thetermhasacquiredconsiderablecurrencyinrecentyears.MarkFurlongand Rhonda Brown observe in their critique that its status is positive.19 It is adiscoursecomplementarytomulticulturalismandsimilarlyunderscoredbyregardfor undifferentiated notions of respect for all cultures. Cultural competence in itsvarying formshaspermeatedall cultural institutions includingmainstreammedia.However,mostwork in thisareaconstitutesawholesaledeference toan idea thatneitheracknowledgesnorengageswith its tensionsandcontradictionsor, indeed,its application to both educators and students.We therefore believe that culturalcompetence operates as a kind of transcendental signifier that regulates allinstitutionalsitesthroughprogramsthat‘teach’respectfordifference,ofteninwaysthatconformtothepreceptsofmanagerialism;thatis,throughbriefcoursesthatbyvirtue of their brevity generalise and essentialise the complexity of culturaldifferences.

Inthiscontext,culturalcompetenceassumesa‘knowing’beyonddisputeordetraction, as exemplified in a recently circulated email to university staff fromUniversities Australia, the national peak organisation representing Australia’suniversities:

Universities Australia has signed a funding agreement with theCommonwealth for a $500,000 Indigenous Cultural Competence inAustralianUniversitiesprogram.Thisprogramhasbeendevelopedjointly


by Universities Australia and the Indigenous Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil.20

The Universities Australia website describes Indigenous cultural competence as:‘theabilitytounderstandandvalueIndigenousperspectivesandprovidesthebasisuponwhichIndigenousandnon‐IndigenousAustraliansmayengagepositivelyinaspiritofmutualrespectandreconciliation’.21

FromourstandpointaseducatorsofIndigenous,domesticandinternationalstudents,wewanttochallengecorporatisedandreductivenotionsthatsuggestonecan‘know’,andthusbecomeproficientinculturaldifference,throughprogramsthat‘teach’ cultural respect. We argue that in its current form, cultural competence,ostensibly(theoretically)apotentiallyusefulframeworkforobservingmindfulnessand respect, is a discourse that establishes a ‘sameness’ among cultures—paradoxically, as it seeks to recognise difference fromwithin. As a discourse thatattractsaseeminglywholesaleendorsementacrossmanyinstitutionalsites,culturalcompetencecanactcensoriallytostifleorshutdowndebate.Theclassroomsamplesindicatethatculturalcompetencecanalsobeappliedtoonecultureattheexpenseof another, and can assume a blanket disadvantage for students of a particularculturalbackground.

It is necessary here to also acknowledge the materiality of ‘culturalcompetence’ as a known, recognised, authorised and normalised set of practiceswithinmanyculturalinstitutions.AsNicholasBurbulesargues:

wheneveranypedagogicalpracticeor relationbecomes ‘naturalized’andcomes tobe seen as theonlypossibility, thebest possibility or themost‘politically correct’ possibility, it becomes (ironically) an impediment tohuman freedom, diversity, exploration, and—therefore—the possibilitiesoflearninganddiscovery.22

Proceeding from this idea, the following discussion examines current concepts ofculturalcompetenceanditsimplicationsforpedagogicalpractice.

The reader will note we are speaking of cultural competence in generalterms and not denoting its specificity in our own work environs as ‘Indigenouscultural competence’. This is because we are challenging the idea of culturalcompetence in itsbroadestconfigurationasanethicalconcept thatcanseamlesslytransfer to practice through brief educational courses. It is not, therefore, the


‘Indigenous’aspectofculturalknowledgeorethicswetakeissuewith,buttheideaand practice of any concept that is dedicated to one category, group of people orculture. As educators in diverse contexts, it is the omission of other classificatoryelementsthatisofconcern.Wealsorefergenerallyto‘culturalcompetence’asthisishowtheliteraturereferstotheconcept.

There are a multitude of definitions describing what constitutes culturalcompetence,mostofwhichderivefromhealthcareliteratureandmanyofwhichusetermssuchas‘knowledgebasedskills’,‘organisationalawareness’,‘effectiveservicedelivery’, ‘diversity training’, ‘ethno‐specific training’, and so on. The literature onculturalcompetenceisbroad.Thereisaculturalcompetencewebsitethatexplainsprecisely what is needed to become competent across a diverse range ofinstitutionalsites.Itprovidesinformationabouthowto‘valuediversity’andhowto‘maintain objectivitywhen facedwith difference’.23 Thewebsite’s prescription forattainingculturalcompetencebearsmention:ittypifiestheliteratureingeneral,andparticularly as it applies both to health and education. The site proffers ‘fiveessential elements that contribute to a system’s ability to becomemore culturallycompetent’.Itgoesontoassert:

Thesystemshould: • valuediversity;• havethecapacityforculturalself–assessment;• beconsciousofthe‘dynamics’inherentwhenculturesinteract;• institutionalizeculturalknowledge;and• develop adaptations to service delivery reflecting an

understandingofdiversitybetweenandwithincultures.Further, these five elements must be manifested in every level of theservicedelivery system.They shouldbe reflected inattitudes, structures,policies,andservices.24

These principles are reiterated, expanding on their specificity for Indigenouseducation, in Principles and Practices of Cultural Competency: A Review of theLiterature. The author of this document, prepared for the Indigenous HigherEducation Advisory Council (IHEAC), draws on an almost ubiquitous definition ofcultural competence: ‘congruent behaviours, attitudes and policies that cometogether in a system, agency, or among professionals and enable that system,


agency,orthoseprofessionalstoworkeffectivelyincross‐culturalsituations’.25Thedocumentfurtherdefinesculturalcompetenceas‘theabilitytoengageinactionsorcreate conditions that maximise the optimal development of a client and clientsystems’. It argues that cultural competencydemands ‘awareness, knowledge, andskillsneededtofunctioneffectivelyinapluralisticdemocraticsociety’.26Wewillnotlabourhere.Sufficetosaythatmostoftheliteratureisrepletewiththeplatitudesoffairness, equity and social justice artfully mapped onto the managerial lexicon of‘systems’,‘processes’,‘clients’and‘services’.

Intheinterestsoftheregulative,yetseeminglyinvisible,politicsthatinformpoliciespertainingtoculturalexpertise,wenowconsiderhowthecurrentdiscourseofculturalcompetencedisplacesapre‐existingand,inourview,veryrealconcernatuniversities about racism often publicly ridiculed under the rubric of ‘politicalcorrectness’. Cultural competence, we argue, in its current packaged form is adiluted affectation of mindfulness about what is said and done by white, non‐Indigenous subjects. In otherwords, in its current state, the discourse centraliseswhitesubjectsasinneedofinstructiontobecomemorecompetentintheirdealingswith Indigenous cultures. Because of this, its application can silence otherexpressionsorarticulationsofdiscriminationthattakeplaceinaclassroom.

—LOCATING THE PARAMETERS OF THE CURRENT MODEL

Whereoncethecatchcryofpoliticalcorrectnessservedtosilencediscussionaboutrace and racism, we now have a language around ‘competence’ that speaks of‘safety’, ‘appropriateness’, ‘sensitivity’ and so on. It portends to ‘open up’ theairwavesas it simultaneously limits the fieldof inquiry.The limitationsare lockedinto the language of the discourse; if we are seen to be ‘attending’ to differencethrough regulatedprograms that assure ‘outcomes’, there is noparticular need tokeepaskingwhatdifference is: it just is. Thediscourse, shapedbyneoliberalism’spreoccupations with ‘outcomes’, plays out in deterministic ways; non‐Indigenoussubjects focus on a particular cultural group at the expense of the manysubjectivitiesthatmakeupourstudentcohort.Embeddedintothediscourseasthatwhichwe now ‘know’, in Foucauldian terms, as an ‘object of knowledge’, culturaldifferenceassumessomethingwe(whitefolks)donothaveandneedtoacquireinordertosatisfytherequirementsofculturalcompetency.


The discourse gives primacy to culture and obliterates other, messy,signifiers such as class, sexuality and gender that might threaten to destabiliseprograms designed to teach cultural competence as a shared set of Indigenoushistories, struggles and practices. The discourse relies for its coherence on auniversality of Indigeneity that excises difference from within and betweenIndigenous cultures. Prior to colonisation, there were over two‐hundred‐and‐fiftyIndigenous language groups in Australia, forming separate nations identified bothlinguisticallyandculturally throughadiverse rangeof rituals andpractices.Giventhis history, we identify in the pedagogy of cultural competence a monolithicapproach to teaching respect and awareness that neither recognises noraccommodatesthehistoricalorculturaldiversityofIndigenouspeoples.Nordoesitspeak to the vast range of cultural differences between and among many of ourIndigenousstudentswhoarefromurbanareasbutwhosehistoriesandexperiencescannot beneatly encapsulated into a singlemodule of learning for thepurpose ofmaking‘competent’itsmainlynon‐Indigenousparticipants.

Teaching incontextswhere Indigenousand internationalstudentsofmanyculturalbackgrounds forma largepartofourstudentcohort, the implicationsofa‘blanket’ approach to issues of race neatly wrapped in some marketed programerasethevery issuesourteachingseeksto foreground:theactual livedrealitiesofdifference whose representations have not altered to relieve racism in anysignificantwaysince theadventof ‘culturalcompetence’.Becausewedealdirectlywith the layering and complexity of cultural diversity and, in many cases, itsattendant hierarchies of suffering, we find it at times impossible to mark out aspeakingpositionforourselves:weareeffectively ‘tarnished’bythediscoursethatpositionsusasonlywhiteand,accordingtoNational IndigenousHigherEducationNetwork(Australia)(NIHEN)determinations,necessarilyinneedof‘training’:

professional development opportunities in CC and Indigenous Studiesshould be provided for all non‐Indigenous staff members so thatIndigenousissuescanbeappropriatelyaddressedintheunitstheyteach.27

Letusstateemphaticallythatwedonotobjecttobeingtrainedtoalleviateracism,bigotryoranyotherexpressionofprejudicewecomeacross inourwork.Andweare not so arrogant as to claim exemption from discourses of racism in our ownlives.Theproblemasweseeitisnottheideaofculturalcompetenceprogramsper


se, but theway cultural competencehas been takenup as a ‘truth’ that cannot bechallengedwithoutfearofaccusation.Aswehavenoted,withdeferencetoJacquesDerrida, it has become a transcendental signifier marked by a metaphysics ofpresence:atruthwhosemeaningobscuresallothersigns.28

—CULTURAL COMPETENCE: SIDE-STEPPING THE ISSUE?

Indigenous students from urban environments—and particularly from the regionwherewe teach—are often not ‘marked’ by visible signifiers of Indigeneity. Theyexpresscultureinamultitudeofways:someproudly,sometentatively,someevensilently. Indeed,wehavebothtaught inclasssituationswhereIndigenousscholarshaveremainedanonymousthroughoutanentirecourse.Therearevariousreasonsfor this, including that, for many Indigenous students, publicly identifying theirIndigeneity tends toposition themas ‘experts’ on allmatters Indigenousbyotherstudents and, in some cases, by non‐Indigenous teachers. This kind of positioningoften comes from a desire to be respectful and to defer to what is assumed‘authentic’knowledgeandexperience.Beingnotedas the ‘expert’canbedaunting,especially for Indigenousstudentswhohaveonlyrecentlybegunto findoutabouttheir heritage or identify as Indigenous, and who have enrolled in IndigenousStudies as away of learningmore. Certainly,we teachmany Indigenous studentswhohave very little knowledge of the history of Australian colonisation.Not onlyareassumptionsmadeaboutIndigenousstudentsandcertaintypesofknowledgeorculturalcredibility,thediscourseofculturalcompetence,asitismarketedinmanypublicarenasandinstitutions,alsoassuresthatallIndigenouspeoplearemarkedbyhistoricaldisadvantage.

Our university, like many others, has initiated a cultural competenceprogram. Currently, it takes the form of two three‐hour seminars that introduceparticipantstoIndigenousculture.Suchprogramsalsoruninthewidercommunity,in private corporations and government departments and, in particular, in healthorganisations.Weareadvisedthatthesuddeninterestinsuchprogramsis‘ridingawave’ following the official apology to Indigenous people by the Rudd Laborgovernment in February 2008.29 Bronwyn Lumby and Terri Farrelly, who areinvolvedinculturalcompetencetraining(CCT)assertthatdespiteitspopularityasameanstoachievingculturallyappropriateservicedelivery,‘therehasbeenrelatively


littlesystematicevaluationofitspotentialimpact’.30WhatwefindunnervingistheacknowledgementbysomeofourIndigenouscolleaguesthatculturalcompetenceis‘flavour of the month’ and that it has a ‘shelf life’. If this is the case, anyconceptualisationof racerelations thatspeaks tocontemporarysocialexperiencescanonlybeconceivedofasaresponsetocurrentneoliberalideologies.

CulturalcompetenceasknowledgethatcanbelearnedthroughamoduleorlessonplanechoesPauloFreire’sconceptofbankingeducationwherestudentsareempty vessels to be filled with knowledge deemed desirable by prevailingdiscourses.31The‘chunk’ofknowledge,onceimparted,actsasaguarantorthatonewillbealwaysproficientandethicalinone’sdealingswithotherculturesandthatatmost a refresher coursemay be required to fill in the gaps. Cultural competencecourses, unless critically formulated, presuppose and imply a fixed set ofknowledges. In their current application at most institutional sites, they arestructuredaroundcontentthatdeconstructsitsownstatedlogicofdifference.Asaformofpublicpedagogy,culturalcompetencecoursesabsorbdifferencebyvirtueoftheirtemporalandspatialapplication;coursesruntoamaximumofsixhoursandare conducted within institutional spaces. It is through the specificity of thisspatio/temporal application that we can begin to identify the institutional powerrelationsthatareseentobeaddressingracismastheysimultaneouslylevelculturalandracialdifference.

HenryGirouxtellsusthat‘pedagogyisnotmerelyaboutuncoveringwhatisthere’.32Itisaprocessthattakesitscuefromtheideathatknowledgeissubjecttohistorical change and to the new information that accompanies change throughstruggle, conflict, contestation and consensus. Offering a group of non‐Indigenouspeoplea‘crashcourse’inthehistoryofcolonisation,itsviolenceandtheattendantpoliciesthatcontinuetocausesufferingtoIndigenouspeoples,doesnotaddresstheinstitutional asymmetries of power that structure the implementation of suchcourses:universitieshavea longhistoryofsupportingandcontributingtocolonialdiscourses.Theargumentoftenespoused is that something isbetter thannothing,and that some form of learning about Australia’s colonial history will serve apurpose.However,ourteachingtellsusthisisnotnecessarilythecase.

The classroom samples outlined earlier indicate the varying degrees ofimmobilising guilt that can accompany such knowledgewhen time constraints do


not allow the luxury of nuance or debrief; students are often shockedwhen theyundertake Indigenous Studies to discover the level of brutality associated withcolonial conquest. Domestic students have often relayed their disbelief at ‘findingout’andtheirangeratnotbeingtaughtpriortouniversitystudyaboutthevariouspolicies that regulate(d) the lives of Indigenous peoples. From internationalstudents, the comment, ‘you treat your Indigenous people very badly’ is commonandinadvertentlysetsupitsownhierarchyofracismsthatcanseestudentsfeelingvarying levels of comfort (in not being Australian) or discomfort (in beingAustralian). When we include in our teaching the multiple layers of colonialexperienceenduredbyconvicts,women,Irish,ChineseandPacificIslandlabourers,thehistoryofracerelationsinAustraliarevealsitscomplexity.Smallchunksofun‐theorised knowledge can have adverse affects, and as a pedagogical practice thisformof teachingand learningdoesnothing to address the causes—oreffects—ofinstitutional racisms in any coherent way. We pluralise this term becausediscriminatoryexpressionand(in)competencyinareasofhumaninteractionisitselfaheterogeneousforceandcannotbeneatlyconceptualisedaccordingtophysicality,differencesinculturalpracticeor,indeed,whiteness,asthesolecausalityofracism.As Lumbynotes of cultural competence training, ‘currentlymost training sessionsrely on the usual formula white=racist, black=disadvantaged and while thiscontinuesnothingwillchange’.33

Thisbringsustoadiscussionaboutthebodyofknowledgecalled‘whitenessstudies’ and its application in our own praxis. We are somewhat hesitant inaddressingthis topicasweperceive ithasalsobecomeanorthodoxywherebythe‘privilegeofwhiteness’hasbeenso inextricablywoven intoourpedagogicalarenasuch that non‐adherence to its authority can incur penalties. For one author, thistooktheformofastrongsuggestionthatarecentlysubmittedjournalpaperlookatthe literature on whiteness despite this not being central to the paper’s focus.Withoutquestion,whitenessstudieshasproducedworkthatisacontributingforceto teaching anti‐racism and to alerting white subjects to the need for reflexivity.However,ourconversationisinspiredbyourpositionaswhitewomenofacertainageandclassbackgroundwhoteachacrossmultiplesitesandcontexts:wearenotonlyidentifiedbywhiteskin.Andwhileweseemingly‘fit’intothecategoryof‘white


race privilege’, as suggested elsewhere,34 our subjectivities are marked, and ourspeakingpositionsinformed,byarangeofothersignifiersandhistories.

We are acutely aware of the way that whiteness constitutes Westernepistemologyanddonotresile fromtheprivilegeofourpositionswithinthemosteliteofWesterninstitutions.35Neitherdowewishtoembarkonpersonalaccountsofoursubjectivemarkersforthepurposeofsettingup(yetanother)hierarchythatwill legitimate a speaking position for us. Rather, we write from a position ofreflexivity in pursuit of exploring what we see as the pitfalls of the equation,‘white=racist, black=disadvantaged’ which underpins the discourse of culturalcompetenceandallowstheproliferationofracistpracticewithin institutions togounnoticed. If the formula works as a pedagogical recipe for consumption, whycomplicateitwithacriticaltheoryofracism?

—FINDING A NEW STEP

Complicating cultural competence, we contend, is at the heart of locating a moremeaningfulwayof teachingacrossmultiple sitesandcontexts. In returning toourdilemma, then, let us further problematise the terrain by thinking through theembodiednatureofpedagogyandconsideringtheroleofthebodyindevelopinganethical pedagogical praxis. We want to consider how a change in thinking mightmanifestcorporeallyaswe‘move’acrossclassroomspacesfindingwaysofengagingthe student body, individually and collectively. At the core of cultural competencearedifferencesthatcanbeunderstood,ifnotalwaysrecognised,intheirembodiedform:studentswhoareIndigenous,white,black,Asian,domestic,American,Jewish,Muslim,homosexual, lesbian,working‐class,disabled,middle‐classandsoon,needto be ‘seen’ as corporeal entities who observe, feel and experience the world indifferentwaysthatcanbearticulatedandrespondedto,and,indeed,becauseoftheirdifferences,cancontributesignificantlytotheteachingandlearningprocess.Soitisinour interests to read theseembodiedsitesof teachingand learning, to seekouttheirinscriptionsandculturalnarratives.Culturalcompetenceasanethicalpractice,itcouldbeargued,invitesustoseebodiesintheBakhtiniansenseasutterancesthattakeup ‘aparticulardefinitepositioninagivensphereofcommunication’.Bakhtintellsus ‘it is impossible todetermine itspositionwithout correlating itwithother


positions.36Thebody,inthisschema,cannotbedisarticulatedordetachedfromitsassociatedsignifiers.

Itisatthispointthatwecanbegintodestabilisethehomogenisingimpulsesofculturalcompetenceandpromoteabroaderconceptualisationofwhatitmeanstobecompetentinaculturalsense.Inarguingforrecognitionoftheembodiedrealityof pedagogical sites, we can begin to understand the body’s engagement with, orresponses to, other bodies. Contemplating the corporeality of pedagogical praxis,our own and our students’, inspires us as feminists, and also as educators, toconsider the power relations that organise teaching and learning around thediscourses we challenge here. These discourses often attempt to position us asinadequately equipped to effectively and ethically provide safe experiences for allour students. Understanding the embodied nature of classrooms allows us toconsider also the production of knowledge in different ways: we become moreconscious of performativity, of the ‘props’ we use as pedagogical aids and of thewaysthatstudentsalsoperformlearningthroughbodylanguage,eyecontact,facialexpression and movements that suggest interest, disinterest, agreement orcontestation. Spatial energy can be evaluated through giving some primacy tosubstanceandmatter.Thisisausefuladjunctwhenteachinganti‐racismastensionsarise frequently and reading the source of tension can be imperative to anyarticulation of cultural competence. Let us not assume, though, that reading theembodied classroom will provide us with all we need to know about culturaldifferencesor,indeed,thatourreadingswillalwaysbeaccurate.Itiscrucialthatweunderstand the relationship between embodiment in pedagogical terms anddiscourse, between the physicality of teaching and learning with its multipleinscriptionsand thediscourses that ‘move’ it, energise it,organise itandrender itlessawkwardandmoreagile.

—CONCLUSION

Wehaveexpressedsomeofourconcernsaboutculturalcompetenceandsharedourexperiences in trying tomaintain an ethical, truthful and substantive praxiswhileacknowledging the shifting significations of these terms, and their potential forassimilation into the managerial discourses informing neoliberalism. With thisarticlewehope to initiate adialogue that incorporatesexperience, reflectionsand


concernswithcurrent literatureandvarious theoreticalapproaches to thedebate.Aswellassolicitingdialogue,ourresearchleadsustoconcludethatfurtherworkisnecessary if we are to address in anymeaningful way the increasing diversity ofuniversity student cohorts. In opening up spaces where we can identify thecorporeal nature and effects of pedagogy, in the university and in public spaceswhere policy is shaped, we hope to extend the dancemetaphor. Following SusanBordo’sclaimthat‘theappreciationofdifferencerequirestheacknowledgementofsome limit to the dance, beyond which the dancer cannot go’, we consider herjustificationforthisclaim:‘Ifshewereabletogothere,therewouldbenodifference,nothingwhicheludes.’37Wesuggest,however,thatthereareotherstepswecantakeandthat it is inourandourstudents’ intereststhatwecontinuethisdialogue,this‘dance’.

—

ColleenMcGloinisaseniorlecturerintheFacultyofArts,UniversityofWollongong.Her current research interests are in critical theory, and feminist approaches topedagogy and higher education. She has taught literature, communications andculturalstudies,andcurrentlyteachesintheareaofIndigenousstudies.JeannetteStirling isa senior lecturerat theUniversityofWollongong.Herabidingresearch interests are in those intersections between policy, practice andinstitutional cultures. Jeannette has taught academic and professional writing,Australian history, Australian literature, communication and cultural studies, andnursing.

—NOTES 1DeniseBradleyetal.,ReviewofAustralianEducation:FinalReport,AustralianGovernment,Canberra,

2008,<www.deewr.gov.au/he_review_finalreport>(accessed3March2009).2Bradleyetal.,ReviewofAustralianEducation,p.1.3See,forexample,WalterHumes,‘TheDiscourseofEducationalManagement’,JournalofEducational

Enquiry,vol.1,no.1,2000,pp.35–53;BronwynDavies,‘The(Im)possibilityofIntellectualWorkin


NeoliberalRegimes’,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,vol.26,no.1,2005,pp.1–

14;BronwynDavies,MichaelGottscheandPeterBansel,‘TheRiseandFalloftheNeoliberalUniversity’,

EuropeanJournalofEducation,vol.41,no.2,2006,pp.305–19;AlisonPhipps,‘TheSoundofHigher

Education:SensuousEpistemologiesandtheMessofKnowing’,LondonReviewofEducation,vol.5,no.

1,2007,pp.1–13.4Ball’sparticularuseoftheterm‘performativity’referstoanexaggeratedperformanceofidentity

instigatedandcontrolledbythepolicytechnologiesgoverningtheworkplace.Hearguesthatthe‘costs’

ofthesetechnologiesinclude‘institutionalschizophrenia’and,forindividuals,akindof‘values

schizophrenia’,StephenJ.Ball,‘TheTeacher’sSoulandtheTerrorsofPerformativity’,Journalof

EducationPolicy,vol.18,no.2,2003,p.221.Hisuseofthetermhasinterestingandpotentially

productiveresonanceswithJudithButler’snotionofperformativityasderivingfromdiscourse’spower

toconstructtheverysubjectivitythatitdefinesandregulates.5Ball,p.216.6Ball,p.222.7ColleenMcGloin,‘RecontextualisingtheAward:DevelopingaCriticalPedagogyinIndigenousStudies’,

InternationalJournalofHumanities,vol.6,no.4,2008,pp.81–8.8MichelFoucault,TheArchaeologyofKnowledgeandTheDiscourseonLanguage,trans.A.M.Sheridan

Smith,Pantheon,NewYork,1972[1969],p.49.9Forexample:Ball;Davies;Daviesetal.;StanleyAronowitzandHenryA.Giroux,EducationStillUnder

Seige,secondedition,Bergin&Garvey,CT,1993;HenryA.GirouxandKostasMyrsiades(eds),Beyond

theCorporateUniversity:CultureandPedagogyintheNewMillennium,Rowman&Littlefield,Lanham,

Md.,2001;StanleyAronowitz,TheKnowledgeFactory,BeaconPress,Cambridge,Mass.,2000;Maxine

Greene,‘InSearchofaCriticalPedagogy’,inA.Darder,M.BaltodanoandR.D.Torres(eds),TheCritical

PedagogyReader,Routledge,London,2003,pp.97–112;PeterMcLaren,‘RevolutionaryPedagogyin

Post‐RevolutionaryTimes:RethinkingthePoliticalEconomyofCriticalEducation’,inA.Darder,M.

BaltodanoandR.D.Torres(eds),TheCriticalPedagogyReader,Routledge,London,2003,pp.151–84.10Davies,p.13.11CarolBacchi,‘PolicyasDiscourse:WhatDoesitMean?WhereDoesitGetUs?’,Discourse,vol.21,no.

1,2000,pp.45–57,49,

<http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/fullText;dn=102032;res=AEIPT>.12MichelFoucault,TheHistoryofSexualityVolume3,TheCareofSelf,trans.RobertHurley,Pantheon,

NewYork,1984(1986ed.).13JeannetteStirlingandAlisaPercy,‘TruthGames/TruthClaims’,inStephenMilneswithGailCraswell,

ValliRao,AnnieBartlett(eds),CritiquingandReflecting:LASProfessionandPractice,Australian

NationalUniversityPress,Canberra,2005,pp.177–87.14MichaelA.Peters,‘EducationalResearch:“GamesofTruth”andtheEthicsofSubjectivity’,Journalof

EducationalEnquiry,vol.5,no.2,2004,pp.50–63,57.Seealso,MichaelA.Peters,‘Truth‐tellingasan


EducationalPracticeoftheSelf:Foucault,ParrhesiaandtheEthicsofSubjectivity’,OxfordReviewof

Education,vol.29,no.2,2003,pp.207–23.15LewZipinandMarieBrennan,‘TheSuppressionofEthicalDispositionsthroughManagerial

Governmentality:AHabitusCrisisinAustralianHigherEducation’,InternationalJournalofLeadership

inEducation,vol.6,no.4,2003,pp.351–70,369.16AlainBadiou,Ethics:AnEssayontheUnderstandingofEvil,trans.PeterHallward,Verso,London,

2001.17Badiou,p.28.18ChristineAsmarandSusanPage,‘SharingtheLoad’,CampusReview,2009.

<http://www.campusreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Comment&idArticle=13204>.19MarkFurlongandRhondaBrown,‘TheGoalof“CulturalCompetence”:ContestingthePremisethat

TechnicalSkillsshouldbePrivilegedAbove“CulturallyCriticalPractice”’,PsychologyandIndigenous

Australians:Teaching,PracticeandTheory,ProceedingsoftheSecondAnnualConference,UNISA,July,

2008,pp.83–93.20UniversitiesAustralia,2009,

<http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/content.asp?page=/about/pos_vacant/index.htm>.21UniversitiesAustralia.22NicholasC.Burbules,‘TheLimitsofDialogueasaCriticalPedagogy’inPeterPericlesTriofonas(ed.),

RevolutionaryPedagogies,Routledge,NewYork,2000,pp.251–73,266.23MarkA.King,AnthonySimsandDavidOsher,‘HowisCulturalCompetenceIntegratedinEducation?’,

2009,<http://cecp.air.org/cultural/Q_integrated.htm>.24<http://cecp.air.org/cultural/Q_integrated.htm>.25T.Cross,B.Bazron,K.DennisandM.IsaacscitedinEllenGrote(ed.),PrinciplesandPracticesof

CulturalCompetency:AReviewoftheLiterature,IndigenousHigherEducationAdvisoryCouncil

(IHEAC),August2008,pp.1–52,14,<www.dest.gov.au/.../Principle_Practices_Cultural_Competency‐

pdf.htm>.26<http://cecp.air.org/cultural/Q_integrated.htm>27Grote,p.43.28JacquesDerrida,OfGrammatology,trans.GayatriChakravortySpivak,JohnsHopkinsUniversity

Press,Baltimore,1974,p.49.29PersonalcommunicationwithIndigenouscolleaguesinvolvedinculturalawareness/competence.30BronwynLumbyandTerriFarrelly,FamilyViolence,HelpSeekingandtheCloseKnitAboriginal

Community:LessonsforMainstreamServiceProvision,AustralianDomesticandFamilyViolence

ClearingHouse,UNSW,Sydney,2009.LumbyandFarrellyheadtheCentreforCulturalCompetencein

Australia(CCCA).TheypresentAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderculturalcompetencytrainingtoa

widerangeoforganisationsthroughoutAustralia.CCCAhasbeenaccreditedandapprovedbyTAFE


andothergovernmentandnongovernmentbodies:seewww.ccca.com.au<http://www.ccca.com.au/>

fordetails.31PauloFreire,PedagogyoftheOppressed,Continuum,NewYork,2006,pp.71–86.32Giroux,p.203.33PersonalemailcommunicationwithBronwynLumby,6October2009.34ColleenMcGloin,‘ConsideringtheWorkofMartinNakata’s“CulturalInterface”:AReflectionon

TheoryandPracticebyaNon‐IndigenousAcademic’,AustralianJournalofIndigenousEducation,vol.

38,Supplement,2009.35AileenMoreton‐Robinson(ed.),WhiteningRace,AboriginalStudiesPress,Canberra,2005,p.75.36MikhailM.Bakhtin,SpeechGenresandOtherLateEssays,edsCarylEmersonandMichael

Holquist,trans.VernW.McGee,UniversityofTexasPress,Austin,1986,p.91.37SusanBordo,‘Feminism,PostmodernismandGender‐Scepticism’,inLindaJ.Nicholson(ed.),

Feminism/Postmodernism,Routledge,NewYork,1990,p.145.

Documents

Two left feet: Dancing in Academe to the rhythms of neoliberal