Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
al processes. Audra Simpson's germinal essay “On Ethnographic Refusal” (2007) thus
questions whether or not to call for greater “accuracy” in anthropology's depiction of
Native peoples. Instead, she suggests the project may be to refuse anthropological intel-
ligibility in the first place.
Ofcourse,thisessayitselfdoesnotescapethelogicsofself-reflexivityeither.Rhetor-
ically,itsimply sets meupasyetanother judgeoftheinadequacies oftheacademic/act-
ivistconfessionsofothers.Thus,whatisimportantinthisdiscussionisnotsomuchhow
particular individual scholars engage Native Studies. If Native peoples are represented
problematicallyevenbypeopleswhoespouseantiracistorantisettlerpolitics,itisnotan
indication that the work of those peoples is particularly flawed or that their scholarship
haslessvalue.Similarly,thoseprivileged“confessing”subjectsinantiracismworkshops
do so with a commitment to fighting settler colonialism or white supremacy and their
solidarity work is critically needed. Furthermore, as women of color scholars and activ-
ists have noted, there is no sharp divide between those who are “oppressed” and those
who are “oppressors.” Individuals may find themselves variously in the position of be-
ing the confessor or the judge of the confession depending on the context since these
positions are not ontologically fixed to particular bodies but are contingent, discursive
positions. Rather, the point of this analysis is to illustrate the larger dynamics by which
Native Studies is even intelligible in the academy in particular and in society at large in
the first place. As mentioned previously, Native Studies is in a position of ethnograph-
ic entrapment because Native peoples become almost unintelligible within the academy
outside of this discursive regime. In our desire to prove our worthiness to be deemed
human,weconstantlyputourselvesinthepositionofethnographicobjectswhohaveno
value other than to enable self-determining settler subjects to constitute themselves. In
addition, because we do not more fundamentally question the colonialist and white su-
premacist constructions of humanity to which we aspire, we find that our engagements
in antisettler/racist struggle ultimately reinstantiate the logics we seek to deconstruct. In
other words, we fail to imagine a liberatory politic that does not ultimately rest on the
oppression of others.
From “Self”-Determination to Radical Relationality
Denise Da Silva's work suggests that the settler/white supremacist logics of confession
and self-reflexivity rest on an epistemological understanding of the self as being con-
stituted over and against other selves. Furthermore, the trap facing racial/colonial “af-
fectable”othersisthattheyalsoseekliberationbypositioningthemselvesagainstothers
that they perceive to be affectable. For example, many racial justice groups have either
supported or been complicit with sexism or homophobia within their communities. The
project ofself-reflexivity isanotherinstantiation oftheself-determining subject seeking
