Tradition and modernity: an obsolete dichotomy? Binary thinking, indigenous peoples and normalisation

Abstract

The debates over Indigenous peoples and development are often framed within the discussion on the shift towards modernity, the imposition of economic liberalism and resistance against external interventions, with a tendency to see Indigenous peoples as a possible alternative to the world economic order. However, looking at many development agencies’ discourses, the idea that Indigenous peoples will actually benefit from modernity prevails. The literature is divided along these two conflicting views and dominated by binary oppositions: traditional/modern; backward/advanced; sustainable/unsustainable, etc. This article discusses the tradition/modernity dichotomy and raises the following questions: is it relevant to think in terms of modernity/tradition in the case of Indigenous peoples? What does the use of such a dichotomy imply? What is the alternative? The article demonstrates that this binary opposition is neither relevant nor desirable, and that a new analytical framework is required. Instead, it proposes using a normalisation framework, which focuses on the attempts made to ‘normalise’ Indigenous peoples and to encourage them to comply with existing social and economic models.

Keywords:

• Indigenous peoples
• modernity
• tradition
• binary thinking
• normalisation

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and advice.

Notes

1. United Nations, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, 1.

2. More research is currently being conducted on Indigenous peoples living in cities. See, for example, Peters and Andersen, Indigenous in the City.

3. See Saugestad, “The Inconvenient Indigenous,” 43.

4. Schulte-Tenkhoff, La question des peuples autochtones, 16.

5. See Barnard, “Indigenous Peoples,” 19; and Barnard, “Kalahari Revisionism,” 7–8.

6. For further discussion on the concept, see Castree, “Differential Geographies.”

7. Germond-Duret, “From Avatar to Reality.”

8. Mander, “Epilogue,” 226 (emphasis added).

9. See, for example, Hopwood et al., “Sustainable Development.”

10. Operational Manual Statement 2.34, replaced by the 1991 Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples, and then by the 2005 Operation Policy on Indigenous Peoples. The World Bank is currently reviewing its safeguard policies, including its policy on Indigenous peoples.

11. Goodland, Tribal Peoples, 16.

12. Goodland, Tribal Peoples, 22 (emphasis added).

13. Goodland, Tribal Peoples, 28 (emphasis added).

14. Bodley, “The World Bank Tribal Policy,” 408.

15. Perrot, “Les empêcheurs.”

16. Tauli-Corpuz, “World Bank and IMF Impacts,” 51.

17. Uquillas and Van Nieuwkoop, “Social Capital,” 147.

18. Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Extractive Industries, Oxford, April 15, 2003.

19. Giddens and Pierson, Conversations, 94.

20. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth.

21. Sachs, The End of Poverty.

22. Teubner, Constitutional Fragments, 168.

23. “Real-life Tribes.”

24. “Botswana President in Racist Outburst.”

25. “Bear mauls Chenchu Tribal.”

26. Delgado and Zwarteveen, “Modernity, Exclusion and Resistance,” 119.

27. Hakenholz, “Un peuple autochtone face à la ‘modernité’.”

28. Havemann, “Denial, Modernity and Exclusion,” 61.

29. Tauli-Corpuz, “Our Right to Remain Separate,” 14.

30. Tauli-Corpuz, “Our Right to Remain Separate,” 20.

31. Blaser et al., In the Way of Development.

32. Hopwood et al., “Sustainable Development.”

33. Germond-Duret, Banque Mondiale.

34. World Bank, “Environmental and Social Framework.”

35. Jakobson, Selected Writings, 85.

36. Derrida, Positions.

37. Van Dijk, “Multidisciplinary CDA,” 103.

38. Doty, Imperial Encounters, 10.

39. Fitzsimons and Smith, “Philosophy,” 32.

40. Park, “Constructing Immigrants”; and Seidman, “Deconstructing Queer Theory.”

41. Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 83.

42. Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 78.

43. Crowe, “Discourse Analysis,” 57.

44. Truman, Inaugural Address.

45. Esteva, “Development,” 7.

46. Escobar, Encountering Development, 24.

47. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy, 80.

48. Jackobson, Selected Writings; and Lyons, Semantics.

49. Kothari, “Tradition and Modernity Revisited.”

50. Shiner, “Tradition/Modernity.”

51. Omura, “Construction of Inuinnaqtun.”

52. Jorgensen, Oil Age Eskimos.

53. Hirtz, “It takes Modern Means to be Traditional,” 889.

54. Schaeffer, “Engaging Modernity,” 398.

55. Gusfield, “Tradition and Modernity,” 351.

56. Yang, “Putting Global Capitalism in its Place.”

57. Curry, “Moving beyond Postdevelopment,” 405.

58. Curry, “Moving beyond Postdevelopment,” 418.

59. Bendix, “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered,” 322.

60. Robins, “NGOs, ‘Bushmen’ and Double Vision.”

61. Sahlins, “What is Anthropological Enlightenment?,” ii.

62. Bendix, “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered,” 329.

63. Lee, “Reinventing Modernity.”

64. Robins, “Whose Modernity?”

65. Sahlins, “What is Anthropological Enlightenment.”

66. Agrawal, “Dismantling the Divide,” 433.

67. Robins, “NGOs, ‘Bushmen’ and Double Vision.”

68. Pallares, From Peasant Struggles to Indian Resistance.

69. Speed, “Global Discourses on the Local Terrain.”

70. Habermas, “Modernity versus Postmodernity,” 3.

71. Gould, “Is the Modernity–Tradition Model all Bad?”

72. Seth, “Modernity without Prometheus.”

73. Escobar, Encountering Development.

74. Tucker, “The Myth of Development,” 1.

75. Sardar, “Development,” 44.

76. Young, Third World in the First.

77. Munnariz, “Rhetoric and Reality.”

78. World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development, 110.

79. Rajagopal, “The Violence of Development.”

80. Walker and Hill, “Protecting Isolated Tribes.”

81. “Development should not hit Fragile Tribals.”

82. Caufield, Masters of Illusion, 61.

83. Ferguson, The Anti-politics Machine.

84. Young, A New Green Order, 12, 203, 182.

85. Murphy, “Where Oil Flows.”

86. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 177ff, 183, 184.

87. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 182.

88. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 184.

89. Amin, Eurocentrism, xii.

90. Doty, Imperial Encounters, 10.

91. Normalisation as employed here has a rather negative connotation, which is not the case in all contexts. For example, it is associated with positive change in some academic studies on disability, as it is about inclusion and giving people a voice. See Walmsley, “Normalisation.”

92. Germond-Duret, “From Avatar to Reality.”

93. See Jammulamadaka, “Smart Strategy?”

94. See Fletcher, “What are we Fighting For?”

95. Barras, “Life Projects,” 48.

96. Habermas, “Modernity versus Postmodernity,” 5.