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 - to assume that 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 the 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. 

Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies

 I was at the 2025 Squamish Nation Youth Pow Wow on the weekend. It was great to be out and about, enjoying the good vibes, and listening to the drums. Here I am with Bowinn Ma, amazing BCNDP MLA, and Ray Thunderchild. I wrote briefly about the film Night Raiders in my dissertation, and Ray was an actor in that film. He played Tiny. And he was also the emcee for the Squamish Nation Youth Pow Wow. 

Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies

Anyhow, today's book is Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies, edited by  Chris Anderson and Jean M. O'Brien. It was published in 2017 and is part of a series (the Routledge Guides to Using Historical Sources). It has 33 chapters, but they are concise chapters and the book is just over 300 pages. 

The editors describe the development of the collection as such: "We have, through our own long-standing networks, brought together a disciplinarily extensive and geographically expansive group of Indigenous Studies scholars who have, regardless of their formal disciplinary affiliation and training, signalled a commitment to Indigenous studies as a growing field - perhaps - disipline. Our invitation to participate made clear that participation would not require a 'toeing the line' in terms of what we wanted the contribution to look like. Instead, we left the shape of the argument nearly solely up to the authors, limited only by word count (about 4,000 words) and animated by a single question: 'What is your methodological approach to the way you undertake research, and how does it differ from past research in your field or discipline?'" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.4). This approach resulted in a wide variety of interesting writing. This was one of those books where every chapter felt like a whole new world, and so it was easy to sit down and read one chapter in a sitting, but I found that it was very difficult to read more than one chapter in a sitting because I needed time to digest and shift gears. The chapters contained enough material to whet the appetite, and so I think it's a good sampler of a broad range of approaches. It contained a mix of voices that I was familiar with (Daniel Heath Justice, Brendan Hokowhitu, Sheryl Lightfoot, Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark) as well as a number of people who's work was new to me. I didn't read all of the chapters. I would say I read over a third of the chapters. I think that I would probably return to it if I were in the early stages of a new inquiry on a topic outside of my usual interests (Indigenous literature, education). 

I think that the introduction, and in particular the first few pages, is valuable as a primer to Indigenous Studies as a discipline and as a thread within other disciplines. The editors begin by asking, "What isn't Indigenous Studies?" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1). And, "Were we to understand Indigenous Studies in all it's various iterations... what does that mean in practice?" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1). The book is almost ten years old, and so a lot has been written since that which could inform the answers to these questions. In their exploration of these questions, they rely on Clara Sue Kidwell, Jace Weaver, Duane Champagne, Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and Robert Innes.

The editors discuss the ideas of Indigenous Studies as a discipline, and state that disciplines possess important epistemological prescriptions (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1), and "as Indigenous studies continues to emerge, it continues to draw on a huge array of disciplines and methodological debates to inform our perspectives and work, and it has tended to do so in a context with little collective strategy or long term planning." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.2). The authors discuss the work of several scholars who have worked to describe Indigenous Studies. They state in a summary of Innes work that, "Innes argues that Indigenous Studies must practice methodological diversity. He suggests that Native studies ought to be broadly multi-disciplinary insofar as the issues we examine should dictate the methods and theories used."(Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.3). They state that Innes says that "Native studies is not the same thing as Indigenous knowledge, although in any given instance, it may incorporate Indigenous knowledge as part of its explanatory framework. Distinguishing between the two and not losing sight of their key differences is, we suggest, important to building the legitimacy of Indigenous Studies in the academy and in Indigenous communities, both theoretically and, more importantly here, methodologically... This means that Indigenous Studies is different from - but in certain cases and under the right conditions can be broadly allied with - Indigenous knowledge, particularly as situated and practiced outside of the academy." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.3-4).

There were a few chapters that I found particularly engaging, and I will discuss them below. 

Anderson and Kukutai

I found the chapter on statistics interesting. In the introduction, the editors have this to say about the chapter: "Michif (Metis) scholar Chris Anderson and Māori scholar Tahu Kukutai speak to the ways that quantitative information, particularly through official data like the census, has constructed Indigenous communities statistically, the manner in which this has produced simplistic and stereotypical depictions, and how Indigenous Studies scholars have more recently made creative use of official datasets to 'speak back' against these conversations." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.5). 

In the chapter, the authors begin by outlining an argument taken by some Indigenous scholars, that "Colonial regimes the world over have devalued Indigenous ways of being and knowing. Part of this devaluation has included their overlay and erasure by Western paradigms of knowledge. Quantitative research methodologies are part and parcel of the positivism that characterizes Western knowledge (and scientific inquiry more specifically). As such, positivism, within its reliance on 'external evidence, testing and universal laws of generalizability... contradict[s] a more integrated, holistic and contextualized Indigenous approach to knowledge' (Kovach 2009: 78). Hence, the devaluation of 'Indigenous ways of knowing.'" (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.43). 

Having outlined this argument, the authors challenge it, stating that: "While it is certainly true that quantitative research methodologies that focus solely on aggregate patterns do abstract from the local context, we argue that this is neither inevitably a bad thing, nor is it the only contemporary research methodology that does so (see Walter and Anderson 2013: 19). The issue is not so much that simple abstraction from local (Indigenous) milieus has led to the production and legitimation of stereotypes about Indigenous communities. Rather, we argue, it is the historical contexts within which this abstraction occurred: namely, in the stark absence of any collaboration with the Indigenous communities and peoples who provided this information. We turn to a discussion of sources now." (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.43). They then go on to say that "valuable information can be gleaned from undertaking respectful and collaborative quantitative research with Indigenous communities" and "failing to heed Indigenous voices and expertise produces bad statistics." (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.45). 

I appreciate the way that the authors create space for Indigenous statistics.  I also appreciate the way that they challenge narratives which, taken literally, have the potential to inadvertently rule out the very concept of Indigenous statistics. 

Hokowhitu

The next chapter that I found interesting was a chapter on Indigenous masculinity studies. The editors summarize it in the introduction: "Maori scholar Brendan Hokowhitu explores how, unlike the typical ahistorical treatment of masculinity within the general field, Indigenous masculinity scholarship is linked to the tenants of Indigenous Studies more broadly. That is a common method that has developed within this nexus has characteristically been 'genealogical' in nature in that more scholars have tended to locate the production of contemporary Indigenous male bodies within the broader frames of settler colonialism and colonial history." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.8).

In the chapter, Hokowhitu begins by examining men's rights movement and mainstream masculinity studies. I won't go into depth into his summary here, except to say that in a short space he did a good job of pointing out some of the problematic elements of mainstream masculinity studies, both in terms of how to it positions itself in relation to feminism and also how it perpetuates stereotypes about Indigenous men. He doesn't say the word "manosphere" - but manosphere is an offshoot of men's rights, which he does discuss as a root of mainstream masculinity studies. And so in some ways it is adjacent to masculinity studies - a poor cousin or sorts. I think it's important for anyone who consumes online media or who has friends or family who consume online media (AKA everyone) to be aware of the manosphere and capable of critically examining the narratives within it. The Species podcast, by evolutionary psychology science educator Macken Murphy has an episode called Pilled which critically analyzes both the ideas within the manosphere and also the impact that it has on society. Macken interviews a researcher who has created a systemic analysis of the manosphere, and then they pick apart the ways that it has distorted actual science and become a form of pseudoscience. It's good to be aware of these distortions in order to spot them (and depending on the situation, address them) as they arise in conversation with friends and family. Some people might think that this is an obscure topic however, the CBC recently just reported on a trend where married men who consume misogynistic content online adopt misogynistic attitudes towards women, leading to the destruction of their marriages. The CBC article illustrates the impact of online extremism on everyday people. 

Anyhow, Hokowhitu contrasts mainstream masculinity studies with Indigenous masculinity studies. He says "Indigenous male dysfunction within Indigenous Studies has typically been treated as a symptom of colonialization," and as an example he points to narratives that point out that "hyper-masculinity, along with the traditionalization of homosexuality, homophobia and patriarchy" are ways in which Indigenous men mimic Victorian masculinity (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.199). He claims that Indigenous Masculinity Studies methodology "lays the groundwork for Indigenous masculinity scholars to work with Indigenous feminist scholars to lay waste the constructions of masculinity that serve to oppress Indigenous communities." (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.199). He claims that with the right methodology, this approach can move beyond binaries. He points out that one of the challenges of confronting manifestations of colonialism (such as rigid gender roles) is that "traditions (false or otherwise) are embodied by the very real community members." (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.202). 

Overall, I like Hokowhitu's approach and I agree that careful attention is required in order to challenge the nefarious ways that colonialism has negatively impacted gender equity within Indigenous communities. That being said, I don't know whether Indigenous Masculine Studies is the answer. I actually have tried to read an Indigenous masculinity essay before by a prominent scholar, and I found that it did contain mimicry. The author's background was in the armed forces, and the masculinity he espoused did not fit with my lived experience of masculinities that I encountered in friends and family. Based on that other reading, I don't think that all Indigenous masculinity studies adhere to the ideals espoused by Hokowhitu. And I actually wonder whether the aims that Hokowhitu aspires to can be served just as well if not better through Indigenous Studies generally. I think that limiting the conversation to masculinity risks obscuring the ways that colonial gender roles negatively impact women and diverse gender identities and Indigenous collectives/communities generally. I question whether or not centering men is an effective way to address patriarchy. That being said, Hokowhitu's work will inform how I read works on masculinity in the future. 

Raheja

I also enjoyed Michelle Raheja's chapter, which the editors summarize by saying that she, "analyzes Indigenous film history through the lens of settler colonialism, arguing that, since film's inception, motion picture companies have participated in a 'logic of elimination' (Wolfe, 2006) designed to erase Indigenous people visually. The chapter contrasts these desires by demonstrating the success of contemporary Indigenous science fiction filmmakers in drawing from both Indigenous speculative oral narrative as well as colonial literary and visual culture representations of 'first contact' to institute new modes of thinking about Indigenous futurity." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.9). I really liked this chapter because she highlighted Tsilhqot'in film The Cave/?E?anx by Helen Haig Brown (Raheja, 2017, p.241, 243-244).

Stark

I also enjoyed the chapter by Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark. The editors summarize it by saying that she, "makes the methodological argument that understanding story as law not only unearths a rich body of Indigenous thought, it also dispels the notion of inviolability of the law, demonstrating that law is likewise a set of stories. In examining the creation stories of the state, she explores how Western law took form and functions to legitimate the settler nation-state through Indigenous dispossession. The study of Indigenous law, in presenting alternative frameworks for the restoration of Indigenous-state relations, not only contains the potential to produce new methodological approaches, but may also unearth alternate methods for living together differently." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.9). I really like the work of John Borrows, and her work is in the same vein. She also edited a book on resurgence and reconciliation. I like her writing.

Overall, I found that this book did an excellent job of illustrating the wide range of sources and methods in Indigenous Studies the discipline and/or in people who are basically changing their disciplines by approaching them in a way that could also be considered Indigenous Studies. The questions around "how do we know what we know" or "where are we getting our information from" and "what counts as evidence" are all relevant questions for Indigenous Studies researchers. But these are also important questions for citizens who read the news and individuals engaged in conversations about public policy, so I think that the audience for this book is broader than just Indigenous Studies scholars.

Having gone through a reading spree where I read a lot of edited collections of scholarly essays, I think that I am done reading collections of scholarly essays for a bit. I haven't picked my next book yet, which is a weird place to be. I might start re-reading some of the novels that I read while studying, and really enjoying them in a relaxed manner. And that may or may not result in some blog posts if I feel moved to share the experience. I have been meaning to write some scholarly articles. Blogging is more fun, though. But if I am MIA from my blog for awhile it means I am off having random adventures and/or working on articles. 

***

In other news, the SFU Indigenous Student Centre held an Honoring Feast for Indigenous students in June, and they recently sent out photos. Here I am at the event. They gifted each graduate a very cool sash and a cedar headband, as well as some other items. For a minute when I arrived, I was a little bit disappointed by the fact that my robe was the same colour as everyone else's. In the regular event, PhDs wear regalia which is distinct from the other degrees, along with a distinct hat. But then I checked myself... after five years in the institution, of course my impulse was to extol the virtues of rank, status, and hierarchy. Deep in the belly of a western institution, I had internalized its values. I realized that what was most important was that my family was there, I got a degree, and I was symbolically moving on from the student phase of my life. I reflect on this moment in order to be transparent about the little decolonial transformation that I made while getting ready, and also to proactively address any reader who might ask "why are you not wearing the colours typically worn by SFU PhD Education grads?" The fact that I am even concerned that a reader might be concerned that I am not wearing the correct clothing speaks to the degree to which, in spite of this reflection and self-awareness, the logic of institution continues to take up a lot of space in my head. I was surprised by the attire, but at the end of the day, extremely happy to be part of the event and extremely grateful for the work of everyone who organized it and participated in it. And I am really grateful for all of the support and encouragement that I received while studying. 

Crossing the stage. I didn't get my parchment here. I didn't go to the big convocation so I didn't pick it up there either. And I am never on campus so I didn't go to the office to pick it up.  I'm currently waiting for it to come in the mail. Really drawing out the anticipation of getting my degree lol.

Yay! So many Indigenous grads!

Fancy scarf that they gave us as a gift - thank you ISC!