with this finding was the evidence that Aborigines typified ’Australians’
positively, despite the fact that they, (the Aborigines), were typified
negatively by Australians.
The expectation that Aboriginal students would, in general, show
evidence of socialization into negative identity and identity-diffusion
was not realised.
The school situation was seen as a locus for positive theorizing
and for support for the construction of different Aboriginal identities,
in accordance with the options made by the Aboriginal people.
The options revealed were
1) Theorizing permitting assimilation
2) Theorizing offering the possibility of integration and
φ I
identification with pride as an Aborigine, but without
claiming identials that were specifically Aboriginal
5) Theorizing for the maintenance of an Aboriginal identity
secured by identials that are specifically Aboriginal.
Only Strelley offered a fourth possibility:
4) Theorizing that structured a situation for Aboriginal
identity with a coherent ideological base.
Strelley exercised autonomy in all areas. The continuity of the
group was provided for by indoctrination of the group into a common
ideology, and by establishing processes for continual adaptation
within the ideological base, and continuity of leadership.
In tɪie metropolitan urban situation, among Aboriginal people,there
4
was seen to be a lack of cohesion, a lack of clearly articulated ideology,
a lack of an economic base for autonomy, a lack of acknowledged leadership.
It was concluded that the one institution in society currently
permitting and supporting multi-structures within which Aboriginal identity
could be constructed, for those choosing this option, was the school.
Schools based on some form of voluntary segregation could be
developed to provide basic structures where those features seen to
operate successfully at Strelley could be adapted to provide, within
a micro-cosmic situation, for the development and inculcation of an
ideology and the development of leaders.
xxxii