In his latest book,听,听Associate Professor Yann Allard-Tremblay,听offers a thorough theoretical account of the irreconcilable differences between Indigenous and Euro-modern political traditions. In engaging with the work of various Indigenous and decolonial scholars, Allard-Tremblay presents makes the case for a redirection of political theory and conduct toward Indigenous systems and decolonization.听听
We spoke to Professor Allard-Tremblay about the research behind听顿颈蝉箩耻苍肠迟耻谤别蝉,听the importance of a better understanding of the politics of reconciliation and how听顿颈蝉箩耻苍肠迟耻谤别蝉听has been discussed among peers.听
Q:听How did the idea for this book come about, and how has your 鈥痯revious 鈥痳esearch shaped its contents?鈥�
A:听This听book originates from a dissatisfaction with the ways in which听political theory as a discipline,听and politics more generally, have听often听assumed听that they could fully account for the claims of Indigenous peoples, without having to change much.听Too often,听Indigenous political claims听are听apprehended through the existing categories and frameworks听of dominant political theories,听but much听is to听be gained by engaging听these claims听on their own terms.听Further,听reconciliation听is听too often听approached听as requiring no choices听or听sacrifices to be made听on the part of the state and non-Indigenous听people.听The听book听is听accordingly听conceived as a way of emphasizing that reconciliation cannot听properly be pursued听without听duly considering听the听theoretical and political听choices听it leads to.听听
More generally,听I have听long been听interested by听the听relationships between听politics and听epistemology, and more specifically by the ways in which the terms by which we govern ourselves can be subjected to听proper inquiry.听More recently, I have become interested听in听settler colonialism and coloniality and the ways in which听they听impede听the achievement of legitimate terms of governance, including through听various听forms of epistemic oppression and injustice.听While听Disjunctures听is听manifestly about听the political context of听reconciliation, the comparative engagement of听Indigenous听and dominant Euro-modern听political theories听it offers is听deeply informed听by听the听epistemological听considerations听shaping听my prior work.听听听
Q:听You characterize 鈥榙isjunctures鈥� as the irreconcilable differences between 鈥疘ndigenous 鈥痑nd Euro-modern political thought and traditions.鈥� What types of 鈥痙isjunctures 鈥痙o you address in the book, and how can they lead us to 鈥痑 better understanding 鈥痮f鈥� the politics of reconciliation?鈥�
A:听鈥楧isjunctures鈥� are indeed about irreconcilable differences between political traditions, but more importantly they refer to听political听options听that cannot simultaneously听be听realized and听that therefore require听choices to听be made.听They are about concrete options听before us, not merely about theoretical differences. A disjuncture听is thus听a crossroad,听a point where a choice听must听be made between different paths听that cannot simultaneously be pursued.听Disjunctures听seeks听to听explain听the main paths offered by听Indigenous political听traditions听along which听political theory and politics听may听fruitfully听be redirected.听For instance, one of the chapters is concerned with the notion of political rightness,听an overarching normative consideration seen as binding on other pursuits听within political society.听I听argue that dominant liberal political theories听tend听to conceptualize political rightness听as equivalent to justice.听In contrast, Indigenous political traditions听largely prioritize听the notion of harmony听over justice. I contend听this offers听another way of conceptualizing political rightness. In other chapters, I also discuss how Euro-modern and听Indigenous political traditions conceptualize听governance in irreconcilable ways: as a form of top-down exercise of authority that extend mastery over nature versus听as听a form of听relational听governance of听conduct听that听demands听mutual responsiveness both to other humans and听other-than-humans.听听
I believe this听offers a better听critical and听pragmatic听understanding听of听the politics of听reconciliation. It offers a better critical understanding because it makes clear just how much reconciliation without transformation听denies听the political import of Indigenous political traditions. It听offers a better pragmatic understanding听of the politics of reconciliation by articulating听specific and concrete irreconcilable political options.听听
Q:听What is鈥� 鈥業ndigenous Disruptive Conservatism鈥�,鈥� and how鈥� can 鈥痠t 鈥痗hallenge 鈥痮ur understanding of Euro-centric political models? How can this approach be 鈥痑pplied 鈥痗omparatively to reconciliation efforts in 鈥痮ther settler colonial contexts, such as 鈥疉ustralia and New Zealand?鈥��
A:听I develop听this approach听in听the book鈥檚听most theoretically dense chapter.听In that chapter, I reflect on methodological considerations听relevant听to articulating听different听disjunctures听between Euro-modern and Indigenous political theories.听The听problem听is听about how, and on what grounds,听a political theorist听can听identify, articulate, and defend听Indigenous political options.听I present the various methodological considerations discussed听as听鈥業ndigenous Disruptive Conservatism.鈥櫶齌his听approach听seeks听to听change and transform听the world听鈥撎齮o disrupt the current dispensation 鈥撎齜y听defending听better political options.听These options are听neither听utopian听nor听purely rationally听deduced. They are听rather听identified听and defended through a critical and reflexive engagement with, and grounding in,听Indigenous political traditions. As such,听鈥榗onservatism鈥櫶齣s not听in reference to contemporary political听parties but听marks听the resonance with classical conservatism and the importance it grants to tradition as a source of knowledge and wisdom. In听using this term, I am also听pointing to the possibility听of听fruitful encounters between Indigenous political traditions and听non-dominant听strands of Euro-modern political theory.听听
Indigenous Disruptive Conservatism听is primarily听designed to explain how to carry out the work听顿颈蝉箩耻苍肠迟耻谤别蝉听demands.听It offers听a useful synthesis and characterization听of听critical approaches听to political theory that听centers Indigenous political听traditions, which I argue听are听broadly taken up by otherwise diverse Indigenous authors.听It听will help听other scholars听pursuing related听projects听of decolonization and reconciliation, and I hope will resonate for Indigenous authors听here and听in other settler colonial contexts,听but听I听do not claim听that听it听offers听a听normative statement of how to听methodologically听and theoretically听approach听reconciliation听everywhere.听
Q:听In鈥� Disjunctures,鈥� you draw upon鈥� work already done by various Indigenous thinkers 鈥痮n 鈥痶he 鈥痶heoretical implications 鈥痜or normative political theory鈥痑nd the practical political consequences of presuming 鈥榠rreconcilable differences between Indigenous and dominant Euro-modern traditions.鈥� Which 鈥疘ndigenous thinkers have you referenced in your book, and how did鈥� their contributions inform your research? How will their work help readers of your book better understand鈥� political theory in general, and 鈥痶he 鈥痙isjunctures 鈥痽ou refer to,鈥� more specifically?鈥��
A:听This is听a very difficult听question to answer. For one thing, there are too many听scholars听to name听here. For another, when I try to think about听shorter lists, I end up听with unrepresentative lists.听In writing听Disjunctures,听I wanted to articulate differences with dominant Euro-modern traditions, but without negating nor erasing the diversity of Indigenous traditions听associated with different Indigenous nations. As such,听while being synthetic,听I have听nevertheless听tried to be wide-ranging in my engagement听with听Indigenous thinkers. There are names that appear more often than others, but听overall,听my research has been informed by a multiplicity听of distinct, and sometimes contrasting, but equally relevant听Indigenous contributions. This听cannot be reduced to听the influence听of a few scholars.听More generally,听properly understanding听the听disjunctures听I refer to,听and Indigenous political theories more generally,听requires significant,听demanding,听and ongoing听work听to听learn from others and听humbly听encounter听them in their complexities听and diversities.听
Q:听Chapter Four addresses the Two Row Wampum.听What significance do living artifacts such as the wampum hold in understanding the long history of political relationships between Indigenous peoples and settlers?
A:听Leaving aside specificities听associated with听the Two Row Wampum,听a complex political agreement that requires a great deal of unpacking 鈥� too much to undertake here 鈥撎齮his is a good moment to emphasize that听Disjunctures听is not only concerned with听political theories as they are developed in written texts.听Political theories are听embodied and听manifested in political conduct, practices, and institutions.听The听practices听of treaty-making, for instance,听is听differently听carried out in Indigenous and European traditions,听disclosing听different听lifeworlds听and ways of thinking and enacting politics.听These practices are听neither听self-explanatory听nor听transparent, but they听offer听rich expressions听of听the听different听nature and content of political traditions.听By engaging with听these听manifestations of political听traditions,听and the account given of them听by relevant听sources,听it听becomes听easier to听understand听how they concretely shape political life, and thus the听disjunctures听with which we are faced.听
Q: In your book, you engage with accounts of reconciliation that call for鈥� 鈥渄isalienation鈥� and transformation鈥�,鈥� responsabilities that rest on the shoulders of settlers 鈥痶o 鈥渞ejoin humanity.鈥濃��� What steps should be taken to answer 鈥痶his call to action? How鈥� can 鈥疘ndigenous traditions 鈥痶ransform鈥� our understanding of, and reckoning with, the past and鈥� the future?鈥�
A:听This is听a very complex听question,听and I seek to address it in听one of the听longest chapters听of听the book.听As such,听I听risk being superficial, here.听Importantly,听I do not provide a blueprint听for answering this call to听action.听Instead, my goal is听to emphasize听that reconciliation requires听both structural and subjective transformation;听such听transformation听should听unmake听social positions of dominance and associated subjectivities.听Largely,听modern听political subjects have understood themselves as听members听of听nations听or peoples听entitled to exercise final and supreme authority over a territory.听To properly approach reconciliation, this听self-understanding cannot be sustained: there is a need to 鈥榬emake鈥櫶齩urselves听otherwise,听so as to听sustain听mutually responsive relations of governance with one another and with other-than-humans听through which听we strive for harmony. How to do so听will take different forms for different people and in different contexts.听Importantly,听it is听wise to account for the听subjective sense of loss听this听is likely to produce.听To those ends,听Indigenous political traditions听contain听relevant teachings about听how to collectively surmount loss听to听sustain ongoing political relationships, and I discuss other relevant examples like that of South Africa.听In this respect,听Disjunctures听offers a politics of sacrifice and hope: certain听practices and听ideas, including of听the self,听to which听we are deeply attached听must be abandoned and transformed. There is loss, but loss for听the achievement of a better world. We can have hope that we can make a better world together,听although this听may be听very demanding.听听
Q:听How has the book been received amongst your peers and colleagues? What discussions 鈥痟as it鈥� inspired in鈥痽our classroom and beyond?鈥�
A:听The book only听physically听came out in October, so I am still waiting to read reviews听and to see how it gets taken up!听I can say however that听I have received extremely encouraging feedback from colleagues in political science, philosophy, and law at the book launch.听I can also note the enthusiastic responses I received from听colleagues听across the country听who听accepted to听participate听in author-meets-critics roundtables听at conferences in the听coming year.听Finally, the book has already attracted some attention, since I was invited to give an听online 听in January.听
Q:听What鈥檚 鈥痭ext for you in 2026?鈥�
A:听I am currently on sabbatical听until September. I have a few projects related to discussing the arguments of the book听and expanding some related ideas. For instance,听I鈥檓听interested by the听issues associated with engaging and collaborating across听intellectual听traditions, a project I have notably begun to explore听in collaboration with听John McGuire.听I am also working听with Elaine Coburn on a co-authored听book related听to our project on what听we call the Flying Heads of Settler of Colonialism, where we critically take up persistent ideologies supporting the settler colonial project across a wide range of contexts.听Finally, as I mentioned earlier, I like to frame听顿颈蝉箩耻苍肠迟耻谤别蝉听as offering a politics of sacrifice and hope.听I am听developing a project听more听closely听examining听these two notions听鈥撎齭acrifice and hope听鈥撎齛sking听how they have been taken up, notably in Indigenous political contexts,听and how they听can inform the current political moment.听听
Yann Allard-Tremblay is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at 91丝瓜视频 and a Senior Research Associate of the African Centre for Epistemology and Philosophy of Science at the University of Johannesburg. He is a member of the College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from the Universities of St Andrews and Stirling. As a member of the Wendat First Nation, his work is committed to the decolonization and Indigenization of political theory.鈥�
听