Being Maasai, Becoming Indigenous: Postcolonial Politics in a Neoliberal World

Notes

Notes Introduction 1. As David Harvey (2005:2) explains, “neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.” See also Comaroff and Comaroff (2001). 2. As Saugestad elaborates: Central events in this process have been the establishment of representative interest organisations such as the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) in Vancouver in 1975; and regional organisations such as the Nordic Saami Council (1956), the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (1973), the Organization of Central American Indigenous Peoples in Panama (1977), the Indian Council of South America (1981), and Working Group of Indigenous Minorities of Southern Africa (WIMSA, 1996). A parallel process has brought out advocacy—and support— NGOs such as the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA, Scandinavia-based, 1968), Cultural Survival (USA-based, 1972) and Survival International (UK-based, 1972). (Saugestad 2001:47; see also Dahl 2009) 3. Keck and Sikkink (1998) offer an important comparative overview of the forms and networks of transnational advocacy used by activists in each of these movements. Hodgson (2003) describes the impact of similar processes and opportunities in facilitating and promoting the “women’s rights are human rights” campaign in Africa. 4. See the special issue of Cultural Survival Quarterly (1998) on how the Internet facilitated organizing, strategizing, and lobbying by indigenous organizations. 5. Of course, anthropologists and anthropological knowledge contributed to such transformations in numerous ways: we have been involved as observers, participants, informants, interlocutors, and advocates; our findings have been used to justify or contest the claims of indigenous activists; and our theories and studies have informed local, national, and international debates about the appropriate legal definition of indigenous. 6. Some have found the phrase “strategic essentialism” useful to describe and explain this particular deployment of cultural representation in the interests of political objectives. There is a broad literature on identity politics (Calhoun 1994), cultural politics (Alvarez et al. 1998; Friedman 1994; Gupta and Ferguson 1997b; Hale 1997), and social movements (Escobar 1992; Escobar and Alvarez 1992; Gupta 1992; Smith 1994) that informs these studies of indigenous movements. 7. See, e.g., the debate that occurred in the journal Identities (Field 1996; Friedman 1996; Mato 1996; Rogers 1996). 8. See, e.g., Hodgson (2001a), Li (2000), Brosius (1999c), Warren (1998), Povinelli (1993, 2002), Ramos (1998). 9. See, e.g., Brosius (1997a, 1997b, 1999a), Conklin and Graham (1995), Li (2000), Hodgson and Schroeder (2002), Howitt (2001), Howitt et al. (1996), Johnston (1997), Turner (1999). 10. For studies of indigenous ideas of “development,” see Hodgson (2001a), Gray (1997, 1998), Ramos (1998), Blunt and Warren (1996). 11. For an overview of the issues and positions taken by anthropologists and indigenous activists, see Brown (1998), Posey (1990), Cleveland and Murray (1997), Benthall (1993), Brush (1993, 1996), Greaves (1994), Coombe (1993), Tsosie (1997), Orlove and Brush (1996). 12. There is a vast literature on social movements, collective action, and contentious politics in political science and sociology, and, to a lesser extent, anthropology. Edelman (2001) provides a useful, if somewhat dated, overview of the field. 13. See, e.g., Bornstein (2005), Englund (2006), Jennings (2008). 14. According to Hearn (2007:1098), “The comprador acts as an agent, operating in the interests of international capitalism against the interests of the indigenous popular classes.” Comprador theory developed among Marxists in the 1920s as a way to theorize imperialism, and reemerged in the 1960s and 1970s in the context of dependency theory. 15. See the discussion in Hodgson (1999d). Relevant work includes Asad (1973), Berreman (1968), Gough (1968a, 1968b), Huizer and Mannheim (1979), Hymes (1969), Smith (1999). 16. See, e.g., Clifford (1983), Clifford and Marcus (1986). 17. Recent allegations about the actions of anthropologists working with Yanomami in Brazil further oblige us to carefully assess our actions and accountability . Wright (1988) provides an interesting overview of the relationship between anthropological theory and indigenous advocacy, and the article by Field (1999) and ensuing comments offer a provocative case. See also Asad (1973), Gough (1968a). 218 Notes to pages 3–13 18. For a more thorough discussion of how I have negotiated the ethical and political dilemmas produced by the contradictory protocols of history and anthropology in terms of naming subjects, places, and so forth in this project and others, see Hodgson (2010). 1...