Locating whiteness in the academic production of "I Philosophy" in and of time and place

This review will critically evaluate two recent texts by white academics working across disciplines of cultural studies, history and anthropology and published by UNSW Press, which share a focus on the relationship between Aboriginality, Philosophy, Place and Time in Australia. I write from the position of a queer white academic committed to engaging politically and intellectually with the challenge of Indigenous sovereignties in this place while also aware that my position as a middle class white woman and intellectual imposes limits on what it is possible for me to know about Indigenous epistemologies (see Moreton-Robinson, 2000). In the course of this review I will demonstrate how anthropology's tendency to fix its objects of study within a circumscribed space of 'difference' limits the capacity of texts produced within this discipline to account for racialized struggles over sovereignty. While these struggles are equally embedded in the ethnographic context and the nation's constitution and political institutions, we will see that Muecke and Bird Rose confront problems in analysing the relationship between the intimate space of the 'field', in which one's research subjects quickly become one's 'friends' and/or 'classificatory kin'—on one hand—and the public space of the nation within which statements about Aboriginality by white academics circulate and are vested with an authority that escapes individual intentions and control—on the other.

Destination image, romance and place experience - an application of intimacy theory in tourism

In some forms of tourism, and perhaps particularly in the case of special interest tourism, it can be argued that tourism encounters are service relationships with emotional attachment through the special interest focus and a level of enduring involvement on the part of participants. This involvement is two-fold. First, an interest with the activity; second, a sharing with like-minded people in a social world that extends from home to tourist destination and return. Intimacies in tourism can thus be interpreted through the model of the relationship cycle that comprises the stages A. Aquaintance, B, Buildup, C, Continuation and D, Dissolution. The paper builds upon this concept by utilising ideas of other-centred and self-centredness in personal relationships, and extends the concept of other-centredness to host environments. It also suggests that, in the academic literature about place, location may be secondary in that the quality of experience is primarily determined by the intimacies that exist between people at that place, especially that existing between visitors. © 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: Space use and habitat preferences of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins

1. Many species of delphinids co-occur in space and time. However, little is known of their ecological interactions and the underlying mechanisms that mediate their coexistence. 2. Snubfin Orcaella heinsohni, and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins Sousa chinensis, live in sympatry throughout most of their range in Australian waters. I conducted boat-based surveys in Cleveland Bay, north-east Queensland, to collect data on the space and habitat use of both species. Using Geographic Information Systems, kernel methods and Euclidean distances I investigated interspecific differences in their space use patterns, behaviour and habitat preferences. 3. Core areas of use (50% kernel range) for both species were located close to river mouths and modified habitat such as dredged channels and breakwaters close to the Port of Townsville. Foraging and travelling activities were the dominant behavioural activities of snubfin and humpback dolphins within and outside their core areas. 4. Their representative ranges (95% kernel range) overlapped considerably, with shared areas showing strong concordance in the space use by both species. Nevertheless, snubfin dolphins preferred slightly shallower (1-2 m) waters than humpback dolphins (2-5 m). Additionally, shallow areas with seagrass ranked high in the habitat preferences of snubfin dolphins, whereas humpback dolphins favoured dredged channels. 5. Slight differences in habitat preferences appear to be one of the principal factors maintaining the coexistence of snubfin and humpback dolphins. I suggest diet partitioning and interspecific aggression as the major forces determining habitat selection in these sympatric species.