Negotiating Affirmative Repair: Symbolic Violence in the British Columbia Treaty Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst the current proliferation of new struggles and the continuation of protracted conflicts between long-warring enemies, reconciliation has become a pressing concern for many (Barkan, 2000; Brooks, 2000; Dwyer, 1999; Tavuchis, 1991; Torpey, 2001). For those partial to the discourses of conflict and alternative dispute the goal is one of imagining creative new options for peace that allow those locked in a seemingly intractable dispute to make the transition to a new relationship. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), for example, has provided both hope and a model for addressing interethnic conflict, demonstrating that a society rife with crimes against humanity and political and economic oppression can begin to emerge from these conditions by reckoning with its unsavory past (Minow, 1998; Tutu, 1999). As well, dispute resolution techniques such as mediation and restorative justice have developed a new language of peacemaking intended to encourage parties to move away from their hardened positional views toward malleable that can be made amenable to the equally flexible interests of opposing parties (Bush and Folger, 1994; Fisher and Ury, 1991; McEvoy and Mika, 2002). At this reconciliatory historical juncture, which overlaps with (and is perhaps in part a reaction to) what has been referred to as the age of genocide (Alvarez, 2001 ; Power, 2002) these processes are held up as examples of the human capacity to construct creative visions of Yet, despite our best efforts to create processes that allow human creativity to flourish, the project of historical repair is often circumscribed by the pragmatics of the present. (1) Indeed, the prevailing economic and political rationalities of those in possession of various forms of social power often permeate reparative discussions, and this presents strategic challenges for those demanding moral reckoning or material redistribution in the face of historical injustices. Such is the case in modern-day British Columbia, where a process to negotiate treaties between the First Nations of the region and the provincial and federal governments is underway, guided by the dual goals ofjustice and certainty--that is, justice in terms of addressing First Nations long-standing land claims, and certainty in terms of the desire to create political and economic stability within the province. This article provides examples of how these two discourses are mobilized within the British Columbia Treaty Process, and examines the symbolic violence enacted by the non-Aboriginal governments in attempt to forward a rigid notion of certainty that limits the possibilities for justice. (2) Based on this examination, an exploration of what a transformative justice might look like is initiated and contrasted with the current trajectory of the treaty process, which appears headed toward what will be described as, borrowing from Nancy Fraser (1997), a remedy of affirmative repair. (3) The B.C. Treaty Process Unlike other parts of Canada, the majority of the land in British Columbia was not obtained through treaty settlements that mark the transfer of Aboriginal lands to the Crown. (4) Because of this, the spectre of Aboriginal title has haunted the provincial government's claim to jurisdiction over B.C.'s lands and resources. (5) In addition to the expropriation of their lands, First Nations in B.C. also faced the same assimilative policies that were imposed on Aboriginal peoples all across Canada: the residential schools that forced Aboriginal children from their homes and into institutions in which their culture was trained out of them (see Haig-Brown, 1988); the laws prohibiting Aboriginal cultural practices such as the potlatch that were perceived to be a threat to civilization (see Cole and Chaikin, 1990); and the laws preventing them from taking legal actions to pursue their land claims (see Mathias and Yabsley, 1991). …
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".