In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [First Page] [89], (1) Lines: 0 to 17 ——— 0.0pt PgVar ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [89], (1) five Anthropology in an Era of Inuit Empowerment Edmund (Ned) Searles “WeareInuit,”proclaimedthecoverofthe1999–2000annualreportofInuit Tapiriit Kanatami (itk). Formerly Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (itc), itk is an Ottawa-based organization representing the twenty-eight thousand Inuit of Canada. Okalik Egeesiak, itc’s president at the time, explained the title’s meaningas“asourceofourstrengthasindividualsandasapeople,andthey continue to provide a sharp focus and vision for the work of itc” (itc 2000: 11). Egeesiak’s vision signals the transformation of an abstract concept, Inuit identity, into a practical goal, thought to be achievable through the right policies, planning, and personnel. The title of itk’s annual report belongs to a growing concert of indigenous voices committed to linking cultural survival with political and economic empowerment. But these words also underline a methodological and theoretical quandary for those who study indigenous peoples—how do we study and write about indigenous identity and culture in an era of indigenous political empowerment and heightened self-consciousness? (See Graburn, this volume .) What happens when the collective “we” becomes linked to a specific set of traits or emblems? (Briggs 1997; see Stevenson, this volume). Are anthropologists adequately attuned to the ways in which claims made about Inuit culture and identity by Inuit themselves can be divisive and disabling? (Strong and Van Winkle 1996; Sturm 2002). Egeesiak, like many of her peers, believes that Inuit culture can and should be promoted and preserved. Supporting such views are those anthropologists and psychologists who identify the loss of culture with both acute and chronic episodes of psychological stress and other disorders, a condition that can be treated, it seems, by preventing the further erosion Searles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [90], (2) Lines: 17 ——— 6.4pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: T [90], (2) of culture (e.g., Berry 1999; O’Neil 1986). A vision of culture as panacea, however, has placed arctic anthropology in an awkward position within the discipline of anthropology. Just as arctic anthropologists are highlighting the need for cultural preservation, anthropologists working in other parts of the world claim that “culture,” as a concept encompassing traits and enduring properties, has lost its relevance in a world characterized by mobility , flexibility, and fluidity (Gupta and Ferguson 1997; Jackson 1989; cf. Drummond 2001, Nash 2001).1 AsanethnographerofInuitsocietyandculture,Ifeelcaughtinadilemma of how best to study and represent Inuit identity. Should I do what Okalik Egeesiak does and treat Inuit identity as a source of strength, vision, and focus? Or should I treat it as a resource for political power (and perhaps subgroup solidarity) that may in fact work against the interests and needs of some Inuit? (See Stern, this volume.) Ironically perhaps, today’s anthropologists are not the first to confront such dilemmas, especially as they apply to the portrayal of Inuit as a cohesive group of people with a coherent culture. The history of Inuit studies is one in which scholars continue strategically to includeandexcludedifferentaspectsofInuitsocialandculturallifetocreate an image of the Inuit. To borrow from Stevenson’s chapter (this volume), scholarsactivelydiscriminatefromamyriadofdata(e.g.,experiences,fieldnotes ,andotherartifacts)tocreateacollective“culturalmemory”thatgradually becomes incorporated into the canon of Inuit studies. Today, Inuit organizations and the Nunavut government are engaged in similar acts of creation, and the effects are manifold: pride, political empowerment, and commercial success in some contexts (see Wachowich, this volume); anxiety , insecurity, and frustration in others. In this chapter I examine how arctic anthropology is implicated in the creation of an essentialized image of Inuit culture and consider its impact on Inuit society in general. Research Background The chapter is based on research conducted over a span of ten years in Nunavut, Canada (1990–2000). I first arrived in the Arctic as a research assistant for a team of archaeologists investigating the history of Inuit in Labrador and southern Baffin Island. After making friends with a number of the Inuit who acted as our navigators and guides, I applied for grants to work with young Inuit in Iqaluit (Nunavut’s capital), specifically to...

Share