Political integration and Indian self-government : hegemonic and counterhegemonic discourse
Date
1986
Authors
Stevenson, Brian J. R.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The focus of this thesis is on the nature and scope of claims for Indian self-government. In particular, it explores the tension between two modes of discourse - or world views - about Indian self-government: one is that of the Canadian state and the other is that of Indian First Nations.
The first is rooted in conventional Euro-Canadian ideas about local government and the second in Native Indian ideas about national or cultural self-determination. The latter may be the most authentic expression of Native claims, but First Nations are forced into the first mode of discourse. How and why this happens is the underlying theme of the thesis.
It is argued that the two modes of discourse interact in the dynamic struggle of discourse, a process by which imposition and resistance provide for conflict and development between and within cultures. But a full understanding of this process also involves the recognition that the conflict does not involve an even debate between two equal modes of discourse. One mode of discourse (that of the Canadian state) will be in a hegemonic position while the other (the Native Indian) will be in a counterhegemonic position.
It is argued that government policy has consistently attempted to assimilate Native Indians by destroying their culture and traditional political institutions. Though in recent years First Nation cultures have been recognized by the Canadian state as an important element in Canadian society, no longer to be assimilated, it is argued in this thesis that the real threat to First Nations comes from the institutional element of discourse. That is, that the real challenge for First Nations is overcoming the institutional barriers of the Canadian state. These barriers arise from the fact that the Canadian state is based on the Westminster Parliamentary tradition which sees local government as its creation. In contrast, First Nations see their right to self-government as handed down by the Creator, not Parliament. The current institutional structure of the Canadian state can only provide for a limited decentralized or devolved form of self-government. Most First Nations, however, seek for a meaningful form of self-government based on community control of local economic, social, and political goals.
In order to shed light on this tension the thesis briefly explores two approaches to self-government in British Columbia. The first is that of The Sechelt Band which has attained a form of self-government through the passage of Bill C-93 by the House of Commons on May 21, 1986. The second is that of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en peoples who have launched a land claim suit against the province of British Columbia for 22,000 square miles of B.C. It is argued in the thesis that the first approach, that of the Sechelt Band, is well within the government's mode of discourse and expresses its values, while the approach of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en represents the Native Indian mode of discourse.
The thesis concludes that the struggle may threaten the future survival of Native Indian cultures and political institutions if the institutional barriers for meaningful Indian self-government are not overcome. But if non-Natives can understand that the discursive struggle can create a deeper understanding both of native Indian and of Euro-Canadian cultures and political institutions, they may be able to co-exist as equals.