Tuhiwai Smith offers a thorough critique of the way Western
knowledges are shaped by and reproduce imperialism and colonialism. She reveals imperialist assumptions within
academic research that structure foundational concepts, like the
individual, society, space, and time. I
found her discussion of “the line,” “the center,” and “the outside” as
particularly moving, as she destabilizes notions of distance and objectivity in
research, while also demonstrating how imperialist conceptions of space and
time reflect systems of power and domination.
Her critique highlights the histories of exploitation in research and
the ways that indigenous knowledge is continually obscured, devalued, and incomprehensible
due to assumptions of what constitutes knowledge and reality.
Tuhiwai Smith also problematizes the idea that resistance
for indigenous communities can come from within these imperialist structures of
knowledge, drawing connections between history and power. She explains that
historical “truths” and “facts” do not hold the same weight when used by those who
are excluded from the main narrative of history. She states, “a thousand accounts of ‘truth’
will not alter the ‘fact’ that indigenous peoples are still marginal and do not
possess the power to transform history into justice”(35). This exclusion provides an key example
of the Lorde quote that frames the chapter, that the master’s tools cannot dismantle
the master’s house. Tuhiwai Smith highlights
the importance of turning to alternative knowledges and histories in decolonizing
struggles.
This work is extremely relevant as it provides an important
reminder of the potentially harmful policies and material implications that can
emerge from social science research, and that although research may be good
intentioned, it can reproduce harmful assumptions and stereotypes. Reading this book brought to mind the legacy
of studies like the Moynihan report and critiques like Ferguson’s and Melamed’s
that uncover the way sociologists have reproduced problematic notions of
societal progress and development, and have been complicit in projects of nation
building and racial othering. Tuhiwai
Smith’s work definitely challenges me to rethink some key social science
concepts and the ways imperialism and settler colonial assumptions can manifest
in current research.
Tuhiwai Smith poses the important question of what would research
looks like if it is rooted in the interests of the Other, not just the
seemingly objective pursuit of knowledge or truth? Her critique is useful in thinking through
questions of power, domination, disavowal, and what is considered real when it
comes to knowledge about marginalized communities. In researching and being part of trans and
queer communities, I see some similar power dynamics that Tuhiwai Smith raises
about academic research and problems of categorization and representation. A lot of gender literature has been
criticized for using trans people as “key evidence” of the social construction
of gender and not adequately addressing the political and social struggles of
these communities. In sociology, challenges to existing knowledge and methods with
regard to gender can be deemed as illegitimate or not scientific enough, and
reproduce the disavowal of trans and gender variant realities. The need to
coherently categorize identities can reinforce problematic binaries and
oversimplified divisions between gender variant groups, where some groups are
idolized as transgressive, while others reinforce binaries. A significant amount of research that focuses
on gender or includes gender as a variable does so uncritically, revealing the
need for new epistemological frameworks that can address the realities of
gender variant communities. Tuhiwai
Smith’s work helps to illustrate some of the assumptions within academic
concepts and the structures that shape current academic research.
As grad students, what research strategies and methods can
we use to counteract imperialist or other problematic assumptions that are reproduced
in our disciplines, and how might we navigate questions of legitimacy with such
work? And like Jozi, I also have
questions about how positionality might impact approaches to research.
Can the academy be a space for alternative histories and
knowledges (like writing from intersectionality theory, subaltern studies,
critical race studies, critical trans studies) and how might this change when such disciplines are institutionalized?
No comments:
Post a Comment