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.

The International Consortium on Mental Health Policy and Services: objectives, design and project implementation

The concept of the burden of disease, introduced and estimated for a broad range of diseases in the World Bank report of 1993 illustrated that mental and neurological disorders not only entail a higher burden than cancer, but are responsible, in developed and developing countries, for more than 15% of the total burden of all diseases. As a consequence, over the past decade, mental disorders have ranked increasingly highly on the international agenda for health. However, the fact that mental health and nervous system disorders are now high on the international health agenda is by no means a guarantee that the fate of patients suffering from these disorders in developing countries will improve. In most developing countries the treatment gap for mental and neurological disorders is still unacceptably high. To address this problem, an international network of collaborating institutions in low-income countries has been set up. The establishment and the achievements of this network-the International Consortium on Mental Health Policy and Services-are reported. Sixteen institutions in developing countries collaborate (supported by a small number of scientific resource centres in industrialized nations) in projects on applied mental health systems research. Over a two-year period, the network produced the key elements of a national mental health policy; provided tools and methods for assessing a country's current mental health status (context, needs and demands, programmes, services and care and outcomes); established a global network of expertise, i.e., institutions and experts, for use by countries wishing to reform their mental health policy, services and care; and generated guidelines and examples for upgrading mental health policy with due regard to the existing mental health delivery system and demographic, cultural and economic factors.