Critically Sovereign: Indigenous Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies

 I took an introduction to editing course. In part, one of the goals in taking the course was to reduce the frequency in which I send an email and notice the typo after I hit send. And the second goal was to become better at providing feedback when someone hands me something, whether that be a draft article or an email, and asks me "can you take a look at this?"

One of the activities that editors sometimes do is to go through a text and write one summary per paragraph in order to create an outline. In order to extend my learning and develop my skills as a reader, I have been making a habit of doing this. In doing so, I noticed how frequently I as a reader read into what the author is saying, or infer meaning, and how often there is a bit of a gap between what the author explicitly says as opposed to what I take away from the reading. 

So, with that being said, for the introduction of today's book ( Critically sovereign: Indigenous gender, sexuality, and feminist studies edited by Joanne Barker), I am going to specify that my summary (below) of the introduction reflects what I took away from the reading, including my own inferences and elaborations. 

In the introduction, Joanne Barker begins by asserting that misrepresentations/appropriations are not accidental, they are part of a larger mainstream political practice of upholding imperialism and colonialism. She notes that the apologies for misrepresentations/appropriations often fall flat because they don't address this aspect of the issue and also because they just keep happening. These misrepresentations are often gendered. Violence and discrimination based on gender and sexuality is a core element of imperialism and colonialism. Thus, addressing Indigenous gender and Indigenous sexuality is a core element of decolonization. 

She asserts that this book is political, and the chapters in this book address ongoing conversations about Indigenous identity, Indigenous gender, and Indigenous sexuality. 

 She emphasizes that Indigenous studies engages the polity of the Indigenous, which is "the unique governance, territory, and culture of Indigenous peoples in unique and related systems of (non) human relationships and responsibilities to each other." She posits that "Indigenous" is in part defined by political solidarity against US and Canadian imperialism and colonialism. 

She differentiates Indigenous studies from a number of disciplines/areas of study:

• Indigenous studies looks at both Indigenous peoples' rights within the state as well as Indigenous collectives' relation to the state. This added element of relation to the state as Indigenous sovereigns sets it apart from civil rights studies, as civil rights is about one's rights within the state as an individual, as opposed to collective sovereign to sovereign rights. In my words (although, granted, much of this summary is in my own words) - Indigenous studies has an international relations element which is absence in civil rights studies. 
• Similarly, Indigenous studies is separate from minority studies because of the history of Indigenous peoples' relation to the state and conversations around sovereignty and self-determination. 
• Indigenous studies is different than feminism because feminism takes gender and specifically women as the starting point for analysis, while Indigenous studies takes Indigenous polity as the starting point for analysis. There are core fractures between these two approaches. For example, some feminists assert that discrimination against women is universal across time and space, whereas some Indigenous studies folks point out that some communities have a history of cultures which do not oppress women, thus this claim to universal sexism is incorrect and feminism could in fact learn from Indigenous people. Indigenous studies has criticized feminism for colluding with imperialism, colonialism, and racism. 
• Indigenous studies is different from gender and sexuality studies. Gender and sexuality studies emphasizes the social construction of gender, whereas some Indigenous studies projects focus on gender roles and responsibilities and constructions which emphasize binaries (e.g. matriarchy). However, there have also been some Indigenous studies projects which coalesce with gender studies, such as projects which acknowledge and celebrate third genders. 
• Individuals within Indigenous studies have criticized Indigenous studies for its marginalization of gender, sexuality, and feminism. Homophobia with Indigenous conversations has not been properly addressed. And there is a difficult history where individuals who have tried to raise gender, sexuality, and feminism within Indigenous debates have been accused of being anti-Indigenous. 

Aaaaaand feminism and gender studies also disagree with each other (biological sex as fixed and the basis for discrimination, biological sex is a social construction - assume sex is fixed is oppression). I found this section really valuable. Sometimes I enter a conversation, and I just know what because of the diversity of perspectives in the conversation, no matter what I say, I am going to say something "wrong." Nonetheless, I engage in the conversation, because dialoguing across difference is important. As a human, I want to connect with others. And I believe that it is important to learn from others, even if I don't agree with everything that they say. And if I don't understand what they are saying, it is even more important to dialogue. Anyhow, this section of the chapter helped me understand those moments where I am talking about something with someone and we are not disagreeing but also somehow not saying the same thing. 

In this introduction, in addition to distinguishing Indigenous studies from other fields of study, she also traces the development of Indigenous studies from 1968 on. She asserts that while Indigenous studies began to establish itself within institutions in 1968, conversations around the intersections of Indigenous identity, gender, and sexuality were taking place prior to 1968, and she seeks to provide an overview of some of the roots of contemporary conversations within Indigenous studies. In this section I got a little bit turned around because she interspersed the introduction of foundational texts with commentary from others regarding the significance of foundational texts. But that's on me because sometimes I am easily overwhelmed when there are a lot of names in a small number of pages. Anyhow, some of the foundational texts that she points to in the area of Indigenous studies, feminism, gender, and sexuality include:

• Life among the Piutes: Their wrongs and claims 
• Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen
• Cogewea, the half blood 
• The Hidden half : studies of Plains Indian women
• A gathering of spirit: A collection of writing and art by North American Indian Women 
• Living the spirit : A gay American Indian anthology
• The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions

While she celebrates these texts, she also cautions that these texts often include an appeal to liberalism because they were a product of their time. When reading these books (and any books for that matter) it’s important to contextualize work and understand “the profound contentions and difficulties Indigenous peoples confront in having to constantly negotiate and contest the social terms and conditions of imperial and colonial imaginaries, policies, and actions.” (P.18)

I think that reading this introduction helped me understand the nuances of various ongoing conversations, and as such, succeeded in its goal of ensuring that I had a foundational framework of knowledge to draw from when reading the subsequent chapters. 

_____________

I read all of the chapters in this book and personally, I thought it was a delightful collection. All of the chapters were helpful in expanding my thinking around Indigenous identity, feminism, gender, and identity. The chapter which I found most interesting was Melissa K. Nelson's chapter "Getting dirty: The eco-eroticisms of women in Indigenous oral literatures." Basically, her inquiry question is "why are Indigenous women in stories always falling in love with non-human animate and non-animate beings?" 

I found the question very intriguing. I grew up with some of these types of stories, and I had always just assumed that they non-humans were shapeshifters, and that these stories took place in a time when everyone shapeshifted. These types of stories are not just limited to traditional oral stories. Nathan Adler's story "Abacus" in the anthology Love after the end: An anthology of Two-Spirit and Indigiqueer speculative fiction involves a boy who calls in love with an AI rat. And Aaron Paquette's Lightfinder involves a love story between humans who also shapeshift into foxes. 

Sometimes I forget that this is a culturally situated concept. For example, a few years ago I participated in a canoe event hosted by an organization. The person next to me said that there was a man on the hill. Habitually, I said that it was sasquatch and he was going to grab her and make her his wife. As soon as the words left my mouth, I silently thought "oh my god - you can't say that here." This casual joke, which has been said to me in various contexts and which I have probably said to others, was not appropriate within a professional event hosted by a non-Indigenous organization. In the immediate moment, I just thought "I hope this person is not offended" and she seemed not to be. Later, I reflected on the odd nature of this joke. Not only the interspecies element of it (assuming that you believe that sasquatch is not human), or the spiritual element of it (assuming that you believe that sasquatch is a spiritual entity), but also the compulsory heterosexuality and non-consent within it. When I reflected on the joke, it occurred to me that there were some really dark things below the joke. I wondered whether or not I had some kind of weird internalized misogyny or something. But actually, underneath the joke is a caution. If you are a woman, be careful, for there are dangers out there. Anyhow, that was one moment which reminded me that the interspecies stories are culturally situated. Another moment was when I was at the gym and someone asked me how my day was going. And I told them good, I was just reading a story about a woman who married a bear. And they were visibly shocked and troubled, because they had no cultural context apparently to process even the premise of such a story. I forget sometimes that not everyone grew up with these types of stories. 

Anyhow, I think that the culturally situated nature of this topic means that it doesn't receive very much scholarly attention. So Melissa Nelson's is definitely a novel contribution to scholarship. 

In this chapter, she examines a number of stories which involve Indigenous women falling in love with non-human and sometimes inanimate beings. Here are the stories she discusses:

• Star husband 
• Stick husband 
• Woman who married a beaver 
• Woman who married a bear 
• Birth of Nanaboozho 

Here are some quotes which illustrate her perspective on the value of these types of stories:

• “These stories offer teachings about reciprocity, belonging, communal connections, and kinship bonds. Tragically, these beautiful stories of embodied connection to. Have been demonized and silenced by patriarchal, colonial, and Judeo-Christian ideologies, and these rich eco-erotic experiences have been suppressed and, in many cases, extinguished… I  committed to remembering these stories of relationship and re-awakening and embodying the metaphysics and praxis of Indigenous eco-erotics.” (p.232-233).
•  “I assert that these stories provide critical insights about humans’ eco-erotic relationship with other than human beings and that stories about falling in love with a star or a beaver should be considered signs of intelligence about the ethics involved with maintaining harmonious and resilient kinship relations.” (p.238).
•  “These stories tell us we should care for and love these ‘others’ - whether animal, plant, stone, stick, or star - and do so with a sense of ethics and consent.” (p.251).
• “most likely, sex is a metaphor. Sex is a symbol for intimate, visceral, embodied kinship relations with other species and with natural phenomenon… [it] is an emotional and ethical transaction, and agreement, a treaty of obligations.” (p.252).

The whole time I was reading her chapter, I just kept thinking "this is so interesting." If you are on the fence about reading this book, I would recommend picking it up for this chapter alone. 

One of the commitments that came out of my dissertation was a commitment to learn more about Indigenous gender studies. I think that this book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to learn more about Indigenous feminism, gender, and sexuality.