The lure of indigeneity is nothing new, although the designation itself is relatively modern. Many of the “minor modernisms” in Europe—from Ireland to the Baltics—included at least an element of advocating “becoming indigenous” as a cure for the maladies of modernity. In the early twenty-first century, we see a resurgence of related discourses (including Nativism and Indianism), often intertwined with the UN-championed re-orientation of epistemologies and ontologies underpinning our view of, and relationship with, the world we find ourselves in. Not surprisingly, a lot of ink is being spilt debating pros, cons, variables, and parameters of “becoming indigenous.” This reviewer’s interest in that regard is primarily in how these debates, and the processes they address, play out in a European context, internal colonialism having played a key part in up-rooting indigeneity, where indigeneity, under various labels, has been politically instrumentalized, most commonly by right-wing populist movements, as well as commercially exploited, not just by the heritage and tourism industry, but also for popular-cultural consumerism. Cutting across these various spheres, and connecting with the broader global picture, is the issue of how those described as “no longer indigenous to place” may best communicate with indigenous peoples.[1] The idea that one might “become indigenous” may have considerable appeal but also raises critical concerns among not just indigenous peoples themselves, but also among those who seek to support their cause. At this juncture, David Chandler’s and Julian Reid’s book comes as a welcome contribution to the debate.
Given the track record of both authors, the reader may expect a nuanced in-depth analysis of the topic. The book covers considerable ground, critiquing several influential arguments on which the intellectual and political casting of a particular representation of indigeneity draws. The operative here is “particular.” From the outset, the authors make it clear that their focus is not the broader scene, but a specific instrumentalization of “becoming indigenous” in terms of “governing the imaginary of what it means to be an agent or actor in a world, which is held to demand new forms of adaptivity, resourcefulness and resilience” (2). The primary focus of the authors appears to be on indigeneity as a specific trope of neoliberalist governance, and they deliver that analysis well, addressing different angles in six chapters: the association of indigeneity with dispossession, and its use as a discursive counterfoil to “Western ways” (chapter 2); the anthropological production of an “indigenous” imaginary, captured with the terms “ontopolitical anthropology” and “speculative analytic” (chapter 3); the problematic neoliberalist discourse on “indigenous perseverance” (chapter 4); discursive traps into which what they call “pluriversal politics” might lead as situated, embodied being-in-the world reduces, in their view, all knowing to a kind of self-awareness (chapter 5); the instrumentalization of “resilience” to solve “Western” problems in ways reproducing rather than mitigating these (chapter 6); and (chapter 7) an analysis of “governing imaginaries” considering indigenous arts and practices “as resources for the imagination and creation of alternatives to current discourses on the resilient self” (21).
The chief target of their critique is what they call “ontopolitical anthropology” (chapter 3), drawing on many currently popular writers; however, given the general tenor and direction of their discussion, one is missing a more explicit acknowledgement of, and engagement with, the phenomenological roots of what they call “speculative analytics.” As the authors assert that “indigenous analytics empties the world of things of all meaningful content, reducing the world to a mere foil for speculative thought” (60; emphasis added), the reader may note the language used: the authors are summarizing “critical anthropology” as discussed by Holbraad and Pedersen, but the highlighted phrase is a dismissive put-down rather than a rigorous critique.[2] When they assert the ubiquity of “the claim that indigenous peoples are above and beyond any sense of self” (145), it would be useful to have some references. While there is much writing in the mode they refer to, the reader may get a mistaken sense that this constitutes the bulk of anthropological literature on the subject. Moreover, the concept of “Western” as used in the book (without being fully interrogated) is monoculturally Anglo-American; other world cultures, less dominated by the cultural icon of the self as unconnected, free-wheeling individual, deserve consideration here. The authors seem to think (chapter 5) that “indigeneity” implies the demise of the subject as actor/agent of change, reduced to mere adaptation. But is sensitive adaptation not also action? Does action that qualifies as such have to be geared towards change, or may it also aim to rescue from change?
Overall, the argumentation, while appearing nuanced, remains rather binary. Differences in, e.g., experiences of being/becoming indigenous in different historico-cultural ecological contexts are largely lost. The style is unnecessarily complex and often hard to follow; for example: “an alternative resilience approach formulated around indigenous analytics … draws out the contradictions between futural imaginaries and computational adaptation, which attempts to modulate around an equilibrium” (21).
Towards the end, the authors acknowledge other versions of indigeneity and resilience, not least the difference between indigenous peoples’ own imagining of themselves as “we the resilient,” and intergovernmental fora comprising “representatives of colonial states … saying that indigenous peoples are resilient,” with the latter, while referring to the alleged ability of the former to cope with ecological crises, disregarding their own history of colonial violence (141). It is indeed important that non-indigenous scholars, including this reviewer, should “treat … indigeneity … with the same scepticism [as] many indigenous scholars,” not least because “much of what is said … about indigeneity is falsely instrumentalising” (152). The authors point out that “the Sámi … word for trap (giela) is the same as the word for language” (132). With that in mind, the reader may wonder whether they really mean what they say when, in conclusion, they encourage us “to say no to becoming indigenous and yes to the recovery of the hubris on which modernity was built” (153).
Notes
[1] Lewis Williams, Tracey Bunda, Nick Claxton, and Iain MacKinnon, “A Global Decolonial Praxis of Sustainability — Undoing Epistemic Violences between Indigenous Peoples and Those no Longer Indigenous to Place,” The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 47 (2018): 41-53.
[2] Martin Holbraad and Morten Axel Pedersen, The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
--------
[Review length: 1042 words • Review posted on April 22, 2021]