Leanne Betasamosake Simpson - As We Have Always Done

My previous post was about a book which was a critical response to what the editors refer to as "resurgence contra reconciliation" as advanced by Glen Coulthard and Audra Simpson. Meanwhile, As We Have Always Done seeks to further and extend the work of Glen Coulthard and Audra Simpson and I would classify it as also falling into the category of "resurgence contra reconciliation." 

It's interesting to read different perspectives on the question of whether or not resurgence and reconciliation are at odds with each other. The mental shortcut that I use is not that they are at odds which each other, but rather, that they are pointed in different directions. Resurgence is the equivalent to domestic affairs. It's inward looking (within the specific First Nation). While reconciliation is outward looking (outside of the specific First Nation). It is one strategy among many that First Nations (plural) take towards one specific external nation (Canada) - it's the equivalent of foreign policy because it looks outward. Engaging in reconciliation discourse is often one part of a larger diplomatic strategy.  And it's one diplomatic strategy that exists within a larger set of tools. And it is not mutually exclusive to other tools. Resurgence literature often talks about direct action. Within my mental schema - if we use the metaphor of walking softly and carrying a big stick, reconciliation is walking softly - legal action and direct action are the big sticks. And politics can involve both walking softly and using a big stick. I don't pit reconciliation and resurgence against each other because in my mind, they serve categorically different functions. In terms of the external/internal division of nation functions, research also falls into the realm of foreign affairs if it is published, as once you publish it, it is an appeal to the outside. But if it is internal to the nation and not published and instead circulated internally, then it falls into resurgence, unless it is done in pursuit of shifting the relationship with external actors, in which case, it is in support of external goals, but still internal work. So - resurgence - domestic policy. Reconciliation - one element of foreign policy, which is used as part of a larger suite of strategies. In terms of "the nation", First Nations are not one big blob. Different nations have different approaches to both internal and external strategies, as is their right. And in terms of how I conduct myself, when I want to influence my own nation, I usually do so through conversations with other Tsilhqot'ins and by voting. Unless they directly impact my nation, I usually don't have opinions on tactics used by other nations. For example, I don't have strong opinions about how Tsuti'naa conducts itself internally or externally because it's doesn't really impact me. But I do have gratitude for solidarity from other nations, for the ways that different First Nations work together through collective strategies (which, by the way, in my mental scheme also falls into the realm of foreign policy/diplomacy), and for the fact that sometimes I see other nations do things that inspire me. Maybe this is a simplistic way of looking at things, because I think the resurgence contra reconciliation school of thought sees resurgence and the politics of refusal as both a domestic and foreign policy, but if that is the case, then it's only foreign policy tactic appears to be direct action. While I was reading As We Have Always Done, I was trying to understand a perspective other than my own. I have my own opinions, but it's still worthwhile to ty to understand other people's opinions. During my masters, I was strongly influenced by the concept of Enowkin, and so that is the spirit in which I try to engage with the work of other Indigenous people, including this book. 

Generally speaking, I like Leanne's writing and I own a several of her books, and I even have one in both audio and hard copy. Her book Dancing on the Back of a Turtle influenced me when I was doing my masters. And one of the stories in This Accident of Being Lost was a key piece of my doctoral work. I also thought that her "Tidy Bun" poem in This Accident of Being Lost (in which she reflects on the stress of taking her daughter to ballet classes) was kind of funny in a strange and biting way. In the same collection, "Situation Update" captures the frenetic energy of trying to travel in the context of climate change. Her collaboration with RPM (available on youtube) is extremely impressive. I think it's awesome that she edited The Winter We Danced. And when she was in Vancouver for a speaking engagement at SFU recently, she did an advance session with Indigenous graduate students which was a generous offering. In that session, I asked her a question about a difficult ethical question that I was grappling with, and she provided a very helpful answer. So I have a lot of respect for her and her work. 

I struggled, though, with As We Have Always Done. As someone who works in K-12 education, I found that it did not provide a lot of guidance on how to do things differently because it generally dismissed the value of western education (50, 159). I am an intergenerational survivor of residential schools and I have been directly told by survivors that advocating for the TRC Calls to Action in K-12 is an important activity, so I found it difficult to read her take on the TRC (238-239). I was surprised that she did not consider Indigenizing the academy to be productive, but rather placed it in a position where it is potentially detrimental to decolonization (159). The first time I read it, I was in the early stages of my dissertation and I thought "this doesn't really give me a lot of direction in terms of my work inside of K-12 education or my research, and I already am committed to the activities that I am doing outside of western education in terms of culture, community, and family, so I'm not really sure what to do with this book." I appreciate it as a piece of self-expression and I enjoyed reading it as an explanation of why she does things the way that she does things. Aesthetically, her style is beautiful, and I find it delightful when poets maintain their voice when writing non-fiction. But I did not find guidance in it (which is totally fine, because I'm pretty dedicated to my own path, so I read a lot of books that I do not use as guidance). I am in a mainstream program in the faculty of education, and non-Indigenous people who also work in education kept telling me that I should read the book in order to inform my work, so I re-read it closely to try to see what they saw. I tried to re-read it through their eyes, and that was an even more curious experience, because she says things like "I actually don't care if they like me, nor do I care if they support me. That doesn't matter to me." (235, in regards to white racism in the mainstream media and Canadian society. For the record, I do care, because it impacts my safety). And "there is virtually no room for white people in resurgence." (228). 

Something that I did find useful, however, was her elaboration of grounded normativity. Before reading her work, I read Red Skins, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition by Glen Coulthard very closely, and was curious about this concept of grounded normativity (13, 53, 60-64, 172). I was unsure about whether it was a description of something that already existed or an imperative to do something differently. Or, if it was a stance for researchers to take in relation to community. Or if it was a political theory. When I looked at the definition of normativity, and initially tried to apply it to research, my thinking went like this: I think that pairing normativity with grounded means that whatever the people on the ground (and, as it takes place in Indigenous studies, I would presume it refers to the thoughts of people Indigenous to that specific ground) think is the morally correct rule or standard to follow (normativity) - then that is the correct thing to do. There is a challenge with this, though, which is that if my interpretation is correct, then the concept would not allow for universal claims. If the people on the ground think capitalism is good - then that's what's good. If the people on the ground think that reconciliation is good - then that is what is good. And if the people on the ground think that the politics of recognition is good... then that is what is good. So, I figured that within the context of Glen's book, my interpretation of what I initially thought "grounded normativity" means must be incorrect, because my interpretation is in conflict with the premise of the book (the politics of recognition is bad). I carefully read Glen's book when I was in the early stages of my dissertation proposal, as well as this article, and at that point I was looking for a methodology, and at that point I wished that I knew more about grounded normativity as a methodology, but I did not have enough information to imagine what it might mean to take it and run with it.

Leanne's book, though, elaborates on what grounded normativity is. Now, I understand it not so much as a specific methodology, but rather, a philosophical orientation towards life. As a philosophical orientation, it has the potential to inform one's methodology, or pedagogy, or political organizing, or whatever life activity one is engaged in. It has the potential to undergird of one's own pre-existing Indigenous orientation to the world. It could be ontological, but more than anything, it is an aspirational normative value that she feels committed to striving towards. Once I realized that, I appreciated the book as a model of how to develop one's life purpose. Even though we differ on the value of mainstream education, reconciliation, and Indigenization, I do find the book inspiring in the way that Leanne grapples with her life purpose. I would love to see some case studies of how different academics apply grounded normativity in their research projects, similar to Jo-Ann Archibald et als' recent book. I would read such a book not in hopes of finding something to mimic in a formulaic way (because that would be contrary to the spirit of grounded normativity), but rather, in order to try to imagine the many possibilities of how it might be expressed.