Insurgent Economics: Reflections on Community-Based Research and First Nations–Settler Entity Economic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Last year JAED published a paper I wrote (Sommers, 2017) in which I made use of Kevin Bruyneel’s (2007) work on the “third space of sovereignty” to examine how Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation manages to both participate in capitalism (in Bruyneel’s words, “demand rights and resources from the liberal-democratic state”) and assert its sovereignty (“challenge the imposition of colonial rule”). I had written the paper in late 2015 for a class at the University of Alberta, and, four months later, in early 2016, a Community Service Learning (CSL) project prompted me to think further about the potential of Indigenous economic activity to advance Indigenous sovereignty and challenge the imposition of colonial rule. In this article, I will borrow from Adam Gaudry’s principles of “insurgent research” (2011: 36), which I studied while completing my CSL project, to present my argument that First Nation–settler entity economic relationships2 can become “insurgent economic relationships” — relationships that are mutually beneficial economically to First Nations and settler entities, but also serve to further Indigenous sovereignty and challenge the imposition of colonial rule. In the context of this paper, I will imagine the “insurgent” aspect of these insurgent economic relationships in terms of Shalene Jobin’s discussion of the Plains Cree nation; in other words, I will assume that the First Nation’s “aspirations” within an insurgent FNSEER are to fight “for space within colonial structures while re-establishing their own governing processes” (Jobin, 2013: 601–602). The purpose of this article is not necessarily to outline how a FNSEER should actually be negotiated in the “real world”, but rather to imagine hypothetically how a FNSEER might be used to further Indigenous sovereignty. I will conclude the paper with some comments regarding why settler corporations might be amenable to an insurgent FNSEER.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".