2. Indigenous Resurgence: The Need to Turn Away

At the heart of the resurgence movement is a call for Indigenous peoples to turn away from the state and the prevailing normative-discursive environment of the Canadian settler colony. Rather than channelling energies into attempts to further modify the settler-colonial order from within, efforts should be directed towards independently rejuvenating Indigenous nationhood and culture: reconnecting communities with traditional language, lifeways, and forms of governance; re-establishing sustainable economies; and pursuing ties of solidarity and collaboration with others working towards a radical transformation of the contemporary social world, both at home and internationally (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009b: 56; Simpson, Reference Simpson2011, Reference Simpson2016).

This call to “turn away” stems from observation of an inherent hostility to Indigenous being and interests of decolonization within state policy, public discourse and the wider normative environment of Canada. Despite over four decades of ostensible advancements towards acknowledging and addressing colonial injustice, the present era marks, it is argued, a general continuance of the underlying structural imperatives of settler colonialism. These imperatives are linked to the fact that in settler-colonial contexts such as Canada there is no geographically separate “home” territory to which the colonizing society could, in principle, retreat. This means that lands appropriated from Indigenous societies are crucial not simply for reasons of settlement and economic development but also as they provide the basic territorial foundation of the colonizing society itself (Tully, Reference Tully, Ivison, Patton and Sanders2000). The presence of Indigenous nations on the geographical and political landscape thus poses something of an existential threat to the colonizing/settler society on at least two counts: materially, Indigenous presences threaten to impede free movement, settlement and economic development; symbolically, they indicate the as-yet unconsolidated legal and moral foundations of the settler institutional order and the unfinished business of colonialism. The continual (which is to say structural) imperative associated with the settler-colonial order, accordingly, is to resolve this contradiction by one means or another—either through forms of physical and cultural erasure that attempt to literally expel Indigenous bodies and identities from the landscape or through forms of political erasure that attempt to refigure Indigenous societies as qualitatively different from and subordinate to settler counterparts (Tully, Reference Tully, Ivison, Patton and Sanders2000).

Settler colonialism can thus be understood as “territorially acquisitive in perpetuity” rather than only initially (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014: 125) and, to borrow Patrick Wolfe's (Reference Wolfe2006) phrase, as a structure, not an event, that is, an active and constitutive feature of the contemporary social order rather than merely an episode in its history (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014: 125; Snelgrove et al., Reference Snelgrove, Dhamoon and Corntassel2014). Thus, Coulthard writes:

The evolving or “shape-shifting” character (Corntassel, Reference Corntassel2012: 88) of Canadian colonialism has enabled it to work continually in accordance with these underlying structural imperatives even as it has been forced “to modify itself from a structure that was once primarily reinforced by policies, techniques, and ideologies explicitly oriented around the genocidal exclusion/assimilation double, to one that is now reproduced through a seemingly more conciliatory set of discourses and institutional practices that emphasize recognition and accommodation” (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014: 6).

For Coulthard (51), the primary vehicle for settler colonialism in the contemporary era is the “liberal recognition paradigm” that now constitutes the standard framework for public policy and discourse pertaining to matters of colonial injustice. Premised on the formal acknowledgment of distinctive Indigenous rights and statuses, on better accommodating those rights within the institutional matrix of the state and collectively confronting some of the more manifestly unjust episodes of Canadian colonial history, the liberal recognition era has presided over a range of significant and ostensibly positive developments for Indigenous peoples in Canada. It has seen retreats of direct state control in local communities, the growth of “modern treaty” processes through which self-government powers, land rights and compensation agreements have been secured, and brought about increased commitment to addressing patterns of Indigenous suffering and inequality connected to past acts of state violence (Corntassel and Holder, Reference Corntassel and Holder2008; Irlbacher-Fox, Reference Irlbacher-Fox2009).

Nevertheless, the liberal recognition paradigm stands indicted by thinkers of resurgence on two primary counts: (1) that it remains structurally committed to dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their lands and self-determining authority; and (2) that it operates to erode the very basis of Indigenous resistance by co-opting individuals and communities into forms of life that comport with the colonial order.

Regarding the first, resurgence critics contend that the liberal politics of recognition's root function is to manufacture a more robust legitimation—moral and legal—of the state's claims to sovereignty and, in the process, better secure the grounds of capitalist economic development. “In the long term,” writes Alfred, “legitimacy is the most important form of power the state possesses” (2009b: 56). It is through legitimacy that support is garnered for the use of physical or military force to repress acts of serious dissent or disobedience and for preserving the social order even as its internal violences and contradictions are laid bare. In openly acknowledging and moving to address some of the most visible aspects of colonial domination, and thus figuring the state as an ultimately progressive political force and as a potential site of justice/reconciliation, the liberal politics of recognition helps to underwrite this claim to legitimacy.

What legitimation equates to here, it is argued, is justification for the continued dispossession of Indigenous lands and the continuing denial of Indigenous sovereignties. Although often couched in the vernacular of “mutuality” and “reciprocity,” the liberal politics of recognition reproduces a plainly hierarchical relationship: the state is unerringly positioned as the sole recognizing party and Indigenous peoples merely as objects of recognition (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014). Although they may vie to have claims to self-government and land rights recognized, Indigenous peoples are denied status as equal agents of recognition. Settler sovereignty is presumed and reproduced as the inevitable framework for recognition and the dispossession on which this is premised further entrenched and legitimated.

The effect, for thinkers of resurgence, is to bolster the objective conditions of colonial domination. Through recognition politics, Indigenous political presences are (re)inscribed, both formally and informally, as qualitatively different from and subordinate to settler political presences and individual identities are pressed further into a state-centric model of citizenship (Alfred and Corntassel, Reference Alfred and Corntassel2005; Blackburn, Reference Blackburn2009). At the same time, Indigenous presences on the land are further modified in ways that ultimately benefit settler interests. In pressing towards forms of “final” or “comprehensive” agreement, the politics of recognition helps to diminish—if only by more clearly delimiting—obstacles posed to capitalist economic interests. The assurances that would-be investors demand can be more readily granted following such settlements (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009b; Blackburn, Reference Blackburn2009; Corntassel, Reference Corntassel2012). As such, the basic structural imperatives of settler colonialism find potent expression through liberal recognition politics. For resurgence critics, the relative increases in security and freedom that participation within this paradigm might provide cannot outweigh the harm associated with this bolstering of the basic objective reality of colonial domination.

Of arguably greater concern, though, is that participation within the liberal recognition framework might also undermine the basis of resistance struggles and even threaten long-term survival as Indigenous peoples. Alfred finds that the recognition era has seen a “gradual assumption of the values, goals, and perspectives that make up the [colonial] status quo” within Indigenous communities and an associated confinement of thought and action to the “opportunity structure” it offers (2009a: 94; see also Simpson, Reference Simpson2014; Waziyatawin, Reference Waziyatawin2012). This marks a growth in “colonial mentalities” (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009a) or “subjectivities” (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014) as goals of economic development and formal recognition have become widely accepted. Without denying the rewards that can often be achieved along such paths, or the pressures that encourage communities to pursue them, resurgence critics argue that the condition for any such gains is acceptance of the constitutive hierarchies of the settler-colonial order and its norms of political and economic organization. The effect is to perpetuate a broader internalization of the colonial order within Indigenous communities. For Alfred (Reference Alfred2009b: 40), these must therefore be thought of as “paths of least resistance” in that they (at best) offer minor disruption to colonial imperatives in the short term and more likely actively serve them in the longer run. More importantly, though, they help to render the subjective work of colonialism more complete. Such acceptance of colonial frameworks closes off Indigenous minds to the possibility and even the desirability of a radically different, decolonized future.

The charge against the liberal recognition paradigm and the wider policy and discursive field it structures—from health and welfare to housing, education, and beyond—could thus hardly be more profound. It stands accused both of bolstering the objective reality of colonial domination and advancing it on a subjective level by undermining basic drives or desires to radically oppose it. The combined effect, as Coulthard sees it, is to “reproduce the very configurations of colonialist, racist, patriarchal state power that Indigenous peoples’ demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend” (2014: 3). The recent history of Indigenous political resistance in Canada, it is argued, is thus one of increasing confinement to a framework that offers (can offer) only limited reform to the colonial order while also rendering its foundations more secure. It is not that positive modifications cannot result or that there is no scope for agents to engage this oppressive framework in innovative and unexpected ways. But if, as Alfred (Reference Alfred2009b) suggests, the ultimate justification for any mode of resistance is its capacity to prevent the further erosion of Indigenous social and cultural being and to secure opportunities for future generations to live unbound by colonial realities, then the prevailing orthodoxy of Indigenous politics in Canada is found wanting. Participation within the liberal recognition paradigm can, at best, take Indigenous struggles only so far (Corntassel, Reference Corntassel2012). In the longer term, though, it renders survival as Indigenous peoples ever more precarious and the possibility of authentic decolonization ever more remote. If these remain the fundamental objectives behind Indigenous resistance, then a different way forward must be found.

3. Centring Indigeneity

Resurgence as a political and intellectual movement finds its origins in what Corntassel refers to as “everyday” acts and practices (Corntassel, Reference Corntassel2012: 4; see also Alfred, Reference Alfred2009b; Corntassel, Reference Corntassel2008). In other words, the movement takes its lead from modalities of being and acting that are already deeply rooted in Indigenous communities and social histories rather than attempting to assert a wholly novel programme of action from the perspective of theory (Simpson, Reference Simpson2011; Snelgrove et al., Reference Snelgrove, Dhamoon and Corntassel2014). In fact, as Simpson sees it, resurgence can be regarded as Indigenous peoples’ “original instruction” (2011: 66) and an integral part of Indigenous cultures and histories of resistance across the North American continent. Scholarly discourses of resurgence thus set out to reawaken these socially inherent capacities for positive agency and change on a larger scale. This is essential, it is argued, if Indigenous normativities are to be reasserted as a constructive force on the contemporary landscape and progress towards transforming the colonial reality is to be made. As Simpson writes:

As already noted, common themes of action associated with resurgence include reconnecting with land, culture, and community; rejuvenating Indigenous nationhood, governance structures, and economies; and revitalizing Indigenous practices of diplomacy and solidarity building with other movements. These are to take place in accordance with an ethical framework that is intimately and self-consciously place-based and which emphasizes accountability at community level and the teaching of respect, reciprocity and nondomination among people, land and environment (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009b; Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014, Reference Coulthard2016; Coulthard and Simpson, Reference Coulthard and Simpson2016; Simpson, Reference Simpson2016). Despite these common elements, however, resurgence is nevertheless to be conceived as a deeply heterogeneous process. Its precise manifestations will inevitably vary, both spatially and temporally, in accordance with the specificities of local contexts, histories, cultures, human agency and imagination. The exact course of resurgence therefore cannot, and should not, be fully prescribed or anticipated. It must instead be determined through, and reflect, the diversity of the communities pursuing it.

In calling for a widescale reconnection with land, culture and tradition, thinkers of resurgence do not appeal for a return to, or the recreation of, some kind of precolonial social order. Rather, they insist, it is colonialism that brings rigidity to Indigenous social and cultural life, and a crucial part of loosening its grip must be to reinstate norms of self-criticism and cultural fluidity at the core of Indigenous social existences (Simpson, Reference Simpson2011). Resurgence thus proposes to draw “critically on the past with an eye to radically transform the colonial power relations that have come to dominate our present” (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014: 157). It does not aim to tie present or future generations into falsely essentialized forms of social and cultural organization.

This commitment to a critical or “self-conscious” traditionalism (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009a: 16) is aptly displayed in stances adopted to questions of gender and sexuality. While positing the need to consult traditional philosophies in unsettling the colonial heteropatriarchy that now prevails in many Indigenous social contexts, thinkers of resurgence argue that these traditional frameworks must themselves be equally subject to critical interrogation. In part, this is to guard against the unwitting replication of colonial values in what otherwise passes for traditional culture (Simpson, Reference Simpson2016). But it is also driven by appreciation of the need to reassess and sometimes re-imagine traditional teachings and values in light of contemporary contexts. Simpson (Reference Simpson2011: 60), for instance, highlights the importance of resisting essentialized versions of Indigenous womanhood even as traditional teachings around gender are used to empower women and articulate alternative forms of social organization. Alfred similarly insists that “obsolete views of men's and women's roles” (2009b: 84) must be left behind at the same time that traditional philosophies are employed in the struggle to liberate communities from colonial practices of governance (see also Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014, Reference Coulthard2016). The resurgence of Indigenous normativities, in this view, cannot be detached from a rekindling of ethics of self-interrogation and self-criticism.

Importantly, critically revitalizing tradition in this way is understood not simply as the means to decolonization but also something of its ends (Coulthard, Reference Coulthard2014). Rejuvenating culture and tradition does not, in other words, serve the “higher” aim of decolonization. The two are instead internally and inextricably connected: authentically decolonized futures will inevitably reflect ongoing practices of resurgence. Again, there is no attempt here to impose substantive constraints on future social arrangements or to overdetermine the meaning of decolonization. The specific institutional forms, modes of governance and norms of socio-economic organization that best suit future contexts and generations must, it is maintained, be worked out along the way by those involved. But if those futures are to be understood as decolonized in any meaningful sense of that term, resurgence thinkers contend, they must be structured around ongoing critical engagement with traditional philosophical and cultural frameworks. In important ways, they must reflect “the very best practices of traditional cultures, knowledge systems and lifeways in the dynamic, fluid, compassionate, respectful context within which they were originally generated” (Simpson, Reference Simpson2011: 18). In these terms, resurgence is conceived not only as an inherent aspect of Indigenous being, past and present, but also of anything that might be called an authentically Indigenous—and decolonized—future.

The resurgence movement thus clearly possesses a strong inward-looking focus. In turning away from the prevailing normative-discursive environment of the Canadian settler-colony it means both to recentre Indigenous normativities in the lived realities of individuals and communities today and in the process reassert Indigenous agency as a positive and constructive force in the world. This is regarded as essential to ensuring survival as Indigenous peoples and vital if steps towards authentic decolonization are to be made.

4. Unsettling engagements

Given this strong inward focus, one could be forgiven for thinking that resurgence has little interest in seeking, or even entertaining, further engagement with settler society. Yet this is not exactly so. While the prevailing normative-discursive environment and the forms of engagement it typically supports are rejected for their harmful and counterproductive effects, resurgence does not advocate the permanent or absolute cessation of contact with settler society nor seek to reduce it merely to strictly functional necessities. In fact, it demonstrates an interest in actively promoting engagement with members of settler society, whom it figures as potential—arguably even vital—co-protagonists in decolonization rather than inevitable antagonists. Thinkers of resurgence in this sense seek a renewal of dialogue based on genuine mutual respect and reciprocity, and through which decolonization and mutually agreeable terms of coexistence can be pursued.

The task associated with the more immediate present, however, is to unsettle the norms, values and behaviours that obstruct pathways towards such dialogue. The need, as Alfred puts it, is to bring non-Indigenous people to the “realization that their notion of power and its extension over indigenous peoples is wrong by any moral standard” (2009a: 180). Settler society must, in this regard, writes Simpson, be encouraged to pursue a “re-education project that would enable its government and its citizens to engage with Indigenous Peoples in a just and honourable way in the future” (2011: 23). This reflects an important secondary drive within the resurgence movement operating alongside (but always inferior to) the primary objective of rejuvenating Indigenous culture and nationhood. Whereas an imperative of disengagement best supports that primary objective—at least under present conditions—this secondary dimension seems to pull in the opposite direction. It drives for engagement as a basis for undermining the “intellectual and moral foundations” of the settler-colonial order and thereby opening possibilities for renewed dialogue (Alfred, Reference Alfred2009a: 180).

The tension between these opposing drives is, in practice, resolved by their hierarchical relationship. That is, disengagement from the prevailing normative-discursive environment and positive enactment of alternative social realities takes absolute priority, and opportunities for settler engagement must, accordingly, be structured into these practices and rendered compatible with them. To some extent, this is demonstrated with the resurgence literature where the primary addressee is typically Indigenous but where an ongoing (often background) conversation with settler society regarding the harms associated with generally accepted norms, values and concepts is also detectable. It is perhaps even more notably evident, though, in some of the everyday practices from which these scholarly discourses take their lead.

Corntassel offers the example of Lekwungen activist Cheryl Bryce whose efforts to maintain and strengthen Indigenous presence on her homelands in the (now) Victoria region of British Columbia—including re-establishing the Kwetlal food system—involve creating “teachable moments” designed to convey the histories and contemporary struggles of groups in the region (2012: 98). The purpose of these forms of “insurgent education,” Corntassel observes, is “to make settlers uncomfortable and to urge people to practice healthier relationships so that the land itself can also heal” (98). Here, then, efforts to rejuvenate culture and positively enact alternative social realities are in practice alloyed with the creation of opportunities for members of settler society to engage and learn about injustices faced and to consider how their own actions and beliefs contribute to them and might be changed accordingly.

Resurgence displays, then—and perhaps ironically, precisely through the “turn away” that most vividly characterizes it politically—an ongoing commitment to engagement with settler society. Through resurgence, Alfred writes:

This drive has a certain immediacy; it is not a distant objective or merely rhetorical gesture but connected to the very possibility of moving towards renewed dialogue. It also has two distinct facets that need to be highlighted. The first is more obvious in that part of what must be unsettled is the dominant social imaginaries and normativities of the settler colony, especially those elements that contribute most to its easy reproduction. The second is somewhat less obvious but no less important. It pertains not to the need to change what settlers think, exactly, but rather how they act. For barriers to reciprocity are found not only in the ways that settlers imagine and speak about the social world but also how they typically behave and orient themselves within it. I will concentrate here on drawing out this “behavioural” facet more clearly since it is only indirectly apparent in the forms of engagement resurgence promotes. The “ideational,” which is more explicit (although still largely indirect), will be the subject of the following section.

One way to get at this behavioural component is to consider an objection Simpson (Reference Simpson2016: 31) raises to being asked to respond to “what can white allies do” questions when giving talks on resurgence. The problem with such questioning, Simpson finds, is that even when motivated by basically good intentions, it serves only to centre thought and discussion on “whiteness” and in the process effectively erase everything just said regarding the Indigenous-centric nature of resurgence. And yet it seems unlikely that the problem here is really the basic impulse to ask “how can I/we change.” After all, the common refrain in the resurgence (and wider decolonial) literature is that settlers cannot remain who and what they are if colonial oppression is to be overcome. What is problematic here, rather, is the way in which this question is imposed on and in the space of resurgence. For it must be recognized that even in the more academic settings that Simpson is talking about, articulations of resurgence possess an important performative dimension. That is to say, they represent not only espousals of the virtues of positively enacting alternative social realities but also attempts to engender this lesson: to create spaces in which Indigeneity is centred (however cursorily or temporarily) and in which it is affirmed and demonstrated as a productive force in the world. This is the primary imperative behind the movement and it is, as I have said, only as a secondary act or gesture to the creation of these spaces that settlers are invited into them. Consequently, to impose settler subjectivity at their centre can only be regarded as a hostile and essentially colonial act. It is to blithely cast settler interests to the forefront of thought and discussion and render resurgence, in a sense, answerable to them. The result is a subversion of the movement's primary aims and thus a violation of its implied conditions of hospitality.

Insofar as spaces of resurgence are opened to settler engagement, then, they actually call for a quite specific mode of presence. The precise language in which Alfred's statement above is couched is perhaps instructive in this regard. The emphasis there is on showing alternatives to settler society, provoking reflection and motivating creative confrontation with existing social realities and dominant normativities. The implication, as such, is that while members of settler society are invited into spaces of resurgence for these purposes, any guidance received is likely to be more indirect than it is direct. Resurgence cannot jeopardize its own primary aims by allowing settler interests to colonize or commandeer the spaces it creates. Nor can it be fully responsible for, or indeed truly compel, the kinds of self-realization needed if settlers are to move to positions where reciprocal dialogue is possible. On both counts, what is called for is a modality of presence in which impulses to speak, to interrogate and to demand are suppressed in favour of listening and more introspective reflection. Which is to say that the question “how can I/we change,” rather than being projected outwards into spaces of resurgence, is more appropriately turned back on the settler position itself in a movement of self-examination and self-criticism conducted in light of resurgence as a source of insight and critique. This is more in keeping with the movement's primary aims and seemingly most conducive to continued hospitality.

What this means, I want to suggest, is that—at least insofar as settler society is concerned—spaces of resurgence are structured not on but for the principle of reciprocity. They presuppose Indigenous centricity and authority, and in doing so figure settlers as guests: if they are to remain welcome, settlers are under requirement to adapt their behaviour to meet with conditions of hospitality that they have no say in determining. The effect is a significant departure from the norms of the settler colony where colonially secured power and privilege generally function to settlers’ advantage in enabling them to call the shots. Moreover, by establishing the act of respect for Indigenous being and authority—rather than merely the abstract value or claim—as the basis for continued hospitality, these sites of engagement encourage settlers to take up stances more conducive with a longer-term cultivation of reciprocity. While, admittedly, such work to disrupt behavioural norms is a more implicit feature of the forms of engagement resurgence fosters—and perhaps a structural consequence of the movement's aims more than anything else—it is no less important than more direct challenges to the ideational norms of the settler colony. If reciprocity is to be cultivated, progress in both domains is surely essential.

Resurgence, then, I suggest, far from rejecting further engagement with settler society, is internally driven to foster it—albeit on quite specific terms. The immediate objective in this regard is to unsettle the behavioural and ideational norms that currently obstruct movement towards a reciprocal politics of justice and decolonization, which remains the longer term goal. In the next section, I move to focus more closely on the ideational side of this.

5. Challenging the Ideational Terrain of the Settler-Colony

The more apparent aspect of the engagement resurgence fosters is to challenge the social imaginaries and norms that currently hold sway in the Canadian settler colony. Even this, however, as already indicated, remains more indirect than direct given the need to rejuvenate Indigenous culture and nationhood and the threat that centring settler subjectivity poses to this goal. Nevertheless, the challenges brought against prevailing norms and values in these contexts are far reaching and profound. Here I outline five key thematic areas in which obstacles to reciprocal dialogue on matters of justice and decolonization are identified within the resurgence literature. Making movement towards new grounds of engagement seems to depend upon the contingent and contested nature of dominant norms in each of these areas becoming better appreciated, and commitments secured to explore possibilities beyond them.