You must read and analyse the following journal article:
Fenelon, James V., and Hall, Thomas D. 2008. "Revitalization and indigenous resistance to globalization and neoliberalism."American Behavioral Scientist51(12): 1867-1901.When you have carefully read and made notes about it, you must write this up as an article analysis essay, which must include the following:
- an opening paragraph that outlines the purpose of the essay and briefly introduces the article and author,
- a series of body paragraphs that, taken together, provide:
- a summary of the main points raised in the article,
- a concise analysis of these main points, along with a discussion about how the paper connects to a sociological understanding of globalization,
- a concluding paragraph that restates the main points discussed in the essay.
This task is based on only one source, but you must still include a Reference list at the end of your essay, with the citation presented in Chicago referencing format.
You should also include in-text citations the article, as relevant to your discussion and analysis
ABS318938_For WEB.qxd http://abs.sagepub.com/ American Behavioral Scientist http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/12/1867 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0002764208318938 2008 51: 1867American Behavioral Scientist James V. Fenelon and Thomas D. Hall Neoliberalism Revitalization and Indigenous Resistance to Globalization and Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/12/1867.refs.htmlCitations: at SAGE Publications on October 12, 2010abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com/ http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/12/1867 http://www.sagepublications.com http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/12/1867.refs.html http://abs.sagepub.com/ 1867 Revitalization and Indigenous Resistance to Globalization and Neoliberalism James V. Fenelon California State University, San Bernardino Thomas D. Hall DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana This article reviews discussions and case studies of indigenous peoples, especially American Indians (Lakota, Navajo, and Wampanoag), the Zapatista movement, Latin American examples (Mapuche, Guarani, and Miskito), the Adevasi in India, and the Maori, adding short sketches of Kurds in the Middle East, Pashtun in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and cases from Africa and southeast Asia to develop a general indigenous model, including social systems of decision making, economic distribution, land tenure system, and community relations. The authors present two such models, one on indigenous revitalization and another on the resistance to state domination and the forces of globalization, especially in respect to neoliberalism, and then the authors make an applied analysis toward indigenous peoples’ struggles globally. Keywords: indigenous peoples; globalization; neoliberalism; cultural sovereignty; transnational Native Nations; autonomy; resistance and revitalization Introduction In this article, we bring together and analyze discussion of indigenous peoples in general terms rather than individual cases to avoid reductionist situations in which social and political resistance and community-based revitalization efforts of indige- nous peoples are considered as if one size fits all, leading to stereotypical and inac- curate representations. We seek to go beyond even common “compare and contrast” analyses and begin framing the struggles for autonomy and cultural survival of the Lakota and Wampanoag in the United States, the Adevasi in India, the Maori in New Zealand, Zapotecs and Zapatista-led Mayan (e.g., Tzotzil) peoples in Mexico, the Mapuche, the Guarani, and several others in Latin America within a larger context of historical forces of globalization. We discuss resistance and revitalization in terms of world-systems analysis because it is necessary to discuss autonomy and cultural systems in relation to those states that have historically as well as continually dominated indigenous peoples and American Behavioral Scientist Volume 51 Number 12 August 2008 1867-1901 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0002764208318938 http://abs.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on October 12, 2010abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com/ the changing positions of those states in the world-system.1 In this effort, we discuss four sets of issues that exemplify indigenous resistance to the forces of globalization and revitalization of cultural traditions (Fenelon & Hall, 2005; Hall & Fenelon, 2004). The issues include the following: 1. Global historical context 2. Cultural traditions stressing community and consensus-driven governance 3. Holistic, social, and spiritual values that embody generosity and reciprocity as opposed to competition and accumulation 4. Worldviews that interact positively with the earth’s environment and land, rather than “profiting” from natural resource exploitation In addition, we present a model of resistance and revitalization, and discuss the application and relationships of these spheres of indigenous activity to the states within which they are embedded. We draw some conclusions about these interac- tions on the global, national, regional, and local levels. Finally, we hope to offer potentially better worldviews for the future of humanity. By beginning with a dis- cussion of resistance and revitalization in terms of world-systems processes, and the autonomy and cultural systems that must be understood in relation to the states that make up the world-system that has dominated indigenous peoples, historically and currently, we include consideration of historical systems of colonization, hegemonic expansion, conquest, and contemporary systems of domination. Most indigenous peoples are acutely aware of these historical relations and how they have affected them through identity formation and in other ways. States also have a strong invest- ment in these processes, especially in how they relate to land and economy. Next, we consider selected generic indigenous issues: cultural traditions built around community; consensus-driven forms of local governance; undifferentiated, holistic spiritual values that usually embody social prestige in generosity and reci- procity rather than competition and accumulation; and worldviews that positively interact with the earth’s environment and land, rather than destroying it through nat- ural resource exploitation. Because issues appear consistently throughout most indige- nous social systems, we apply these analyses to pertinent case studies. To round out our discussions, we occasionally make reference to other indigenous peoples and to meetings of scholars and leaders called América Profunda in Mexico. We also suggest that many indigenous practices may serve as models or suggestions for other ways to approach industrial societies than those advocated by neoliberal analysts. Our discussions are summarized into the following two models, the first labeled “Four Modes of Indigenous Revitalization,” and the second labeled “Indigenous Peoples’ Relationships in Resistance to Globalization and Neoliberalism,” using local “autonomy” as a form of revitalization over decision making, economy, land and sea, and community. We use these models to draw some conclusions and to make suggestions for further analysis. 1868 American Behavioral Scientist at SAGE Publications on October 12, 2010abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com/ To narrow the scope of indigenous peoples into a more manageable context, we have borrowed Cobo’s (1987) UN working definition of indigenous peoples: Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical con- tinuity with preinvasion and precolonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present nondominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. Cobo further noted that such “a historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present,” within several additional factors. These factors Cobo referred to are as follows: (1) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; (2) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; (3) Culture in general, or in specific manifesta- tions; (4) Language; (5) Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; (6) Other relevant factors.2 We identify in the above definitions that relationships to the land are seen as spiritual, just as “culture” is redistributive economically and is community based for leadership, with little to no differentiation of social institutions such as law, property, and religion. Religious traditions, in particular, are vastly different from the various monotheisms found in the states of the modern world-system, constituting important forms of resis- tance to the ideologies of the modern world-system and to pressures for increasing homogeneity of culture due to various globalization processes. Many indigenous peoples see these as “spirituality” and therefore a way of life. Champagne (2005) argued that many indigenous peoples envision the world as “full of forces that have agency, soul or spirit,” where humans lack “an exclusive role” (pp. 1-6). Thus, many indigenous religions not only oppose capitalist philosophies but also challenge the underpinnings of enlightenment philosophy. Indeed, this challenge is the basis of the ambivalent relations with ecologists: “Land is given as a sacred gift and a sacred stew- ardship. People do not own land, but must care for the land as part of their sacred task within the purpose and direction of the cosmic order” (Champagne, 2005, pp. 1-7). These core values are inseparable from “traditional” culture and are often a very important component of continuing resistance to hegemonic domination. Some of the most significant forms of resistance are the various ways that resources are managed collectively for the communal good, and not solely as con- ventional “public goods” administration. This goes deeper than collective ownership of goods—land and livestock most commonly—that are typically individually and privately owned commodities in the capitalist world-system. One of the more dramatic examples of such resistance is the continuing effort of Lakota peoples to regain control of the Black Hills as a sacred locale for community, rather than for some Fenelon, Hall / Indigenous Resistance to Globalization and Neoliberalism 1869 at SAGE Publications on October 12, 2010abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://abs.sagepub.com/ monetary gain as a form of compensation. Several court decisions, including that of the U.S. Supreme Court, have determined that the territory of the Black Hills was illegally taken from the Lakota peoples (Fenelon, 1997; Iverson, 1999, p. 117; Lazarus, 1991). In accord with capitalist values and U.S. jurisprudence, the settle- ment of this claim has been monetary. The Lakota peoples, however, have steadfastly refused such commodified settlements and have insisted on the return of the land that they consider sacred. The intensity of this commitment is underscored by the rela- tive poverty of Lakota people. Shannon County, South Dakota, where Pine Ridge reservation is located (the reservation closest to the Black Hills), has been since 1980 the poorest county in the United States. Despite the temptation to take the cash set- tlement, the Lakotas have continued to reject such a settlement and continue to strug- gle for the return of their land. The issue of sovereignty has been constant throughout all of these discussions for indigenous peoples within the United States. Because of initial treaty agreements, indigenous peoples in the United States have a special relationship directly with the U.S. federal government (Deloria & Wilkins, 1999; Fenelon, 2002). It is on this legal status that many actions of Native American groups rest. Indeed, sovereignty issues are often the basis of challenges to states around the world and cut to the heart of the interstate system built on the Peace of Westphalia (1648; Wilmer, 1993, 2002). Although Native peoples have achieved some success in maintaining sovereignty, they have had to fight on European legal grounds—within European law (for detailed examples from northern New Spain, see Cutter 1995a, 1995b). Recently, one of the more outstanding successes has been to use the doctrine of sovereignty to build various gaming operations (Fenelon & LeBeau, 2006; Light & Rand, 2005). By fighting European civilization on its own turf, indigenous peoples