The objective of this article is to compare Indigenous and Western modernities by examining how contemporary Indigenous polities are finding inventive ways to assert their sovereignty. Our discussion presents an innovation in Indigenous governance introduced recently by the Ngarrindjeri people in Southern Australia. We explain the conditions in which Ngarrindjeri initiated their process of political reformation; we link our analysis to critiques of Western modernism and imperialism; and we then outline some key political technologies created by the Ngarrindjeri Nation to enable its successful influence in matters affecting their Country and community. We find that these resources remain firmly grounded in Ngarrindjeri ways of knowing, being and doing, yet they are expressed in a contemporary hybrid form that is accessible to non-Indigenous negotiation partners. As a consequence, they have established a modern Indigenous framework for intercultural negotiation of interests previously controlled by the South Australian state and other non-Indigenous organizations.
AdornoT., & HorkheimerM. (2002 [1944]). Dialectic of Enlightenment.New York, NY: Continuum.
2.
AgambenG. (2009). What is the contemporary? In G. Agamben, What is an apparatus? and other essays (D. Kishik & S. Pedatella, Trans.) (pp. 39–54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
ArendtH. (1958). The human condition.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
ArendtH. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism.New York, NY: Schocken.
5.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
6.
BergS. (2010). Coming to terms: Aboriginal title in South Australia.Adelaide, Australia: Wakefield Press.
7.
BellD. (2003). Ngarrindjeri wurruwarrin: A world that is, was, and will be.Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.
8.
BignallS., RigneyD., & HattamR. (2015). The postcolonial time that remains.Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 17(2), 269–287.
9.
ByrdJ. (2011). The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
10.
ChakrabartyD. (2007). Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
CornellS. (2015). “Wolves have a constitution”: Continuities in Indigenous self-government.International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(1), Article 8. DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2015.6.1.8
12.
CornellS. (2015). Processes of Native nationhood: The indigenous politics of self-government.International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(4). DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2015.6.4.4
13.
CornellS., & KaltJ. P. (2007). Two approaches to the development of Native nations: One works, the other doesn't. In JorgensenM. (Ed.), Rebuilding Native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 3–33). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
14.
Cullen-UnsworthL., ButlerJ., HillR., & WallaceM. (2010). Cooperative research: An example from the wet tropics of Queensland.International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(6), 139–154.
15.
DeleuzeG. (2004). Nomadic thought.Desert islands and other texts 1953-1974 (LapoujadeDavid, Ed., & Michael Taormina, Trans., pp. 252–262). New York, NY: Semiotexte.
16.
DerridaJ. (1974). Of grammatology (G. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
17.
FoucaultM. (1986). Kant on Enlightenment and revolution (C. Gordon, Trans.).Economy and Society, 15(1), 88–96.
18.
FoucaultM. (1984). What is Enlightenment? In RabinowP. (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 32–50). London, UK: Penguin.
19.
GoodaM. (2014). Social justice and Native title report [annual report of the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner]. Canberra, Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission.
20.
HemmingS. (2006). The problem with Aboriginal heritage: Translation, transformation and resistance. In WorbyG., & RigneyL. (Eds.), Sharing spaces: Indigenous and non-indigenous responses to Country, stories and rights (pp. 305–328). Perth, Australia: API Network.
21.
HemmingS., & RigneyD. (2011). Decentring the new protectors: Transforming Aboriginal heritage in South Australia. In WatertonE., & WatsonS. (Eds.), Heritage and community engagement: Collaboration or contestation? (pp. 98–114). London, UK: Routledge.
22.
HemmingS., & RigneyD. (2008). Unsettling sustain-ability: Ngarrindjeri political literacies, strategies of engagement and transformation.Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22(6), 757–775.
23.
HemmingS., RigneyD., & BergS. (2011). Ngarrindjeri futures: Negotiation, governance and environmental management. In MaddisonS., & BriggsM. (Eds.), Unsettling the settler state: Creativity and resistance in Indigenous settler-state governance (pp. 98–113). Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.
24.
HicksS. L. (2007). Intergovernmental relationships: Expressions of tribal sovereignty. In JorgensenM. (Ed.), Rebuilding Native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 256–272). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
25.
KantI. (1996 [1784]). What is Enlightenment? In SchmidtJ. (Ed)., What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-century answers and twentieth century questions (pp. 58–63). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26.
LyotardJ.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition (B. Massumi & G. Bennington, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
27.
McMillanM. (2014). Elliot Johnston memorial lecture: Holding on to the “hope of law”.Flinders Law Journal, 16(2), 251–262.
28.
Moreton-RobinsonA. (2007). Sovereign subjects: Indigenous sovereignty matters.Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
29.
Moreton-RobinsonA. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty.Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
NormanD., & KaltJ. (2014). Universities and Indian country: Case studies in tribal-driven research.Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
34.
PertP., HillR., McLeanK., DaleA., RistP., SchmiderJ., … TawakeL. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples: Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social variation.Ecosystem Services, 14(June), 41–56. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.012
35.
RawlsJ. (1971). A theory of justice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
RigneyD., HemmingS., & BergS. (2008). Letters Patent, Native title and the Crown in South Australia. In HintonM., RigneyD., & JohnstonE. (Eds.), Indigenous Australians and the law (2nd. ed., pp. 161–178). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
SimonsM. (2003). The meeting of the waters: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge affair.Sydney, Australia: Hodder.
38.
SmithL. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed.
39.
SpivakG. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
StevensI. (1995). Report of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission.Adelaide, Australia: Government of South Australia.
