Framing indigenous self-recognition: the visual and cultural work of the politics of recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual and cultural modes of expression and intercultural engagement have broad implications for recognition politics. Recognition-based strategies for the governance of Indigenous difference in settler colonies engage in an economy of perception that capitalises on the currency of inclusion and diversity. This paper explores the visual and cultural fields of recognition politics in the Canadian settler state through the examples of the 2008 Apology from the federal government for Indian Residential Schools and the stained-glass window – Giniigaaniimenaaning (Looking Ahead) by Métis artist Christi Belcourt – commissioned to commemorate the Apology. The paper uses Judith Butler’s concepts of recognisability and framing to make sense of these events as legitimations of settler colonialism. It goes on to explore the possibility of rupture in the inherent instability of ‘frames of recognition’, in Butler’s terms, and uses Jolene Rickard’s conceptualisation of visual sovereignty to also make sense of the simultaneous subversion and self-recognition that takes place in Belcourt’s artwork. In doing so, this paper furthers a critical dialogue surrounding the normativity of recognition policies and practices in Canada as well as the intersubjective or interpellative orientation of visual-cultural expressions of recognition.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".