WSTB05 Abstract assignment 1
Order Description
Read the attachment “WSTB05 Abstract assignment instructions”for instructions and detail description. Also, “Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2008 (1999). “Colonizing Knowledges.”.
WSTB05 Abstract assignment
Choose an article to write up and submit in abstract form. You are also encouraged to adopt the process of writing abstracts
Format:
These abstracts should be 1—2 pages total (typed and double-spaced), regardless of the length of the reading. However, only the first 1—2 paragraphs will a conventional abstract; the rest will be critical reflection. For the abstract portion, you should summarize the major points of the reading, and then provide your own critical analysis of the article’s major points or claims. Note that being critical does not require you to be negative about the author or article, but is about taking a questioning stance.
For the abstract portion, you will be assessed on?• how well you pull out the main ideas of each reading, • how clearly you present each idea in your writing
Critical analysismight include some of the following:?• your thoughts on possible applications of the article;?• questions you have about the author’s/authors’ chosen approach to their topic; • connections you see to other course materials;?• gaps between what the author(s) set out to do and what the article delivers;?• oversights in the author’s/authors’ analysis;?• possible other directions for the author’s/authors’ ideas.
Please include specific citations in your abstracts, though for course readings, you only need to provide the author’s/authors’ last names and page number in brackets. Though it is not necessary to draw on non-course materials for this assignment, if you do mention other articles, provide complete reference information. No cover page is required, but please put your name and student number, as well as the name of the author(s) and article you are abstracting, at the top of the page.
F a i r D e a l i n g ( S h o r t E x c e r p t )
Title: Colonizing Knowledges
Author: Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 1950
Course: Approches to Research in WGS
Course Code: LEC01 Term:
Department: WST
Thank you for using the University of Toronto Libraries Syllabus Service. We are pleased to be able to offer this
service to interested faculty.
It is important to note that the materials provided here are only to be made available on a password protected
platform such as Blackboard, and only to students enrolled in the class. If you have any questions on whether your
use of these materials is consistent with University Policy, please contact the Scholarly Communications and
Copyright Office at [email protected].
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
CHAPTER 3
Colonizing Knowledges
We have a history ofpeople putting Maori under a microscope in the same way a
scientist looks at an insect. The ones doing the looking are giving themselves the power
to define.
Merata Mita1
In the previous chapter the metaphor of an archive was used to convey
the sense by which the West drew upon a vast history of itself and
multiple traditions of knowledge which incorporate cultural views of
reality, of time and space. This chapter argues that the form of
imperialism which indigenous peoples are confronting now emerged
from that period of European history known as the Enlightenment. The
Enlightenment provided the spirit, the impetus, the confidence, and the
political and economic structures that facilitated the search for new
knowledges. The project of the Enlightenment is often referred to as
‘modernity’ and it is that project which is claimed to have provided the
stimulus for the industrial revolution, the philosophy of liberalism, the
development of disciplines in the sciences and the development of
public education. Imperialism underpinned and was critical to these
developments. Whilst imperialism is often thought of as a system which
drew everything back into the centre, it was also a system which
distributed materials and ideas outwards. Said’s notion of ‘positional
superiority’ is useful here for conceptualizing the ways in which know
ledge and culture were as muchpart of imperialism as raw materials and
military strength. Knowledge was also there to be discovered, extracted,
appropriated and distributed. Processes for enabling these things to
occur became organized and systematic. They not only informed the
field of study referred to by Said as ‘Orientalism’ but other disciplines
of knowledge and ‘regimes of truth’. It is through these disciplines that
the indigenous world has been presented to the West and it is through
these disciplines that indigenous peoples often research for the fragments
58
COLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 59
of ourselves which were taken, catalogued, studied and stored. It is not
the intention of this chapter to tell the history of Western knowledge
but rather to draw that history down into the colonized world, show the
relationship between knowledge, research and imperialism, and then
discuss the ways in which it has come to structure our own ways of
knowing, through the development of academic disciplines and through
the education of colonial elites and indigenous or ‘native’ intellectuals.
Western knowledge and science are ‘beneficiaries’ of the colonization of
indigenous peoples. The knowledge gained through our colonization has
been used, in turn, to colonize us in what Ngugi wa Thiong’o calls the
colonization ‘of the mind’.2
Establishing the Positional Superiority of Western Knowledge
The project of modernity signalled the end of feudalism and absolutist
authority, legitimated by divine rule, and announced the beginning of
the modern state. The new state formation had to meet the requirements
of an expanding economybased on major improvements in production.
The industrial revolution changed and made new demands upon the
individual and the political system. The modern state was wrested from
the old regime of absolutist monarchs by the articulation of liberal
political and economic theories.3 Asa system of ideas, liberalism focuses
on the individual, who has the capacity to reason, on a society which
promotes individual autonomy and self-interest, and on a state which
has a rational rule of law which regulates a public sphere of life, but
which allows individuals to pursue their economic self-interest. Once it
was accepted that humans had the capacity to reason and to attain this
potential through education, through a systematic form of organizing
knowledge, then it became possible to debate these ideas in rational and
‘scientific’ ways.
The development of scientific thought, the exploration and
‘discovery’ by Europeans of other worlds, the expansion of trade, the
establishment of colonies, and the systematic colonization of indigenous
peoples in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are all facets of the
modernist project. Modernism is more than a re-presentation of
fragments from the cultural archive in new contexts. ‘Discoveries’ about
and from the ‘new’ world expanded and challenged ideas the West held
about itself4 The production of knowledge, new knowledge and
transformed ‘old’ knowledge, ideas about the nature of knowledge and
the validity of specific forms of knowledge, became as much
commodities of colonial exploitation as other natural resources.5
Indigenous peoples were classified alongside the flora and fauna;
hierarchical typologies of humanity and systems of representation were
60 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
fuelled by new discoveries; and cultural maps were charted and
territories claimed and contested by the major European powers. Hence
some indigenous peoples were ranked above others in terms of such
things as the belief that they were ‘nearly human’, ‘almost human’ or
‘sub-human’. This often depended on whether it was thought that the
peoples concerned possessed a ‘soul’ and could therefore be ‘offered’
salvation and whether or not they were educable and could be offered
schooling. These systems for organizing, classifying and storing new
knowledge, and for theorizing the meanings of such discoveries,
constituted research. In a colonial context, however, this research was
undeniably also about power and domination. The instruments or
technologies of research were also instruments of knowledge and
instruments for legitimating various colonial practices.
The imaginary line between ‘east’ and ‘west’, drawn in 1493 by a Papal
Bull, allowed for the political division of the world and the struggle by
competing Western states to establish what Said has referred to as a
‘flexible positional superiority’ over the known, and yet to become
known, world.6 This positional superioritywas contested at severallevels
by European powers. These imaginary boundaries were drawn again in
Berlin in 1934 when European powers sat around the table once more
to carve up Africa and other parts of ‘their’ empires. They continue to
be redrawn. Imperialism and colonialism are the specific formations
through which the West came to ‘see’, to ‘name’ and to ‘know’
indigenous communities. The cultural archive with its systems of
representation, codes for unlocking systems of classification, and
fragmented artefacts of knowledge enabled travellers and observers to
make sense of what thev saw and to represent their new-found
knowledge back to the West through the authorship and authority of
their representations.
Whilst colonialism at an economic level, including its ultimate
expression through slavery, opened up new materials for exploitation
and new markets for trade, at a cultural level, ideas, images and
experiences about the Other helped to shape and delineate the essential
differences between Europe and the rest. Notions about the Other,
which already existed in the European imagination, were recast within
the framework of Enlightenment philosophies, the industrial revolution
and the scientific ‘discoveries’ of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. When discussing the scientific foundations of Western
research, the indigenous contribution to these foundations is rarely
mentioned. To have acknowledged their contribution would, in terms
of the rules of research practice, be as legitimate as acknowledging the
contribution of a variety of plant, a shard of pottery or a ‘preserved head
of a native’ to research. Furthermore, according to Bazin, ‘Europeans
COLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 61
could not even imagine that other people could ever have done things
before or better than themselves’.7 The objects of research do not have
a voice and do not contribute to research or science. In fact, the logic
of the argument would suggest that it is simply impossible, ridiculous
even, to suggest that the object of research can contribute to anything.
An object has no life force, no humanity, no spirit of its own, so there
fore ‘it’ cannot make an active contribution. This perspective is not
deliberately insensitive; it is simply that the rules did not allow such a
thought to enter the scene. Thus, indigenous Asian, American, Pacific
and African forms of knowledge, systems of classification, technologies
and codes of social life, which began to be recorded in some detail by
the seventeenth century, were regarded as ‘new discoveries’ by Western
science.8 These discoveries were commodified as property belonging to
the cultural archive and body of knowledge ot the West.9
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also constituted an era of
highly competitive ‘collecting’. Many indigenous people might call this
‘stealing’ rather than ‘collecting’. This included the collecting of terri
tories, of new species of flora and fauna, of mineral resources and of
cultures. James Clifford, for example, refers to ethnography as a science
which was
fa] form of culture collecting … |which] highlights the ways that diverse
experiences and facts are selected, gathered, detached from their original
temporal occasions, and given enduring value in a new arrangement.
Collecting – at least in the West, where time is generally thought to be
linear and irreversible – implies a rescue of phenomena from inevitable
historical decay or loss.”1
The idea that collectors were actually rescuing artefacts from decay and
destruction, and from indigenous peoples themselves, legitimated
practices which also included commercial trade and plain and simple
theft. Clearly, in terms of trade indigenous peoples were often active
participants, in some cases delivering ‘made to order’ goods. The
different agendas and rivalries of indigenous groups were also known to
have been incorporated into the commercial activities of Europeans.
Hence, muskets could be traded and then used to pursue traditional
enemies or one group of people could be used to capture and assist in
the enslavement of another group who were also their traditional rivals.
Indigenous property is still said to be housed in ‘collections’, which in
turn are housed either in museums or private galleries, and art and
artefacts are often grouped and classified in the name of their ‘collector’.
These collections have become the focus of indigenous peoples’
attempts to reclaim ancestral remains and other cultural items (known
in the West as ‘artefacts’) belonging to their people.
62 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
It is important to remember, however, that colonialism was not just
about collection. It was also about re-arrangement, re-presentation and
re-distribution. For example, plant species were taken by Joseph Banks
for the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. Here they could be ‘grown,
studied, and disbursed to the colonial stations, a centre of plant transfers
on the scientific level, and of the generation and publication of know
ledge about plants’.11 The British Empire became a global laboratory for
research and development. New species of plants and animals were
introduced to the colonies to facilitate development and to ‘strengthen’
indigenous species. This point is worth remembering as it contrasts with
the view, sometimes referred to as a diffusionist explanation, that
knowledge, people, flora and fauna simply disbursed themselves around
the world. This botanical colonization had already been successfully
carried out in other places: for example, maize, sweet potatoes, and
tobacco from South America had been widely distributed. In the centre
of this collection and distribution network was the imperial ‘home’
country. The colonies were peripheral satellites which gained access to
these new knowledges and technologies through ‘recourse to the
writings of authors in the centre’.12 One effect of this system of
redistribution was the interference caused by new species to the
ecologies of their new environments and the eventual extinction of
several species of bird and animal life.13 In the case of New Zealand,
Cherryl Smith argues that, ecologically, the indigenous world was
colonized by weeds.14
Among the other significant consequences of ecological imperialism
—carried by humans, as well as by plants and animals —were the viral
and bacterial diseases which devastated indigenous populations. This
devastation or genocide was, in the accounts of many indigenous
peoples, used deliberately as a weapon of war. Stories are told in Canada,
for example, of blankets used by smallpox victims being sent into First
Nation communities while the soldiers and settlers camped outside
waiting for the people to die. There were several ideologies which
legitimated the Western impact on indigenous health and well-being.
These supported racial views already in place but which in the later
nineteenth century became increasingly legitimated by the ‘scientific’
views of social Darwinism. The concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’,
used to explain the evolution of species in the natural world, was applied
enthusiastically to the human world. It became a very powerful belief
that indigenous peoples were inherently weak and therefore, at some
point, would die out. There were debates about how this could be
prevented, for example, through miscegenation and cultural assimilation,
and whether this, in fact, was ‘desirable’. Judgements on these issues
circled back or depended upon prior considerations as to whether the
COLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 63
indigenous group concerned had souls, could be saved, and also could
be redeemed culturally. Influential debates on these matters by Catholic
scholars such as B
artolome de Las Casas took place during the sixteenth
century. In nineteenth-century New Zealand someof the debates delved
rightdown into the supposed fecundity rates of indigenous women and
the better prospects for racial survival if miscegenation occurred. There
were very serious scientific views put forward to account for the demise
of the indigenous populations. Some views included: sterility caused by
the ‘licentiousness’ of the women, a vegetable diet, infanticide and
abortion. Other causes were put down to a sense of ‘hopelessness’ and
lack of spirit, which came about through contact with ‘civilization’.15
But there were also state policies (federal, provincial and local) of
‘benign neglect’ which involved minimal intervention (the ‘infected
blanket’ strategy) while people suffered and died. There were also more
proactive policies based around such ideas as ‘Manifest Destiny’ which
sanctioned the taking of indigenous lands by any means.16 Ward
Churchill and other indigenous writers classify these actions as part of
the Columbian legacy of genocide.17 In relation to the diseases and dis
ease which the West is said to have introduced to indigenous peoples,
the bigger question has always been the extent to which the impact of
disease is an inevitable consequence of contactwith the West. The signifi
cance of the issues which this question raises emerges when we examine,
in a later chapter, the world-wide search currently being undertaken
amongst indigenous populations for genetic solutions to Western dis
eases. Aborigine activist Bobbi Sykes has an ‘acid test’ for the Western
impact on indigenous health which consists of two lists: one a list of
diseases introduced by Europeans to Aboriginal people, the other a list of
diseases introduced by Aboriginal people to Europeans. There are no
itemslisted on the secondlist. That emptyspace tells a very potent story.18
The globalization of knowledge and Western culture constantly
reaffirms the West’s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge,
the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’
knowledge. This form of global knowledge is generally referred to as
‘universal’ knowledge, available to all and not really ‘owned’ by anyone,
that is, until non-Western scholars make claims to it. When claims like
that are made history is revised (again) so that the story of civilization
remains the story of the West. For this purpose, the Mediterranean
world, the basin of Arabic culture and the lands east of Constantinople
are conveniently appropriated as part of the story of Western civilization,
Western philosophy and Western knowledge.1” Through imperialism,
however, these cultures, peoples and their nation states were re
positioned as ‘oriental’, or ‘outsider’ in order to legitimate the imposition
of colonial rule. For indigenous peoples from other places, the real
‘^
64 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
lesson to be learned is that we have no claim whatsoever to civilization.
It is something which has been introduced from the West, by the West,
to indigenous peoples, for our benefit and for which we should be duly
grateful.
The nexus between cultural ways of knowing, scientific discoveries,
economic impulses and imperial power enabled the West to make
ideological claims to having a superior civilization. The ‘idea’ of the West
became a reality when it was re-presented back to indigenous nations
through colonialism. By the nineteenth century colonialism not only
meant the imposition of Western authority over indigenous lands,
indigenous modes of production and indigenous law and government,
but the imposition of Western authority over all aspects of indigenous
knowledges, languages and cultures. This authority incorporated what
Said refers to as alliances between the ideologies, ‘cliches’, general beliefs
and understandings held about the Orient and the views of ‘science’ and
philosophical theories.2″
For many indigenous peoples the major agency for imposing this
positional superiority over knowledge, language and culture was colonial
education. Colonial education came in two basic forms: missionary or
religious schooling (which was often residential) followed later by public
and secular schooling. Numerous accounts across nations now attest to
the critical role played by schools in assimilating colonized peoples, and
in the systematic, frequently brutal, forms of denial of indigenous
languages, knowledges and cultures. Not all groups of indigenous
peoples, however, were permitted to attend school —some groups being
already defined in some way as ‘ineducable’ or just plain troublesome
and delinquent. Furthermore, in many examples the indigenous language
was used as the medium of instruction and access to the colonizing
language was denied specifically. This policy was designed to deny
opportunities to participate as citizens.
Colonial education was also used as a mechanism for creating new
indigenous elites. It was not the only mechanism for producing elite
groups, as the traditional hierarchies within an indigenous society who
converted to the colonial ideology also formed part of the elite group.
Schooling helped identify talented students who were then groomed for
more advanced education. Many of these students were sent away to
boarding schools while others were sent to the metropolitan centre in
Europe for their university studies. In these settings, and through their
learning, students acquired the tastes, and sampled some of the benefits
and privileges, of living within the metropolitan culture. Their elite status
came about through the alignment of their cultural and economic
interests with those of the colonizing group rather than with those of
their own society.
COLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 65
School knowledge systems however, were informed by a much more
comprehensive system of knowledge which linked universities, scholarly
societies and imperial views of culture. Hierarchies of knowledge and
theories which had rapidly developed to account for the discoveries of
the newworldwerelegitimated at the centre. Schools simply reproduced
domesticated versions of that knowledge for uncritical consumption.
Although colonial universities saw themselves as being part of an
international community and inheritors of a legacy of Western know
ledge, theywere also part of the historical processes of imperialism. They
were established as an essential part of the colonizing process, a bastion
of civilization and a sign that a colony and its settlers had ‘grown up’.
Attempts to ‘indigenize’ colonial academic institutions and/or individual
disciplines within them have been fraught with major struggles over
what counts as knowledge, as language, as literature, as curriculum and
as the role of intellectuals, and over the critical function of the concept
of academic freedom.21
Colonizing the Disciplines
Academic knowledges are organized around the idea of disciplines and
fields of knowledge. Theseare deeply implicated in eachother and share
genealogical foundations in various classical and Enlightenment philoso
phies. Most of the ‘traditional’ disciplines are grounded in cultural world
views which are either antagonistic to other belief systems or have no
methodology for dealing with other knowledge systems. Underpinning
all of what is taught at universities is the beliefin the concept of science
as the all-embracing method for gaining an understanding of the world.
Some of these disciplines, however, are more directly implicated in
colonialism in that either they have derived their methods and under
standings from the colonized world or they have tested their ideas in
the colonies. How the colonized were governed, for example, was
determined by previous experiences in other colonies and by the
prevailing theories about race, gender, climate and other factors
generated by ‘scientific’ methods. Classification systems were developed
specifically to cope with the mass of new knowledge generated by the
discoveries of the ‘new world’. New colonies were the laboratories of
Western science. Theories generated from the exploration and exploita
tion of colonies, and of the people who had prior ownership of these
lands, formed the totalizing appropriation of the Other.
Robert Young argues that Hegel
articulates a philosophical structure of the appropriation of the other as
a form of knowledge which uncannily simulates the project of nineteenth
century imperialism; the construction of knowledges which all operate
66 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
through forms of expropriation and incorporation of the other mimics at
a conceptual level the geographical and economic absorption of the non-
European world by the West.22
David Goldberg claims that notions of the Other are more deeply
embedded in classical philosophy but became racialized within the
framework of liberalism and the ideas about people and society which
developed as disciplines through liberalism.23 In an interesting discussion
on the discourses which employ the word ‘civilization’, John Laffey
suggests that the word ‘civilization’ entered Anglo-French usage in the
second part of the eighteenth century, enabling the distinction to be
drawn between those who saw themselves as civilized and those who
they then regarded as the ‘savages’ abroad and at home.24 As a standard
of judgement, according to Laffey, the word ‘civilized’ became more
defined with the help of Freud and more specialized in the way different
disciplines employed the concept. One such use was comparative and
allowed for comparisons between children and savages or children and
women, for example. This way of thinking was elaborated further into
psychological justifications for the distinctions between the civilized and
the uncivilized. Freud’s influence on the way disciplines developed in
relation to colonialism is further explored by Marianna Torgovnick, who
examines the links between Freud and anthropology in her analysis of
Malinowski’s book ‘The Sexual Life of Savages’.25 According to
Turgovnick,
Freud’s explanation of the human psyche in terms of sexuality undergirded
their endeavors and influenced the structure of many ethnographic
enquiries at this stage of the discipline’s development even when those
enquiries suggested (as they often did) modifications of Freudian
paradigms, such as the Oedipus complex.26
Other key intellectuals have also been referred to as not so innocent
philosophers of the truth. Henry Louis Gates Jr names Kant, Bacon,
Hume, Jefferson and Hegel as ‘great intellectual racialists’ who have been
influential in defining the role of literature and its relationship to
humanity, ‘The salient sign of the black person’s humanity … would be
the mastering of the very essence of Western civilization, the very7
foundation of the complex fiction upon which white Western culture
has been constructed….’2″
Of all the disciplines, anthropology is the one most closely associated
with the study of the Other and with the defining of primitivism.28 As
Adam Kuper argued, ‘The anthropologists took this primitive society as
their special subject, but in practice primitive society proved to be their
own society (as they understood it) seen in a distorting mirror.29 The
COLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 67
ethnographic ‘gaze’ of anthropology has collected, classified and
represented other cultures to the extent that anthropologists are often
the academics popularly perceived by the indigenous world as the
epitome of all that it is bad with academics. Haunani Kay Trask accuses
anthropologists of being ‘takers and users’ who ‘exploit the hospitality
and generosity of native people’.3″ Trinh T. Minh-ha makes similar
references to anthropology and anthropologists, including those whose
intent now is to train Third World anthropologists. ‘Gone out of date,’
she says, ‘then revitalised, the mission of civilizing savages mutates into
the imperative of “making equal”.’31 In writing a history of geography,
Livingstone refers to this discipline as the ‘science of imperialism par
excellence’.32 His comment relates to geographical studies into such
things as the mapping of racial difference, the links which were drawn
between climate and mental abilities, the use of map makers in French
colonies for military intelligence and the development of acclimatization
societies.33 As suggested above in the Introduction, history is also
implicated in the construction of totalizing master discourses which
control the Other. The history of the colonies, from the perspective of
the colonizers, has effectively denied other views of what happened and
what the significance of historical ‘facts’ may be to the colonized. ‘If
history is written by the victor,’ arguesJanet Abu-Lughod, ‘then it must,
almost by definition, “deform” the history of the others.’34 Donna
Awatere claims that, ‘The process of recording what happened auto
matically favours the white occupiers because they won. In such a way
a whole past is “created” and then given the authority of truth.’3d These
comments have been echoed wherever indigenous peoples have had the
opportunity to ‘talk back’ to the academic world.
While disciplines are implicated in each other, particularly in their
shared philosophical foundations, they are also insulated from each
other through the maintenance of what are known as disciplinary
boundaries. Basil Bernstein has shown how this works in his paper on
the ‘classification and framing of knowledge’.36 Insulation enables
disciplines to develop independently. Their histories are kept separate
and ‘pure’. Concepts of ‘academic freedom’, the ‘search for truth’ and
‘democracy’ underpin the notion of independence and are vigorously
defended by intellectuals. Insularity protects a discipline from the ‘out
side’, enabling communities of scholars to distance themselves from
others and, in the more extreme forms, to absolve themselves of
responsibility for what occurs in other branches of their discipline, in
the academy and in the world.
In the context of research and at a very pragmatic level researchers
from different projects and different research teams can be in and out
of the same community (much in the way many government social
68 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
services are in and out of family homes), showing ‘as a collective’ little
responsibility for the overall impact of their activities. At other levels
criticism of individual researchers and their projects is deflected by the
argument that those researchers are different in some really significant
‘scientific’ way from others. How indigenous communities are supposed
to work this out is a mystery. There are formal organizations of
disciplines, researchers and communities of scholars, many of which
have ethical guidelines. These organizations are based on the idea that
scholars consent to participate within them as scholars, as professionals,
or as ethical human beings. Not all who carry out research in indigenous
communities belong to, or are bound by, such collegial self-discipline.
Disciplining the Colonized
The concept of discipline is even more interesting when we think about
it not simply as a way of organizing systems of knowledge but also as
a way of organizing people or bodies. Foucault has argued that discipline
in the eighteenth century became ‘formulas of domination’ which were
at work in schools, hospitals and military organizations.3″ Techniques of
detail were developed to maintain discipline over the body. The
colonizing of the Other through discipline has a number of different
meanings. In terms of the way knowledge was used to discipline the
colonized it worked in a variety of ways. The most obvious forms of
discipline were through exclusion, marginalization and denial. Indigenous
ways of knowing were excluded and marginalized. This happened to
indigenous views about land, for example, through the forced imposition
of individualized title, through taking land away for ‘acts of rebellion’,
and through redefining land as ‘waste land’ or ’empty land’ and then
taking it away. Foucault suggests that one waydiscipline was distributed
was through enclosure. This is the other side of exclusion in that the
margins are enclosures: reserved lands are enclosures, schools enclose,
but in order to enclose they also exclude, there is something on the
outside. Discipline is also partitioned, individuals s