MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4362509944 · doi:10.1353/nai.2023.0003

Rhetoric and Settler Inertia: Strategies of Canadian Decolonization by Patrick Belanger, and: Arts of Engagement: Taking Aesthetic Action in and Beyond Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Dylan Robinson and Keavy Martin, and: Research & Reconciliation: Unsettling Ways of Knowing through Indigenous Relationships by Shawn Wilson, Andrea V. Breen and Lindsay Dupré

2023· article· en· W4362509944 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRhetoricIndigenousThe artsDecolonizationSociologyAction (physics)Political scienceLawMedia studiesPhilosophyTheologyPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Rhetoric and Settler Inertia: Strategies of Canadian Decolonization by Patrick Belanger, and: Arts of Engagement: Taking Aesthetic Action in and Beyond Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Dylan Robinson and Keavy Martin, and: Research & Reconciliation: Unsettling Ways of Knowing through Indigenous Relationships by Shawn Wilson, Andrea V. Breen and Lindsay Dupré Sheryl Lightfoot (bio) Rhetoric and Settler Inertia: Strategies of Canadian Decolonization by Patrick Belanger Rowman & Littlefield, 2019 Arts of Engagement: Taking Aesthetic Action in and Beyond Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Dylan Robinson and Keavy Martin Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2016 Research & Reconciliation: Unsettling Ways of Knowing through Indigenous Relationships by Shawn Wilson, Andrea V. Breen, and Lindsay Dupré Canadian Scholars, 2019 since 2015, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) issued its Final Report and 94 Calls to Action, which described the proper pathway for reconciliation in Canada, there has been a virtual explosion of academic literature on how the TRC’s Calls to Action can and should be operationalized. Many have taken the position that reconciliation—and decolonization—must be Indigenous directed, while also holding settler society primarily responsible and accountable for most of the actions that reconciliation requires. Numerous scholars also hold that academia, especially its research function, have a key role to play in reconciliation processes. This collection of three books advances both ideas. Patrick Belanger opens his book Rhetoric and Settler Inertia by asking how rhetoric can aid in the decolonial process, primarily as a tool to persuade settlers who are resistant to change. Amid a wider body of literature about decolonial rhetoric and settler response, Belanger explores forms of rhetoric and methods of delivery that impact settlers’ willingness to change in pursuit of decolonization. Belanger concludes that rhetoric focused on interest convergence (mutual benefit) lends possible advantages to the [End Page 78] decolonial project that dialogue and education neglect. Working within an “X leads to Y” framework in which X is decolonial rhetoric and Y is settler action, Belanger identifies Z (mutual benefit) as a spurious variable. Accordingly, Belanger aims to reveal that settler buy-in to decolonization could accelerate the process of decolonization–as outlined by Indigenous nations–in demands for restitution. Belanger affirms that decolonization must be led by Indigenous People and seeks to determine whether “public reason might, through communication, triumph over money and violence” (96). Belanger’s proposed path for achieving this end is for rhetorical frameworks to facilitate interest convergence. Rhetoric and Settler Inertia usefully examines theoretical rhetorical work in practice and expands the boundaries of what rhetoric captures. It is interesting to consider whether rhetoric can be a tool for acknowledging responsibility and constructing a decolonial, or less colonial, future. Belanger’s emphasis on an Indigenous-centered approach to reconciliation is worth noting but, regardless, this book is focused on how reconciliation can best appeal to settlers. In Arts of Engagement, Dylan Robinson and Keavy Martin examine the TRC through a critical lens focused on aesthetic action: “how a range of sensory stimuli–image, sound, and movement–have social and political effects through our affective engagements with them” (2). This book examines the relationship between the TRC, aesthetic action, and political change. Together, contributors to Arts of Engagement tell the stories of the TRC and art, demonstrating that aesthetics can serve to distance or reconcile two groups; art can be either superficial or a recognition of epistemologically and ontologically relevant Indigenous-led healing. Arts of Engagement draws on qualitative evidence and is focused on art completed or witnessed by the authors. The evidence and case studies chosen were tangible and prominent, letting readers draw on their own conceptions of art. Many Indigenist methodologies were employed, even by the predominantly settler authors. The book’s larger argument is that large-scale institutional and societal transformation happens not only in the mind but in the body. Thus, recognizing Indigenous process to reconciliation is necessary for actual reconciliation to occur. The editors and authors aim to show the ways in which aesthetic actions are essential to Indigenous ontologies and therefore to truth-telling, law-making, and reconciliation. In the anthology Research & Reconciliation: Unsettling Ways of Knowing through Indigenous Relationships, editors Shawn Wilson, Andrea...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,267
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,204
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,138 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle