Settler Colonial Power and the American Indian Sovereignty Movement: Forms of Domination, Strategies of Transformation
Abstract
The article extends the multi-institutional model of power and change through an analysis of the American Indian Sovereignty Movement. Drawing upon cultural models of the state, and articulating institutionalist conceptions of political opportunities and resources, the analysis demonstrates that this framework can be applied to challenges addressing the state as well as nonstate fields. The rational-legal diminishment of tribal rights, bureaucratic paternalism, commonsense views of tribes as racial/ethnic minorities, and the binary construction of American and Indian as oppositional identities diminished the appeal of "contentious" political action. Instead, to establish tribes' status as sovereign nations, tribal leaders aggressively enacted infrastructural power, transposed favorable legal rulings across social fields to legitimize sovereignty discourses, and promoted a pragmatic coexistence with state and local governments. Identifying the United States as a settler colonial society, the study suggests that a decolonizing framework is more apt than racial/ethnicity approaches in conceptualizing the struggle of American Indians.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Native Americans' status as both tribal nationals and US citizens uniquely shapes their experiences of agency and power, as they are subjected to internal colonialism across multiple interlocking institutional spheres, including criminal justice.
“This intersection uniquely shapes their experiences of agency and power, as they are subjected to internal colonialism across multiple interlocking institutional spheres (Steinman 2012), including criminal justice (Nielsen 2009).”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
BIA agents and agencies were semiautonomous local policy makers in control of their own arenas of influence.
“BIA agents and agencies were semiautonomous local policy makers in control of their own arenas of influence (Steinman 2012).”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
Differential federal imprisonment and longer sentences for Native American defendants might be one consequence of interlocking institutional power.
“Thus, differential federal imprisonment and longer sentences for Native American defendants might be one consequence of interlocking institutional power (Steinman 2012).”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
For much of the twentieth century, the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) controlled federal reservations through federal authority and resources, including the administration of justice.
“For much of the twentieth century, the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) controlled federal reservations through federal authority and resources, including the administration of justice (Droske 2008, Steinman 2012).”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
PL 280 placed Native American defendants and Native American communities under state jurisdiction without originally requiring tribal consent, thus failing to recognize Native Americans' status as members of domestic sovereign nations.
“PL 280 placed Native American defendants and Native American communities under state jurisdiction without originally requiring tribal consent, thus failing to recognize Native Americans' status as members of domestic sovereign nations (Droske 2008, Snipp 1992, Steinman 2012).”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
Steinman's interlocking institutional power perspective is most applicable to understanding criminal justice and Native American nations and is very compatible with the implications of the court community perspective.
“We argue that Steinman's (2012) interlocking institutional power perspective is most applicable to understanding criminal justice and Native American nations and is very compatible with the implications of the court community perspective.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman (2012)
Steinman (2012) predicts that reproduction of colonial power relations will continue and will be contested.
“As Steinman (2012, p. 1,121) predicts,”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Steinman 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 154 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Steinman, E.
- Affiliations
- Pitzer College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Steinman, Erich
- ORCID
- Steinman, Erich
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1073-1130
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W1498525276
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 154
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 13.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Systems and Governance
- Keywords
- settler colonialism, tribal sovereignty, decolonization, political opportunity structure, tribal rights, tribal identity, contentious politics, infrastructural power, tribal-state relations
- MeSH terms
- Administrative Personnel, Cultural Characteristics, Ethnicity, Humans, Indians, North American, Political Systems, Politics, Power, Psychological, United States, Colonialism, Paternalism, Racial Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
