ABSTRACT
This stance presents a challenge for mobility analysis, much of which is predicated on change. The very act of movement implies change in a place of residence, and when tied to indicators of social and economic change, as is so often the case in explanations of mobility, a self-reinforcing set of processes is invoked whereby mobility behaviour tends towards convergence at the national scale. The clearest illustration of this is seen in the observation that the most highly developed countries are also the most urbanized – hence the transfer of population from rural to urban areas is deemed to be an integral part of any process of development (Skeldon 1997: 2). For Indigenous Australians, such unilinear argument is problematic since the setting for social action is truly intercultural, and decisions regarding mobility have been and are constantly shaped by a combination of persistence of the customary, and change due to external relations with the encapsulating state. Structurally, this places the socioeconomic position of Indigenous Australians at odds with conventional models of development. As Gray (1985: 143) points out, unlike populations of the Third World, Indigenous Australians live within a powerful polity and rich country, but in many respects at its fringes – they feel the exercise of power rather than its economic benefit. Enduring low socioeconomic status is the reality for most Indigenous Australians and this is as much a manifestation of inequitable power relations and marginalization in the midst of plenty as it is to do with any lack of development per se.
