In Mohawk Interruptus Simpson traces the interconnections between
problematic representations of native culture and the disavowed experience of
dispossession in settler colonialism. Simpson’s
methodology, which she labels ethnographic refusal, is a response to these
violent and problematic ways of knowing native peoples, and one that
acknowledges the complex politics of (mis)recognition, settler colonial
histories, and articulations of sovereignty.
She notes the dissonance between the anthropological canon on the
Iroquois that is fixated on tradition and static notions of culture, in
comparison to the goals and questions of sovereignty that shape the lived
experiences of the community. These ways
of knowing and defining the other through difference served as rationalizations
for native dispossession and elimination. In order to counter the depoliticized
and ahistorical representation of native experiences, and the empire-building
that this enables, Simpson engages in ethnographic refusal to address complex
questions of membership and citizenship, and representing those living under
settler colonialism.
Simpson wants
to address the nationhood of the Kahnawa:ke Mohawks, and the focus on
sovereignty guides her methodology and her turn to refusal. She explains, “my notion of refusal
articulates a mode of sovereign authority over the presentation of ethnographic
data, and so does not present ‘everything’ […] it acknowledges the asymmetrical
power relations that inform the research and writing about native lives and
politics, and it does not presume that they are on equal footing with anyone”(105).
In the appendix, Simpson describes the two guidelines that guided her research:
can the knowledge be used to hurt anyone and can she go home after her research
(198)? These questions and the broader
project of attending to Mohawk sovereignty lead to a variety of refusals in the
research project. Her methodology takes
into account the notion of the audience because of the ongoing goals of
elimination within the settler structure as well as the problematic conflicts
of interpretation of knowledge about Indigenous peoples. Simpson describes the decision not to speak to
disenfranchised community members in an effort not to cause further distress or
decontextualized interpretation. In her
questions and discussion of membership she directly speaks to membership and
the construction of belonging, but also avoids the question, “who is Indian?” She shapes her method and argument to the
needs of writing about sovereignty and explains, “it involves an ethnographic
calculus of what you need to know and what I refuse to write”(105). These decisions express intentional silences
on the part of the researcher to tell a different story and illustrate the
shifting construction of native belonging in relation to policy, settler
colonial goals of elimination, academic discourses, and community negotiations.
Refusals also offer a response to a
politics of recognition and the authority of the settler state. She describes the assertions of “this is who
we are” and that, “the struggles in these moments form part of the quotidian
life of self-consciousness and political assertion. There was something that seemed to reveal
itself at the point of refusal- a stance, a principle, a historical narrative,
and an enjoyment in the reveal”(107).
Simpson’s focus on refusal reveals powerful political assertions and
resistance to the imperative of settler colonial elimination and negation of
native sovereignty.
The notion of “refusal” in research
is incredibly productive and offers an important methodology for countering problematic
representations as well as documenting community assertions of power and forms
of resistance to domination. Although
Simpson is writing of a very specific context and responding to the settler
colonial bestowal of symbolic, multi-cultural recognition, this idea of refusal
can be useful for thinking through research on marginalized groups. What sorts of refusals do I engage in to
counter some of the problematic ways trans people have been used in gender
theory? Simpson’s methodology allows me
to reflect on broader discourses that structure trans experiences, what particular
questions I avoid in my discussions, what stories I am willing to tell, and
what political and material conditions matter to my research participants. My
research addresses themes of gendered recognition and unintelligibility, and
trans people’s strategies for negotiating moments of recognition and
misrecognition. Similarly, many folks
embrace moments of disidentification and attempt to articulate different
relationships to dominant gender categories. How might ethnographic refusal help
illustrate the relations to power, constraint, agency, and also the nuance of
these relationships with gender?
Additionally, how can we address and illustrate negotiations of
membership and recognition within communities in all of their complexities? I find Simpson’s turn to feeling citizenships
particularly interesting and think there is some radical potential in paying
attention to the negotiations of recognition and citizenship within a specific community,
the dynamics in local contexts, and what these processes might teach us about
change and everyday moments of resistance.
Questions:
The notion of ethnographic refusal seems to require extensive
knowledge on the part of the researcher to understand the local contexts,
histories, and matters of importance to a community being studied. Does ethnographic refusal necessitate some
sort of membership with the community? Could a researcher otherwise acquire
knowledge of the histories and nuances of a community and adequately address
the politics of refusal?
In the appendix, Simpson states, that her research is not a
“decolonizing methodology”(198) and not part of a “radical Indigenism” that
appeals to “tradition” and “pure” culture (105). I’d be interested to talk more about the
differences and potential similarities between Simpson’s ethnographic refusal
and Tuhiwai Smith’s project.
No comments:
Post a Comment