Politics of Recognition: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Glen Coulthard, referring to such contradictions, critiques ‘recognition’ as a promise ‘to reproduce the very configurations of colonial power that Indigenous demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend’<ref>Coulthard, G. S. (2007 p.437). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’in Canada. Contemporary political theory, 6, 437-460.</ref> | Glen Coulthard, referring to such contradictions, critiques ‘recognition’ as a promise ‘to reproduce the very configurations of colonial power that Indigenous demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend’<ref>Coulthard, G. S. (2007 p.437). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’in Canada. Contemporary political theory, 6, 437-460.</ref> | ||
'''You seek to be responsive towards Gjoa Haven’s needs, while you also want to acknowledge the tensions that are connected to collaborating with Gjoa Haven’s HTA towards recognition. So, what shall you do?''' | '''You seek to be responsive towards Gjoa Haven’s needs, while you also want to acknowledge the tensions that are connected to collaborating with Gjoa Haven’s HTA towards recognition. You can't "just" keep going here - whatever move you make in response to Gjoa Haven's appael entails a decision for which you hold accountability. So, what shall you do?''' | ||
<div class="next_choice"> | <div class="next_choice"> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Lean into such tensions | '''"Lean into such tensions"'''. (Re)negotiate your position as an implicated subject and find responsive approaches to engage with Gjoa Haven’s experiences. | ||
Go check out a nearby '''"Wrecksite"''' to find out more about the larger science-based conservation apparatus that the BearWatch project, and by extent, our actions are entangled with.</div> | Go check out a nearby '''"Wrecksite"''' to find out more about the larger science-based conservation apparatus that the BearWatch project, and by extent, our actions are entangled with.</div> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:24, 16 August 2025
You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices.
The Gjoa Haven HTA seeks recognition for the impacts that their community has suffered from the impacts of polar bear harvest quota reductions, and one of the ways in which they expect to gain such recognition is through the publication of an academic article.
But what does it mean for scientists to generate “recognition” through academic publishing, if they are themselves part of those institutional hegemonies that not only enabled to bestow, or withhold, such recognition - but have also co-effected the impacts that recognition is sought out for.
Glen Coulthard, referring to such contradictions, critiques ‘recognition’ as a promise ‘to reproduce the very configurations of colonial power that Indigenous demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend’[1]
You seek to be responsive towards Gjoa Haven’s needs, while you also want to acknowledge the tensions that are connected to collaborating with Gjoa Haven’s HTA towards recognition. You can't "just" keep going here - whatever move you make in response to Gjoa Haven's appael entails a decision for which you hold accountability. So, what shall you do?
"Do nothing". You do not want to be complicit.
Or,
"Lean into such tensions". (Re)negotiate your position as an implicated subject and find responsive approaches to engage with Gjoa Haven’s experiences.
- ↑ Coulthard, G. S. (2007 p.437). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’in Canada. Contemporary political theory, 6, 437-460.