Indigenous Articulations- Randi Provost

            

             In this week’s set of readings a common theme that I have been thinking quite a bit about is the contradictions that much of the research on cultural identity and cultural studies is built upon. This is salient in the Clifford article Indigenous Articulations. Particularly, in the way that he calls upon the perceived “ancestral “laws”, continuous traditions, spirituality and respect for Mother Earth , the like ” (472) while often the “pragmatic” (472), ideologies are not considered in the current cultural politics.

            This joins with his argument the complexities (or impossibility) of defining indigenous peoples through traditions or politic, rather he argues that the “commonality is historically contingent” (472). This includes the assimilations, colonial and imperialist powers that indigenous peoples contest. It is particularly interesting to think of these ideas both within the limitations of the theory of Articulations and research and how this looks “on the ground” especially in this moment.

            Articulation theory is most useful when thinking through the concept of authenticity, as mentioned before, and how it is defined by the communities that continue to re-configure themselves through diasporas and the piecing together of collective remembered past.

            Overall, this reading has been useful for me to understand the evolutions of organizing, or organizations. For example, thinking through how this impacts what is most salient for a peoples at one point, and what needs to be addressed with a sense of urgency.

1)      In what ways can articulation theory be useful for thinking about this moment? Specifically thinking about the dichotomies that can be created out of articulations, how can we ensure that a “non-reductive” approach is being utilized?