Mohawk Interruptus - GLASS

In her book, Mohawk Interruptus, Audra Simpson investigates what it means for the Mohawk to “refuse to carry a passport” (Simpson p1). Simpson spends chapters one and two explaining that her study is a melding of anthropology and political science in that she claims that anthropological studies have previously under theorized settler colonialism, and political scientists fail to examine the forces of settler colonialism itself. Smith goes on to problematize previous academic work of Iroquian peoples in that it is incomplete and static. Smith works to address this by refusing to write in the same manner, and rather works with the community members to address important topics in order to tell their story. Important topics such as issues of citizenship and belonging are key to understanding the Mohawk people’s struggles to assert sovereignty.

Her key notions of refusal, as well as her methodology of working with the Mohawk people to identify key points and important topics, reminds me of Vesweswaran’s work on feminist methodology. She “checks” her drive to research by questioning her methodology: whether the knowledge be used to hurt anyone and whether she can return home after her research (Simpson 198). Through her notion of refusal, Simpson articulates the ways in which the Mohawk people push back against the politics of recognition and authority of the colonialist State.

I can use Smith’s notion of refusal when I think about my own work with midwives. In the United States, midwifery was essentially eradicated in the early 1900s and replaced by the current patriarchal health care system. Returning in a postcolonial State, midwives face new requirements to practice legally and face questions of legitimacy regularly. A particular subset of my sample are not only people of color, but they also operate underground in order to practice in the way that stays most true to their mission. I have to be aware of how my research will represent them, particularly as I work to write for academic journals that value positivist, evidence-based practices. The midwives in my study, both lay and certified, grapple with their legitimacy in the eyes of the current medical system. They use alternative terms such as “alegal” when describing their efforts to recreate a radical feminist health care model that suits women “best.” Their negotiation of legitimacy and membership in the current healthcare system is important to note as they work to gain sovereignty in their practice.

Simpson’s work overall was difficult for me to understand – I feel like I understand her arguments in the most surface way. I’m looking forward to a class discussion to grasp more of her key argument around the settler state and sovereignty.  

Question:

The practice of ethnographic refusal puts the onus on the researcher to understand the context and intricacies of the people they represent: their histories, their social locations, their current struggles, etc. But does this also put an unfair onus on those being researched? At one point does the researcher put undo burden on those being researched – particularly as outsiders?