Re: [Marxism] East Timor replies

[Nick Fredman <srcsra@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom O'Lincoln on the 2001 Australian Defence Dept's 'consultation':

> If I remember rightly, a previous critic complained they were
> hand-picked.  Well, it's probably a mixture of both ... If they find
> that Oxfam has moved  closer to the government, this will tell them
> something about the mood out  there. Shouldn't it tell us something
> too?

I'll make an important general point about the validity of evidence
as an excuse to keep flogging this :)

I'm sure Tom agrees that radicals and their organisations, who don't
have a lot of resources for their own research, should be at least a
bit aware of the specific inherent limitations of all systematic
methods of finding out about mass consciousness - e.g. mass
questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. Qualitative research
like interviews and focus groups (and the Australian Defence Dept's
'consultation' we're talking about, involving public meetings and
submissions, are a bit like these), or talking to people at a
socialist stall, have real advantages in getting colour and depth
over polls that cram reality into strict categories which might not
even relate to how the people responding think about things, but have
real problems of representitiveness. There's also the question of how
far you trust the researchers' genuineness in getting and presenting
meaningful and truthful results - e.g. if you trust Bayer's drug
trials, you are an idiot. This 'consultation' had both sets of
problems in spades, so as I said it can tell us *something* - but the
opinion of Elizabeth Whatshername from New South Wales that Tony
Hartin quoted tells us very little (except that she thought little of
the issues until she perceived Howard, who she was possibly a firm
supporter of previously, making a stand) - and as far as I can tell
the Defence boffins simply made *assertions* about what "pro East
Timor" groups thought, which Tom turned into *facts*.

> I refer you to your fellow DSPer Nick, who acknowledges "that the
> 1999  intervention did have *some* imperialist-illusion generating
> effect.

And the 2006 Marxmail prize for quoting something out of context goes
to ... Tom O'Linciln! :)

As I said the main effect I can see (including from cautious use of
the 'consultation') from 99 was shoring up conservative support for
the specific project of regional intervention (which they generally
would have done anyway), and maybe confusing a few liberals (though
the ones Tom quoted didn't seem to refer to East Timor). There's a
fairly good analogy: when the government, pressured by years of
protest, made a few changes to the detention of asylum seekers last
year, many conservatives and even liberals thought the kudos should
go to Howard and co. Miranda Devine in the Sydney Morning Herald
crowed that conservatives rather than the movement had won this.
Granted she is a moron, but an actual liberal commentator in that
paper, Adele Horin if I remember right, encouraged people to join
Liberal Party branches to push for further change (no thanks!).
Progressive academic types like Judith Brett and Mary Kalantzis have
been writing recently about Howard moving back to the pragmatic
centre. However as I think Clinton might have argued here such
confusion and *illusion generating effect* is often the unfortunate
collatoral damage for winning something and radicalising many people.
--

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism