Papers by Burke Hendrix
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2019
This paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United... more This paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United States and Australia. The paper focuses on policy coordination and administration, in particular the nodes of decision-making in the two countries in relation to government contracting and accountability. The U.S. approach to funding Indigenous organizations stems from the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act and its subsequent expansions. Through the development of contracting into permanent compacting via block grants, this approach builds established nodes of Indigenous government and facilitates whole-of-government coherence at the level of the American Indian tribe. The U.S. approach seems correlated with better performance and may lighten bureaucratic loads over the long term. The Australian model, on the other hand, seeks to create whole-of-government coherence through top-down financial accountability in a way that hampers the development of Indigenous political capacity. The paper traces the development of these
Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy, 2022
This article argues, against Jeremy Waldron, that Indigenous rectification claims are not fundame... more This article argues, against Jeremy Waldron, that Indigenous rectification claims are not fundamentally Nozickean in character. Rather, they appear this way only because they take place against a background of socially robust ownership rights that are treated as consent-requiring, time-insensitive, and inequalitypermitting. Indigenous peoples invoke these principles to defend their own holdings in ways that highlight how such pseudo-Nozickean practices deeply structure existing social life. Presuming that these broad practices are unlikely to change, egalitarians must evaluate Indigenous claims within the ambit of the second best. Egalitarians will often face uncomfortable decisions within this context, however, in deciding how to distribute unavoidable inequalities. The article argues that egalitarians should generally support Indigenous property or compensation claims in conditions as we know them and as they are likely to be. The article closes with a brief extension of these arguments to Indigenous claims to political authority.
Most work on the rights of indigenous communities presumes that these groups each represent a sin... more Most work on the rights of indigenous communities presumes that these groups each represent a single small demos that has become encompassed by a larger surrounding nation. This is essentially correct for Indian tribes in the United States as a result of their long-standing interactions with American legal structures. The boundaries of indigenous communities are not always so clear-cut, however, and this gives rise to complex political questions about how multilayered demoi should be conceptualized. In Australia, Aboriginal communities are often socially complex, with individuals seeing themselves as connected to one population for purposes of land rights, another for kinship relations, a third for language group, and so on. The Australian state has tried to develop political structures that take into account this complexity, but has thus far been quite ineffective in doing so. The article examines current institutions in the Northern Territory, and suggests directions for potential reform.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2020
This paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United... more This paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United States and Australia. The paper focuses on policy coordination and administration, in particular the nodes of decision-making in the two countries in relation to government contracting and accountability. The U.S. approach to funding Indigenous organizations stems from the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act and its subsequent expansions. Through the development of contracting into permanent compacting via block grants, this approach builds established nodes of Indigenous government and facilitates whole-of-government coherence at the level of the American Indian tribe. The U.S. approach seems correlated with better performance and may lighten bureaucratic loads over the long term. The Australian model, on the other hand, seeks to create whole-of-government coherence through top-down financial accountability in a way that hampers the development of Indigenous political capacity. The paper traces the development of these Aust J Publ Admin. 2019;1-15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aupa
Explanatory note: This paper was originally developed for a workshop on territory and Indigenous ... more Explanatory note: This paper was originally developed for a workshop on territory and Indigenous rights at Queen's University, Kingston, ON. Amidst other things, I'm currently not working on the paper, but it seemed as if it might be useful to post it here. Comments are very much welcome!
Abstract: In the literature on territorial rights, Indigenous peoples are often framed as small nations captured into relationships with larger nations. Because nations generally claim rights to be represented by specific states, and states generally claim rights to control specific fixed territories, it has seemed natural to conclude that Indigenous peoples as nations should have clear and fixed statelike borders, if perhaps on a smaller scale. Many Indigenous political actors have worked very hard to articulate this model of political territoriality and to put it into place. Yet there are dangers that such arguments, taken up for understandable strategic reasons, can occlude deeper Indigenous views of territoriality. Drawing the work of Glen Coulthard, Leanne Simpson, Kyle Powys Whyte, and John Borrows, this paper argues that terms such as "land" or "territoriality" are stand-ins for a much more complex and flexible set of relationships between human communities, non-human animal communities, and knowledge practices that are intended to create patterns of mutual flourishing. Given the interrelationships between continually moving humans, non-human animals, water, plants, and so on, indigenous territories often cannot be appropriately mapped as property-like territories with clear and fixed boundaries. Rather, they are best conceived as networks of relationships which may shift over time or with the emergence of new knowledge. This suggests that indigenous conceptions of territoriality require a more textured notion of connections to land than is often found in the literature on territorial rights.
Strategies of Justice, 2019
Perspectives on Politics, 2017
Tocqueville’s discussion of American Indians in Democracy in America is often read as the parad... more Tocqueville’s discussion of American Indians in Democracy in America is often read as the paradigmatic expression of a conventional story about American political expansion. This narrative holds that westward expansion was easy, in part because American Indians did not offer much resistance. Historians of political thought and scholars of American Political Development tend to affirm this narrative when they read Tocqueville’s text as suggesting merely that Indians are “doomed” to an inevitable extinction. Our interpretation here proceeds along different lines, with a greater focus on the ways in which contending Jacksonian-era discourses of Indian nomadism are represented in Tocqueville’s text. We argue that Democracy reflects complex and often competing descriptions of inherent Indian nomadism, retreat, and removal, with varying attributions of causal responsibility for disappearing Indian populations. This reading of Tocqueville highlights contentions about Indian removal that are often ignored or neglected in current scholarship, and can therefore help us to better appreciate both his text and his time.
This essay considers the relationship between ideal theory and non-ideal theory. It begins with R... more This essay considers the relationship between ideal theory and non-ideal theory. It begins with Rawls's conception of ideal theory and A. John Simmons's articulation of non-ideal theory. Both defend the priority of ideal theory over non-ideal theory. The essay then considers three different conceptions of the social barriers standing in the way of an ideal society, taken broadly from Mill, Marx, and Foucault. Each conception of power suggests a divergent strategy for pursuing non-ideal theory. The Foucauldian conception also suggests reasons to mistrust our own political and moral judgments. The essay advocates a more limited view of the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory than is commonly described, in which ideal theory retains its logical priority but not its temporal priority. In other words, the essay argues that we will fare best when we focus first on reducing specific injustices while setting aside further speculation about the character of an ideal society.
Political Theory, 2005
While claims for the return of expropriated land by Native Americans and other indigenous peoples... more While claims for the return of expropriated land by Native Americans and other indigenous peoples are often evaluated using legal frameworks, such approaches fail to engage the fundamental moral questions involved. This essay outlines three justifications for Native Americans to pursue land claims: to regain properties where original ownership has not been superseded, to aid the long-term survival of their endangered cultures, and to challenge and revise the historical misremembering of mainstream American society. The third justification is most controversial. It asserts that understandings of history shape perceptions of the present, and that intensively pursued land claims can provide powerful challenges to inaccurate conceptions of the past. This essay argues that Native Americans are for this reason justified in strategically pursuing land claims that are difficult to justify on other grounds, and closes with some worries about the legitimate role of strategy in political action.
Political Theory, 2007
Defenders of Aboriginal rights such as James Tully have argued that members of majority populatio... more Defenders of Aboriginal rights such as James Tully have argued that members of majority populations should allow Aboriginal peoples to argue within their own preferred intellectual frameworks in seeking common moral ground. But how should non-Aboriginal academics react to claims that seem insufficiently critical or even incoherent? This essay argues that there are two reasons to be especially wary of attacking such errors given the historical injustices perpetrated by settler states against Aboriginal peoples. First, attempts to root out error will often be misplaced, because they will fail to consider the full range of possible reasons for particular kinds of social practices. Second, such attempts will often have counterproductive social effects in disrupting conversations and prolonging Aboriginal alienation. This essay thus argues that non-Aboriginal academics should be willing to exercise considerable self-restraint toward apparent intellectual errors, because such a strategy will be most conducive to realizing justice over the long term.
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2010
What is the appropriate degree of abstraction from existing social facts when engaging in normati... more What is the appropriate degree of abstraction from existing social facts when engaging in normative political theory? Through a focus on American Indian and other indigenous claims over historically expropriated lands, this essay argues that highly abstracted forms of normative analysis can often misunderstand the core moral problems at stake in real cases, and that they can pose moral dangers when they do so. As argued, the hard moral issues involved in indigenous land claims within countries such as Canada and the United States often have far more to do with questions about competing uses for public lands than with abstract property theory as such. The essay argues that normative theorists will often do more social good, and pose fewer dangers, when they pay close attention to the real moral challenges that social actors face on the ground than when they become captured by abstract questions with ambiguous practical importance.
Dialogue, 2011
Jeremy Waldron argues that the historical ownership rights of Aboriginal peoples can be supersede... more Jeremy Waldron argues that the historical ownership rights of Aboriginal peoples can be superseded, yet acknowledges that programs of historically grounded compensation are justifi able in the absence of widespread redistribution. This article argues that existing states lack social justice programs of the requisite kind, and that they will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Moreover, even the best-designed programs will be far more ambiguous than Waldron encourages us to recognize, given the unavoidability of inheritance-based inequalities. The article argues that philosophers should pay special attention to political context when evaluating the claims of socially vulnerable populations such as Aboriginal peoples.
In this essay, I want to raise some concerns about the possibility of overcoming many kinds of hi... more In this essay, I want to raise some concerns about the possibility of overcoming many kinds of historically-constituted injustices, particularly where these injustices have shaped the current pattern of inherently distributed goods such as property and political authority. I will argue that these goods can only be distributed in ways that contain within them a large degree of moral arbitrariness, even when seen within the logic of the distributional principles themselves. This suggests that we lack a clear model of how to effectively pursue egalitarian projects even where there is a political will to do so, and suggests the political conflicts are unavoidable even in a society that more actively seeks to pursue justice. In these circumstances, I will argue, we must seek something more limited in ambition to rectify certain kinds of historical injustices, but also something that more openly acknowledges the potential for social conflict among long-disadvantaged social groups. Because they raise issues of historical injustice in complex form, my discussion will address historical injustices toward Aboriginal peoples in the United States and Canada, with attention to these injustices as they have contemporary relevance. The arguments will generally be framed more broadly, however, because they concern the relationship between overall patterns of distribution and the current status of persons in specific social locations. Similar kinds of arguments could be made about claims for reparation or affirmative action by African Americans in the United States, and about many other populations elsewhere. Unfortunately, these similar applications suggest possibilities for conflict that one might wish to overlook—in many cases, there may be real competition between the moral aspirations of multiple groups, with no real principle for choosing between them, and no compromise solution available. The paper will proceed as follows. First, it will briefly outline an argument from Jeremy Waldron about the possibility of the expiration of historical injustice , suggesting that Waldron's moral aspirations are plausible and common ones. Next, it will evaluate the possibility of these aspirations being met for economic egalitarianism in the future, suggesting that even our dominant theory of economic justice—that of John Rawls—falls considerably short of the kinds of changes that would be necessary for Waldron's moral aspirations to be achieved. Following that, it will briefly illustrate the ways in which the same limitations apply even more sharply to the distribution of political authority, once again
Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2008
Should states extend customized political protections to 'minority nations' or 'minority cultures... more Should states extend customized political protections to 'minority nations' or 'minority cultures'? Part of the answer depends on whether the identities at stake are merely political artifacts created or exploited by 'ethnic entrepreneurs', or whether they are 'authentic' expression of an ongoing collective life. Th is essay argues that the real character of groups is persistently diffi cult to recognize, and that 'authenticity' is a problematic notion even in the abstract. Given these uncertainties, the essay argues that states should generally treat only the claims of small and vulnerable groups as moral issues, while treating the claims of large groups primarily as political matters. Th e essay closes with a discussion of the legal criteria for recognizing Indian tribes in the United States, arguing that the standards used are generally plausible, if problematic in one key detail.
The American Indian Quarterly, 2005
Teaching Documents by Burke Hendrix
Course Description Courses in political theory often focus primarily on theorists from the " West... more Course Description Courses in political theory often focus primarily on theorists from the " Western " tradition – in other words, those who contributed to or were influenced by Greek, Roman, and Christian thought. The goal of this course is to consider political theory in other locations, especially China and India. The course will be centrally interested in the concept of an intellectual " tradition ". To what degree should contemporary political thought in China, India, and other parts of the world be seen as inherited from earlier times? To what degree might styles of thought travel across geographical and social spaces, to replace the traditions that previously existed there? The latter half of the class pays special attention to these questions in reading theorists who opposed European colonialism, some of whom drew on Marxism and others of whom rejected it. Since the scope of the course is broad, it will frequently focus on specific aspects of these theories to make comparison easier. It will focus for example on the nature of social order: what renders societies stable, or alternatively tears them apart? It will also focus on the relationship between political order and religious truth: to what extent must laws reflect the will of divine powers, and what methods should be used to ensure this correspondence? Finally, the course will focus on the nature of the good human being: what kind of character should a person have, and how might it be brought about? Obviously, these questions often have interlinked answers, and in many cases we will be especially concerned to spot the differences and similarities of connection across the traditions examined. The intellectual world of ancient societies in the first half of the course will be less familiar than that considered in the course's latter half, when we turn to colonialism and the reactions to it. In taking this course, you will be contributing to the development of an intellectual field. " Comparative political theory " has only begun to be studied carefully in the last decade. In some cases, you may be reading works that have never been formally compared to one another before. You are therefore expected to think carefully about them, and are invited to offer your own interpretations throughout.
Inactive Papers by Burke Hendrix
Uploads
Papers by Burke Hendrix
Abstract: In the literature on territorial rights, Indigenous peoples are often framed as small nations captured into relationships with larger nations. Because nations generally claim rights to be represented by specific states, and states generally claim rights to control specific fixed territories, it has seemed natural to conclude that Indigenous peoples as nations should have clear and fixed statelike borders, if perhaps on a smaller scale. Many Indigenous political actors have worked very hard to articulate this model of political territoriality and to put it into place. Yet there are dangers that such arguments, taken up for understandable strategic reasons, can occlude deeper Indigenous views of territoriality. Drawing the work of Glen Coulthard, Leanne Simpson, Kyle Powys Whyte, and John Borrows, this paper argues that terms such as "land" or "territoriality" are stand-ins for a much more complex and flexible set of relationships between human communities, non-human animal communities, and knowledge practices that are intended to create patterns of mutual flourishing. Given the interrelationships between continually moving humans, non-human animals, water, plants, and so on, indigenous territories often cannot be appropriately mapped as property-like territories with clear and fixed boundaries. Rather, they are best conceived as networks of relationships which may shift over time or with the emergence of new knowledge. This suggests that indigenous conceptions of territoriality require a more textured notion of connections to land than is often found in the literature on territorial rights.
Teaching Documents by Burke Hendrix
Inactive Papers by Burke Hendrix
Abstract: In the literature on territorial rights, Indigenous peoples are often framed as small nations captured into relationships with larger nations. Because nations generally claim rights to be represented by specific states, and states generally claim rights to control specific fixed territories, it has seemed natural to conclude that Indigenous peoples as nations should have clear and fixed statelike borders, if perhaps on a smaller scale. Many Indigenous political actors have worked very hard to articulate this model of political territoriality and to put it into place. Yet there are dangers that such arguments, taken up for understandable strategic reasons, can occlude deeper Indigenous views of territoriality. Drawing the work of Glen Coulthard, Leanne Simpson, Kyle Powys Whyte, and John Borrows, this paper argues that terms such as "land" or "territoriality" are stand-ins for a much more complex and flexible set of relationships between human communities, non-human animal communities, and knowledge practices that are intended to create patterns of mutual flourishing. Given the interrelationships between continually moving humans, non-human animals, water, plants, and so on, indigenous territories often cannot be appropriately mapped as property-like territories with clear and fixed boundaries. Rather, they are best conceived as networks of relationships which may shift over time or with the emergence of new knowledge. This suggests that indigenous conceptions of territoriality require a more textured notion of connections to land than is often found in the literature on territorial rights.