Pragmatic paradoxes and ironies of indigeneity at the “edge” of Hopi sovereignty

Abstract

In this article, I explore the paradoxes of language, cultural difference, and law in Hopi jurisprudence. In it, I analyze the metapragmatic “talk about courtroom talk,” whereby actors frame court discourse in shifting relations to Hopi cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty, exemplifying how language mediates the cultural politics of Hopi law. I thus argue for a reconsideration of the usual binaries of indigenous identity—in which claims to cultural distinctiveness are either libratory or reifying, autochthonous or other determined—suggesting that a sharper picture of cultural politics takes these antinomies together as the ironic dialectics constituting the emergent “edge” of indigenous governance today.

State Calculations of Cultural Survival in Environmental Risk Assessment: Consequences for Alaska Natives

“…The interrelated but distinct concepts of “autochthony” (Leonhardt 2006) and “indigeneity” (Pelican 2009) deal with how local actors invoke sentiments and engagements with the land as justification for belonging. A shared concern in this body of work and my own is whether indigenous peoples gain greater self‐determination and sovereignty through state recognition of cultural differences (Ghosh 2006; Richland 2007).…”

Law, Language, and a Nonsovereign Caribbean

“…Thus, according to Meyer, “by writing ‘see also ,’ it says that ‘we have it [this point or rule or holding], and they also happen to have it too.’” In other words, Meyer chooses his words carefully and consciously to put the CCJ on par with and contemporary to the Privy Council. More than this, Meyer, Abel, the president, and the other judges view language—here, common law citational practices—as a means through which law and lawmaking can be repatriated or, in this context, newly regionated (Goodman, Tomlinson, and Richland 2014; Richland 2007; see also Ng 2009). Not only did the Caribbean have law, but it had its own laws, a critical step in “closing the circle of independence” (Pollard 2004) and edging toward a sovereign‐like polity defined through its lawmaking powers (Maurer 1997).…”

Investment’s rituals: “Grassroots” extractivism and the making of an indigenous gold mine in the Peruvian Andes

“…Making these dimensions of investment explicit, all together and at once, is not just a common feature of ritual as an interactional semiotic genre that highlights ordinarily tacit values (Matoesian, 2005;Richland, 2007). This is also a means of covering all of the bases, engaging with every possibly involved political and economic actor-with a maximum of ideas about what or who land is, does, and gives.…”