'Consent' as epistemic recognition: Indigenous knowledges, Canadian impact assessment, and the colonial liberal democratic order.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1177/03063127231177311
Alana Lajoie-O'Malley, Kelly Bronson, Gwendolyn Blue
{"title":"'Consent' as epistemic recognition: Indigenous knowledges, Canadian impact assessment, and the colonial liberal democratic order.","authors":"Alana Lajoie-O'Malley, Kelly Bronson, Gwendolyn Blue","doi":"10.1177/03063127231177311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article unpacks the logic of the equivalence invoked by the Government of Canada between Indigenous <i>consent</i> and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and knowledges in impact assessment. We situate the logic within the politics of recognition in Canada-a politics that aims to shore up national unity in the face of regular challenges to it. We use the Canadian results from a recent scoping review on conceptions of environmental justice in impact assessment to highlight the challenges of invoking recognition, and we provide a theoretical analysis of these challenges. To do this, we highlight the ways in which 'we-making' is 'knowledge-making' and 'knowledge-making' is 'we-making'. In this sense, recognizing Indigenous knowledges is part of Canada's answer to the challenge of constructing and stabilizing a political 'we': a community of political subjects with shared connection to a nation state via the institutional, social, and cultural apparatuses that generate the kind of publicly visible legal and technical knowledge upon which the state's authority depends. We show how this project relies on actively obscuring the relationship between 'we-making' and 'knowledge-making' by treating 'knowledge-making' as neutral and un-situated, putting into practice a universalist logic. This logic shores up power because obscuring the situatedness of dominant knowledges also obscures the situatedness of the dominant political orders with which they are intertwined. We ultimately argue that Canada's approach to recognizing Indigenous knowledges helps consolidate power by sidestepping ongoing jurisdictional struggles with Indigenous peoples.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"53 4","pages":"545-571"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/72/5a/10.1177_03063127231177311.PMC10363936.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231177311","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article unpacks the logic of the equivalence invoked by the Government of Canada between Indigenous consent and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and knowledges in impact assessment. We situate the logic within the politics of recognition in Canada-a politics that aims to shore up national unity in the face of regular challenges to it. We use the Canadian results from a recent scoping review on conceptions of environmental justice in impact assessment to highlight the challenges of invoking recognition, and we provide a theoretical analysis of these challenges. To do this, we highlight the ways in which 'we-making' is 'knowledge-making' and 'knowledge-making' is 'we-making'. In this sense, recognizing Indigenous knowledges is part of Canada's answer to the challenge of constructing and stabilizing a political 'we': a community of political subjects with shared connection to a nation state via the institutional, social, and cultural apparatuses that generate the kind of publicly visible legal and technical knowledge upon which the state's authority depends. We show how this project relies on actively obscuring the relationship between 'we-making' and 'knowledge-making' by treating 'knowledge-making' as neutral and un-situated, putting into practice a universalist logic. This logic shores up power because obscuring the situatedness of dominant knowledges also obscures the situatedness of the dominant political orders with which they are intertwined. We ultimately argue that Canada's approach to recognizing Indigenous knowledges helps consolidate power by sidestepping ongoing jurisdictional struggles with Indigenous peoples.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

作为认识论认可的'同意':土著知识、加拿大影响评估和殖民地自由民主秩序。
本文解读了加拿大政府在土著同意与将土著人民和知识纳入影响评估之间所援引的等同逻辑。我们将这一逻辑置于加拿大的认可政治之中--一种在国家统一经常受到挑战的情况下旨在巩固国家统一的政治。我们利用加拿大最近对影响评估中环境正义概念的范围审查结果,强调了援引认可所面临的挑战,并对这些挑战进行了理论分析。为此,我们强调了 "我们创造 "是 "知识创造 "和 "知识创造 "是 "我们创造 "的方式。从这个意义上讲,承认土著知识是加拿大应对构建和稳定政治 "我们 "这一挑战的一部分:通过制度、社会和文化机制,政治主体与民族国家建立共同联系,从而产生国家权威所依赖的、公众可见的法律和技术知识。我们展示了这一项目是如何通过将 "知识创造 "视为中性和无定位的方式,积极模糊 "我们创造 "与 "知识创造 "之间的关系,从而将普遍主义逻辑付诸实践的。这种逻辑支撑着权力,因为遮蔽主导知识的情景性也就遮蔽了与之交织在一起的主导政治秩序的情景性。我们最终认为,加拿大承认土著知识的做法避开了与土著人民正在进行的司法斗争,有助于巩固权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信