Intentional structural violence? Weapons of the accountable and the administration of Wielangta

ABSTRACT

This article argues that the ideal of the rational-legal state inflicts structural violence. By reconceptualising the state as a field-of-power in which the ideal of the rational-legal state legitimises bureaucratic authority it can be seen how the bureaucracy is incentivised to anticipate modalities of accountability that demand it conform to that ideal. However, written rules and procedures do not have objectively rational meanings. Consequently, bureaucracy can do no more than anticipate the essentially uncertain standards to which it will be held to account. Bureaucrats find contingent solutions in actual bureaucratic processes. This is because in practice bureaucratic outcomes are a product of relationships of co-production between rules and procedures, the circumstances in which they are applied, the interpretive and material practices of bureaucrats, and the contingencies of accountability. This is shown by drawing upon evidence provided in an Australian court's examination of the administration of Wielangta forest. The case shows that bureaucrats can utilise relationships of co-production to anticipate and alleviate accountability. This was done at the expense of achieving objectives such as protecting endangered species; thus, producing unintentional structural violence. However, the Wielangta example also indicates that co-production may be instrumentalised to make a preferred violent outcome appear unintentional.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Rob Laird is an anthropology PhD candidate at Australia National University. His general area of interest in anthropology of law but has particular interests in the relationship between the state and its population and environment. Robert also has over four years post-admission experience and has practiced in the areas of native title and mining law. Robert has also represented traditional owners in their negotiations over joint management of national parks on Cape York.

Notes

1 For a comprehensive legal analysis of the TRFA, the Wielangta Case and the amendments see Baxter (2014).

2 For a discussion on the difficulty of studying organisational bureaucracy, see Mosse (2006).

3 Nader (1972).

4 Migdal and Schlichte (2005), pp 21–23.

5 Zenker (2015), p 91.

6 Kennedy (2004).

7 Migdal and Schlichte (2005), pp 26–31.

8 Power (1997); see also Herzfeld (1993), p 47.

9 Leiter (2010), pp 111–112.

10 Mosse (2006).

11 Herzfeld (1993).

12 Hull (2012).

13 McGoey (2007), p 217.

14 Wilholt (2009).

15 Lynch and Bogen (1996), p 235.

16 Caplan and Torpey (2001), pp 6–7.

17 Galtung (1969).

18 Galtung (1969), pp 168–172.

19 Graeber (2015), p 80.

20 Graeber (2015), p 65.

21 Graeber (2015), p 74.

22 The problem of structural violence, administration and intention is also raised in Tyner and Rice (2016), pp 48–49.

23 Scott (1985).

24 Scott (1985), pp 31–33, 299.

25 Hutton and Connors (1999), pp 183–184.

26 e.g. see The Canberra Times, 8 March 1986, p 1.

27 Doyle (1994).

28 Dargavel (1995), p 157.

29 Kirkpatrick (1987), pp 312–313.

30 Collins (1999).

31 Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997).

32 McDonald (1999), p 321.

33 Dargavel (1998), p 26.

34 Lane (1999), p 150.

35 Regional Forestry Agreement (1997), Recital A, 1.

36 Regional Forestry Agreement (1997), Recital A, 1.

37 Lele (1991), p 613.

38 Kirkpatrick (1998), p 31.

39 Howard and Rundle press release (8 November 1987). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FXRM30%22: Parliament of Australia Website. Accessed 31 January 2016.

40 The Management Prescription Database and the Response to Disturbance Database are databases that Tasmania agreed to establish under the TRFA. See Attachment 3 of the TRFA.

41 e.g. the Threatened Fauna Manual for Production Forests in Tasmania (the Manual) and the Threatened Fauna Advisory Expert System Program (the Advisor) were the basis for providing management prescriptions at the operational scale: see clause 3.1 of the Agreed Procedures.

42 e.g. The Manual and The Adviser are reviewed every five years to coincide with reviews of the TRFA and are required to be updated regularly.

43 e.g. Forestry Officers are required to consult The Adviser ‘to determine the appropriate endorsed management prescription’ and to ‘seek further specialist advice’ from the Senior Zoologist and the Forest Practices Authority where required by The Adviser.

44 Rutherford (1999).

45 Escobar (1998).

46 Li (2007).

47 Foucault (1982).

48 E.g. see TRFA Attachment 11.

49 Carter (2001), p 198.

50 Section 38 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) and section 6(4) of the Regional Forestry Agreement Act 2002 (Cth) were the relevant exemption provisions.

51 Howard and Rundle press release (8 November 1987). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FXRM30%22: Parliament of Australia Website. Accessed 31 January 2016.

52 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 244–247.

53 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 259.

54 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 258.

55 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 259.

56 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 258.

57 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 277.

58 McGoey (2007), p 217.

59 McGoey (2007), pp 228–231.

60 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 69–70.

61 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 135.

62 Wilholt (2009).

63 Wilholt (2009), p 92.

64 Wilholt (2009), pp 99–100.

65 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 114.

66 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 114.

67 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 121.

68 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 117.

69 Hull (2012).

70 Navaro-Yashin (2003), p 89.

71 Eisenlohr (2011).

72 Hull (2012), p 245.

73 Frohmann (2008), p 166.

74 Scott (1999).

75 Latour (2005), p 76.

76 Strathern (2000).

77 Caplan and Torpey (2001), pp 6–7; Kelly (2006), pp 91.

78 Lynch and Bogen (1996), p 235.

79 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 228.

80 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 219.

81 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 220.

82 Best (2012), p 93.

83 Best (2012), p 93.

84 Best (2012), p 100.

85 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 241.

86 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 264.

87 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 260–293.

88 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 94.

89 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 105–137.

90 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 138–162.

91 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 86–104.

92 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 68, 111–116, 79–80.

93 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 286–293.

94 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 92–104, 137, 142, 144–146, 148–149, 154–155.

95 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 160–271.

96 Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 at 284.

97 Alexander Downer, Restoring Policy Intent of the Tasmanisan Regional Forest Agreement Press Release, 23 February 2007 http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/79527/20071205-1354/www.alexanderdowner.com.au/Pages/articlecc2f.html, Pandora: Australia's Web Archive. Accessed 31 January 2016.

98 Baxter (2014), pp 285, 352, 416.

99 Baxter (2014), pp 352, 411, 415.

100 Baxter (2014), pp 344–345.

101 Baxter (2014), pp 114, 133–139.

102 Forestry Tasmania v Brown [2007] FCAFC 186 (30 November 2007) at 92.

103 Forestry Tasmania v Brown [2007] FCAFC 186 (30 November 2007) at 95–98.

104 Brown v Forestry Tasmania [2008] HCA Trans 202 (23 May 2005).