Feminist studies

3.2-TallBearKim.MakingLoveandRelations.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >Feminist studies

147

unisn1.'' ln short, white bodies and white and c01�11n paces of safety have been propagated in intifa111ilie5 111 511;titution ,vith the culling of black red and co-co . . , ? ' mate b dies and the wasteland1ng of their spaces.brown et� to have babies, and who does not? Whose Wh? g et to live? Whose do not? Whose relatives, babie

s. gg other-than-humans, will thrive and whose inclu n � . 1 be laid to waste. wi1 At the same time that the biologically repro- ·ve monogamous white marriage and family were�n 1 rdified as ideal and centra to both US and Canadian so �on building, Indigenous peoples who found themn�ves inside these two countries were being viciously s�strained both conceptually and physically inside colo

�al borders and institutions that included residential schools, churches and missions all designed to "save the man and kill the Indian." If Indians could not all be killed outright-and persistent attempts were made to do so-then the savages might also be eliminated by forced conversions to whiteness. That is the odd nature of red as a race category in the US. In efforts to reduce numbers of Indigenous peoples and free up land for settlement, red people were viewed as capable of being whitened. As part of efforts to eliminate/ assimilate Indigenous peoples into the national body, both the church and the state evangelized marriage, nuclear family, and monogamy. These standards were simultaneously lorded over Indigenous peoples as an aspira�onal model and used to justify curtailing their biological reproduction and steal their children. So 1narriage was yoked together with privateproperty in settler coercions of Indigenous peoples. The ?reakup of Indigenous peoples' collectively held-lands �nto privately-held allotments controlled by men aseads-of-household enabled the transfer of "surplus"

148

lands to the state and t() n1<>stly 1-i:ur(>t)ca ., M / . t· . . r n or F An1crican settlers. C:rcc- . _ct1s cn11n1st1 I<irn A .,llr()~ writes that ''one of- the biggest targets of . 1 nd_crson was the Indigenous family," in which wonici~7 ,°111alis1n

. . f... l . . , -1 • 1 ad ( >c . picci l)os1t1ons o . aut 1or1ty c:1nc1 c<>.,ntrc>]lcd propcrt . :U- colonial state targeted wc>n1cn s p<>wcr ty· y. I he

. .. .~ ' ing Ia tei1L1re r1gl1ts to l1eterosexual) onc-c)n-onc 1.f. nd . tl . ' . 'Jt:l,,1, 111arr1ages, 1us ty111g wome11 s econc)1n1c well 6 .· 1~ n1en wl10 legally controlled tl1e property Icindg t()

. n .tcd women themselves became property. )

Indigenous Relationality: e.g., Tiospaye, Oyate

One hundred and fifty-six years after the Dakota-Us War of 1862, _when my Dakota ancestors were brought under colonial control, the clearly unsustainable nuclear family is the most commonly idealized alterna- tive to the tribal and extended family context in which I was raised. Prior to colonization, the fundamental social unit of my people was the extended kin group, including plural marriage. The Dakota word for extended family is tiospaye. The word for "tribe" or "people" ( sometimes translated as "nation") is oyate, and governance happens in ways that demonstrate the connections between the two.

With hindsight, I can see that my road to exploring open non-monogamy began early in my observations in tribal communities of mostly failed monogamy, extreme serial monogamy, and disruptions to nuclear family. Throughout my growing up I ,vas subjected by both whites and Natives ourselves to narra- tives of shortcoming and failure-descriptions of N~tiv~ American "broken families," "teenage pregnancies,

149

I.: ,.d 1110tl1ers/' and C)tl1er failed attempts t a111c . 1· ·..Jdl l . . o ''L111t11' 1 ite 11at1011a 1st, 1111(1 e c ass veneer over our · t a W 1 ' · 1 · 1 f .. · 1 pa1:1 I used to thll1 (, lt ~-a~ t lC , a~ r~res to live ~P. to that

Jtv<::S-tl turned me ofl emphas1zmg domesticity and ideal 1alty I ran for coastal cities and higher educ;tion cl r's w 1 1 h ' 1a I asserted fro°: a very ear y age t at I would never \vhY or birth children. Indeed, pregnancy was some-

arfY, n b · · rn. 1 came to see as su m1tt1ng to weakness that thing with bleeding-with womanhood. It signified care ·ssion to men, What settler family did to my head! su nn But I was a happy child in those moments when

1 sat at my great-grandmot~er's di°:ing r?om table with ft r generations, and later m her life with five genera- ?:ns. We gathered in her small dining room with its ~urnt orange linoleum and ruffled curtains, at the table beside the antique china cabinet, people overflowing into the equally small living room-all the generations eating, laughing, playing cards, drinking coffee, talking tribal politics, and eating again. The children would run in and out. I would sit quietly next to my grand- mothers hoping no one would notice me. I could then avoid playing children's games and listen instead to the adults' funny stories and wild tribal politics.

Couples and marriages and nuclear families got little play there. The matriarch of our family, my great- grandmother, was always laughing. She would cheat at cards and tell funny, poignant stories about our family, about families and individuals-both Natives and whites-in our small town throughout the 20th century. Aunts and uncles would contribute their child- hood memories to build on her stories. My mother would bring the conversation back to tribal or national poli~cs. A great-grandchild might be recognized for a creative, academic, or athletic accomplishment. The newest baby would be doted on as a nev\rl)r arrived

150

human who chose our family. The Mom who . 18 and unmarried w~:mld have help. As Kirn :ght be explains in "Affirmat:lons of an Indigenous F . ~erson

e1111n1st'' . . Our traditio11al societies l1ad. bee11 susta •

. 1 . . h' h inect b strong km re atlons 111 w ic women had sig . fi Y authority. There was no such thing as a111_.cant

b N . s1ngJe mother, ecause aove women and their ch'id lived and worked in extended kin networks. 1 ren

Despite colonial violence against our kin systems . d . ·u . d ' We are m every ay pra~tice stI . qmte a ept at extended famil Beyond biological family, we also have ceretnonie y. adopt kin. And in my extended family we also engags ~o legal adoption. This is aided by the Indian Welfare Act (ICWA) that prioritizes the adoption of Native children by tribal families so children have a better chance of remaining inside tribal cultures. And it was Indigenous peoples ourselves who lobbied heavily for that legislation as one response to the colonial kidnapping of children of previous generations from Indigenous families who were impoverished by colo- nialism, and deemed unfit for not attaining the middle- class, nuclear family structures of white colonialists.

151

1 orY settler Sex, Family, and Nation co111Pu s . lly 111arry-l,otl1 legally and 1n a I )ak<>ta . ventt1a l

I did e . . al ceren1ony-w 1en I was ncar]y 30 . . ditt011 . 0eo-~a m youthful disavowals, even I didn't have the vespi~e. fa1 momentum to jump the tracks of the opP~sit~railroad. Today, I am nearly 50 and I see that J1larriag t my family's so-called failures that dampened it was n:usiasm for coupled domesticity. Rather, I was J11Y entting all my life under the weight of the aspira- s~ffoalcaideal of middle-class nuclear family, including oon 1 d · h · 1 h ro )normative coup e om wit its compu sory ~i~~;gical reproduction, even while ! had, it turns out, contentedly lived a counter narrative to that settler ideal for some years.

Unsurprisingly, the feeling of suffocation inten- sified after marriage and the pressure I felt to constitute a normative middle-class family. My co-parent is an anti-racist, feminist, Indigenous-rights-supporting, cisgendered white male who has mostly been the primary caretaker of our now teenager. I do not blame him as an individual for my misery in the marriage and nuclear family system. He did the best he could to help make a livable space for me. While I had no trouble bonding with my child as an individual human being, I could not shake my feeling of unease with the settler family structure, including its oppressive pronatalism.

Of course, there were babies born into my ~xtended Dakota family. People have sex. Bodies beget hfe. But I did not see in my community a kind of pronatalism co-constituted with nation (state) build-r~--.--an overture necessarily aimed at dispossessing hn igenous peoples of our human and other-than-uman r 1 . e at1ves. Instead, and I have only just no,v put

152

words to this, I grew up wit_h an implicit mancta our tiospaye must caretake km across the genera/e that Part of caretalci11g the c)yatc, i.e. tl1c "tribal n' .

10ns as • .3, -, . . • a t10 n ,') . 20tl 1-ce11ttiry parla11ce. Sc)111c c)f (>Ur kin arc b in l . ... :'I, , • l orn to , ar1d son1e of t 1e111 co111e t~> Lts 111 <Jt 1cr ways. 1;hc us

of gra11dpare11ts a11d at111t1es a11d t111cles are r,, roles . ""vered . 111ucl1 as are motl1ers and fathers. I grew in a ve as kinship world, but settler-state oppressions sim 1 pro. ously sparked in me an explicit nonnatafism ~htan~~

. . f h US . at is central to my reJectJ.on o t e nationalist proJ·e I 1. . l d . h Ct. f pronata ism 1nvo ves repro uc1ng t e middle 1 . -c ass

settler family structure, no matter the race or sex 1 orientation of the middle-class family, I lament it. ua

Kin-Making and Critical Nonmonogamy .

Decolonization is not an individual choice. We must collectively oppose a system of compulsory settler sexu- ality and family that continues building a nation upon Indigenous genocide and that marks Indigenous and other marginalized relations as deviant. This includes opposing norms and policies that reward normative kinship ties ( e.g., monogamous legal marriage, nuclear biological family) over other forms of kinship obliga- tion. It includes living or supporting others in living within nonmonogamous and more-than-coupled bonds. It includes advocating policies that support a more expansive definition of family, and not rewarding normative family structures with social and financial benefits. Multiple scholars including Scott M. Morgensen and Katherine Franke show us how the E?!ese~t set~ef sexuality system attemRts to r~lro~d ,al'. of us mto ng1d relational forms established h1s toncalh

153

1atriarcbal hctcronc>r1native and increas-rJ1e l ' . • . • 1 . 5e1""e 1 JC>110 rn1at1vc 111111cr1a state a11d its u 11sus-ro 1s0 1 o 11 . . , , , d . . . . ,dy a . te tJrope1 ty interests a11 1nst1tt1tH)ns. 1110 1 pr1va r .. . . tai11ab e .,resent-past-future: I resist a hneal, progressive

I . 11 of movement forward to something entat10 b k - ,. h. . I·cprt::5 oveine11t ac to sc>tnet 1ng purer. I bring or n1 . . be~rer,and practices_ mto ~onversat1on from across ~hat voices d in English, t1me. There are many hvely is calle tionalists at my table-both embodied and no corwersa rnbodied. I lean in to hear them all in order to lollgerde grasp ways of relating that Dakota people and trY :~ Indigenous peoples practiced hi_stor~cally .. From 0th 't is possible to lmow after colorual disrupt.Ion to what 1 . d . f ancestors' practices an our memories o how they oulrted marriage was different from relatively recent re a , .

ttler formations. Before settler-imposed monogamy, :arriages helped to forge important Dakota kinship alliances but "divorce" for both men and women was possible. In addition, more than two gend~r~ _we:e recognized, and there was an element of flex1b1l1ty 1n gender identification. People we might call "genderqueer" today also entered into "traditional" Dakota marriages with partners who might be what we today consider "cisgendered." As I try to write this, I engage in essentially nonsensical conceptual time travel with categories that will lose their integrity if I try to teleport them back or forward in time. So much has ~one dormant-will go dormant. So much has been !~posed onto Indigenous peoples, 'both heteronorma - tive settler sexuality categories and now also "queer'' categories.

The record is also clear that there was plural mtr~iage for men. What were/are the spaces for plural ~e a~~ns for and between women? An Indigenous emrnist scholar from a people related to mine has

154

confessed to me her suspicion that tors the multiple wives of one husba adm?ng our

h • n , 1f th ance sisters as t ey sometimes were, may h ey Wer s- today call "sexual" relations between hact Wha~ n()t pered this to me. As if. we were blasph ei_n. She Wh~c

Id b fc t1 1 . 1. ern1ng l) 1s, wor e ore set er co on1a 1sm-otitsid _ · nut in ular biosocial assemblages that now ste of the Patti-~

. f " d " " " ructurc c notions o gen er, sex, and "sexual· ,,· settler th . . . h Ity p. and e mt1mac1es among t em were no d b . crsons

out quite differently. ou t Worked Nath~n 1:lambukkana, in his 2015

Fraught Intimacies: Non/Monogamies in the } 00 ~ Sphere, notes the potential of "queer or queer d ub/ic

· · 1 · h · b e sexual or 1ntimate re anons 1ps etween sister- or co . . -wives '' He cites a 2008 ethnography of a British Col b: M . B "ful . um ta ormon community, ountl , m which two pol

· . '' . d h th · yga-m1st wives marr1e eac o er using Canada's sam _ sex marriage legislation." The two women "consid;r themselves life partners, although they have never explicitly discussed whether their relationship has a sexual component."

Rec_ognizing possibilitjes of other kinds of inti- ._ . m.acies-11ot focuse _d on biological reproduction and . ~~µg p_qpul~tion, . but caretaking precious kin tha~ ,<;9Il1-~ to us in diverse . ways~is an _ important step to ~P.~~_ttl!ng settler _ sex _and _ family. So is looking for answers to questions about what intimacies were ~d are possible beyond the settler impositions we now ~ve with. These are formidable tasks that will be met with resistance by many Indigenous people. Our shaming and victimization, including in "sexual" ways, has been extreme. The imposition of Christianity has ensured that speaking of and engagino- in so-called sexual cela· t" . h b rerelr Ions In t e ways of our ancestors was se, · curtailed. Our ancestors lied, omitted, were beaten,

155

u , raped, grew ashamed, suicidal, fo:got. We1oclcC� !rited all of that. And we have tnherited lave �nl xual rnores, and settler state biopolitics that 1 . uan se i 1 1 . � -� -. Chf1S . e asure, anl pat 10 og1ze our bodies and our ·rot n1 c 'bl ·1· . 010111 5' including torc1 y sten 1z1ng Indigenous people ' Yet they've also promoted heteronormativec ,vo111c1:· 1 reproduction ( for some, not all) as the only. 1og1ca . d 1 . • btO ake babies an an. ,r tO 1n h' h l'ff 1 . ' r w::11 With that istory as t � c i oom1ng above us, lo�� ' . mall thing to ask Indigenous thinkers to turn \)C-� ·r is no s d . . :t..l 1 . d

ecolonial lenses towar s a cntique of normative \i.'...0,· their_ ge and family formations that many of us now �� rna:rt\ 0 It is no small request to ask Indigenous people aspire . d f onsider the a vantages o open nonmonogamy, tO c · ' kn 1 d d ' •t11 a commumty s ow e ge an partners consent as

Wl important decolonial option. For now, few will have :at choice. I suspect there are especially younger Indigenous people who might join me in thinking hard on the nonmonogamous arrangements of our ances tors. We are so keen to embrace other decolonizing projects-to consider the wisdom of our ancestors' ways of thinking. Why should we not also consider nonmonogamous family forms in our communities? I have had especially white feminists bristle at my refusal to condemn Dakota historical practices of plural marriage. How can I support "polygamy"-with that word for them meaning one man with several wives? It can also refer to one woman with multiplemen. These women's views on nonmonogamy areconditioned by their impressions of nonconsensual or no� rigorously consensual forms of nonmonogamy in which men alone have multiple wives. They often cite , Mormon or Muslim polygamies. I can't speak with much expertise to the variety of nonmonogamous practices among those peoples, although I kno,v that

156

there are varying levels of consent and not 11 should be painted with the same broad bru~h Polygamy us, as Indigenous people, to learn what w · But I ask the role of nonmonogamy in our ancestore, can a~out which, importantly, were not ofi::en attachesd practices) lytizing religions, and which normative! t~ Prose. greater auto11omy for wo1nen. What I kny eaturcd . ow of ancestors is that women controlled househ ld my erty. And marriage did not bind them to meno Prop: · all · th h h f tl · · econorn 1c y 1n e _ars ways o set er m'1rriag~/ · <-. -

What were the values underlying our an th . . cestors' nonmonogamy at might articulate with 2lst-c

Indigenous lives? Many Indigenous communiti;n1: exhibit a framework of extended kinship where re:p s _ sibilities are more diffusely distributed, where we w:~ as groups of women ( or men, or other gendered people ideally) to share childcare, housing, and other resources. In my experience, our ways of relating often seem to contradict the monogamous couple and nuclear family. I am interested in seeing us not only implicitly but also explicitly de-center those family forms. Perhaps our allegiances and commitments are more strongly conditioned than we realize by a sense of community that ,exceeds rather than fails to meet the requirements of settler sex and family. The abuse ai:d neglect in so many Indigenous families born of colorual kidnapping, incarceration, rape, and killing are all t~o real. But perhaps our relentless moves to caretake 1? tios11aye more than in normative settler family formbs 15 r b . . the est not simply the best that we can do. May e it 15 way to heal? th label

I've seen sociological research ~der ~ather· of Indigenous Masculinities-pro- Indi~en~:~- :1rent, hood research-that centers the normative n_al p000 ns · c Ion1 11 nuclear family form without question. 0

157 . . idiously continue to stigmatize us as theyilY ins

. d d .

Of fa.(11 1 e nonnative stan ar against which we areent t 1 l . I . repres ·ed, perhaps o�lf ons 11p arra�1gements are actu-J11easit1 . lly ei11ot1onally, financially, and environ-ulnt1a ' allY c 1 n10re sustainable than that nuclear family, 111ental Y t model we are so good at failing at, ando�paren ".c. ·1· " tW hy we are 1a1 1ng.

'sW tl1at If we already often share children, economic . nee and housing, why must sex be reserved for ' �� ' . . s onogamous couple, or for making babies? Sexual we mgamy can in one interpretation be seen as hoard-111000

' b d d d . h' h . another person s o y an esire, w IC seems at inJds with the broader ethic of sharing that undergirds 0 xrended kinship. What if my colleague's suspicion is

�orrect? Is it so uncomfortable to imagine women, in partnership also with the same husband (with every one's gender identification more complex than biology alone)-sharing not only say daily work, but also, when the need or desire arose, sharing touch as a form of care, relating, or connection?

158

Disaggregating Sexuality and Spirituau . Reaggregating Relations ty,

S 1. . "1·1 " ext1a 1ty 1s 11c)t 11(e power ... sexuality is f power: and, of the forms of power s·· a <

1 >.rrn of . 1 . 1 . -, ex u a 1 ty • parncu ar 1n1g 1t prove uniquely efficacio , . 1n

individual and collective healing. Furth~r inI 60~h suggest that sexuality's power might be Will

h h h . 1orcefuJ enoug to soot e t e pains of colonization a d h f . l I . . n te scars o 1nterna co on1zat1on.

David Delgado Shaner

In an essay entitled simply, "Sexuality," Indigen Studies scholar David Shorter focuses on moreakam~: -healers, seers, powerful people among the Yoeme an Indigenous people living on both sides of tlie Mexico/US border. He originally set out to under- stand the "spiritual" aspects of what they do-to exam- ine moreakamem as powerful healers--but his research revealed entanglements of both "sexuality" and "spiri- tuality." During his fieldwork with southern Yoeme in Sonora, Mexico, an elder told Shorter that individuals who engage in nonmonogamous and/ or non-hetero- sexual relatio11ships are commonly also moreakamenz. This is not always the case, but it is often the case. In fact, in northern Yoeme communities in Arizona, mort· akame has come to be conflated with terms such "gay " ''lesbian " or "two-spirit " and other less pos1•

' ' ' d h· s br tive terms. The healer or seer aspect of the wor a"_h now been lost among Y oeme living in the US, ~,; have much ethnic overlap with "Catholic Mcxic American" communities. 1th~

Sh uld 1derst~Ull . orter found that he co not u~ · f 1fJi1rt powerful "spiritual" roles in con1n11intt)' 0 .... 11(\i

th . sO·lJ.ll akamem without also understandi11g eir

159

. . Shorter explains that in many Indigenous aloes. ". d · l settl 1 tllere is a11 111tercon ne~te ness 1n a l aspects

011reits, followii1g tl1e co11J1ect1ons between sex and C . C. ,, s O l . '' C 11 . of hie· tlJe y oen1e was a a11 to 10 owing a strand

. a111011g E 1· l spirit 'd ,5 web."' !11 11g 1s 1 we are accustomed to sp1 er 1· " " . . ,, " 0t a . f ''spirit11a 1ty or s~11r1t, sexuality" or tl1i11~;1:! t~ings, and as assuredly separate things. With ''sex logical lens moreakamem become an object a cl t 011tO d 1 . h ' 1a f person define a ong e1t er sexual and/or clas~.

0 al'' lines. However, within their context, sexu-

''sp1r1tu . b h b . . nd spirituality can ot e seen as actually const1- alttyda of "human relational activities." They are sets of tute h h. h . . d ,. 1 tions-throug w 1c . power 1s acquire and Ee :hanged in reciprocal fashion among persons, not all f; them human. In describing how relations or the f e1ational sharing of power become things in a non - Indigenous framework, Shorter uses the term "objecti- vating the intersubjective." In another simply titled essay, "Spirituality," he explains that "'Intersubjective,' like 'related,' emphasizes m11tual connectivity, shared responsibility, and interdependent well-being." So we might think~ of sexuality, spirituality, and nature too as not things at all, but as sets of relations in which power (and sometimes material sustenance?) circulates. We might resist objectivating the intersubjective. ;VVe might ~esist hardening relations into objects, which might ~ake us more attuned to relating justly in practice. . To return to moreakamem and resisting a clas-

sification of them as gay, or nonmonogamous, we can se_e them instead as relating. They have reciprocity ~1th and receive power in their encounters with spir- its, I ancestors, dreams animals. And also in the human reahm when they use' their power to see for and heal ot er hu bl add' . mans suffering from love or money pro ems,

ictions, and other afflictions of mi11d and bod)'·

160

E1npl1asizing relations a11d exchange Sh h " . I I f.. ' ' orter e 1 tl1at t e S()Cta ro e o moreakamem''' . Xp ains

means for individual self-empowerment,, is not ''a aleame does not identify themself as such : >note. we do so identify them in order to refc~ t 1th0ugh Moreakarnem do not accentuate their O t_hen,_ Perso11al cl1aracteristics and capaci tics i C" thP.erti nent . ' · ·, CJ r '' , . ality" or their power to heal. Shorter exp] . Sexu. a1ns th moreakamem focus rather on their work in at

· h h " 1 · 1 1 corn 111 u 111ty, t at t ey wor ( tire ess y and selflessly t . · . . h 1 . " Th · h O rna1n ta1n rig t re atior1s. ey resist aving their rel • · . . . d b' "fi d at1onal act1vit1es an power o Ject1 e .

Understanding moreakamem relationality · community helps us to understand their so-called sex~~ ality ( and ours too) as a form of reciprocity and po\rer ex~han~e. We can begin. to unthre~d it from being an obJect like "gay" or "straight" that 1s "constituted once and unchanging." So-called sexuality is one form of relating and sharing of power that is "reconstituted over and over based on the intersubjective dynamism of two or more persons." Shorter encourages us to see that for moreakamem-and for all of us-"sexualitv" can be understood "as a way of being that ... directly and intentionally mediates social relations across the family, clan, pueblo, tribe, and other forms of relations including other-than-human persons." With this understanding, sexuality beings to look "more like a type of power, particularly one capable of healing:,. .

David Shorter does not reveal the details~ or · th · tt~n moreakamem sexual relations beyond notmg err O

non-normative sexualities. But his theoretical rreaun~nl of sexuality as relational power exchange is inStfllthl0'~~

1 ( d o for pondering how Indigenous peop e an ~1.tl. might find ways in collectivity to oppose settler _sex-'~. . d f th. ki rel-ioonJL. 1ty an marriage. Given the goal o 111 r ng "

161

. ht ''indigenizing s�xua!ity" mean? I hope it iswhat J:11.l�ow that the �uest1011 1s actualI� oxymoronic.c1ear by we inight con�1der that the goal 1s t<� disaggrc}lather, , lied sexuality not back to tradition nots0-c,1 . . . ' ate d into progress, but into and back out into that[o:wa:, web of relations. ( Or any net visual that works�1der s ) That is a web or net in which rdationsfor you .e power and power is in tension, thus hoidi ngchang ' . ex b or community together. the we So this is my thought experiment: As part of d lonial efforts can we work ourselves into a web of r:i:�ons (I am thinking in terms of space �n?. not a time · ncept now). In small moments of possibility, can \Ve co · " " b tw d " al. " resist naming sex e een persons an sexu 1ty as nameable objects? Can such disaggregation help us decolonize the ways in which we engage other bodies intimately-whether those are human bodies, bodies of water or land, the bodies of other living beings, and the vitality of our ancestors and other beings no longer or not yet embodied? By focusing on actual states of rela tion-on being in good relation-with, making kin-and with less monitoring and regulation of categories, might

· that spur more just interactions? We could do the same thought experiment

with "spirituality" too for it is also about relationality · and engaging other bodies, maybe just not al\vays material ones. We won't escape the moments when "sex" or "sexuality," "spirit" or "spirituality" are the best we can do with this limited English language. But �an we lean toward disaggregating objects and insteadocus on promiscuously reaggregating relations? Can We _see ourselves as relating and exchanging po"rer and recipro · . . ext city. 1n support of a stronger ttospaye or th eoded kin network with both living relations andose whose bodies we come from, and ,vhose bodies

I •

162

will come in part from us? I am think.in human and other-than-human bodies W?hof both th

. d It Wh e are co-constitute . 0111 We Many _other scl;ola~s of "Native A .

history or Indigenous Studies have writt krner1can'' l . en ey that inform my evo vmg thinking on h . texts discussed in this chapter. Influential histori t e_ issues Philip Deloria, Theda Perdue, and Brian D~ns _include influential are race scholars who do the rare~pie. Also

. c h . . Work of accounting 1or t e 1ntersect1ons of ra Indigeneity. These include scholars such a~e C~nd

Ch I H . Ail M irce Sturm, ery arns, een oreton-Robinson Jenny Reardon, Eve Tuck, and Yael Ben-zvi. Th .' . 1 · d . h n c. e1r work 1s 1ste m t e Re1erences and the online Sourcenotes.

163

cooctusion to rl1e by 110w 1nttn.dane topic of

,.e rur11 1 . . l h -f o r ainy ii1 re at111g w1t.1 more t _ an one partner 0110g, ., -

11011111 rft I have come to regularly ponder how this in n1Y ki1. e;hip across my life. How do these relations

res i1 b . set"\ thers? What a out our respective children? erve O · " 1 · h l · s . 1 ''romantic re at1ons can e p raise and 1xult1p e .

LVJ. r children in community. How do our relations rnento ur other partners? I have found affectionate and serve o . "th f

rt1·ve friendship w1 partners o my partners. suppo Th's is a key benefit for me of open nonmonogamy. B

1 w does the different sustenance I gain from multi-

l~ lovers collectively fortify me and make me more ;vailable to contribute in the world? If I am richly fed, what and who am I able to feed? What is possible with a model in which love and relations are not considered scarce objects to be hoarded and protected, but which proliferate beyond the confines of the socially consti- tuted couple and nuclear family?

What began as a personal political experiment in open nonmonogamy is turning to de-emphasizing monogamy and nonmonogamy as objectified forms of "sexuality." I am also indebted to fellow feminist science studies scholar, Angela Willey, for inspiring my newly established will to unsettle both concepts. I am c_aught up sometimes in objectivating the intersubjec- tJve, that is, when I identify myself as "nonmonoga - mou '' th s -as a sort of form of sexuality. Let me be clear, at I · view open nonmonogamy as but one step in a :ocess ?f decolonizing from compulsory settler sexu - fraty._ It 18 a placeholder until I/we find other ways of rna;ing a~d naming more diffuse, sustainable and inti-

e relations.

164

As a11 I11Liige11ot1s tl1i11k~er, I am translating. I see Indigenous thinkers aero constantly plines_ a~d outside of the academy doing si~~1:;e disci- con1b111111g ottr ft111dan1cn tal cu I tLLral orie :V0rk--. I .. - ·b·1· . . ntat1on. tl1e \\,orld ,v1t 1 11cvv ~1<->ss1 1 1t1cs anLi fram s to living and relating. Our peoples have been CdW<~rks for

. 1 . l i\ • f.. 01 ng th· collective y 111 t 1e .r1.111cr1cas ·or over five is . h. l 1 . ccnturi t1"a11slat111g, pus 111g Jae< aga111st colonial fram _ · cs,

and adapting them. We've done it with re cworks, • .c. f 1· . d spect t syncretic 1orms o re 1g1on an ceremony, with dr 0

music, language, art and performance. Why sho Id ess, n?t also artic~la~e other way~ to_ lust, love, andu m;~ kin? A de-ob1ect1fied reconst1tutlng of right rela1-;

d . h 1· h uOns an nurturing, ea 1ng exc anges of power seem ' important next step. Within the grand scheme a1 things, . ~urposeful a~d ~p~n n?nmonogamy, an~ reconce1v1ng of more JUSt 1ntlmac1es with other-than- humans seem like important next steps.

In conclusion, I return to my tiospaye and to Indigenous peoples, I no longer see our failures at last- ing monogamy and nuclear family as failure. From where I stand it looks like most of my extended family members have more security in our small town tribal community or in the "urban Indian" community in which I spent part of my childhood, than they do in Euro-centric traditions of nuclear family and marriage. I see us deep inside the shifting walls of this colonial edifice that took most of the world's resource to build, experimenting and working incrementally with tools and technologies that we did not craft. I see ~s combining these with Indigenous cultural templates m any open space we can find to build lives and commu- nities of relations that make any sense to us at all. I

Source notes for

Making Kin Not Population Edited by Adele E. Clarke and Donna Haraway

PRICKLY PARADIGM PRESS CHICAGO

Anderson 2010, “Affirmations of an Indigenous Feminist,” p. 83.

148. “mostly failed monogamy, extreme serial monogamy, and disruptions to nuclear family…” I eschew the more usual term “ethical nonmonogamy” in favor of “open nonmonogamy.” African diasporic femi- nist and critical animal studies scholar, Zakkiyah Jackson, pointed out to me that the term “ethical nonmonogamy” implies that monogamy is more natu- rally ethical. We do not think so. See TallBear 2017, “Moving Beyond Settler (Colonial) Sexualities.”

150. “‘their children lived and worked in extended kin networks…’” Anderson 2010, “Affirmations of an Indigenous Feminist,” p. 83.

153. “unsustainable private property interests and insti- tutions…” Morgensen 2011, Spaces between Us: Queer Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Decolonization; Franke 2015, Wedlocked.

154. “‘whether their relationship has a sexual compo- nent…’” Rambukkana 2015, Fraught Intimacies: Non/Monogamy in the Public Sphere, p. 40.

158. “‘pains of colonization and the scars of internal colonization…’” Shorter 2015, “Sexuality,” p. 487.

159. “‘mutual connectivity, shared responsibility, and interdependent well-being…’” Shorter 2016, “Spirituality,” p. 447.

160. “‘constituted once and unchanging…’” Shorter 2015, “Sexuality,” p. 497.

Chapter 5 Making Love and Relations Beyond Settler Sex and Family Kim TallBear

145. “‘It cut me from the circle…’” Critical Polyamorist 2018, “The Critical Poly 100s.”

145. “standard of lifelong monogamous marriage took hold in the 19th century…” Cott 2000, Public Vows. See also Denial 2013, Making Marriage: Husbands, Wives and the American State in Dakota and Ojibwe Country.

146. “marriage and monogamy became secularized in late 19th-century scientific discourse…” Willey 2016, Undoing Monogamy.

146. “how ‘marriage was part of the national agenda in Canada…’” Carter 2008, The Importance of Being Monogamous.

146. “increase certain human populations and not others during rapid post-World War II colonial and capitalist growth of the US…” Ebron and Tsing 2017, “Feminism and the Anthropocene,” p. 663.

146. “what Ebron and Tsing, after Traci Brynne Voyles, call ‘wastelanding’…” Voyles 2015, Wastelanding.

148. “Cree-Métis feminist, Kim Anderson writes…”