Disrobing the disrobing of the aboriginal industry
Feb 9th, 2009 by cmenzies
University of Victoria Aboriginal Governance Professor Taiaiake Alfred reviews Widdowson and Howard’s Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry. Much of the review takes on Widdowson and Howard’s Marxist inclinations. He writes:
Evidently, Widdowson and Howard get up in the morning and eat a dog’s breakfast of outmoded communist ideology and rotten anthropological theories washed down with strong racial prejudices inherited from their own unexamined colonial upbringings, all of which would turn anyone else’s stomach. Their ideas are, amazingly and unapologetically, the sort of “socialism from above” characteristic of 1930s vintage Stalinism listing upon a ragtag collection of theoretical frames which taken together form a methodological approach remarkable mostly for its inability, like the authors who employ it, to comprehend indigeneity outside of being the object of colonization and empire. To wit: elements of Darwinian evolutionary stages theory, bits of Hegelian historical determinism, and a reliably unsophisticated view of capitalism is a necessary destructive-progressive force leading to the realization of a communist utopia wherein exists a scientifically planned and state organized global society made up of human beings who are worthwhile only to the extent they are “productive”
One Response to “Disrobing the disrobing of the aboriginal industry”
I am currently reading this book (about half way through) and must say wow. What a piece of work. There is a ‘kernel or truth’ to what the disrobers are saying, but like much common sense that only gets us part of the way tot he actual truth.
Here’s what I am learning from the disrobers as I read:
(1) F. Boas is a postmodernist. see page 60: “Over the last century Morgan’s theory has been gradually usurped by the postmodern theory of cultural relativism . . . It’s most significant proponent was Franz Boas. . .” Interesting. But Boas died before postmodernism reared its strange head (for a good read on postmodern theory take a look at Alex Callinicos’ Against Postmodernism or Bryan Palmer’s Descent into Discourse, both far better sources then the one’s the disrobers suggest. Oh, and it should be noted that the source that they quote to explicate Boas is John Bodly’s first year anthropology text book, not Boas’ actually writing (I’ve used the Bodly text, but wouldn’t want to base a unique interpretation of the history of anthropological theory on it.
(2) Critical eye not bleeding heart. I would agree, a firmly rooted historical materialism is much needed. But, I would like one that draws upon empirical facts not assumptions and partial truths drawn from such esteemed sources as the National Post, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, etc.
(3) hunting requires no planning, discipline, or cooperative labour (page 22). But even fellow curmudgeon Rolf Knight (a long time marxist who writes from a clear class perspective) would disagree with the assertion that aboriginal people had no useable skills and were shunted aside as the industrial economy took off. Even the latter day historian Andrew Parnaby, also writing from a marxist perspective, describes the role of coast salish longshoremen int he trade union. Interesting to note that these are the same people that the disrobers consider to lack skill and foresight.
(4) that one should be pleased that residential schools existed because “were it not for the education and socialization efforts [of] residential schools, aboriginal people would be even more marginal.” But there is no evidence to support this claim, not even a footnote to the National Post to support the assumption.
(5) on page 57 we are treated to an intriguing reinterpretation of Trotsky’s theory of uneven and combined development (originally formulated to help explain/understand how revolution was occurring in so-called ‘backward’ countries but not in western Europe and which then became linked to Trotsky’s important idea of ‘permanent revolution.’ But the disrobers turn Trotsky’s theory into a justification for assimilation. There have been other purportedly marxist writers who take an intriguing and iconoclastic theoretical turn -Bil Warrens Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism was another earlier example (though far better placed within the discipline of marxist theory then the disrobing book.
(6) and then some minor things like Lewis Henry Morgen described as the principle founder of anthropology. Really? That’s an intriguing and rather tendentious statement. What about Mallinowski? or maybe Cushing, or Mooney or R-B, or even F Boas? Go figure. Oh, and the teleological underpinnings of the disrober’s evolutionary model doesn’t reflect contemporary understanding of evolution. Evolution, simply put is cumulative change -it is not directional.
At the core of this book are, I think two enmeshed ideas (1) a rather crude mechanical determinism that draws from the most limited lines of marxist thinking and draws its inspiration from some of the worst of Engel’s writing, and; (2) a sense of disgruntlement. It’s hard to place a finger on this second piece put it seems that underneath the entire arguments, beneath the clarity of the prose and the structure of of the book is a sense of personal grievance, as sense of bitter disappointment.