Sockeye at the Boundary: Controversial and Contested Salmon in the Cohen Commission, 2009-2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sockeye at the Boundary: Controversial and Contested Salmon in the Cohen Commission, 2009-2012 Callum C. J. Sutherland A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies York University Toronto, ON April 2021 © Callum C. J. Sutherland, 2021 Abstract Controversies have been the focus of considerable attention in the STS literature. As past studies have shown, the processes of closure are closely related to the production of technoscientific knowledges and artifacts. In this STS dissertation, I build on these studies by opening the black box that is the Cohen Report, thereby illuminating the various forms taken by, and contestations associated with, controversial salmon in the Cohen Commission, 2009-2012, a federal inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River of British Columbia, Canada. In this empirical study, I ask: (i) What are the primary sources of controversy in the Fraser River fishery? (ii) What salmon controversies are revealed through the social-life of sockeye, and how do they compare to those depicted in the Cohen Report’s overview of the life-cycle of sockeye? (iii) What factors contributed to the (de)legitimation of particular understandings of controversial salmon during the Cohen Commission? To address these questions, I employed a three-phase, multi-method approach which involved (I) collecting qualitative data in the field; (II) creating a map from these data; and (III) using this map to analyze the ‘social lives’ of various human and non-human actors. My primary research findings (1-9) shed new light on various salmon controversies, including those arising from (1) Indigenous responses to the ongoing experience of colonial violence and dispossession, (2) an ethic of exploitation oriented towards establishing and maintaining dominion over nature, (3) the prevailing view that fish (and fishing) are principally vehicles for economic growth and financial profit, and (4) the local effects of anthropogenic climate change. I also found that (5) these controversies are largely minimized by the Cohen Report’s life- cycle overview, which reduces the sockeye life-cycle to a series of physiological transformations loosely connected to the particulars of place. During the Cohen Commission, salmon controversies were (de)legitimated through (6) the boundary work of expertise, (7) the Commission’s emphasis on efficiently neutralizing contention, and (8) differing assessments concerning the importance of place. This resulted in the production of a controversial blueprint for closure—i.e., the Cohen Report—which (9) called for the production of knowledge and ignorance in relation to the impacts of salmon farming, accentuating the importance of attending to generative symmetry, this dissertation’s foremost contribution to the STS controversy studies literature. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Rich Jarrell (1946-2013) and Chief Slá’hólt Ernie George (1940-2020). iii Acknowledgements The ethnographic fieldwork underpinning this dissertation was conducted on the traditional territories of the Katzie, Kwantlen, Nlha7kápmx, Skwxwú7mesh, Stó:lõ, Stz’uminus, Tsawwassen, Tsleil-Waututh, and xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm peoples. This dissertation was written on the traditional territories of the Anishnabeg, Chippewa, Haudenosaunee, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Wendat peoples. Western academic conventions are such that I am listed as the sole author of this dissertation, but an undertaking of this sort would simply not have been possible were it not for the kind, helpful and invaluable assistance of many others. While the people who helped me along this journey are far too numerous to list here, I would nevertheless be remiss if I did not at least try. To my grandmother, Christel, whose tremendous bravery, compassion, and kindness has never ceased to amaze and inspire me. To my parents, Carol and Ian, who offered me vital support during my time in graduate school, in addition to instilling within me a strong sense of justice from a young age. To my siblings—Toby, Kyla, Sean, and Evan—in-laws—Melissa, Aaron, Nicole, and Shay—and nieces—Mabel, Lily, Maisie, and Avery—whose unconditional love and support proved essential throughout my time in graduate school. To my best friend, Marko, who has never failed to make me laugh, helping me to press on, even during the most dire of times. To my colleague Bill, who made me feel welcome at York University before our MA studies had even officially begun. I could not have made it through my first few years of graduate school without your kind guidance and support, as well as that of your family. To my first supervisor, Rich Jarrell, who helped me to bring into being the earliest iteration of this research project, but passed away a short time later. I miss you dearly, Rich, and I hope that this dissertation is one that you would have been proud to have supervised. To my supervisor, Steve Alsop, for thoughtfully guiding me through the process of writing this dissertation. To Denielle Elliott, for always challenging me to do better, and for giving me the confidence to move forward with this research project. To Jennifer Hubbard, for always being there to support me at conferences, and exercising patience as I struggled to grasp basic fisheries-related concepts. To Ernie Hamm, for helping to guide my early research, and introducing me to several key contacts. To Aryn Martin, who—as my GDP and, later still, Associate Dean—helped me navigate my way out of several administrative and financial binds. To Francesc Rodriguez Mansilla, for kindly assisting me with the structure of my dissertation. To Tom Özden-Schilling and Matthew Tegelberg, for agreeing to serve on my examination committee, and offering invaluable feedback on my dissertation along the way. iv To Grand Chief Ken Malloway, for regaling me with your stories on two separate occasions. To Latash Maurice Nahanee, for kindly welcoming me to your home, sharing with me the wisdom of your ancestors, and keeping in contact with me following my return home. To Chief Slá’hólt Ernie George, for having the incredible bravery to speak with me about your experiences as a Residential School Survivor. To David Kirk, for making me feel so welcome at the Kéxwusm‐ áyakn Student Centre, and for helping me to gain some understanding about the unique challenges facing Indigenous university students and First Nations in B.C. more generally. To Alexandra Morton, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to speak with me. To Phil, Lindsay, Layla, and Poppy, for kindly taking care of me towards the end of my fieldwork, and ferrying me to a number of important field sites. Finally, to my fiancée, Lillian, whose love, care, support, and patience proved absolutely essential in motivating me to complete this dissertation. I love you, Lillian, and I could not have done this without you. v Concerning my use of Footnotes and Citations Throughout this dissertation, I employ footnotes to (i) reference ethnographic or interview data, (ii) reference documents produced by the Cohen Commission, and (iii) to make parenthetical remarks and/or to reference additional secondary sources. In-text citations are employed for other sources of evidence. Concerning my use of Colonizer Terms Throughout this dissertation, I have avoided using terms like “Indian” or “Aboriginal” to refer to Indigenous peoples. In the interest of clarity and historical specificity, however, I have opted not to change historical place names (e.g., St. Paul’s Indian Residential School). Additionally, when initially referring to a First Nations community which refers to itself by a name which differs from its official band government name, I used the community’s preferred name with the band government name in parentheses. For example: Skwxwú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation). vi Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... iv Concerning my use of Footnotes and Citations ......................................................................................... vi Concerning my use of Colonizer Terms ..................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... vii Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... ix Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1 – Introduction: Interminable Controversy ............................................................................... 1 1.1 – Research Problem: A Seemingly Endless Cycle of Salmon Inquiries ............................................... 1 1.2 – Research Context and Significance ..................................................................................................