This essay shows that indigenous people are not recognised enough and suffer from neo-colonial measures. It will pick up Merlan’s (2009) applied definition of Rowse for "recognition": It is the organized representation of population, land, and customary law. Not all indigenous peoples are marginalized, though, and progress in terms of recognition has been made. The ontogenesis of indigenous movements was favoured by the establishment of legal acts in the wake of minority rights after the Second World War, and since then there is an overall bias towards improvement.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Neoliberalism as state Paradigm
2.1. The role of the market logic in neoliberalism
2.2. Compromise replaces idealism
2.3. Multiculturalism
3. Perceptions of indigeneity
3.1. Vulnerability and adaptation
3.2. Neo-colonialism
4. Status Quo
4.1. Why it is hard to get political attention
4.2. Political influence of indigenous people
5. Case studies
5.1. The problems of indigenous people in Australia
5.2. The media image is not the self image: Greenland
5.3. Relocating
6. The need to accept the UN declaration of 2007
6.1. The UN declaration of 2007
6.2. Selective endorsement
6.3. Pro accepting the UN declaration of 2007
7. Indigeneity on the way to recognition
7.1. Pros and Cons of considering yourself indigenous
7.2. How can improvement happen?
7.3. Against paternalism: Political ontogenesis in Greenland
8. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Focus
This paper examines the political situation of indigenous people within the framework of neoliberal states, analyzing how indigeneity is perceived and the subsequent neo-colonial impacts of these dominant political paradigms. The central research objective is to raise awareness for the systemic non-recognition of indigenous populations and to critically evaluate the contexts in which development and adaptation measures inadvertently perpetuate neo-colonial dependencies.
- Role of market logic and neoliberalism in state governance
- Critique of the "vulnerability and adaptation" literature
- Analysis of neo-colonialism through case studies (Australia, Greenland)
- Evaluation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
- Conflict between indigenous self-conception and state-imposed categories
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Vulnerability and adaptation
Povinelli (2011) noticed that vulnerability and adaptation literature is the mainstream genre of literature concerning indigenous peoples nowadays and I would assume that this accounts for public opinion as well. In Nordic literature about the respective countries, for example, in-country colonialism is not a thing. Even scholars usually do not recognise the Finnish government’s treatment of Sámi, to give my idea a name here, as colonialism in the public discourse.
When we examine the content of vulnerability and adaptation literature we find that in neoliberalism vulnerability cannot be understood as pressure of cultural marginalisation: multiculturalism is inherent in and even a key to neoliberalism (cultural racism may happen as to be seen in Guatemala example, but is not inherent in the paradigm of neoliberalism). Perceived vulnerability of indigenous people is therefore not created by the dominant political system but more broadly by a changing world (which again is a product of political regimes, but the shaping of the world through political paradigms shall not concern us here). Mostly vulnerability is understood as non-coping with ecological, economic, political and societal change. That is, indigenous people would be seen as vulnerable because they cannot maintain their traditional lifestyle due to climate change, because they would be unable to take part in the economic system, victims of migration movements into ‘their land’ etc.
Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskanen (2014) point out that otherness is still understood as powerlessness or in other words as vulnerability, and thus associated with a need for protection and a continuous call for adaptation. They summarise the question in how far indigenous people have to adapt by saying “the status of indigenous subject has stagnated to mean no more than that of adaptive subject” (p.193). Cameron (2012) found that governments and non-governmental institutions intervene by relocating, residential schooling etc., which is also caused by the perception of indigenous people as least responsible yet most affected and the idea that because of their affection they are the ones who have to adapt. It is problematic that indigenous people themselves stress their abilities to adapt and thereby create pressure to continuous adapting for themselves as well.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Defines indigeneity as a constructed category and establishes the research goal of uncovering neo-colonial structures in the treatment of indigenous peoples.
2. Neoliberalism as state Paradigm: Explores how neoliberal governance influences multiculturalism and replaces idealist political goals with market-oriented efficiency, often at the expense of indigenous rights.
3. Perceptions of indigeneity: Critically analyzes the dominant academic and political discourse that frames indigenous peoples primarily through the lenses of vulnerability, adaptation, and neo-colonialism.
4. Status Quo: Discusses the inherent difficulties indigenous groups face in gaining political attention and highlights their limited agency in international and state-level decision-making processes.
5. Case studies: Provides empirical grounding through the analysis of the Australian Aboriginal situation, Greenlandic media imagery, and the impacts of relocation policies.
6. The need to accept the UN declaration of 2007: Evaluates the normative framework of the UN declaration and the problematic "selective endorsement" by CANZAUS states.
7. Indigeneity on the way to recognition: Explores the tension between indigenous identity and state recognition, while highlighting Greenland as a positive example of self-government.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, arguing that true recognition requires a shift away from paternalistic neo-colonial measures toward cooperation on equal terms.
Keywords
Indigeneity, Neoliberalism, Neo-colonialism, Recognition, Vulnerability, Adaptation, Multiculturalism, UN Declaration 2007, Political Ontology, Agency, Australia, Greenland, Biopolitics, Human Rights, Self-government
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work investigates the political status of indigenous groups within modern neoliberal states, focusing on the tension between their marginalization and the efforts toward state recognition.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the role of market dynamics in state policy, the impact of multiculturalism, the discourse of "vulnerability" as a tool for governance, and the persistence of colonial power dynamics.
What is the research goal?
The primary goal is to increase awareness of neo-colonial tendencies in current state policies and to highlight how current "improvement" measures often fail to empower indigenous populations.
Which methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative analysis based on existing political and anthropological literature, focusing on theoretical constructs and specific regional case studies to critique current state practices.
What does the main body cover?
It covers individual chapters on neoliberal paradigms, the perception of indigenous subjects, obstacles to political influence, and detailed examinations of case studies in Australia and Greenland.
How would you characterize the keywords of this work?
The keywords highlight the central intersection of politics, identity and governance, such as "Neoliberalism", "Neo-colonialism", "Recognition", and "Biopolitics".
Why is Greenland cited as a positive exception?
Greenland represents a success in political ontogenesis where the government is recognized as an equal partner, and indigenous people have the institutional possibility to move toward independence.
How does the author interpret the UN Declaration of 2007?
The author views the declaration as a vital normative framework, yet criticizes the "selective endorsement" by the CANZAUS nations as a hypocritical strategy designed to avoid real implementation.
What does the author mean by "neo-colonial adaptation"?
It refers to the process where Western states mandate improvements in indigenous lives that are disconnected from indigenous local practices, effectively forcing them to adapt to Western standards to be considered "recognized" or "developed".
- Quote paper
- Tobias Vornholt (Author), 2015, Biopolitics of Indigeneity. Indigenous people in neoliberal states, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1286425
