Mohawk Interruptus - Jozi Chaet

Josephine Chaet

GWS 502.01 – Feminist Knowledge Production

Professor Naber

Blog Post Two – Mohawk Interruptus  

February 13, 2017

Relevance of the Text to Research Generally

Audra Simpson’s investigation concerning the understanding of indigeneity and colonialism over the course of Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States is, like Tuhwai Smith and Visweswaran’s analyses, is one that examines both the political, communal, and individual interpretation of self and nation while simultaneously challenging dominant scholastic (specifically anthropological) practices. The following post primarily focuses on Simpson’s broad presentation of the concept of identity and belonging embedded within the text as a whole, and the association between that discussion and the discipline of anthropology as a whole. Subsequently, this post aims to explore the implications of that analysis, and address the potential ways in which it relates to my own evolving/developing research.

Over the course of Mohawk Interruptus, Simpson explores questions concerning indigenous sovereignty and identity, with particular consideration of community in the context of two distinct, and yet geographically connected, settler-colonial nation states. More specifically, Simpson examines questions concerning the history of the Kahnawà:ke community and the ongoing experiences of those individuals in relation to the development of both Canada and the United States (Simpson 2014). In doing so, Simpson endeavors to investigate Mohawk notions of identity, selfhood, nationhood, and state in a way that acknowledges the complications that have emerged as a result of the disruptive establishment of two separate countries that possess different federal governments, distinct systems intended for the management of indigenous affairs, and separate laws and policies in place for the treatment of citizens. Through the use of traditional interviews, in addition to field notes, court transcripts, archival material, and public statements, Simpson suggests that the understanding of indigenous identity is an ongoing process that is constantly being worked out by members of the community, and is at once informed by and challenged by both historical memory and intersections between colonialism and traditionalism (Simpson 2014).

It is important to note that in conducting that work, Simpson concurrently challenges established anthropological practices in a way that turns the mirror, so to speak, on both the discipline and her own self. Specifically, Simpson highlights the way in which extant anthropological examinations of indigenous communities in Canada and the United States have largely ignored contested and disputed notions of native identity and selfhood in favor of generalized interpretations that obscure those intricacies (Neuman 2014). In turn, Simpson intentionally works to illuminate individual and communal strategies that attempt to undermine indiscriminate and simplified conceptions of indigenous identity in order to make sense of the complicated and nuanced ways in which notions of self and nation are established and continued. Moreover, Simpson acknowledges and interrogates her own position as a researcher, and in doing so considers the way in which that role informs the questions she sought to answer, the way she framed them to her informants, and the responses she received from the individuals she spoke with over the course of her research. As a result, her work picks up on many of the methodological themes we have discussed in class over the past few weeks, including indigenous research methodologies and postcolonial methodologies, as well as colonialism and scientific research, positionality, and accountability, and provides a generative model for the use of several intersecting and overlapping methodologies in the discussion of a particular topic.

Applications to Real or Imagined Project(s)

As mentioned above, Simpson’s discussion regarding indigenous identity formation and the understanding of belonging within the context of colonial nation-states provides an intriguing model for the use several intersecting methodologies and theoretical perspectives. Moreover, Simpson highlights one potential way to address questions of positionality within the context of a cohesive ethnography (while Visweswaran spent a considerable amount of time acknowledging and interrogating her position as a researcher, that discussion was not embedded within her ethnography, but rather, was a primary focus of that text). I have been questioning my own position as a research in the context of my developing/emerging project, and as a result, I have been increasingly conscious of the way in which researchers deal with their place within their project(s). While some scholars devote entire chapters to understating the impact they have on the research that they do, that does not always strike me as the most effective way to grapple with questions of positionality; the way in which Simpson went about acknowledging her role and place as a researcher, however, struck me as quite thoughtful and productive. In turn, the way in which Simpson deals with those uncertainties throughout the text are informative for my own work, and the things that I have been thinking about over the past few weeks. Thus, while I do not think that the methodological frameworks Simpson employs throughout her work are directly applicable to my research, the text nevertheless exemplifies possible answers to questions I have been mulling over, and a thoughtful model for the execution of research that brings together several lines of inquiry and different sources of information in order to present a cohesive narrative concerning the way in which official politics, national events, local occurrences, and individual experiences coalesce in a way that contributes to an awareness of identity and nation on multiple levels.

Discussion Questions

In what ways does positionality, self-identity, and community membership impact the questions that can be asked and the ways in which those questions are received/answered? How does that impact the theoretical framework that can be applied to the research that is conducted and the conclusions (however particular) that can be drawn from that work?