Truth before transition: Reimagining anthropology as restorative justice

Anthropology is a discipline that is always in a state of transition and becoming, but the current moment has a sense of being a tipping point, a crisis, a sea change. Whether a case for letting anthropology burn (Jobson, 2020) or a call to decolonize anthropology (Gupta & Stoolman, 2022), the conversations happening in the field are coalescing around the need for change at a scale we have rarely faced before. In the current reality, people are desperate for futurities beyond late modernity, beyond the climate crisis, beyond the crush of neoliberal capitalism, beyond the ongoing violences of colonialism, and beyond the limits of Western knowledge. Emerging from the chrysalis of the COVID-19 pandemic, a powerful need for some sense of collective care for humanity as we face an uncertain future has resonated across the discipline (d'Alpoim Guedes et al., 2021). As a discipline that claims the study of humanity and promotion of cross-cultural understanding at our core, this moment should be a time when anthropology can be more relevant and meaningful than ever. But as tides of hate rise around us, we are struggling, sometimes flailing, sometimes failing, to make sense of our role in a different future when faced with necessary change (e.g., Joyce, 2021; Nelson, 2021b). In the face of a cataclysmic climate crisis and increasing global conflict, an insecurity about what a radical reimagining and reorientation of anthropology might mean permeates disciplinary discourse (A. Gupta & Stoolman, 2022; Lewis, 2023; Pierre, 2023). No accounting of an imagined future is possible without a reflection on how the past influences the present (Pels, 2015). In this paper, I offer my perspective on what this moment means, first by reminding us of our collective disciplinary truths before offering an example of an anthropology of restitution and restorative justice drawn from my own work as an Indigenous archaeologist. My perspective is grounded in my position as a Métis woman, an anthropological archaeologist, a mother, and someone with deep responsibilities to my relatives in the lands we now call Canada (Supernant, 2020a). While I will tell some difficult truths in this paper, it is my sincere hope that when facing down the specter of transition, we see possibilities, not insurmountable barriers. We see different possible futures, not the bleakness of the apocalyptic void. But truth first. Transition requires a reckoning with the truth. Without a reckoning, the past becomes a tether, tying our collective discipline to a legacy from which we cannot break free. Transition invites a release: a surrender of that which no longer serves our vision of what we wish to become. I am not the first to call for a reckoning, nor will I be the last. Many voices at the margins of anthropology and our allies have been telling difficult truths for generations and calling for disciplinary change (Deloria Jr., 1973, 1969; Gupta & Stoolman, 2022; King, 1997; Magubane & Faris, 1985; Montgomery & Supernant, 2022). I will share my own understanding of the truths of the discipline; I cannot claim to speak for all anthropologists, all Indigenous people, or even all Métis people. However, as an Indigenous woman educated in four-field, Americanist anthropology at the turn of the 21st century, I have a perspective on the transitions necessary for anthropology to be ethical, relevant, and a positive force for change. In 1969, Vine Deloria Jr. published what many saw as a damning satirical takedown of anthropology, or more specifically, of anthropologists, first in Playboy magazine and then as part of his book Custer Died for Your Sins (Deloria, 1969). The reaction was swift; anthropologists went on the defensive, pointing to their long-standing relationships with Indigenous interlocutors as evidence of their relevance (Officer, 1973). At the American Anthropological Association meetings the next year, a symposium was organized entitled “Anthropology and the American Indian” to discuss the relationships between anthropologists and Indigenous peoples in North America (Officer, 1973). Many of the presenters were Native American anthropologists, alongside some luminaries of the field, such as Margaret Mead, with Deloria offering a response (Deloria, 1973; see also Hancock, 2019). The presentations were recorded and transcribed into a short volume for publication (Officer, 1973). While a lot of the language is dated, the issues discussed by the presenters remain fundamentally the same today, over 50 years later. The heart of Deloria's critique, as well as similar critiques from other Indigenous scholars in that volume, was not about anthropological methods or even the value of anthropology as a discipline (Deloria, 1969, 1973). He was criticizing the reasons why anthropologists were studying Indigenous people, questioning the purpose of anthropological research, which at the time was still largely focused on saving traditional Indigenous culture rather than supporting contemporary Indigenous communities as they grappled with the impacts of colonization and fought for their rights. Rather than studying the ongoing harm of colonization, many early ethnographers in the Americas focused on salvaging what remained of the Indigenous cultures they perceived as being under threat of disappearing forever (Bruchac, 2018, 13; Darnell, 2001). The goal was preservation of a disappearing culture, not ensuring Indigenous survivance, an ethic that was still alive and well in the 1970s. This is best exemplified in Margaret Mead's response to Deloria, where she declares that her generation of anthropologists has said “We value your ancient cultures, we think they are very important for the world, and we will work with those of you who also value them, and we will all belong to a nice, scientific community, where the values are the same” (Mead, 1973, 70; emphasis added). I read Deloria's critique to be exactly of this paternalistic attitude, something that persists in various anthropological spaces today. What about those Indigenous people who care about their present and their future rather than merely their ancient cultures? What about using the powerful tools of anthropology to resist and critique the colonial policies that were (and are) actively harming Indigenous people while enabling white anthropologists to study them? While the narrative that sometimes emerges now is that the work of early ethnographers can Indigenous communities their language and culture, I to that this was not the of those imagined we have a future where we be our our our where we have to with anthropological our knowledge. In his Deloria the of anthropologists where they were the policies of the in the (Deloria, 1973, At a time when anthropological have been a powerful anthropologists, to the of Indigenous and were saving what they be for rather than anthropologists this of as it harm In the when Indigenous were being from their and to where were the The first was in on in to this to and study He was not to the of was to what to his anthropological vision of humanity and to from their to on in even & 1969, The work with the was very in Americanist the to all this work is the and the of Indigenous The being with and by Indigenous people was not always being on Indigenous communities to the next it was being and for colonial and all those who have I have no that they were what they to be necessary the time and that they were But are not to the harm by those or the legacy of those which is the of the discipline of anthropology in North America today. that even with important work on and Indigenous peoples were in we were a part of the to as we were on our to and This is the truth of has been critique of the of As in the same symposium as Mead, have many of the field who it as a calling and as they an and to the they were The sense of an and of anthropologists to into communities and they to about other cultures has been as This beyond anthropology to the other they can the of Indigenous anthropologists and Indigenous and then those from communities & or anthropologists that they can ancient of Indigenous to tell the of et al., 2021). As anthropologists, we are to from other peoples and cross-cultural understanding is the of our We and in where we from our we are or from we are and into the we work with we to to the and we about we are not with we not even need from the before we our we have that and it into what we with other but not with the community, and that into and other anthropologists have the to the of other I to for a on how we such as and to and the of to While I am of scholars should be to and without or I see it being to claim the to that other people. The discipline of anthropology has always on what research, for or for harm or has been using we it to be and can also be by those being a claims their work is not but the it the is The actively of past scholars is the very we have or and why the first of the of no But those the of not the of the communities with we anthropological went an with the our work I not tell truths to those who before or to anthropology as a I am not to call field has a of and many people who have work in a for I also to a The very of our discipline was with and has Gupta and a I share truths to us that we can be more than the legacy of our and the they I share truths to us that we not have an to tell other we are about We have the to Deloria this that is time for and the American Anthropological Association to down and discuss what issues are relevant in the what you have that are relevant to the we are what we have that be relevant to future that you might to on a this (Deloria, 1973, Deloria's critique, and my is an to on the of anthropological and who that the you What you the to them? and the the we this In the of the critiques of Deloria and other Indigenous was a on with North American Indigenous peoples for about years & 2022; and when it work has more & 2022). Indigenous anthropologists have with the from a position of and of using the tools of anthropology to study and scholars who their on from Indigenous The over the past of that the discipline is in transition, but the is how to the of to at a where anthropology is not but I of anthropology as an of restorative a not to but that has in my work 2021; Guedes et al., 2021; et al., 2021; et al., 2022; 2021). anthropology has a of how can it transition to is no longer to anthropology should no more it should be to those past for which it is or in which it is et al., 2022; Montgomery & Supernant, 2022; & Anthropology powerful tools and that can be the is to for the of as by that community, and the of justice et al., 2022; Montgomery & Supernant, 2022; Montgomery et al., 2023). This transition restorative anthropology becomes in my work with which is about justice using the tools of to Indigenous but are many other where anthropology can has a as a of anthropology, as have been in the of Indigenous from their and the telling of Indigenous Western et al., has been in the sense of from the and in the sense of and from the people that This is to the colonial of and to Western of on and in North America has been in transition for in response to a critique from Indigenous people and who have been by et al., 2021; Montgomery & 2023; & & 2021; & Supernant, & 2019). with relationships between and Indigenous many and remain in where work and study 2021; Montgomery & 2023). Many still without the of Indigenous In our for American Montgomery and I that in many about in Indigenous lands in was to no of or of in the & Supernant, 2022). work to to restorative where we tools and to the and the of and communities to their own et al., 2021; et al., et al., 2022; Montgomery & 2023; Montgomery & Supernant, 2022; Montgomery et al., 2023). Indigenous as in the on the of Indigenous of which and Indigenous to our own and Indigenous as to requires us to change the we anthropology that with Indigenous peoples and and belong to the community, not to Indigenous different of that on and restorative rather than colonial justice to of et al., 2022), and conversations about what we with the of that has been This is as relevant to all of it is not who have from communities that in the In restorative justice on telling the truth about and ongoing the of to where were and to difficult invites an in the different in which we the when we make for we a understanding of the of of the that we can a different of is where of as a we from the heart et al., In I a volume of the a that was a of with other scholars and et al., a for scholars from various to and the of and in the the the of and & Supernant, The first is We have a on the of care for the and with for as and people. We that is not always a and this is fundamentally about different spaces where we can our and to our an ethic of care while that care different in different voices in an ethic of of while and and The is or the of in we are et al., Many of us deep to the and we can be a powerful of knowledge. peoples also were and for not merely but we have not the of in the the in past and present our knowledge. also a more understanding of and in ancient The to Indigenous is This around relationships the and with and the understanding of relationships beyond relationships with and as responsibilities Supernant, 2021; 2021; & 2023). the of from relationships is a of The is to the that scientific We that all of Indigenous for the and of also to the and of scientific in we are to be using to to for we the best possible we the of how I with my and the future of the of the is as an to all of their to across and et al., is a to that is not about but about and for a more more more restorative I now to turn to a where the and tools of anthropologists, are being to a and facing Indigenous communities in the for of who at or from This is a where is I offer this example of an anthropology that the purpose of from of past Indigenous cultures to restorative the truth of the of Indigenous In their from the Gupta and (Gupta & Stoolman, that of a is that with the issues that from the of colonization that are important to the people and communities where we The first they as part of a is the study of and In the of Canada as 2022). over a century, Indigenous were to across Canada & of were part of a colonial of that to Indigenous cultures, and & of in Canada in the early but in the of Canada that were & of the next the in a of where over were The it for who under the to be to when to they were Many of to and in some their of their when they not for the & of and have about the of and but the and to has been The and of Canada was in with a to the and legacy of and to Indigenous and the & of The was to to the of the truth about what claims of to and of in the The of the were not to but many and about who the a on and in the & of that at at many of in but they that many more than they were to as part of the The also to to the ongoing impacts of and the of & of the to to the of and the and Indigenous communities to work to and or other where were Indigenous communities have been actively for for many years 2019). have been on to and the of the not what While some were the by of of from the in and 2021). were to with and were across the The as the for and their and at the of who were not a to and but the work of evidence to what been for that of from and that their and communities were what to has been an on the but the of the for and an the to the legacy of is for the of the of the was the of a that a of at time of who are recorded as in or as a of this is not a of all the from of the of many for many and their the and an of from and many Indigenous the of for their using and to Many of to for has a long-standing as a discipline in of Indigenous and but are now being to communities to to et al., 2023; et al., the past many have to critique and from Indigenous communities North America by and & 1997; et al., & Emerging from relationships has that some Indigenous communities have been to their to in various years of communities I I was in a at the in 2019). this work at the of communities in the first of this et al., also that of are the to for et al., Nelson, et al., 2021). we were of the of people that Indigenous communities to for when they actively for their a the of the from the Association a on who been with Indigenous communities using relevant over the past We we was need for in as well as of harm Indigenous were not to about best they make about how to their We were also about that was in the about the of in the et al., and to about the of such for The was focused on as a to the of the we with the of an that what we saw as all the necessary of the where were not the first or the in the of the important is to to and they a lot about and where might need to be with can down for using various as are a of possible that and to the for et al., 2021; et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., 2021). In to the we have about the various that are in about the where might be will need to the that sense for them, but are some we to the of and communities the and that are many of that can about the of This has been by the on and which was about a the from 2023). In to our work in and many of the were being by communities to in of the from The of and Indigenous which I has been in at many and has been to many Indigenous communities and While I will not be communities or as that be I to share with you some of the that how is to the for and the justice and work to Indigenous communities in the of the is not in a traditional it is using the tools of to a need as a of I work with I a of and that all my but when it is the of for is a and a when relatives 2019). As a our is and where we a on when by the is that communities the necessary and without is a of for the and for the the Indigenous is a of our where are to (Gupta et al., in this we can that all to the Indigenous community, not the or the The has and of our This at the of our where to and our a or will have an that where we might have to they also have about the of the the was or other a that to be we which might be on the time of as not all work in all then work to a to We are to in that are as can be in the of that be to in such as the of or for possible et al., et al., 2023). The of also to in but more in preservation is on the and the methods et al., et al., et al., et al., 2023; et al., et al., 2021). In many and other impacts can the of as the has been or The work to the of communities is also and as by and et al., offer different when for We that communities from the and can about what have at the over time and the that are for Many where and other of the communities were about those can be on the that communities are to about the can or in that possible et al., 2023). and is that to of the et al., 2021; & 2015). This can be in in the that might can possible that or the to down for methods or et al., et al., and et al., are well in the for et al., 2023; et al., & 2022). can the understanding and of offering into the of are when to methods and to down for more However, methods the and not a of the While they offer about they not all necessary or methods are more methods the and have in in other et al., 2021; et al., et al., 2023; et al., et al., 2021). are for et al., et al., 2023; et al., various of and While all of have been to work in other the and is or This into the and in how that the of we can about and of various for of change in the or in where is and to the and when the is et al., et al., However, this requires with short it in or We in the of before to a as it not work as well in of the it is not possible to a from or from are to other or but not to that a is or is in that et al., 2023). In we of evidence to in the of a reflection being a might a in the a the of a in a or from a scientific et al., 2023). While methods and can about the evidence for at is However, the of the is that are being to with the of to the for at an scale and very to limits in the limits in and of time and for as is across the and the various et al., 2023). While has been for many years in this the other possible are in Canada for this is an to that has to some for communities in part is a of people in this of an need to the from the of the across the with were communities before work becomes to is and in the for of is also an by from and in how are by various communities et al., 2023). have a lot of time over the past years to communities and the what we can and cannot from to communities can make and et al., 2023). is a of to our 2021; & 2022). people are to the or even the of a need to such & 2022). We are not to that We they and they The of of who What are to is some sense of the of and of evidence to the truth that have been for We are using our as to to the for justice and is on the values Indigenous communities about their own has a role to in evidence to communities in their for restitution & Supernant, 2022). is not the part of anthropology that can communities in this and difficult Many communities to from their but not have My has been by many of our about how to and we our best to with anthropologists, but be more to this is also an ongoing about what communities are but that for a of communities this is the to will be a role for anthropologists to Indigenous communities in this In my community, the role of is an important when always have to the I see and all anthropologists, as However, this is not a where you can at a and tell you are to need to of and to see your can be of I am by the generation of who are to in this of is not merely an for they are to meaningful to to I have the years the of who in a 2022). that it has to that I am also a of The that my the care and my is a has to be and to to tell the and difficult truth of what to my and to it not As someone who colonial of I can tell you that with more As anthropologists, we our collective and humanity and in all in this time when a sense of and our I remain about the future I in our collective and The that I am to speak to you a different future than that have been of by early not have that more than a years they were about our culture we were to that we still be as Indigenous people, that we still have many of our and that we still have deep to the and to The of and similar policies also we were to to them, and that we be we to and But we We We are We are still is time for anthropologists to us in for the by the discipline and by are to be you can the work of can in the and the truths of the past and can work to change the our voices are not or can us the future that humanity The people who my from his Métis and in care not have imagined today, my and using the I have to my to have imagined my to be her and as she I am to my who I am also to those who have this for to share my I not be without all those who work alongside in my and are with today. is work to be to a more future for my generation and those who Anthropology has a lot to but and restorative truth. this

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.