Economic changes, household strategies, and social relations of contemporary Nunavik Inuit

Abstract

This article examines current economic practices of the Inuit of Nunavik and the consequences of these practices on social relations. In western societies, recourse to market and increasingly frequent use of money have been identified as major factors related to a decline in household production. These practices are also associated with a reduction of interpersonal dependency and with the emergence of instrumental rationality. In Nunavik, like in many Arctic regions, money and commodities represent an increasing portion of the economic resources of Inuit households. Household production also contributes substantially to their resources. An examination of the Inuit household budget shows a diversity of lifestyles supported by various economic activities and strategies that aim at satisfying material needs of family members. These strategies demonstrate that Inuit are economically rational and make use of monetary calculation. This rationality does not influence all economic behaviours, which are also motivated by traditional values and customary obligations. However, the emergence of diversity in lifestyles indicates the existence of a greater margin of self-determination for individuals.

Inuit and modern hunter-gatherer subsistence

“…This is exactly what Kishigami (2000) details in the case of Nunavik Inuit (see also Chabot 2003;Gombay 2010). There, specifically-designated hunter support funds are transferred from the regional government to local authorities for distribution to hunters.…”

“…However, data from Alaska (Fienup-Riordan 1986;Jorgensen 1990;Langdon 1991;Wolfe and Walker 1989), Greenland (Dahl 2000), and Canada (Chabot 2003;Gombay 2010;Harder and Wenzel 2012;Wenzel 1989Wenzel , 2000 provide ample evidence that money has not overwhelmed the social economy (or priced traditional food production out of sight). Nor has there been created a dual economic system in which the monetised and traditional sectors are separate both materially and ideologically.…”

Climate change, community capitals, and food security: Building a more sustainable food system in a northern Canadian boreal community

“…This close relationship with the land and an understanding of natural variability inherent in the ecosystem has enabled communities to thrive. The land is a source of cultural and spiritual well-being, and is also the foundation for community food systems, which continue to be based on subsistence harvesting -hunting, fishing and gathering -and function through social and cultural customs and traditions, such as food sharing (Abele, 2009;Chabot, 2003;Collings, 2011;Collings, Wenzel, & Condon, 1998;Condon, Collings, & Wenzel, 1995;Dombrowski, Khan, Channell, Moses, Mclean, & Misshula, 2013;Skinner, Hanning, Desjardins, & Tsuji, 2013).…”

Seabirds as a subsistence and cultural resource in two remote Alaskan communities

“…Small remote communities in the 21st century face many challenges, especially in the Arctic and subarctic (Dryzek and Young 1985, Chabot 2003, Berman et al 2004. Social, environmental, and economic systems have all changed because of forces of modernization and globalization.…”

“…Remoteness and distance from major road systems, both of which characterize the Pribilofs, are associated with higher levels of subsistence activity in Alaskan villages (Wolfe and Walker 1987). However, generational decline in subsistence harvest or environmental changes can tilt the balance of the mixed economy toward a market economy and away from subsistence (Condon et al 1995, Chabot 2003. In some communities, subsistence activity increases when resources are less available through other means, e.g.…”