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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheryl Lightfoot

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,940
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0600,056
Communication savante0,0190,007
Science ouverte0,0030,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNative American and Indigenous StudiesMême sujetRhetoric and Communication StudiesTravaux en français237 207