of behaviour which conforms to this over-arching ideology, is achieved
through a series of meetings at different levels in the hierarchy,
with which all interact at some point. The norms of the group are
thus better known, and more clearly defined than in the amorphous
world of mainstream society. The latter is a pluralist society
which not only has different norms operating from one group to another,
*
but different norms applying in different situations within any one
group.
The theory with which the individual at Strelley interacts is
dynamic, not static. The giving of meaning to the ’world’ of Strelley
is part of a continuing dialectic.
This points to the possibility of continuity for the Strelley
Mob since, in Sorokin’s terms, the group possesses within itself
the tools to develop their own theorizing in the face of changes
in government policy or other outside intervention. The Law has
already undergone adaptations to meet new situations.
It is not
reified, ossified, a dead hand preventing adaptation. The basic
means for securing a sense of identity, together with feelings of
self-esteem, would seem to be established.
There is a political theorizing that builds into the Aboriginal
sense of identity. Taken in the narrow sense of political parties,
the Aborigines support no party. Rather, they examine the platform
of each party for . its philosophy on matters in the interest of Aborigines,
particularly their policy towards self-determination for Aborigines
and their platform regarding land rights and mining on Aboriginal
lands policies, which are crucial to the preservation of sacred sites.
In the wide sense of politics, the Mob jealously retain the right
to speak for themselves. They resent the appointment of part-Europeans
to speak on behalf of the tribal people. They see Aboriginal bodies
set up by the government (including the 'Bush meetings’) as government
agencies not reflecting the decisions and thinking of the marmgu.
The autonomy of the group is firmly established in its theorizing.