Makere Stewart-Harawira (2005): The New Imperial Order: Indigenous Responses to Globalization

Makere Stewart-Harawira (2005): 

The New Imperial Order: Indigenous Responses to Globalization

Let us begin at the end.  In the epilogue to her book Stewart-Harawira addresses the challenges an indigenous Maori woman faces while writing about her own history. Writing about the results of her research, she states, is “writing” herself (p. 254). Her explicit positionality and the strong value commitment to a kaupapa Maori methodology is an important frame for the entire book. It is a study of “the interrelationship between indigenous peoples and the development of global order” from her standpoint as a woman, an academic, a Scot, a Maori, and an activist.

The stated goal of The New Imperial Order is to tell two different stories. On the one hand, Stewart-Harawira seeks to explore “the history of indigenous peoples’ relationship with the world order of nation states” (p. 1). On the other hand, she “is concerned with the development of the world order of nation states and its transformation into a global order” (ibid.). I agree that Stewart-Harawira tells two stories. However, in my opinion they differ slightly from the ones introduced in the introductory pages of the book.

First, the book tells a story of historical and systemic exploitation and marginalization of indigenous voices around the world from the 16^th century to today. Stewart-Harawira traces this history of institutionalized violence and structural marginalization (the “invisibilizing” of the indigenous) throughout the centuries from the emergence and development of international law that labeled indigenous peoples “primitive,” “uncivilized” and “underdeveloped” (chapter 3) to the expansion of a liberal world order (chapter 4) to the (re-)emergence of a neo-liberal American empire in the second half of the 20^th century (chapter 5 and 7). And while the story entails moments of resistance and transformation through “politics of indigeneity” (p. 115), “[i]ndigenous peoples are, to all intents and purposes, still in a position of ‘wardship’” to this day (p. 18). 

In my opinion, the detailed account of our own history has three purposes. For one, the story Stewart-Harawira tells is not a new one. It is by all accounts one of Western institutions, Western theories and Western scholars, in short a Western world order, that we are all too familiar with. However, by (re-)counting our history from the standpoint of an indigenous woman, Stewart-Harawira unmasks underlying logics of exploitation and marginalization that we – from a position of privilege – are not only taking for granted but are also constantly reproducing. Furthermore, her story of the development of our global order is one of incredible pain and loss: For example, the integration and subjugation of indigenous peoples into states (for example New Zealand) has more than often overlooked “the invisibilizing, even obliterating of the multiplicity of Maori histories” (p. 192).

Second, by introducing an “indigenous ontology of being” Stewart-Harawira seeks to open a space for resistance and – most importantly – transformation. This is an interesting enterprise and highlights a tension that Stewart-Harawira has difficulty to reconcile. While she insists on the heterogeneity of indigenous peoples and their experiences of imperialism and colonialization (p. 17), her indigenous ontology has a very essentialist character to it. Moreover, even though she seems reluctant to define indigenous knowledges as essentially different to Western knowledge, they are set up as dichotomies throughout the book: Indigenous knowledge is holistic, Western knowledge is not; indigenous knowledge is based on the inseparable nature of matter and spirit, Western knowledge – even though it originated of being - is based on a rationalist-positivist ontology separating the sacred from the profane. And finally, while Western knowledge assumes linearity, an indigenous ontology of being can best be described as a “double spiral” that symbolizes its power for transformation. One of the main arguments of the book maintains it is exactly the re-vitalization of indigenous ontologies that can transform the current global world order into one of ecological sustainability and peaceful coexistence. “The principles identified within traditional ontologies (…) illumine an alternative cooperative model for global order.” (p. 250).  But how?

Taken separately, both stories of the book seem interesting and compelling. However, I find that the story of indigenous ontologies and their contribution to world order transformation falls short. Stewart-Harawira introduces the content of her essentialist indigenous ontology in the first chapter of the book and only returns to it in chapter six, where she addresses the incorporation of New Zealand’s indigenous peoples into the state. This is one of the few places in the book where the reader is getting an idea about what she means by the potential of indigenous knowledges as means to resistance and transformation: here, she emphasizes the role of Maori education initiatives and collectively based political and social organizations (p. 199; see also p. 81). Overall, it seems that she is arguing for “the articulation of indigenous histories and cultural and social values as unique characteristics” as critical strategies for transformation (p. 139). Nevertheless, an answer to the question of how local indigenous ontologies favoring holism and balance are supposed to dismantle the “hierarchically driven political frameworks of exclusion” and develop “genuinely cooperative and inclusive frameworks that promote the ‘greatest good for all people’” remains missing.  

Possible discussion questions:

1. What do you think is the purpose of the book? In her conclusion, Stewart-Harawira states that she “endeavoured to trace the development of world order, the impact on indigenous peoples and the reciprocal relationship of indigenous peoples to and within the world system” (p. 238). According to my interpretation her book fulfills the promise of the first two but not the last. Do you agree?

2. Where is the resistance and how can it lead to transformation? I found Stewart-Harawira’s account of the development of human rights law (particularly the right to self-determination) one of the most surprising narratives of the book (chapter 4). Even though she argues that the endeavor has been largely unsuccessful, she also posits that human rights treaties provided indigenous people with a forum for participation and the pursuit of justice (p. 126). What about the claim that the human rights regime (and the subsequent humanitarian interventions) are nothing else than a continuation of Western colonialization? Stewart-Harawira addresses the issue of military interventions as means to gain access to resources. Not, however, in this context. If hegemonic institutions and laws do not provide any access, how can indigenous peoples use their indigenous ontologies as means for state and systemic transformation?

3. What is the role of crisis in Stewart-Harawira’s story? Is it necessary for transformation?