Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFinnane, Marken_US
dc.contributor.editorKatie Holmes Stuart Warden_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:23:57Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:23:57Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2012-02-28T04:24:13Z
dc.identifier.isbn9780716531449en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/43066
dc.description.abstractThis chapter examines the politics of state apologies as they have worked in domestic political space. I ask what are the limitations on the state's vulnerability to claims against it for harms done in institutions that are the responsibility primarily of government? It will be suggested that prior to the 1970s the governmental visibility of disadvantaged populations was always and only in relation to the demands of social policy, at the service of a more general population policy. The historical conditions in which the poor, mentally ill, orphaned and neglected children, or (especially in imperial contexts), Indigenous peoples were made the object of governmental attention were those in which government looked to sustain the security, health and well-being of the population in general. That process constructed populations, gave them certain identities, and preserved them in new forms, distinguishing status along lines of intervention that saw many institutionalised or otherwise 'protected' or placed in tutelage. The history of the associated institutions and practices of this form of government shows that protection was a misnomer, and that harms including considerable violence were often done to those in state care. As changing notions of citizenship have joined with the forces of deinstitutionalisation the state has proved increasingly vulnerable to claims for accountability for such wrongs. At the same time the claims for apology proceed along paths that require the construction of claims of innocence violated, especially of the status of childhood affronted. The limited redress available to those who have experienced violence in prison, mental hospitals or police custody marks out the circumscribed domain of state apologies.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherIrish Academic Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeIrelanden_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.iap.ie/en_US
dc.relation.ispartofbooktitleExhuming Passions: The Pressure of the Past in Ireland and Australiaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofchapter5en_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom91en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto103en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHistorical Studies not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchAustralian History (excl. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History)en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode210399en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode210303en_US
dc.titleMemories of Violence and the Politics of State Apologiesen_US
dc.typeBook chapteren_US
dc.type.descriptionB1 - Book Chapters (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeB - Book Chaptersen_US
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciencesen_US
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Book chapters
    Contains book chapters authored by Griffith authors.

Show simple item record