Sharing or commoditising? A discussion of some of the socio-economic implications of Nunavik's Hunter Support Program

Abstract

The article considers the perceptions of Inuit in one settlement in Nunavik regarding the dynamic relations between market and subsistence economies. The socio-economic role of country foods in Inuit society are described followed by a discussion about the impacts of the Hunter Support Program (HSP) on Inuit society. A hybrid institution, the HSP buys country foods in order to give them away. Based on interviews that included Inuit purveyors to, and administrators of, the programme, the article discusses some socio-economic effects of commoditisation of country foods on subsistence economies and explores the ways in which this food moves in and out of commodity status. It is argued that these shifts are linked to conflicting notions of value. Some Inuit justify the existence of the HSP because they perceive it to be an essentially non-Inuit institution which lies outside the realm of customary socio-economic organization and thereby frees them from the need to observe those rules strictly while providing them with the income to be able to respect the requirement to share food amongst Inuit. Others express reservations about the programme because it elicits behaviours amongst Inuit that they perceive as threatening their socio-economic reproduction. It is argued that the HSP, an institution that both mimics and breaks with tradition, one which is designed to help Inuit to promote the subsistence way of life yet does so in the context of at least some components of the market, is an example of Wenzel's (2001) contention that the analytical distinction between acculturation and adaptation is not a matter of oppositions, but rather, part of a whole.

Supporting Inuit food security: A synthesis of initiatives in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories

“…Accordingly, decisions regarding program eligibility, funding allocation and the nature of programming are variable between communities and over time. Funding for such programs, although sustained, is limited and therefore provided on an intermittent basis and/or to a limited number of harvesters (Ford, Smit, & Wandel, 2006;Gombay, 2009). …”

Contemporary programs in support of traditional ways: Inuit perspectives on community freezers as a mechanism to alleviate pressures of wild food access in Nain, Nunatsiavut

“…Indeed, this was a concern amongst participants; residents may become too dependent on this initiative, particularly among those who are willing to harvest their own foods but do not have the social or economic resources to do so. Other studies have reported similar findings (see, for example Kishigami, 2001Kishigami, , 2004Gombay, 2009). At the same time, it is also argued that since foods are only occasionally available, people are "obliged to go out and go hunting for themselves" (Gombay, 2009, p. 124).…”

“…Debates based on these tensions are present in other Inuit regions as well, as communities continue to adapt and respond to changing climates and socio-cultural contexts. Most notably, debates about whether to financially support harvesters is being echoed by Inuit residents in other regions who are concerned about how wild food programs have the potential to influence sharing practices, yet they also acknowledge the necessity for financial support to access and distribute wild foods (Gombay, 2009). Case study research, such as this and other studies cited here, will continue to help emphasize/identify initiative priorities, and will ultimately influence the social acceptability and the ability for such initiatives to successfully meet wild food demands based on community-wide initiative expectations.…”

“…Some of these storage units have, in fact, evolved to become community freezers. Research to date has focused on the role and acceptability of the community freezer in contemporary society (see, for example, Kishigami, 2001;Gombay, 2005Gombay, , 2009. While maintenance issues have been cited as a rationale for discontinuing some freezer initiatives , generally they are perceived as a viable option to support access to wild foods for individuals who do not always have the capacity to procure their own foods, especially in the context of a rapidly changing socio-cultural context and climate with respect to its impacts on the local landscape (Furgal and Seguin, 2006).…”

New Isotope Evidence for Diachronic and Site-Spatial Variation in Precontact Diet during the Little Ice Age at Nunalleq, Southwest Alaska

“…Today, and in recent history, traditional subsistence diets in the Y-K Delta incorporate a wide variety of resources, including marine mammals, salmonids, caribou, sea birds, marine fish, small mammals, and other animals, as well as berries and limited other vegetative foods (Barker and Barker 1993;Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982;Spray Starks 2001). Sharing is considered a very important aspect of traditional subsistence practices amongst many Indigenous Arctic cultures (see references in Gombay 2009), including Yup'ik communities (Fienup-Riordan and Rearden 2012, 35-38). Ethnographic accounts, for example from Nelson Island, do however also point to differences in food sharing and distribution between Yup'ik families and non-relatives for certain species, or even preferred parts of certain species, such as seals or walrus ("a hierachy of parts," Fienup-Riordan 1983, 135).…”