Editing Politics of recognition

The kind of recognition that Gjoa Haven is seeking is multifaceted. Beyond acknowledgment of the impacts suffered from quota reductions by the community, and apologies, the Gjoa Haven HTA also seeks recognition in the form of better integration of their knowledge in research and management, which some workshop participants suggested should be reflected by an increase of quota for McClintock Channel. Academic engagement with such desired forms of recognition, could take multiple shapes. It could be rooted in allyship, drawing attention to Indigenous rights-based discourse, pointing towards cultural distinctiveness, participatory parity and material equity in research and management decisions, and outcomes (see Fraser, 2000; Borrows 2002; Pellow, 2018; McGregor, 2009). Alternatively, a more critical lens could be applied to explore if, and to what degree, such desires for recognition through better “integration” of Inuit knowledge in polar bear research and management reinforces the hegemonic position of western science in the field. This second approach recognizes some of the inherent tensions that exist within the ‘politics of recognition’ (see Coulthard, 2007; 2014). 

Coulthard argues that the (settler-)nation state’s ability to grant or withhold recognition is legitimized through the employment of “integrative” strategies. The expressed desire of the Gjoa Haven HTA to have their knowledge better “integrated” into research, from this perspective, presents a tension that actively undermines Indigenous self-determination efforts. Coulthard, referring to such tensions, thus critiques integrative forms of ‘recognition’ as a promise ‘to reproduce the very configurations of colonial power that Indigenous demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend’ (Coulthard, 2007, p. 437). Although aware of these possible tensions connected to the expressed desires of Gjao Haven’s HTA for recognition, we have not tried to seek and resolve them. Interpreting rather the multiple forms of desired recognition as requiring different actions from different actors, each of the co-created knowledge outputs addresses the appeal of Gjoa Haven’s HTA for recognition in different ways. Our audio-visual and other non-academic knowledge outputs centre Gjoa Haven’s voices and address the quota reduction impacts suffered by the community over the past two decades. These align themselves with Gjoa Haven’s desire for recognition by, and more effective participation within, the institutional landscape, without challenging its legitimacy. In our academic writing, on the other hand, the Bearwatch project researchers have engaged with the appeal of Gjoa Haven’s HTA, by taking a more critical and self-reflective role towards the systematic, epistemic dominance of euro-centric science and institutions in polar bear research and management. What does it mean for scientists that are embedded within western institutions and co-management mandates to engage with the issue and challenges of “recognition”, when they are part of the hegemonic structures that are enabled to bestow, or withhold, epistemic recognition of Inuit Knowledge in its own right? We, institutionally embedded researchers, ask ourselves what it means to hold ourselves accountable as implicated within the agential dynamics that have contributed to Gjoa Haven experiences. Our main approach to do so has been to conduct a testimonial reading of Gjoa Haven’s experiences and explore the power relationships at play within and beyond our own collaborative partnership.  

Back to From purveying voices to accepting testimony

Back to Workshops 2019