Normative worlds clashing : state planning, indigenous self-determination, and the possibilities of legal pluralism in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the history of Indigenous-state relations in Chile has been shaped by western understandings of law, and by Indigenous engagement with and opposition to such understandings. Spanish colonial law was used to justify settler presence, land dispossession, and violence. Independence was supported by the imposition of Chile’s newly created legal system upon pre-existing Indigenous nations, legitimating territorial annexation and nation building from the state’s standpoint. Today, the state interacts with Indigenous peoples through the lens of Indigenous rights and recognition following recent developments in international law. This dissertation investigates how planning has intertwined with western law to facilitate institutionalized Indigenous dispossession over time and how that relationship unfolds today, using the implementation of the duty to consult as an entry point. First, I trace the evolution of state planning since early colonial times, suggesting that contemporary planning practice is inseparable from this colonial genealogy. Then, adopting an institutional ethnographic approach, I examine the creation of a controversial national consultation regulation through the voices of government and Indigenous representatives involved in the process, as well as Indigenous peoples who refused to participate. The analysis suggests that marginal improvements in state planning are taking place, especially regarding methodological innovations in participatory planning. However, at a more substantial level, consultation policy serves to proceduralize and restrict the scope of Indigenous rights and the exercise of self-determination under the veils of reasonableness and compatibility with Chilean legal frameworks. The failure to reach a mutually agreed regulation and Indigenous refusal to engage in the process suggest that what is really at play in Chile’s planning contact zone is not a clash between different ways of planning, but a clash of normative systems. In other words, tensions arising from multiple contrasting interpretations and narratives about what is considered acceptable or unacceptable, allowed or forbidden, legitimate or invalid regarding Indigenous and non-Indigenous coexistence in shared space. I conclude by discussing how understanding planning contact zones in terms of conflicting legal orders in action opens the door to planning practices that are grounded in legal pluralism rather than in domination by imposition of Chilean law.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".