MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheryl Lightfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricIndigenousThe artsDecolonizationSociologyAction (physics)Political scienceLawMedia studiesPhilosophyTheologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0600.056
Scholarly communication0.0190.007
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNative American and Indigenous StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207