Scholars and Radicals: Writing and Re-thinking Class Structure in Australian History

We wrote Class Structure in Australian History in a period of heightened social struggle. It grew out of collaborative research projects at Sydney's Free U in the late 1960s. The book was distinctive in both emphasising the socialist tradition of class analysis and trying to find new paths for it. Its first edition was ignored by mass media, and often mis-interpreted in professional journals. Nevertheless it circulated widely and has continued to be a point of reference for progressive scholarship. Its method tried to carry forward the Free U project of democratic knowledge making, linking documents with analysis and inviting shared interpretation. Its theory emphasised the reality of classes as historical formations, and the importance of understanding class structure as a whole, on both points reacting against influential frameworks of the time. Looking back, CSAH appears uncertain in its approach to race and gender, and inadequate in its handling of coloniality; it was written in isolation from similar projects in other parts of the postcolonial world. Yet its approach still has value in understanding the changing dynamics of class on a world scale, the class relations of the neoliberal era in Australia, and the current configuration of power in Australia.     

Deterritorialisation: Reconceptualising Development in the Pacific Islands

Development, as an idea and an industry, is premised on the assumption that all states have the ability to raise the material wellbeing of citizens. For many this appears to be working but the ideal is problematic for a sub-set of the world's smallest countries: the Pacific Island states. These states have sought to develop conventional export trade-based economies but are disadvantaged in this, and in service sector development, by a combination of well-known factors, including resource bases, size and location. By default, migration has become a least-worst development option for many island peoples and governments, involving engagement with the periphery and contributing to income generation and poverty alleviation. This deterritorialisation presents an alternative to mainstream development theory and practice in its current state-centric form, and emphasises the emerging significance of non-state approaches to development.     

Adolescent Risk Behavior Subgroups: An Empirical Assessment

Theories and prior research have outlined a constellation of adolescent risk behaviors that tend to co-occur, reflecting a general pattern. Although their generality has largely been supported, there is some question about how to best study and portray the relationship among these behaviors. This study used data from a survey administered to high school youth (n = 2549, 38 schools). The general population sample comprised an even split between boys and girls, averaged roughly 16 years of age, and was 59% White and 10% Hispanic/Latino. Using latent class analysis, four subgroups, comprised of varying types and degrees of risky behavior, were identified. Specifically, there were two groups that “abstained” and “experimented” with risky behaviors and two others that had higher, but somewhat distinct, patterns of such activities. These groups were then examined in relation to youth characteristics (e.g., mental and physical health, school performance) and socio-environmental factors (e.g., social support, parental monitoring) that may be useful for better understanding “problem behavior syndrome” and development of prevention strategy.