Audra Simpson’s Mohawk Interruptus: A Book Review

Florence Ashley
Aug 25, 2017 · 13 min read

This is a book review I wrote for Adelle Blackett’s Critical Race Theory class at McGill University in 2016. I share it here in the hopes that more people will be inspired to read Audra Simpson’s wonderful book.

Audra Simpson’s Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States (2014) is a masterful anthropological inquiry into the political dimensions of indigenous life on the Kahnawà:ke reserve, which is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, near Montreal, Quebec. Drawing on her own ethnographic work, Professor Simpson seeks to inspire new anthropological approaches to Indigenous living that is attentive to their contemporary, ongoing political reality. Showing first how past anthropological work has erased the ongoing effect of settler colonialism, and participated in creating a fixed conception of Iroquois culture which erases Iroquois subjectivities, the book refutes those misconceptions by attending to the nested sovereignties and the politics of refusal integral to Kahnawà:ke’s history.

In chapter one, “Indigenous Interruptions”, Audra Simpson draws a sketch of her book. Contrasting conceptions of Kahnawà:ke identity as grounded in the labour of ironwork, she begins to draw a complex picture of this identity as one of tension between nationhood and Indigenousness. She begins by drawing a sketch of Kahnawà:ke as a community, and then turns to problematize settler colonialism as a practice that is politically and experientially current for Kahnawa’kehró:non, especially through band membership requirements. In this chapter, Professor Simpson sets out three claims that will be made in the book: multiple sovereignties can coexist albeit in a hierarchy, refusal can be a powerful alternative to recognition, and both anthropology and political science have thus far failed to account for Indigenous politics by framing colonialism as essentially a practice of the past. Through an example of refusal to travel on Canadian passports, the chapter explores Hegelian politics of recognition and shows how refusal is central to the maintenance of Mohawk nationhood. Turning to the pamphlets of Louis Hall, it also shows the marginality of Kahnawà:ke’s politics as a form of dynamic traditionalism which draws on the past to inspire and substantiate their rejection of colonial structures. In concluding the chapter, Audra Simpson promises to demonstrate the interrupted and interrupting capacity of life in settler culture through a cartography of refusal in Kahnawà:ke politics.

Chapter two traces the history of Kahnawà:ke territory, and the interaction between the territory and membership requirements. The central claim of the chapter is that the territorial history of Kahnawà:ke shapes the question of membership through the loss of territory over time, in the form of seigniorial grants, and the loss of riverfront land due to the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. As is explained in the chapter, the expropriation of Kahnawà:ke riverfront land and the subsequent failure of the court system to prevent the unjust seizure of this land led to a loss of trust in Canada. The riverfront land was central to Kahnawa’kehró:non identity since they took pride in the expertise and bravery that was attributed to them in virtue of the work of Mohawk boatmen. The Indian Act’s equality between men and women was a threat to the culture, as the same white men who took their identity now risked owning reserve land by marrying Kahnawà:ke women. This risk caused membership policies which were radically opposed to Kahnawà:ke’s history of inclusion, and to the non-relevance of race for membership prior to the introduction of “Indian” status.

Chapter three tracks the experiential erasure perpetrated by anthropological writings on Iroquois culture as it conformed to a narrow and fixed conception of Iroquois traditions. Tracking the formation of the anthropological canon on Iroquois culture, Professor Simpson demonstrates how the ideological underpinnings of anthropological research into Iroquois traditions relied on a narrow conception of tradition, framed as limited to ascertainable pre-contact behaviours. This conception led to an all-too-common erasure of Indigenous voices and experiences, as well as the discarding of any cultural elements which were too similar or different for White sensibilities. In seeking a pure Iroquois past, the inquiries of early anthropological research into Iroquois culture also failed to notice its reliance on sources which came from a subjugated Iroquois group who were seeking reparation from White settlers, and whose knowledge of Iroquois tradition and lore was warped by the Handsome Lake interpretation of the Great Law of Peace which was motivated by a desire to adjust to settler colonialism. Thus, Audra Simpson suggests that past anthropological work on Iroquois culture has written out Kahnawà:ke culture as being impure and confused, while eliminating the evolving and complex history of Iroquois persons and their lived experiences.

In chapter four, Audra Simpson outlines her own ethnomethodology as an attempt to move away from difference as a unit of analysis. Furthering her discussion on past anthropological works as a method of empowering or — more often — disempowering current political life of Indigenous communities, she proposes to shift her analysis in terms of restrained familiarity and refusal within those communities. The author refuses to pretend that she articulates everything there is to know about Kahnawà:ke sovereignty. This methodological refusal is informed by the refusal of the authority of the state by Kahnawa’kehró:non and the refusal to speak of certain topics which marks the limit where representation might jeopardize the representational territory underlying claims to Kahnawà:ke sovereignty. Through this, the chapter espouses an expansive approach to ethnographic analysis that is informed by the complex historical process of resistance to move away from cultural fetishization, and into current Indigenous politics.

Chapter five begins with contemporary stories of crossing the U.S.-Canada border and how this crossing is policed on the basis of the blood quantum. It then follows to track the history of crossing as a significant historical means of claiming sovereignty over the territory for Mohawks. The chapter explains how such crossing, in non-Indigenous representations, were presented as evidence of lawlessness and of a mere desire to accumulate capital by avoiding taxes, in spite of the clear articulations of such crossing as assertions of treaty rights and Indigenous sovereignty. Considering the Canadian approach to policing such crossing, Audra Simpson exemplifies the relationship between Canadian law and early anthropological research in Canada’s adoption of a cultural test for Aboriginal rights centring on pre-settlement cultural practices instead of political sovereignty.

Chapter six sets out to explore alternative Indigenous citizenships as a possibility of moving away from membership policies indirectly defined by the Canadian settler state. The chapter begins with a narration of the Oka crisis, an instance of contemporary Indigenous territorial loss. Audra Simpson then turns to consider a multiplicity of narratives on membership recounted by individuals ranging from the reserve to the city, and highlights how those alternative notions of identity and nationhood are intertwined with the issue of territory. The examples given show how membership is conceived by Indigenous individuals not by an appeal to a fixed past tradition, but as a reconceptualised membership that integrates tradition and the contemporary reality of Indigenous living. Professor Simpson draws on those narratives to propose an alternative notion of citizenship as felt and lived, grounded in affect and narrated history, as well as in critiques of exclusionary membership policies.

The conclusion masterfully revisits and summarizes the multiplicity of arguments formulated in the book. Going through each examples, Audra Simpson gives us a sense of the overall structure of Mohawk Interruptus, crystallizing our sense of the contextualisation of membership against a still-present settler colonial background and our understanding of the techniques of refusal employed by Kahnawa’kehró:non and other Iroquois groups as a reassertion of sovereignty. In closing, the chapter opens up, aspiring to future interruptions of the seemingly settled sovereignty of colonial states by proposing a very wide range of future topics of ethnographic study, and by recasting the expectations and assumptions which guide anthropological research into Indigenous populations. To produce rich knowledge, such research must take political subjectivity and the ambit of refusal seriously.

Mohawk Interruptus is a critical addition to the literature on anthropological methodology. By refusing to ask certain questions, Audra Simpson frames ethnomethodology not just in terms of scientific freedom, but also in terms of scientific responsibility. The scientist must not only ask themself whether the information they present is important, but also how it will impact others. The point is all the more salient after Professor Simpson’s thoughtful analysis of the history of anthropological research into Iroquois cultures, and how it informed colonial strategies which robbed Indigenous peoples of their land, and imposed conditions which remain harmful to this day. This contribution will be particularly appreciated by non-indigenous persons who, like me, have been inadequately exposed to non-mainstream narratives on First Nations.

The book proposes very interesting ethnical guidelines for research into oppressed minorities, by suggesting that, beyond the official guidelines set by governmental organisations, we should also heed to the question of whether the knowledge produced in scientific work can be used to hurt anyone, and whether the researcher would feel comfortable going back to the community after producing the ethnography. While the specific formulation of those questions was informed by Audra Simpson’s own position within the community, the underlying rationale is a very important suggestion for any social scientist working on other cultural groups as well.

Bringing the importance of scientific responsibility to the forefront of social science methodology is a critical moment in the development of anthropology. Mohawk Interruptus shines as a model contribution by transparently engaging and struggling with the issue while succeeding in delivering novel and fascinating information about political life in certain Iroquois communities.

Professor Simpson’s careful analysis of the political aspects of Kahnawà:ke life provides counterweight to a mainstream narrative that often depicts Indigenous communities in a very negative light. Refusal, far from being a form of ungratefulness towards the beneficent Canadian state, is a rejection of the politics of recognition that has grown so dear to Canada’s multiculturalism. “We are representing a nation, and we are not going to travel on the passport of a competitor.” The quote, with which the book begins, is an elegant summary of the politics of refusal in Indigenous communities such as Kahnawà:ke which lay claims to sovereignty. We cannot understand Indigenous life apart from its claims to sovereignty, and from the ongoing effect of settler colonialism on Indigenous life. What recognition is to federalism, refusal is to sovereignty. Refusal is a way of sustaining nested sovereignties when more powerful sovereignties see your culture as remnants of a vanishing or dead tradition, rather than an vigorous political community.

I am also grateful for the analysis of the issue of membership in Kahnawà:ke, an issue that often leads to accusations of sexism from mainstream Canadian culture. Having shown how deeply intertwined the question of membership is to territorial loss and to the imposition of bourgeois Victorian patriarchal structures in Kahnawà:ke, Audra Simpson shows the complexity and difficulty of regulating membership in reserves, and the ongoing responsibility of settler colonialism for creating and perpetuating those enabling conditions. Mohawk Interruptus shows just how parochial those accusations are, when what is in effect sexism can be understood as a reaction to and defence against dispossession.

Failing to refuse — at least at the level of methodology in anthropological writing — can be violent, as Audra Simpson’s framing of the Oka Crisis shows. By failing to engage properly with other cultures, by failing to refuse to ask whether the information gathered and presented could hurt others, the anthropological dynasty of Lewis Henry Morgan allowed Brian Mulroney to dismiss the Mohawk identity of the Warriors involved, and reframe them as terrorists and criminals in the eyes of the Canadian population.

In Mohawk Interruptus, the politics of refusal appears as a refusal to let others set the terms of engagement. At the methodological level, it is a refusal to let past and current anthropologists embed colonizing approaches into ethnographic work. At the substantive level, it is a refusal to let settler colonial states decide how access to land — either in the form of possession or mobility rights — is to be granted. However, Audra Simpson makes us look beyond the act of refusal itself, and into the greater meaning of this act of refusal. The act of refusal becomes a means of reclaiming one’s voice in define one’s position in the world, and thus coming to own one’s cultural identity. It also becomes a way for the author herself of demonstrating allegiance to one’s community by refusing to ask some questions and relate some answers.

When reading this book, I was confronted with the question of how the politics of refusal is related to the politics of recognition. It is clear that some forms of refusal do not take us outside of the economy of recognition. Refusing to travel on any passport other than an Iroquois passport can be interpreted as a shift towards a higher, distinct level of recognition, namely that of state recognition within the international sphere. In this light, refusal becomes not a politics of refusal which is opposed to a politics of recognition, but instead a novel strategy within the politics of recognition.

The sovereignty of the Haudenosaunee is not recognised within the international community. The refusal found in the stories throughout Mohawk Interruptus does not strike as being a pandering to the international community despite their past failings. As Professor Simpson mentions, there is a fundamental distrust towards Canada and the international community within Kahnawà:ke, which seems to foreclose the plausibility of understanding refusal as a strategy towards recognition. An alternative interpretation presents itself: Refusal situates the actor within an economy of affirmation that stands in stark opposition to the economy of affirmation of the settler state, thus delineating itself not as a differentiated subdivision of this settler colonial economy, but as distinctively outside and other to it. The actor does not seek recognition because they do not recognise recognition as the process through which sovereignty is sustained and legitimated.

While political philosophy falls outside of the scope of the book, an important set of questions naturally arises from the reading, especially when we are faced with the complex of individual and collective interests involved in Kahnawà:ke membership. Must someone demand recognition or engage in refusal, or is it possible to engage in both at the same time? In other words, is refusal all or nothing, or does it admit of degrees?

From the perspective of some individuals, there is little doubt that recognition is sometimes a good. Haudenosaunee passports and the Jay Treaty did not exist, recognition would be a necessity to cross the U.S.-Canada border, given its militarization. Women who have been recognised and granted Indian status through Bill C-31 have benefited from the recognition. We can also imagine that if Haudenosaunee passports and other Iroquois forms of identification were refused at the border, many Kahnawa’kehró:non would use Canadian and American passports to travel. This line of action seems to be at odds with a politics of refusal which relies on the rejection not of certain practices by colonial powers, but of the underlying understanding of sovereignty used by settler colonial states.

I do not think that Audra Simpson is committed to suggesting that refusal precludes any claim to recognition on grounds of inconsistency and incoherence. I do not propose here to resolve any such inconsistency or incoherence, or demonstrate how it is mistaken to see them as inconsistent or incoherent in the first place. What I am suggesting is that the incontrovertible negativity of inconsistency and incoherence relies on a picture of rationality that is colonial in nature, and should be rejected by adopting an approach that is informed by Critical Race Theory.

Mari Matsuda, in “When the First Quail Calls”, describes the jurisprudential method of multiple consciousness: “There are times to stand outside the courtroom· door and say ‘this procedure is a farce, the legal system is corrupt, justice will never prevail in this land as long as privilege rules in the courtroom.’ There are times to stand inside the courtroom and say ‘this is a nation of laws, laws recognizing fundamental values of rights, equality and personhood.’” Audra Simpson is very careful not to take an explicit stance on the issues surrounding Kahnawà:ke membership, her consideration of the Jacobs case in chapter six reveals a strong sympathy towards Peter Jacobs, whom she calls “thoroughly imbricated and of the community”. Acknowledging multiple consciousness, we can understand how someone like Peter Jacobs and the women who regained their Indian status through Bill C-31 can accede to the jurisdiction of Canadian judicial and legislative bodies — a process intelligible within a politics of recognition — while claiming Iroquois sovereignty independent of recognition, adopting a politics of refusal as a general strategy and narrative.

Multiple consciousness as a political strategy allows us to see the nested sovereignties with which Audra Simpson has concerned herself throughout the book not only as sovereignties which are geographically nested, but also as sovereignties which are nested within individual political identities and allegiances. Sovereignties become not just sovereignties over territory, but sovereignties over individuals — although sovereignty over territory may be termed primary if we are to adopt the lens of colonial interests.

Refusing any role of the Canadian colonial state in defining the contours of Kahnawà:ke sovereignty and Kahnawà:ke membership creates a space of possibility, within which feelings citizenships can be explored. A politics of recognition would effectively mandate the incursion of Canadian law into the difficult process of redefining membership in a community still affected by ongoing settler colonialism, precluding the necessary degree of elasticity and dynamism that fixing emotional and constantly renegotiated boundaries warrants.

Refusal and feeling citizenships only become intelligible when replaced against the background of ongoing colonialism that forms the background substrate of Indigenous politics in Canada. Desire for a fixed, written membership law might in turn reproduce the kind of fixity that American anthropology has imposed on Iroquois cultures through its narrow inquiry on tradition. Furthermore, colonial structures have been partly internalized by some individuals within the community, and internal management has been informed by pressures created by the Canadian state. Hardening feelings citizenship in a membership policy may not only fail to adequately render the dynamism and complexity of feelings citizenship, but it may also harden exclusionary attitudes informed by the fear of dispossession which might evolve into more inclusive attitudes in the absence of a fixed membership policy based on feelings citizenship.

My concern here is grounded in the intuition that what makes feelings citizenship currently more dynamic and inclusive than membership is that it is experienced as sufficiently different from membership that it is not constrained by its terms. The claim that someone is “imbricated and of the community” while a non-member grows nonsensical when the criteria for being “of the community” are approximately the same as those for being a member.

Through the questions that it raises, Mohawk Interruptus reveals itself as a wonderful and deeply stimulating book that will leave its reader perplexed by the complexity of Iroquois politics, while leaving clear starting points for further inquiry into the topic should the readers be so inclined. A further exploration of those issues by the author would be a valuable accompaniment to the book.

)

Florence Ashley

Written by

Transfeminine activist based in Tio’tia:ke (also known as Montreal) and LL.M. candidate at McGill University. https://www.florenceashley.com/

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade