“There’s a treatment centre where the residential school used to be”: Alcoholism, Acculturation, and Barriers to Indigenous Health in Eden Robinson’s Monkey Beach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Drunken Indian stereotype has a long history of expression across literary, scientific, sociological, and political discourses. This article traces the persistence and operative nature of its production and reproduction and argues that Eden Robinson's Monkey Beach challenges the stereotype through refiguring addiction as social suffering rather than individual — and racialized — pathology. By employing cartographic imagery, generational juxtaposition, and a first-person dual point of view that negotiates between spectral and spiritless worlds, Monkey Beach contextualizes habitual drinking as a response to alienation from cultural practices that are becoming increasingly threatened by ongoing colonial and capitalist policies of individualism and acculturation. The Haisla characters contend with the affective consequences of living in what Karl Marx calls a “coerced” and “ forced labor ” economy. Yet, because the forced transition to this mode of production is a relatively recent process within Indigenous histories — one that is violently and insidiously imposed, rather than always already installed — it has not become fully naturalized. Consequently, Robinson depicts addiction as engendered not only by historical trauma emergent from the dismantling of Indigenous lifeways connecting kinship, land, and spirituality, but also by the ideological and material conditions of capital. Ultimately, Robinson's novel betrays how the material conditions of late capitalism exacerbate colonial trauma, which manifests as social suffering, and extend colonialism’s acculturative shadow. As such, Monkey Beach re-signifies addiction as exposing the limits of full participation in a colonial and capitalist economy, precisely because of the cultural, economic, and spiritual violence on which such systems are predicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".