Search

This article unpacks the logic of the equivalence invoked by the Government of Canada between Indigenous consent and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and knowledges in impact assessment. We situate the logic within the politics of recognition in Canada—a politics that aims to shore up national unity in the face of regular challenges to it. We use the Canadian results from a recent scoping review on conceptions of environmental justice in impact assessment to highlight the challenges of invoking recognition, and we provide a theoretical analysis of these challenges. To do this, we highlight the ways in which 'we-making' is 'knowledge-making' and 'knowledge-making' is 'we-making'. In this sense, recognizing Indigenous knowledges is part of Canada's answer to the challenge of constructing and stabilizing a political 'we': a community of political subjects with shared connection to a nation state via the institutional, social, and cultural apparatuses that generate the kind of publicly visible legal and technical knowledge upon which the state's authority depends. We show how this project relies on actively obscuring the relationship between 'we-making' and 'knowledge-making' by treating 'knowledge-making' as neutral and un-situated, putting into practice a universalist logic. This logic shores up power because obscuring the situatedness of dominant knowledges also obscures the situatedness of the dominant political orders with which they are intertwined. We ultimately argue that Canada's approach to recognizing Indigenous knowledges helps consolidate power by sidestepping ongoing jurisdictional struggles with Indigenous peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amid rising interest in participatory research, some industries have recently begun to practice public relations citizen science (PRCS). Unlike citizen science and crowdsourcing projects that generate raw materials for product development, PRCS benefits capitalist firms primarily by improving their public image and deflecting accusations of causing harm. Three cases illustrate how PRCS works: (1) a growing assortment of citizen science projects associated with Antarctic tourism, (2) an initiative to document biodiversity, linked to Canada's oil and gas industry, and (3) a study sponsored by Biology Fortified, a nonprofit organization that works to communicate positive information about agricultural biotechnology. Scientists and research organizations may have legitimate reasons for entering into these partnerships, but PRCS can benefit industries in problematic ways. First, by supporting environmental science, PRCS can attach a 'sustainable' image to a polluting industry, without changing its core practices. Second, PRCS can accumulate data and steer volunteers' observations in ways that undermine claims about the harms caused by the industry's practices or products. Finally, in some cases, PRCS organizers hope to induce people to view an industry more 'rationally' than those who make 'emotional' or 'ideological' claims about its harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]