Abstract:
Indigenous scholars and activists have long advocated self-determination. In more recent years, governmental authorities in the settler societies of Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia and Canada have accepted aspects of arguments for Indigenous self-determination. This thesis seeks to determine the extent to which the governmental understandings are consistent with the meaning and significance that Indigenous scholars and activists have attached to the notion of self-determination. Using methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this thesis illustrates the ways in which governments have rearticulated the Indigenous meanings of self-determination, often diverging markedly from the positions formulated by Indigenous peoples. In this sense, the convergence that appears to exist between their respective conceptual understandings is illusory. This conclusion is based on an analysis of four key elements of self-determination drawn from the work of Indigenous scholars: knowledge, identity, advancement and decolonisation. The views these scholars and activists express are critically juxtaposed with three key policy documents where elements of Indigenous self-determination are articulated: from Aotearoa New Zealand, Ka Hikitia: Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012; from the state of Victoria, Australia, Wannik Learning Together – Journey to Our Future Education Strategy for Koorie Students; and from the province of Ontario, Canada, Ontario First Nation, Métis and Inuit Education Policy Framework. The findings demonstrate that while many of the claims of Indigenous peoples in regard to selfdetermination have been incorporated into official policy discourses, governments largely express self-determination in quite different terms. The official policy discourses of Indigenous selfdetermination have become increasingly located by officials in a broader neoliberal discourses, including that of globalism. This is evident in the policy documents in three interrelated ways: the prevalence of the discourse of audit culture, the frequency of the discourse of deficit theorising and a focus on reform. In regard to each of the key elements; knowledge is rearticulated in ways the diminish the intrinsic value of Indigenous knowledges, identity is rearticulated to focus on enterprising individuals, advancement is rearticulated to emphasise economic advancement through closing the gap and decolonisation rearticulated as it is constructed as reliant on engagement and participation. As a result, the rearticulation of the discourses of Indigenous self-determination across the policy documents is largely a continuation of colonial assumptions.