Decolonizing Canadian Anthropology first draft Delaney
Canadian anthropology has arguably been shaped by its deep ties in its past to colonialism. The discipline began with missionaries and armchair anthropologists and later would enter the professionalization era that would shape how fieldwork is conducted. This era included anthropologists such as Lewis Henry Morgan, Franz Boas and Marius Barbeau. The discipline employed methodologies colonial in nature that would go on to shape how anthropology was completed in Canada. As anthropology has changed and adapted to growing concerns, minority voices now have a place in the discipline as active participants. An Indigenous focus in Canadian anthropology has became a huge part of the discipline and there has been a shift away from colonial methodologies in favour of newer techniques such as interpretive, postmodernism and female and gendered anthropology.
Canada’s history as a colonizer has impact the way that anthropological work is conducted in Canada. Robert L.A. Hancock in his article, Towards a Historiography of Canadian Anthropology, discusses the periods that the discipline of Canadian anthropology has gone through since its emergence. Canadian anthropology emerges with the Missionary era that spurred the beginnings of anthropological work in this country. “Even though there were no professional Canadian anthropologists until the twentieth century (Cole 1973, 35), work now recognized as anthropological in nature has taken place in Canada for centuries.” (Hancock 2014: 32). Jesuit Missionaries from Europe were some of the first people to study Indigenous groups in Canada and collecting ethnography on these groups. These missionaries were heavily influenced by colonial techniques as they viewed their interactions with Indigenous groups as part of a larger ‘civilizing mission’. The missionaries were not interesting in preserving Indigenous culture and maintaining an accurate representation of their subject matter, but rather the end goal was to convert the Indigenous people to Christianity. The history of missionary work in Canada is rooted in a deeply colonial nature as Indigenous groups were targeted and assimilated. As these missionaries lived within close proximity to Indigenous groups, they created the precursor to fieldwork in anthropology. Missionary writers would go on to influence early anthropologists in Canada, but these writings were heavily biased by colonial ideologies.
One of the focal points of colonial anthropology and its history is the armchair anthropologist. The armchair anthropologist refers to European anthropologists who conducted studies on societies without actually setting foot near the subject. North American anthropologist Sergei Kan in his book, Strangers to Relatives: The Adoption and Naming of Anthropologists in Native North America critiques figures such as John Lubbock and Edward Tylor. “Their studies were syntheses of published data, in some sense, data shipped from the colonies back to England for processing.” (Kan 2001: 50). One of the hallmarks of colonial anthropology in North America was the armchair anthropological work in its early origins. “By the late nineteenth century, these groups were relatively powerless in the face of colonial agents, including, in certain cases, anthropologists.” (Kan 2001: 65). Indigenous groups in Canada were targeted with forced assimilation by the government and anthropologists were sometimes a passive participant in these techniques.
Historically, colonial anthropology has exploited the material culture of minority groups for personal benefit. Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Marius Barbeau devoted much of their anthropological career to studying Indigenous groups in Canada. Marius Barbeau focused on salvage ethnography and the Indigenous groups in Canada with a goal of collecting ethnology on these Indigenous groups. Lewis Henry Morgan was an anthropologist who arguably pioneered Indigenous studies in Canada with his work. He spent extensive time studying the Iroquois Indigenous group in Canada, recording his work on them. Morgan’s work is not without its controversies as he had a very colonialist attitude towards his subjects. “Morgan advocated for Iroquois advancement because he believed them to be “ready” for and “worthy” of such a change in their legal and political status, but also because their “absorption” into the white race was inevitable and most virtuous.” (Simpson 2007: 71). Morgan’s anthropological work was rooted in a colonial nature as he saw the Iroquois as a primitive culture and destined for assimilation into dominant white settler society. Morgan can be credited with providing some of the first research on Indigenous groups in North America and he would devote extensive time to studying the Iroquois through his fieldwork. He was one of the first in Canada to employ participant observation techniques and sought to professionalize the discipline. His work was however, deeply influenced by his colonial attitude that saw Indigenous people as lesser than white men such as himself.
As Hancock argues in his article, Canadian anthropology then moved on to the National Museum Era and the University Era. During this time period, is when anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Marius Barbeau began their studies on Indigenous groups in Canada. Hancock himself has looked at colonial anthropologists operating during this time such as Diamond Jenness and his work on the Indigenous people of the Arctic in Canada. He writes “I tried in my recent work to show that Jenness’ Arctic research, often thought to be atheoretical, “pure” ethnography, actually contained evolutionary and racist assumptions that coloured his perspective on the Inuit.” (Hancock 2014: 34). Diamond Jenness was an anthropologist who was operating around the same time as a Franz Boas and also looked at Indigenous groups in Canada. His colonial attitude during this time heavily influenced his writings and work on the Inuit in the Arctic.
Marius Barbeau dedicated his research to techniques of salvage ethnography and spent considerable time studying Indigenous groups. ““The ethnologist,” he said, “is a fool who so far deceives himself as to believe that his field notes and specimens gathered in the raw from half-breeds or [the] decrepit survivors of a past age, still represent the unadulterated knowledge of the prehistoric races of America” (Barbeau 1917, 52-53).” (Harrison and Darnell 2014: 52). Barbeau maintained this ideology that ‘traditional’ Indigenous culture needed to be preserved through ethnographic analysis. Marius Barbeau’s work in salvage ethnography heavily influenced how anthropology operated as a discipline in Canada. He was known for editing his field notes extensively to fit his own narrative and kept himself separated from the Indigenous groups he was studying. Both Boas and Barbeau viewed Indigenous groups in Canada as a dying race and it was their duty to ‘preserve’ them. Their so-called preservation was through collections of material culture and ethnology. It can be acknowledged at this time period that Indigenous groups were dealing with forced assimilation by the Canadian government and their traditional culture was fading away. These anthropologists sought to ‘preserve’ Indigenous culture through a process of what the anthropologists deemed ‘worthy’ of preservation. This professionalization era of Canadian anthropology introduced the beginnings of anthropological theory in the discipline but still was influenced by colonialism. Indigenous groups became much of the subject matter of these anthropologists operated in the early 20th century but there was an unequal power balance between the two parties.
The romanticism of the anthropologist setting out to study the ‘primitive’ Indigenous group in the late 19th century can be seen as an influence of colonialism in Canadian anthropology. This idea of the noble savage is a theme that dominates the anthropological writings of the time. Franz Boas in his work on the Inuit on Baffin Island from 1883-1884 presents this viewpoint in his compiled letters. Boas writes, “I am now truly just like a typical Eskimo” (Boas 1998: 15). Boas studied the Inuit and used participant observation techniques but there was a distance kept between himself as the researcher and the Inuit, as the subject matter.
Work on Indigenous groups in Canada differed from its American counterparts in material culture was a more immediate concern to American anthropologists. Cory Willmott argues Canadian anthropology employed a colonial model to its methodologies, whereas American anthropology leaned towards a more nationalist model. Colonialism dominated the beginnings of Canadian anthropology and a focus on solely material culture. “Canadian anthropologists argued that because of limited funds that were available for research, it was more important to record the vanishing customs of living Indian peoples than to excavate their prehistoric remains.” (Trigger, 1984: 361). As Canada is still very much a British colonial colony, these deep ties are still present in the society and how anthropology is conducted. Many of the founders of Canadian anthropology were British or from other colonies and represented these colonial ideologies. The emergence of anthropology itself was rooted in the beginnings of white European men setting out to explore and document the ‘primitive’ minorities of the world.
Frequently in anthropology, minorities and Indigenous groups are left out in having an active role in fieldwork. With changing societal norms and the emergence of Indigenous studies in anthropology, these previously unheard groups now have a voice. Research and ethical management surrounding how anthropologist’s have conducted their work in Canada has increasingly changed and adapted over the last few decades. Noel Dyck in his article, “Cultures, Communities and Claims: Anthropology and Native Studies in Canada” discusses how “the nature of anthropologists’ involvement with aboriginal communities and issues has been shifting as field researchers have been asked to intervene on behalf of native peoples when dealing governments.” (Dyck 1990: 43). Audra Simpson is an individual who presents an interesting viewpoint of Canadian anthropology throughout her writing. She is an anthropologist and an Canadian Indigenous woman who is able to be part of both so-called ‘worlds’. Simpson has written extensively on her work as an anthropologist and how her Indigenous background has influenced how she conducts and perceives the discipline.
With the introduction of post-colonial methodologies, anthropological theory has gone through a number of changes. Post-modernism, feminist and gendered theory, and interpretive anthropology have all become theories created as a reaction to this previous colonial influence. Previously, colonial anthropology disregarded the roles of women and other ‘unseen’ minorities in anthropological studies. “In turn, they focus on the necessity for generating a method of disciplinary self-reflection; and, consistently, they offer this need for a new method as a means to acknowledge and level power imbalances between ethnographers and subjects so as to improve the basic anthropological project.” (Pinkoski 2008: 174). Anthropologists are currently reviewing the colonial past of anthropology and finding new methodologies to end this colonial influence.
Canadian anthropology has gone through a number of changes over the past two centuries in its practices, methodologies and ethical standards for conducting fieldwork. Anthropologists in Canada are increasingly held to higher standards when studying minority groups, specifically Indigenous groups in Canada. The colonial history and nature of the discipline has greatly affected the relationship between the anthropologist and the subject in Indigenous studies. Applied anthropology has emerged as a growing discipline in Canadian anthropology and focuses on Indigenous peoples. “These earlier, often overtly (if not always overly) political readings of the roles of anthropologists during the colonial era have also helped to perpetuate the long-standing practice within the discipline of relegating the study of development to a much maligned subfield of applied anthropology.” (Paiement 2007: 199). A large majority of Indigenous groups use oral techniques that previous Canadian anthropology scholarship ignored in favour of material culture. “Increasingly aboriginal people have their own ideas about the kind of relationship they want to establish with an anthropologist.” (Dyck et al. 2014: 136). Previously, Indigenous groups were in an unequal power relationship with anthropologist in they were merely the subjects. Anthropologists have increasingly been working in collaborative efforts with their subjects to create a balanced relationship.
Canadian anthropology has struggled with finding its identity and rectifying its colonial past. Since colonialism is such a large part of Canadian history, it would be impossible for anthropologists to ignore the past. Audra Simpson argues that “the work of understanding these issues of membership, political recognition, sovereignty and autonomy within communities requires an historical sensibility (and reckoning) that is deeply horizontal as well as vertical.” (Simpson 2007: 76). Anthropology across the world has struggled with its colonial beginnings throughout the past centuries. Canadian anthropology especially has a tense nature with its colonial beginnings as the country has struggled with its treatment of Indigenous people across disciplines. “The limited impact of accumulated anthropological knowledge on the often grim lives of Canadian Native people, and on policy development, has been a recurrent source of reflection for anthropologists, suggesting at the very least, disquiet at the inability of the discipline to play a clear and constructive role in these arenas.” (Harrison and Darnell 2014: 9). Canadian anthropologists previously ignored some of the growing issues affecting Indigenous society, but in the last few decades has become an emerging topic at the forefront of the discipline.
Anthropologists in Canada have now begun to take a more active role in their relationship with Indigenous groups and understand their influence in shaping policy-making. Anthropologists are able to express a unique viewpoint in that they are able to collaborate with both minority groups and policy makers such as the Canadian government. Anthropologists in Canada are able to present these previously unheard groups to a larger audience. This active role of the anthropologist is as an agent in helping to shape policy reform. Newer fields in anthropology have emerged as responses to the colonial history of the origins of the discipline. “Although not unique to Canada, Canadian anthropologists are making noticeable contributions to the anthropology of advocacy and participatory or action-styled research.” (Ervin and Holyoak 2006: 142). Canadian anthropologists have become advocates for Indigenous groups on societal issues such as land claims, health initiates and quality of life.
Indigenous groups in Canada are also becoming active participants in the ways anthropology is conducted in their communities. “They emphasize the participatory component of fieldwork, suggesting that ethnographers who want to work in their communities should be prepared to do so in ways and during times specified by the community.” (Dyck et al. 2014: 136). Proper ethical consent and representation have become a focal point of anthropological work in Canada regarding Indigenous groups. Ethnography with Indigenous groups has become more of a collaborative effort between the two parties rather than previous methods with a lack of openness on the part of the anthropologist. Previously, the anthropologist would enter the community, complete their observations and leave to write their report on the fieldwork collected. Now, those participants have taken a more equal standpoint in how ethnology and fieldwork is representing their community.
In conclusion, colonialism and its influence on anthropology remains a tense issue across the world, especially in Canada with its ever present effects. Prior to the professionalization era of anthropology, missionaries conducted the majority of anthropological work in Canada who were heavily influenced by colonialist attitudes and methods. With the work of individuals such as Franz Boas, Lewis Henry Morgan and Marius Barbeau, detailed and extensive fieldwork methodologies and participant observation became the standard for anthropological work in Canada. Still influenced by their own Eurocentric biases, the unequal relationship between the anthropologist and Indigenous groups continued. As responses and re-evaluations in the discipline have emerged in the last few decades, anthropologists have sought to rectify these colonial influences. Indigenous groups, the subject of fieldwork have become active agents in these studies and taken a more equal role alongside the anthropologist to create a collaborative work.
Bibliography
Boas, Franz, et al. Franz Boas among the Inuit of Baffin Island, 1883-1884 : Journals and Letters. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Dyck, Noel. “Cultures, Communities and Claims: Anthropology and Native Studies in Canada. From Canadian Ethnic Studies. 1990. Vol. 22, Issue 3: 40-55.
Dyck, Noel and James B. Waldram. Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. 2014. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal.
Ervin, Alexander M, and Lorne Holyoak. “Applied Anthropology in Canada: Historical Foundations, Contemporary Practice and Policy Potentials.” 2006. Napa Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1: 134-155.
Hancock, Robert L.A. “Towards a Historiography of Canadian Anthropology”. From Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. 2014.
Harrison, Julia and Regna Darnell. Historicizing Canadian Anthropology . Vancouver, UBC Press, 2014.
Kan, Sergei. Strangers to Relatives : The Adoption and Naming of Anthropologists in Native North America. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2001.
Paiement, Jason Jacques. “Anthropology and Development”. 2007. Napa Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 1: 196–223.
Pinkoski, M. “Julian Steward, American Anthropology, and Colonialism.” 2008. Histories of Anthropology Annual, Vol. 4 No. 1: 172-204.
Simpson, Audra. “On Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity,‘Voice’and Colonial citizenship”. 2007. In Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue 9.
Trigger, Bruce G. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.” 1984. In Man New Series, Vol. 19, No.3: 355-370.