Political Theory

H10 - Reconciliation: Colonialism, Imperialism, Engagement

Date: May 31 | Time: 10:30am to 12:00pm | Location: Classroom - CL 410 Room ID:15722

Chair/Président/Présidente : Melany Banks (Wilfrid Laurier University)

Comparative Political Theory and Indigenous Resurgence: Daniel Sherwin (University of Toronto)
Abstract: What resources does the literature on Comparative Political Theory provide non-Indigenous scholars for engaging with Indigenous traditions of political thought in contemporary Canada? In this paper I critically engage with this question, which is prompted in part by the emerging body of literature on Indigenous Resurgence. That literature articulates a rejection by some Indigenous thinkers of the dominant Euro-Canadian or Western political theories of rights and recognition in favour of an affirmation and revival of the living intellectual and political traditions of their own communities. This explicit rejection of Western frameworks by Indigenous thinkers, along with particular features of the Canadian settler colonial context, create a distinctive set of challenges for non-Indigenous thinkers seeking to engage with Indigenous political traditions. Although similar in certain ways to the challenges faced by Comparative Political theorists more generally in their efforts to go “beyond monologue” by engaging non-Western traditions of political theory, this paper will argue that there are also crucial differences. These differences mean that despite its promise, Comparative Political Theory as it is presently conceptualized is ill-suited to the task of fostering engagement between non-Indigenous and Indigenous political theories. In fact, a turn away from “comparison,” and toward a stance of humility and critique, may be a more promising way forward for non-Indigenous political theorists seeking to respond to Resurgence.

Towards an Anti-Colonial Marxist Critique of Reconciliation: Corey Snelgrove (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: Reconciliation appears to be one of those things that ‘one cannot not want’. Or, at least one has to pretend it’s a goal. Symptomatic of this is the tendency to reduce critiques of reconciliation into problems only of implementation or definition: reconciliation is this and we’re not there yet or reconciliation is this, not that. Certainly attachment to reconciliation is understandable. It acknowledges a problem and registers a desire to address that problem. Rarely however does one stop to investigate whether reconciliation can achieve its own purported goals. Indeed, this might be the problem with reconciliation: too much focus on the subjective and too little attention to objective conditions. In this paper, I develop this argument by turning to the deployment of reconciliation in the history of political thought. I begin with an explication of reconciliation’s place in the political thought of G.W.F Hegel before turning to the critique of Hegel’s political theory by Karl Marx. I suggest that reconciliation is not only one way to think of the relationship between Hegel and Marx, but also that Marx’s critique of Hegel is an especially pertinent counter to contemporary theories of reconciliation in an agonistic vein (Schaap 2005, Hirsch 2011) as well as to the contemporary politics of reconciliation in Canada. To be sure, the relevance of Marx in the white settler colony is also limited, and so in the conclusion I gesture to ways in which Marx’s theories themselves can and have been stretched to address race, colonization, and gender.

Colonialism versus Imperialism: Barbara Arneil (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: Scholars, particularly those engaged in post-colonial scholarship, routinely argue that colonialism and imperialism are indistinguishable in the history of western political thought and practice. This generally accepted claim is certainly true in the case of external or settler colonization where an expansive process of taking over and dominating foreign lands and peoples involved both imperial and colonial processes and justifications. In this paper, however, I argue colonialism can be different from imperialism and colonies can exist outside of empire.