3649 34 archive 236 disk0/00/00/36/49 2008-05-04 23:47:02 2008-07-16 16:58:50 2008-07-16 16:58:50 article show Rolls M Mitchell.Rolls@utas.edu.au pub 169902 200201 379902 420305 420306 none add abstract mjp-politics@unimelb.edu.au 05/05 asked DR said to remove PDF for now. Dear Meredith, First, please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to your email. Due to illness and other circumstances beyond my control it has been impossible to respond any earlier. Regarding your request on behalf of Dr Rolls, seeking permission to place a copy of his article from issue 26 of the Melbourne Journal of Politics in an academic repository. I regret to say that it has been a long standing policy of the Melbourne Journal of Politics not to grant this copyright, regardless of the nature of the repository. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there are already multiple copies of this article in circulation through hard copies held in libraries and as a PDF or html document held by online content providers. Secondly, we are a small publication that relies on the revenue of our subscribers and sales of back issues to interested researchers and organisations to continue publishing. As such, we are not in the same position as other, larger, journals who, because of their size, can allow widespread dissemination of their content. One again, it is with regret that I must withhold permission for the release of copyright for this article and request that it not be placed in your repository. Regards, David Walker David Walker Editor Melbourne Journal of Politics Room 203, Level 2 234 Queensberry Street Carlton, Vic. 3053 Australia In respondin~ to my essay' critically examining his book Edge of theSacred , David Tacey rejects my criticism that he is imposing "alien" archetypal structures upon Aboriginal culture on the grounds that "the claim of archetypal theory is that it posits a universalising discourse in which no culture or time is alien to its theoretical structures"." Well, precisely. This just seems to restate my argument that Aborigines are yet again being subjected to a belief system (Faith? Ideology? Theory? Call it what you will) that is not of their making. Furthermore, it posits a theoretical structure that often provides interpretations of cultural practices and beliefs that differ markedly from Aboriginal explanations of the same matters. As I claim in my essay, this leads to the situation where nonAboriginal 'experts' are needed to explain to Aborigines the 'real' nature of their own beliefs and psyches. Archetypal theory is just another attempt to ensnare Aborigines within a universalising discourse, as Tacey makes explicit in his opening rejection of my argument. Tacey steps beyond my analysis of his text in an endeavour to sweep me into what he sees as the leftist denial of spirituality and/or sacredness. It should not be necessary to explain that to query where and how Tacey quests for the sacred is not the same thing as rejecting spirituality, but Tacey does equate these two separate issues. Readers should note that nowhere in my 2000 published Melbourne Journal of Politics 26 149-152 TRUE 00853224 http://www.politics.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/mjp.html