∖τ
22S
13.20 Theorizing of non-Aboriginal staff about their role
Reference has been made to the fact that, in one sense white
members of staff are not called upon to theorize. This is
appropriately done by the marrngu. Nevertheless, theorizing is
an essential process for the non-ɪɪɪarmgu to maintain their own identity
with the subtle shifts and modifications that come about in self
*
perception in a cross cultural situation.
One of the early emphases in the sociology of knowledge was
the critical examination of the imposition of ideologies, of forms
of ’oppression’ in economic and political terms, particularly the
imposition of the ideas of the dominant group.
Educational writings in the school of Gutierrez, Freire, Illich
and others put forward theories of ’liberation’, of freeing man
from oppression, so that he may fully achieve self-realization as
a human being. The literature and thinking in this area has many
ramification^ too complex to be surveyed here. However, one related
issue needs to be considered.
The white staff, in trying whole-heartedly not to be oppressive,
not to impose their framework of thought on the marrngu, might well
be attracted to adapting some version of a liberation model to give
meaning to the situation. The acceptance of such a model, widely
held in contemporary educational thought, means that the staff can
project a theory with which they interact. As Berger has pointed
out men both experience their world and explain their world. This
applies to white staff as well as marrngu.
A problem for white staff lies in whether or not the complex
framework of Aboriginal theory about their world of meaning is in
fact translatable into western terms and western theory, such as
liberation theory, in a way a person from another culture can