Critical Theory and Crown-Indigenous Relations

With attention turned to addressing historic injustices inflicted upon Indigenous peoples by the Canadian state, and on building a more just future, questions arise about the role critical theory (CT) might play in making sense of Crown-Indigenous relations. Here, strands of critical theory are explored, focus eventually falling on an influential variant propounded by James Tully, one which calls for 'mutual recognition' as a starting point for meaningful reconciliation. From the perspective of a critical Indigenous theory (CIT), deep problems are identified in following those who champion this form of a 'politics of recognition', as it rests, at the level of theory and purported fact, on the presumption that Indigenous ways of thinking have already been subsumed within non-Indigenous worlds of meaning. The Crown 1 has interacted with Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada for many generations. Today, Crown-Indigenous relations (CIR) are informed by this history, and by understandings of the nature of this history. One type of contemporary scholarship-critical theory (CT)-is particularly attentive to the ways that history, law and politics interrelate with attempts at producing understandings. Fundamentally concerned with oppression, domination and dispossession, focused on the subjects of oppression and domination, CT aims at producing more reflective, grounded models of CIR. Accounts of CIR that fall under CT, however, are themselves diverse in methodology, underlying theory and outcome. In this chapter I attempt to map out some of the dominant strands of CT, tracing out concerns that animate critical theorists as they go about theorizing CIR. The intent is to determine CT's utility to those trying to make sense of CIR, particularly as the business of addressing injustices and working toward a better future is increasingly vigorously taken up across Indigenous-Canada. In the middle of this work, we get caught up in thinking about the place of a 'politics of recognition' in relation to CT, as one of the most influential * Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, the University of British Columbia. I would like to acknowledge the endless patience and kindness of one of the editors, Professor Karen Drake, as guided me through the production of this chapter.