Hannah Arendt and the art of the 2008 Canadian apology for Indian residential schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, political apologies have emerged as a primary method of reconciliation in circumstances of gross historical injustice.In settler-colonial contexts, political apologies have been increasingly given by settler states to Indigenous peoples.This thesis concerns the 2008 apology, given by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to survivors of the Canadian Indian Residential Schools system.First, I challenge the extent to which political apologies can be understood via speech act theory.Second, I posit an alternative methodology of interpreting political speech, based on the philosophy of Hannah Arendt.I demonstrate the extent to which an Arendtian approach to the political apology, which stresses the creative act of public interpretation, avails a power to disclose and constitute a political world.In the Canadian context, this reveals the potential for the political apology to foster postcolonial reconciliation through an encounter with settler-colonialism as a structural injustice.Au cours des dernières décennies, les excuses politiques sont devenues la principale méthode de réconciliation dans des circonstances d'injustice historique flagrante.Dans les contextes de colonie de peuplement, les États colonisateurs ont de plus en plus présenté des excuses politiques aux peuples autochtones.Cette thèse concerne les excuses présentées en 2008 par le Premier ministre de l'époque, Stephen Harper, aux survivants du système des pensionnats indiens canadiens.Premièrement, je conteste la mesure dans laquelle les excuses politiques peuvent être comprises via la théorie des actes de langage.Deuxièmement, je propose une méthodologie alternative pour interpréter le discours politique, basée sur la philosophie de Hannah Arendt.Je montre à quel point une approche Arendtienne des excuses politiques, qui met l'accent sur l'acte créatif de l'interprétation publique, exploite un pouvoir de divulgation et constitue un monde politique.Dans le contexte canadien, cela révèle le potentiel des excuses politiques de favoriser la réconciliation postcoloniale par le biais d'une rencontre avec le colonialisme de peuplement en tant qu'injustice structurelle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".