Had another think about this and saw that I could be making the same mistake I sought to correct in Chandler.
My aim was to correct Chandler’s interpretation of the collective protective factors against suicide (i.e. culture) in order to account for the fuller implications of any political measures that could be based on them. By opening up Chandler’s study to the possibility that a measure of cultural change is implied in his markers of cultural continuity, I also wanted to recognise the difficult adjustments Indigenous communities have had to make in order to sustain some semblance of their way of life that is their right. In other words, as much as we seek to support cultural continuity, we need to be aware of any consequential cultural changes this implies. My point is that cultural preservation and rehabilitation in response to a rapidly changing and possibly threatening post-colonial context tends to involve some change in social organisation for which there are ‘cultural implications’ (i.e. some form of cultural change). So, I raised the question of whether or not cultural continuity is inherently valuable as a protective factor against suicidal behaviour. Instead I was suggesting that maybe it’s the type of social change and the quality of cultural adjustment this implies that is most important. What I’m afraid of is the argument that because Indigenous peoples are adaptable (and mostly quite adept at it), then they should adapt. This is quite contrary to the sorts of political implications I was thinking of and deserve some explanation.
Chandler’s study implies that the form of social change described as self-determination appears to support a certain quality of cultural continuity that acts as a protective factor against suicidal behaviour. Just because low levels of self-determination are present in a community does not necessarily mean that a certain form of cultural continuity is not observable. I say this because culture is not intrinsically dependent on self-determination, but self-determination can provide some defence against cultural disintegration.1 Methodologically speaking, rather than treating self-determination as though it automatically implies cultural continuity, it needs to be treated as an assumption to be tested. In other words, I think there’s better and worse versions of self-determination on the ground, but the principle of self-determination is politically and morally valid. So, I think Chandler’s study is only a starting point for a more qualitative model of research. Again, I believe that we can assume that cultural continuity plays a role in moderating suicide, but this entails a qualitative measurement that Chandler’s study can only at best imply.
UPDATE: I finally found an Australian who questions the interpretation of Chandler and Lalonde’s measures as I have:
However, the measures used (selfgovernment, land claims, health services, cultural facilities and police and fire services) are also powerful indicators of local social and political control. It may be the interaction of disruption/ discontinuity with lack/denial of control or autonomous action that is particularly invidious and more important than the simple presence or absence of cultural identification (Hunter and Harvey, 2002: 16).
Hunter, E. and D. Harvey (2002). “Indigenous suicide in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.” Emergency Medicine 14(1): 14-23.
- Read anything at all by Will Kymicka (or the secondary literature) and you will get the sense that this is his description of existing minority rights as well as his defence oftheir necessary extension – not for cultural preservation, but as protection against cultural deterioration. [↩]
