FROM CULTURAL GENOCIDE TO CULTURAL INTEGRITY: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND THE CO-OPTATION OF INTERNATIONAL NORMS By Jeffrey Benvenuto A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program, Division of Global Affairs written under the direction of Dr. Alexander Laban Hinton And approved by ________________________ Dr. Alexander Laban Hinton ________________________ Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud ________________________ Dr. Yale Ferguson ________________________ Dr. Andrew Woolford Newark, New Jersey May 2018 © 2018 Jeffrey Benvenuto ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT FROM CULTURAL GENOCIDE TO CULTURAL INTEGRITY: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND THE CO-OPTATION OF INTERNATIONAL NORMS By Jeffrey Benvenuto Dissertation Director: Alexander Laban Hinton There lies a hidden history beneath the official language of Article 8 of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which defines the right to cultural integrity. The genealogy of this norm goes back to the lost concept of “cultural genocide,” or the destruction of a group’s unique characteristics. This latter concept was originally stillborn while drafting the 1948 Genocide Convention because a majority of countries assumed that assimilation, or the absorption of outsiders into dominant structures, was something normal and desirable in the construction of modern nation- states. Yet this old assumption fell out of date by the 1970s, as evidenced by the shift in the International Labor Organization from the 1957 Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention (No. 107) to the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169). The abandoned norm of “cultural genocide” (also perplexingly referred to as “ethnocide”) was revived in this broader intellectual context. These two keywords were actually used in the original draft of what became Article 8 of the 2007 Declaration, but they were explicitly redacted from the final text due once again to more powerful interests. This hidden history exposes a paradox in international norm dynamics between competing currents of continuity and change. On the one hand, the 2007 Declaration is the outcome of what I describe as settler colonial globalism, or the logics of sovereignty ii and capitalism in the contemporary era of neoliberalism. Such an ideological filter was responsible for the carefully scripted wording of this international legal instrument. On the other hand, even with its textual redactions, Article 8 remains rooted in a spirit of Indigenous survival and resistance, not to mention the productive capacity of non-state actors to affect change in global affairs. The articulation of cultural integrity as a human right symbolizes a definitive break with the historical patterns that I identify as the normalcy of assimilation. In order to problematize the apparent “progress” of international norms in relation to certain continuities of power in global governance, however, I employ a theory of co-optation, defined as the incorporation of resistant elements into a dominant structure. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to begin by acknowledging, first and foremost, that this dissertation was completed in Lenapehoking, which is the ancestral homeland of the Lenape people, and which is, moreover, an occupied territory upon which I have made my home.1 It is further necessary for me to admit my own biased standpoint in this geographical and political context. I am a settler American who has been scholarly trained by a land-grant institution of higher education. The land-grant system dates back to a federal statute passed by the Thirty-seventh Congress (1861-1863) as part of a number of bills that transferred massive amounts Indigenous territories to the settler colonial public domain.2 As such, my experience is implicated in a larger structure of domination, for in no uncertain terms, I am personally benefitting from the legacies of settler colonialism. My school, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, is a land-grant institution in Lenapehoking that was founded in 1766, although my campus (Newark) was incorporated in 1946. Not that this late arrival makes it any better. In fact, Rutgers- Newark is less than ten miles from a forgotten historical site of the Pavonia Massacre of 1643, in which at least 80 Lenape men, women, and children were murdered by Dutch soldiers.3 My acknowledgement of this forgotten massacre serves as a reminder as to how settler colonialism implicates my personal subject position, which in turn structures the 1 Emma Kowal, “Welcome to Country: Acknowledgement, Belonging and White Anti-Racism,” Cultural Studies Review 21, no. 2 (2015): 173. 2 For the Thirty-seventh Congress’s historical role in American settler colonialism, see Kevin Bruyneel, The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of US-Indigenous Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 33-34. 3 For a legal history of the settlement of Newark in the late 17th century, see Blake A. Watson, “John Marshal and Indian Land Rights: A Historical Rejoinder to the Claim of ‘Universal Recognition’ of the Doctrine of Discovery,” Seton Hall Law Review 36, no. 2 (2006): 540-549. On the Pavonia Massacre, see Herbert C. Craft, The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000 (Elizabeth, NJ: Lenape Books, 2001), 412-416. iv ways in which I am inclined to see (and, inversely, the ways in which I do not see) the reality that I am studying.4 With that said, this project has been a long time coming. First and foremost, my deepest thanks are due to Dr. Alex Hinton, who invited me to apply to the Division of Global Affairs in the first place. The Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights was an amazing intellectual home, and my sincere thanks to all of the amazing people there, especially Nela Navarro and Steve Bronner. My thanks as well to Jean-Marc Coicaud, who was an intrepid leader of the Division of Global Affairs and whose erudition was second to none. Thank you as well to Yale Ferguson. Even though he’s officially “retired,” his continued service to the Division of Global Affairs is immeasurable. My sincere thanks extend to Andrew Woolford. As an external reviewer, he was under no professional obligation to serve on my committee, yet he did so without hesitation and to great effect. On a more personal level, I’d like to thank my parents – Peter and Ann Benvenuto – for supporting me every step of the way, as well as my sister, Jennifer. In the middle of this project, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, and her perseverance was absolutely inspiring. I’d like to thank all of the doctors and nurses for making sure she pulled through. I’d like to thank Abuela for making sure I’m always well fed. I’d like to thank Dobby for being such a faithful companion. And last but most certainly not least, I’d like to thank my wife, Kristina. Everything I do in life, I do for her. 4 This personal reflection is inspired by the practice of feminist standpoint theory. See Mary Hawkesworth, Feminist Inquiry: From Political Conviction to Methodological Innovation (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2006), 56-57, 73-74, 176-179, and 201-206. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 Three Spotlights in History ............................................................................................. 1 Paris: October 25, 1948 .............................................................................................. 1 Geneva: September 20-23, 1977 ................................................................................. 3 New York: November 28, 2006 .................................................................................... 6 The Genealogy of Norms ................................................................................................ 9 The Dilemma of Normative Change and Structural Continuity ................................... 18 Power and International Norm Dynamics ..................................................................... 26 Forms of Power in the “Colonial Household” of IR Theory .................................... 28 The Study of International Norms ............................................................................. 36 The Organizational Theory ....................................................................................... 42 The Liberal Theory .................................................................................................... 47 The Critical Theory ................................................................................................... 52 The Dynamic Theory ................................................................................................. 59 Chapter Outline and Keywords ..................................................................................... 66 Genocide .................................................................................................................... 67 Indigenous Peoples .................................................................................................... 73 Settler Colonialism ...................................................................................................