Even though I do not address the situation of one particular indigenous people, but study in-digeneity and indigenous peoples in international politics in a more general way, I recognise the problematic aspects of engaging in this kind of research as a non-indigenous researcher.
Western science and research have played a leading role in the colonisation of indigenous peoples and this colonialism has not disappeared. The representation of issues that research-ers produce are often assigned the label ‘truth’: researchresearch-ers should be conscious of the ways in
which their work might (re)produce and justify the continuation of colonial relations (Tuhi-wai Smith, 2012).
Knowledge, including that generated by the social sciences, has effects of power that func-tion to form individuals and populafunc-tions into objects and subjects of management. The social sciences are significant in terms of social control; they risk repeating and reinforcing prac-tices that facilitate the current order and regulations and their ‘apparent inevitability’. By of-fering ‘authentic accounts’ that serve to justify solutions and interventions, the social sciences contribute to creating certain conditions of possibility and precluding others rather than en-gaging in an analysis of, for example, the functioning of governance (Bastalich, 2009).
It has not been my aim in the dissertation to uncover some essential ‘truth’ about indig-enous peoples and their involvement in international politics. Nor has the purpose of the research been to point out the ways in which things are ‘wrong’ or to offer a fix, some sort of empowerment or an ‘authentic’ picture of how things really are. Even less have I sought to provide advice or say what indigenous peoples, or other actors, should do, as that would not be ethically appropriate either. Any research claiming to offer the ‘truth’ about indigene-ity and what needs to be done in order to ‘free’ the indigenous peoples would be a premier example of an attempt to regulate and constrain action. The approach that I have pursued in this research is to not view the legal or political progress in the case of indigenous peoples as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or determine that there have been ‘losers’ and ‘winners’ in the devel-opments. The focus has been on dissecting the ways in which certain things are sayable and doable in the context of indigenous issues and international politics – their conditions of possibility – rather than on ‘a position from which to condemn or congratulate’ (Koopman, 2013: 93).
The present study analyses afresh issues that pertain to indigeneity in international poli-tics. The potential that research has is that it can open up new possibilities for thinking, being and acting instead of creating more regulations and limits (Foucault, 1991b: 13; Bastalich, 2009). Instead of offering answers or solutions, I have asked questions, problematised and challenged those things that have been – and remain – non-issues: they have not been rec-ognised as deserving of or needing critical analysis. This has meant critically probing some notions that are traditionally seen as ‘good’ for indigenous peoples, for example, the growing recognition and codification of their rights and their inclusion in environmental political arenas because of their alleged special relationship to nature and environmental knowledge (see Article 3, ‘At the Crossroads of Autonomy and Essentialism’ and Article 4, ‘Indigenous Rights as Tactics of Neoliberal Governance’). Examining these things critically has meant that I have had to move beyond the ‘comfort zone’ of what I have termed the ‘common ground’ on indigeneity in order to start analysing what these seemingly self-evidently beneficial develop-ments, as well as the language used in the context of indigeneity, actually do. In doing this, I have had to break with the conventional ways of talking about and perceiving indigeneity in international politics, for example by moving beyond a focus on institutional access (see also Spivakovsky, 2006). In my view, however, research cannot stay in the comfort of these con-ventional perceptions if it is to ask critical questions and start opening up alternative ways of understanding phenomena.
A researcher is part of his or her research, as regards both the process and the outcome.
My interpretation of the material can only give a partial account of the issues being studied.
What I have done in this dissertation is to point out and challenge some of what I have inter-preted as accepted truths. This interpretation is contingent and done from a certain theoreti-cal and epistemologitheoreti-cal viewpoint; I do not claim to give a definitive account of the issues at hand. Hence, I also acknowledge and welcome the possibility of alternative approaches and accounts (Jørgensen, 2002: 43-44; Bastalich, 2009; Kendall and Wickham, 1999; Lykke, 2010:
5-6).
As part of the research material for this dissertation consists of observations made at the annual sessions of the PF, I have had to take ethical considerations into account while at-tending and observing the sessions. In order to gain entrance into the PF sessions, I had to pre-register as a researcher affiliated with a research institution. In observing the sessions, side-events and pre-meeting of the Global Indigenous Caucus and while discussing with the participants, I did not record the specific source of the information that I have written down and used but represented it on a more general level to avoid the material containing informa-tion that could be linked to a particular individual. I chose this anonymity in order to en-sure respectful academic practice, even though the sessions and the side-events are occasions where the participants publicly represent their indigenous NGOs or states. While attending the sessions and discussing with indigenous, state and UN agency representatives, I disclosed that I was doing an academic study on the international political agency of indigenous peo-ples. The political statements of representatives of indigenous peoples, states and UN agen-cies delivered at the UN PF that form a part of the research material are openly available on the website of the DoCip (see footnote 9). The reports of the SRIP, another part of the re-search material, are also publicly available online (see footnote 10).
My initial research interest in the possibilities of indigenous peoples to have influence in in-ternational politics had to do with the ways in which the relations between indigenous self-determination and state sovereignty were playing out at the international level. This is dis-cussed in Article 1, ‘Indigenous-state Relations in the UN’. While the approach in the article highlighted issues that play a significant role in international politics as regards indigenous peoples, it also generated a number of additional research questions that needed to be ad-dressed in the subsequent articles.
In Article 2, ‘Paradoxes of Power’, I offer a nuanced analysis of indigenous subjectivities in international politics. The research differs from the more conventional studies of the politi-cal participation of indigenous peoples, such as those focusing on participation at the level of institutional access and legal progress.
In international politics, indigenous peoples are represented, and they represent them-selves, as carers for and defenders of the environment, as living in and from nature. This al-legedly special relationship to nature is used to justify the agency of indigenous peoples in environmental politics. Thus, it became especially pertinent to critically analyse this constant entanglement of indigeneity and the environment/nature. The co-authored Article 3, ‘At the Crossroads of Autonomy and Essentialism’ unravels this entanglement and its power effects.
The recurring and familiar language of rights in relation to indigenous peoples emerged as another pertinent topic for closer analysis. In Article 4, ‘Indigenous Rights as Tactics of Neoliberal Governance’, I analyse the power effects that indigenous rights, and an expert’s interpretation of them, have that go beyond the proclaimed aims of indigenous rights and facilitate neoliberal governance.
5.1 Article 1: The tug-of-war between state sovereignty and indigenous