Once again the Hindmarsh Island case has something to teach us about the pains and pitfalls awaiting those who try to find their way through the labyrinths of practical relevance. To do so would be tantamount to admitting that in their field of expertise what is genuine cannot be distinguished from what is spurious. The problems which anthropologists face because of their elective affinities with Aborigines and Aboriginal causes have been exacerbated by the crisis which changes in higher education and the economy have created for liberal and academic professions since the 1970s. For anthropologists, however, these unwelcome developments coincided with and may have seemed offset by opportunities arising from changes in the law and public opinion relating to Aborigines. The result of these broader social movements is a welter of conflicting strains within the discipline.
Some anthropologists view themselves as members of a dispersed community of scholars.
Others see the discipline as a profession as on a par with architecture or the law. Of course, these divisions are not watertight and the same individual may move between two or all three positions and may or may not see any inconsistency in so doing. But even when inconsistencies are recognized it is not obvious that they can be resolved in a final harmony. Perhaps the only realistic conclusion to be arrived at, after contemplating the recent ordeals and vicissitudes of Australian anthropology, is that discord and confusion will continue within the discipline and outside it.