Taking the Field: 50 Years of Indigenous Politics in theCJPS

Abstract

This article reviews the place of Indigenous politics in the last 50 years of Canadian political science. Focusing on the CJPS, it looks at broad themes and clusters in the literature over time, while also trying to explain how the roots of the discipline continue to impact the development of political science in Canada and thus CJPS. I argue that while at least 43 articles have dealt with Indigenous politics (solely or as a significant focus) and at least 18 have had some significant discussion thereof, there nonetheless remains a disconnect between Indigenous politics and the discipline. This disconnect exists because of the methodological and epistemological foundations of the discipline which have resulted in a focus limited to the Westphalian state. While the disconnect between Indigenous politics and the discipline has waned considerably (43 of 61 articles have been published since 2000) as there has been an awakening of sorts, a disconnect nevertheless still exists.

The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

“…Returning to these abstracts but using the terms (and their derivatives): oppression, dominance, settler colonialism, colonization, exploitation, marginalization, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, homonormativity, racism, poverty, settler, privilege, whiteness, white supremacy, intersectional, resistance, justice, liberation, Indigenous, citizenship, anti-oppression, and Aboriginality, yielded 22 more articles in CJPS/RCSP. Articles in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR that adopt an intersectional antioppression approach disrupt specific concepts that have defined CPS including, but not limited to, identity (Hakivinsky and Dhamoon, 2013;Nath, 2011;Page, 2017;Thompson, 2008), Aboriginality (Ladner, 2017;Lugosi, 2011, D. MacDonald, 2007Murray, 2017;Panagos, 2007), sovereignty (Bruyneel, 2010;Green 2001Green , 2006Hudon, 2017;Voth, 2016), mobilization (Tungohan, 2017) and equality (Abu-Laban and Couture, 2010;Hakivinsky, 2005Hakivinsky, , 2012. While these concepts are an intrinsic part of CPS and are discussed extensively in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR, analysis typically reproduces structural forms of power inside and outside the discipline.…”

“…The orientation towards the political expertise of marginalized actors is not premised on corroboration, but is rather seen as constitutive (Luchies, 2015: 528). As Ladner writes, CPS has not done this with respect to Indigenous peoples, rarely studying “traditional Indigenous political systems, traditional Indigenous political thought or why so many Indigenous nations created themselves as polities without power” (2017: 166).…”

The Numbered Treaties and the Politics of Incoherency

“…In a recent article surveying the last 50 years of scholarship in Canadian politics, Kiera Ladner (2017) suggests that scholars in the discipline of Canadian politics have generally failed to engage with Indigenous politics and governance as political orders in their own right. She notes that while there certainly have been concentrated efforts to accommodate Indigenous cultural difference within Canada's multicultural horizon, there has been significantly less attention paid to the foundational relationship between Canadian and Indigenous legal and political orders.…”

The Qualifying Field Exam: What Is It Good For?

“…In terms of external threats, scholars have expressed concerns about the Americanization of the discipline (Albaugh 2017;Cairns 1975;Héroux-Legault 2017) and a comparative turn (Turgeon et al 2014;White et al 2008). Others are concerned about internal threats, lamenting the fact that white, male, and English-Canadian voices have long dominated the scholarly community at the expense of French, Indigenous, and other racial and ethnic minority voices (Abu-Laban 2017;Ladner 2017;Nath, Tungohan, and Gaucher 2018;Rocher and Stockemer 2017;Tolley 2017). This introspection, coupled with the limited size of the community, is likely to increase consistency across departments; therefore, we expect the core set of readings identified in the reading lists to be more unified and comprehensive than in other subfields.…”