Suchergebnisse

Defining "indigeneity" has recently been approached with renewed vigor. While the field can involve quite passionate commitment to advocacy among scholars, theoretical clarity is needed in understanding just who might be thought of as indigenous, and the

Defining "indigeneity" has recently been approached with renewed vigor. While the field can involve quite passionate commitment to advocacy among scholars, theoretical clarity is needed in understanding just who might be thought of as indigenous, and the

This article critiques the shift towards valorizing indigeneity in western thought and contemporary practice. This shift in approach to indigenous ways of knowing and being, historically derided under conditions of colonialism, is a reflection of the "ontological turn" in anthropology. Rather than seeing indigenous peoples as having an inferior or different understanding of the world to a modernist one, the ontological turn suggests that their importance lies in the fact that they constitute different worlds and "world" in a performatively different way. The radical promise this view holds is that a different world already exists in potentia, the access to which is a question of ontology—of being differently: 'being in being' rather than thinking, acting and world-making as if we were transcendent or "possessive" modern subjects. We argue that the ontopolitical arguments for the superiority of indigenous ways of being should not be seen as radical or emancipatory resistances to modernist or colonial epistemological and ontological legacies but rather as a new form of neoliberal governmentality, cynically manipulating critical, postcolonial and ecological sensibilities for its own ends. Thus, rather than "provincializing" dominant western hegemonic practices, such discourses of indigeneity extend them, instituting new forms of governing through calls for adaptation and resilience.

In Haunting Biology Emma Kowal recounts the troubled history of Western biological studies of Indigenous Australians and asks how we now might see contemporary genomics, especially that conducted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scientists. Kowal illustrates how the material persistence of samples over decades and centuries folds together the fates of different scientific methodologies. Blood, bones, hair, comparative anatomy, human biology, physiology, and anthropological genetics all haunt each other across time and space, together with the many racial theories they produced and sustained. The stories Kowal tells feature a variety of ghostly presences: a dead anatomist, a fetishized piece of hair hidden away in a war trunk, and an elusive white Indigenous person. By linking this history to contemporary genomics and twenty-first-century Indigeneity, Kowal outlines the fraught complexities, perils, and potentials of studying Indigenous biological difference in the twenty-first century

It is contended that indigenous people in Canada, New Zealand, & Australia face a paradox in attempting to create political relations with the aforementioned states. The respective governments have addressed indigenous people's sovereignty claims by attempting to create multicultural societies. However, these governments have also started to consider eliminating certain aspects of their colonial relations with indigenous groups. It is asserted that indigeneity possesses a discursive function & is used to create novel forms of belonging between sovereign political communities. Nevertheless, the restructuring of colonizer-indigenous relations has proved extremely difficult because state governments are unwilling to abandon their position as colonial authority. Despite the persistence of certain colonizing institutions in the aforementioned nations, it is suggested that indigenous people's novel approaches to establishing belonging possess the potential to improve state-indigenous relations.

This dissertation studies indigenous peoples in international politics, particularly in the United Nations (UN). Indigenous peoples gained access to the organisation on a permanent basis with the establishment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PF). In addition, their rights are increasingly recognised by the UN member states, the most notable advance in this regard being the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This progress has taken place in a state-based system, many of whose members have colonised indigenous peoples and at least previously been hostile to their demands. Indeed, it is this paradox, and my interest in how the change has come about that provided the impetus for the research project. Despite these advances in indigenous participation and rights, I argue that there is no less power exercised over the peoples than previously. I approach the agency of indigenous peoples from two perspectives, that of norm socialisation and that of Foucault-inspired approaches to power and governmentality. The first perspective views indigenous peoples as norm entrepreneurs. It identifies frames through which the peoples draw attention to their concerns and suggest solutions; that is, the peoples promote the acceptance of new norms by states. The latter perspective informed three analyses. In the first, I investigated the ways in which the subjectification and resistance of indigenous peoples takes place in the small-scale power relations of the PF. The second consisted of a critical examination of the constant entanglement of indigeneity and the environment in international politics and its consequences for indigenous agency. The third examined the ways in which the prevailing and accepted discourse on indigenous rights has neoliberal power effects that go beyond the proclaimed emancipatory aims of the rights. The research material comprises observations made in four PF annual sessions; statements by representatives of indigenous peoples, states and UN agencies; reports on the establishment of the PF; and reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The study embraces the methodological guideline of problematisation: text analysis was applied to first identify recurrent and familiar perceptions of indigenous peoples and their agency; this then provided the basis for a critical examination of the power effects associated with the perceptions. The ultimate aim of the analysis was to recover the political in what often seems de-politicised, established and accepted in the context of indigenous peoples and international politics. This research breaks from the more conventional approaches to indigenous peoples and politics that conceive of the international institutional, political and legal advances in indigenous issues as self-evidently desirable and 'good'. Such approaches fail to recognise the 'darker' side of the seemingly benign processes involved: they overlook the many ways in which more hierarchical power relations persist. There is no denying that the ways in which indigenous peoples and indigeneity are dealt with in the UN foster indigeneity and its alleged qualities and recognise the freedoms and rights of the peoples. However, as my critical study illustrates, the growing recognition of indigenous rights and the enhanced participation of indigenous peoples signals a change in the ways in which indigenous peoples are best managed internationally, a development geared to ensuring the efficient functioning of neoliberal governance. Indeed, rather than the peoples being governed any less in international politics today, governance at work has taken on more subtle forms.

The issue of Indigenous identity has gained more attention in recent years from social science scholars, yet much of the discussions still centre on the politics of belonging or not belonging. While these recent discussions in part speak to the complicated and contested nature of Indigeneity, both those who claim Indigenous identity and those who write about it seem to fall into a paradox of acknowledging its complexity on the one hand, while on the other hand reifying notions of 'tradition' and 'authentic cultural expression' as core features of an Indigenous identity. Since identity theorists generally agree that who we understand ourselves to be is as much a function of the time and place in which we live as it is about who we and others say we are, this scholarship does not progress our knowledge on the contemporary characteristics of Indigenous identity formations. The range of international scholars in this volume have begun an approach to the contemporary identity issues from very different perspectives, although collectively they all push the boundaries of the scholarship that relate to identities of Indigenous people in various contexts from around the world. Their essays provide at times provocative insights as the authors write about their own experiences and as they seek to answer the hard questions: Are emergent identities newly constructed identities that emerge as a function of historical moments, places, and social forces? If so, what is it that helps to forge these identities and what helps them to retain markers of Indigeneity? And what are some of the challenges (both from outside and within groups) that Indigenous individuals face as they negotiate the line between 'authentic' cultural expression and emergent identities? Is there anything to be learned from the ways in which these identities are performed throughout the world among Indigenous groups? Indeed why do we assume claims to multiple racial or ethnic identities limits one's Indigenous identity? The question at the heart of our enquiry about the emerging Indigenous identities is when is it the right time to say me, us, we… them?

This volume draws its inspiration from perspectives that have developed over
the last few decades in media anthropology. These include seminal works such as
Bourdieu's (1993 ) analysis of cultural production, Larkin's (2008 ) study of the
impact of media technologies on cultural form and Ginsburg's (1995a , 2002 ) work
on indigenous media. Methodologically, the volume relies heavily on ethnography;
each of the contributions is grounded in qualitative research. Most of the chapters
are based upon data that their authors collected while doing long-term research.
Typically, such research involves building up lasting relationships with one's interlocutors,
learning about their ideas, attitudes and practices by accompanying them
in everyday life. Taken together, the various contributions explore how media that
is made for audiences deemed indigenous is produced, shared, and viewed or
'consumed'. The chapters explore the social and political impact of old and new
media technologies and media content in relation to the (re)formulation, contestation
and (re)defi nition of mediatised representations of indigeneity, and how this
bears upon perceptions and conceptualisations of nation in South Asia.

This article is based on indigenous research focusing on indigeneity and membership in indigenous group at the individual level. The position and rights of indigenous peoples gained a foothold at the political arenas of the world and in international agreements since the turn of the 1990s when indigenous peoples and minorities were started to be distinguished from each other. Indigenous peoples were considered to have collective rights regarding control over certain areas colonized by the mainstream population at a certain point of history. The aim is first to review the different membership criteria within different Indigenous groups in the world, and then to emphasize the definition of Sámi in Finland and its individual-level challenges. As a result of this paper, it seems that the individual-level indigenous identity does not necessarily correspond with the membership in indigenous group. When indigenous identity is not being accepted for one reason or another it violates the international declarations for indigenous peoples and may cause challenges both at individual and societal levels within indigenous communities.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- List of abbreviations -- Introduction: problem and perspectives -- 1 Engagements -- Introduction -- Agency and engagement -- Order and disorder -- Cultural and social intimacies -- Knowledge and observation: a different eye -- Conclusion -- 2 Mentalities -- Introduction: the discourse of humanitarianism -- Culture and governance -- Sensibilities and psychology -- Anxieties -- Conclusion -- 3 Policies: conciliation and coercion -- Introduction: policies and history -- Conciliation -- Sir George Arthur and Van Diemen's Land -- The disenchantment of Sir George Arthur -- The inner turmoil of Sir George Arthur -- 4 Policies: protection -- Arthur and the history of protection -- Protection history and typologies -- Protection and governance -- The failure of Port Phillip Protectorate -- Transforming protection -- Conclusion -- 5 Policies: racial amalgamation in New Zealand -- Introduction -- Racial amalgamation in discourse and policy -- Sir George Grey and racial amalgamation -- Racial amalgamation and the law -- Land and dispossession -- The period of pre-emption: before c. 1863 -- Dispossession post-1860 -- Conclusion -- 6 Violence and the coming of colonial order -- Introduction -- The structures of violence -- The state and violence -- Salutary terror and normalization of violence -- The psychology of colonial violence: fear -- The psychology of colonial violence: blindsight and splitting -- The psychology of colonial violence: regimes of silence and denial -- The psychology of colonial violence: projections and narratives -- Conclusion -- 7 Law and sovereignty -- Introduction: law and empire -- Uncertain sovereignty: the continued importance of natural rights -- When lawlessness was the law -- Exceptionalism or assimilation?.