POLICING AND CULTURE

Address by Dr. A.B. Kelly (President 1956-7)

to N.T. Police Association Annual Conference

25 – 26 August 2003



I thought it would be appropriate at a Union Conference to begin with a quote from Marx. Marx had something to say about the future. He said: “Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?”  Groucho always put his finger on the crux of the matter.

More seriously, the future is important. The only guide to the future is the past. The recent past tells us that for each Police Officer in Australia today, there are more than four times as many serious crimes committed, as there had been in the 1950’s. Will this trend continue?

To understand this trend it is necessary to understand culture. We need to understand what a culture is and what a culture does. A culture can do most of the policing for us.

The only alternative to heavier policing is more self-policing, more self-regulation. Self-regulation is only ever the product of a strong cultural belief system. To understand the future of policing, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of culture.

Any worker needs to know his material. Police work with people, so they need to know something about human nature. Our human nature is the result of our genes and our culture. We cannot do much about our genes. This makes understanding culture even more important.

CULTURE: An understanding of culture is important to Police because a strong cultural belief system largely does the policing for you. In the Territory you have to deal with people from two vastly different cultures, the traditional Aboriginal one and the ordinary Australian one.

In the 1950’s both of these cultural belief-systems were working well. The Serious Crime-rate was much lower in the 1950’s. It was a quarter of what it is today. There is a reason for this change. Both cultures are in decline. As cultures decline, self-regulation declines. People loose their self-restraint.


Cultures exist because people need to find meaning in the world. Every culture is based on a belief-system that explains the world. An ideal culture will tell its people who they are, what they are, and what the world is all about. Humans evolve with and through their cultures.

Human evolution is not like animal evolution. Humans evolve mentally rather than physically. People evolve by increasing their knowledge of what is real and their knowledge of what is good. They evolve mentally, or fail to evolve mentally, through their cultures and with their cultures.

Human cultural evolution and human mental evolution is always a “do it yourself” process, as people make cultures and cultures make the people of the culture.

How a culture develops, whether it gets better or gets worse, depends upon whether the foundational belief-system of the culture keeps pace with the development of knowledge.

The development of knowledge is a process that has four distinct stages. It is always at least a two-stage process. It can be a three-stage or a four-stage process. Every culture will reflect the stage that has been reached in this process of knowledge development. Knowing these four stages can provide the key to understanding different cultures.

THE FOUR STAGES
in the process of the development of knowledge are Experience, Understanding, Judgement and Evaluation. The first stage of the process – Experience - is based on our sense experience. This is similar to the way animals know. But human sense-experience is much wider than animal sense experience. Animals operate on a strict “need to know” basis. They only know what they need to know to survive. Animal knowing is an event. Human knowing is a process.

Humans need to do more than just survive. They need to make sense of the world. They seek to understand all their experience. Understanding, making some sense of the world, is the second stage of the human process of knowledge development. All cultures reach this stage.

The third stage of the process of knowledge development is Judgement. When people reach this stage they want to know if their previous understanding of the world is correct. Not all cultures reach this stage. Many cultures have not reached it yet.

People in Europe only began to reach this stage within the last 3,000 years. This was a great step forward in mental development. The capacity of the Greeks for abstract thought had developed significantly.

These four stages: Experience; Understanding; Judgement; and Evaluation, can be continually applied to increase our knowledge of the world. Every culture will reflect the stage that has been reached in this process of knowledge development.

ABORIGINAL CULTURE: I got to know Central Australian Aborigines during the 1950’s. I realised that the difference between them and other Australians was cultural. I got along well with Aborigines. I was invited to their secret ceremonies. They wanted to initiate me. My eventual Doctoral Dissertation “The Process of the Cosmos” was concerned with culture, among other matters.

The Australian Aboriginal culture is expressed in their Dreamtime stories. These explain the Aboriginal world. The Aborigines did not question whether the Dreamtime stories were true. They did not reach stage three of the knowledge process. Their stage two understanding of the world was never doubted or questioned.

As a culture, Aboriginal culture was an ideal type. It told its members who they were, what they were, and what the world was all about. But it was not in a position to keep up with the development of knowledge. The Aborigines were cut off from other cultures for some 47,000 years. 47,000 years is nearly half the lifespan of Homo sapiens as a Species.

Every culture has a belief-system, an understanding of the world, at its base. The whole pattern of life within each culture develops from this understanding of the world.

CULTURE AND CRIME: In the 1950’s Territory Aborigines had a living culture. Compared to the present, there was very little crime among Aborigines. Their culture policed their behaviour. Most Aboriginal crime was the result of a clash between actions that were considered right in their culture, but were considered wrong in our culture.

There were hardly any signs of Aboriginal social breakdown. Petrol sniffing was totally unknown. The general standard of Aboriginal health was good. Drunkenness was very rare. Even drinking was rare. It was an offence for Aborigines just to drink liquor. It was also an offence to supply an Aborigine with liquor, punishable by a long Prison sentence. It was seldom worth the risk.

The elders of the tribe, the custodians of the stories of the culture, and of its ceremonies, were held in high regard. Each cattle station and Mission had its Aboriginal camp, in which the Aboriginal cultural tradition was maintained. Police intervention in camp affairs was seldom required. It was mainly in Town camps, where different tribes could conflict and tradition was not as easily maintained, that trouble occurred.

What Police can learn from this is how important it is to preserve a cultural belief system. A strong cultural belief system tells its people how to act. It does most of the policing for you.

A culture without significant contact with other cultures for 47,000 years does not give the people of the culture much opportunity to develop their abstract reasoning ability. That development begins when stage three judgements are applied to old beliefs. Stage three begins when people begin to reason in an abstract way. Significant abstract reasoning first began in Greece in the 6th Century BC. Abstract reasoning sharpens the mind. People begin to live in a different thought-world.

Margaret Bain, who studied Aboriginal thought processes at the Finke in the 1970’s, shows the difficulty that Aborigines had in coping with abstract ideas in her Masters Thesis. This Thesis has been published as: “The Aboriginal–White Encounter” (SIL-AAIB Occasional Paper No. 2).

ABORIGINAL POLICY was changed radically in the 1960’s. Ideas that might have been appropriate to a stage three or a stage four culture were imposed on the people of a stage two culture. The results have generally been a disaster for Aborigines.

The underlying assumption behind the 1960’s changes to Aboriginal policy was that different cultures make no difference to people. Tell that to the victims of the Bali Bombers. Cultural differences can make a deadly difference.

When Aboriginal Policy was changed in the 1960’s the nature of Aboriginal culture, its belief-system and its thought-world, were ignored. Governments failed to recognise that the Aboriginal thought-world is different from ours.

There is no doubt that all the actions that have led to the destruction of the Aborigines and their culture since the 1960’s, were done with the best of intentions. But they were done in almost total ignorance of the cultural reality, with inevitable consequences.

We can learn a lot from what has already happened to Aboriginal culture. Now let us consider what is happening to the ordinary Australian culture.

THE AUSTRALIAN CULTURE came from Western Europe. It was based on Christianity, which is a stage three belief-system. Christians argued about the interpretation of their foundational beliefs right from the start.

The early Christians applied Judgement, the third stage of the knowledge process, to their foundational beliefs. When they thought they had it all worked out they formulated their ideas as Dogma. Western Culture is in decline because the Christian belief-system is not being re-examined in the light of advancing knowledge.

One result of that decline is that today, for each individual Police Officer in Australia, there are four times as many serious crimes as there were during the 1950’s. If the ratio of Police to Serious Crimes was correct in the 1950’s, there should be four times the present number of Police on the beat today.

In a recent study, Nicole Billante of the Centre for Independent Studies has shown that in the last 40 years in Australia, the number of Police available to deal with each Thousand serious reported crimes has dropped from 225 to just 60. [CIS Issue Analysis 38 The Beat Goes on: Policing for Crime Prevention]

Nicole Billante argues: “the freedom to do something is dependent upon our knowing when to restrict our behaviour.  When people fail to regulate their own behaviour, we are left with no alternative but to try to regulate it externally.” [with Peter Saunders, “Six Questions About Civility” Sydney: CIS 2002]

The only source of any internal regulation of behaviour is the belief-system that informs the culture. We have seen the effect the disruption of the Aboriginal culture has had on Aborigines. From the Crime Statistics it appears that the rest of Australia is heading in a similar direction. Police cannot do much about the Australian cultural belief-system, or what is left of it. That is a job for Philosophers and Theologians.

POLICING POLICY: While crime has been expanding, and the willingness of people to restrain their own behaviour has been declining, libertarians have been busy removing restrictions on public and private behaviour, as if people were becoming more responsible, rather than less.


Libertarians are making the control of public behaviour more difficult. Police are expected to prevent anti-social behaviour and criminal activity while fettered with restrictions that were appropriate to a more civilised, more cultured time.

The current presumption of innocence, and the restrictions that are placed on Police in maintaining public order, and in investigating crime, were formulated when our cultural belief-system was very strong. It was a different social environment from today’s society. The majority of people placed restrictions on their own behaviour.

As the self-regulation of behaviour diminishes, in step with the diminution of the cultural belief-system, it will have to be replaced with more external regulation of behaviour, rather than less. That means more policing – both more Police and more regulation.

The only alternative to heavier policing is more self-policing, more self-regulation. Self-regulation is only ever the product of a strong cultural belief system, one that is appropriate to the knowledge stage people have reached.

One alternative to self-regulation is illustrated in this quote from a New Zealand magazine: “Says Constable Peter Price, a tall, friendly archetype of a rural policeman: ‘If we could shoot about three families we could run this place with a good cheap dog from Wanganui’”. I cannot predict how soon that alternative might become necessary. [Quoted by Frank Devine in “The Australian”]