Complex Erasures: Re/Production of Disability under Settler Colonialism, an Interview with Kaitlyn Pothier and Kathryn Reinders

Kaitlyn Pothier (she/they) has a Master’s degree from the University of Guelph. She completed both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Guelph in sociology, criminology, and public policy. Her research interests include intersectional theory, gender-based violence, restorative and transformative justice, family law, disability studies, and Indigenous scholarship. Kaitlyn worked as a graduate research assistant (GRA) on several projects with the Live Work Well Research Centre (LWWRC), including the shadow report with the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Disability and Livelihoods in Canada, and Reimagining Livelihoods.  

Kathryn Currie Reinders (she/her) is a PhD Candidate with the Social Practice and Transformational Change program at the University of Guelph.  She completed both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Guelph in political science.  Her research interests include human rights, disability studies, public policy, and political action.  Kathryn is currently a GRA with several of the LWWRC’s projects, including the shadow report with the Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Engendering Disability-Inclusive Development (EDID-GHDI) partnership, and Disability and Livelihoods in Canada.  

Kaitlyn and Kathryn are the authors of the chapter “Complex Erasures: Re/Production of Disability under Settler Colonialism,” which appeared in Canadian Settler Colonialism: Reliving the Past, Opening New Paths upon its publication in Fall of 2024. We conducted a written interview with them to understand their writing process and what they take away from this experience.  

In your chapter, you frequently discuss “self-governance” and how its usage can ignore the social structures which give colonialists power. Do you think it’s necessary for anyone performing research to become educated on how the language they use can be inherently discriminatory?  

KP: While it may not be necessary in all cases, I think anyone doing research in a complex field such as this should be aware of the context and history behind the language they use. Especially when working towards decolonization, it is important to understand how our words reflect the world around us—words and language hold power, whether we are conscious of it or not. In the case of our shadow report, we assumed that self-governance language was empowering but later learned that the term has been weaponized against Indigenous communities by the colonial Canadian state. I think, overall, this idea points to the importance of making sure your research is directly influenced by the people you aim to serve. If we hadn’t communicated with Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA people with disabilities, we would never have learned about the problematic usage of self-governance language!  

Various models of disability are discussed. Is there one which you believe is most progressive in terms of bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge? Do we need to create an entirely new model?  

KP: I’m not sure any of the three models we discuss (medical, social, and political) are able to bridge Indigenous and Western knowledge, but I think that the political model coined by Dr. Lynn Gehl does the best job at highlighting the clear tensions between Indigenous and Western understandings of disability. Gehl’s political model emphasizes historical policies that disadvantaged Indigenous Peoples in Canada as a site for disablement; however, she also writes about the importance of the other two models as well. I think that pieces from each of the three models can be used in conjunction, almost like an intersectional lens—essentially, an understanding that medicine, society, and politics play varying roles in the re/production of disability. This approach may also help researchers be more mindful of the fact that every individual with a disability is entirely unique, as are their experiences with disability. 

In your chapter, you discuss how some researchers do not have the privilege of access to an institution, and many engage in community-based research. What was your process in collaborating with these types of researchers? 

KP: During the shadow report process, we connected with community-based scholars and knowledge keepers through our Advisory Committee. This committee consisted of four Indigenous women and Two-spirit individuals with disabilities, all of whom had experience in academic spaces and/or cultural and community spaces. The process was very iterative—we went back to our committee many times with different drafts until we all felt confident in the quality of the work. We then heavily relied on the insights of our Advisory Committee while writing our Complex Erasures chapter. One of the reasons we called attention to researchers in non-academic settings was how difficult it was for us to connect with Indigenous knowledge keepers; while we tried to mitigate this by using community-based resources and datasets, the lack of access to research and knowledge outside of Western academia suggests a major barrier. And this goes both ways—academic researchers struggle to find community-based research and knowledge, and those who cannot access post-secondary education are left out of scholarly literature. 

Your chapter explains that initiatives such as the Canada Disability Benefit do not account for the diverse experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals with disabilities. Are there any countries or nations which have an inclusive benefit in place that Canada can model itself after? 

KCR: I don’t have a good answer to this question.  When Kaitlyn and I were writing this piece, we were focusing more on the specific challenges which arise in policy contexts where supports and services are targeted toward a single identity. So, we didn’t look into how other settler-states navigate this challenge.  I know often self-government is put forward as a potential route through which to address these challenges—however, The Gehl Report notes that self-government in Canada often results in off-loading of services—such as disability services and supports—without providing the financial, training, and technical resources required to run these programs.  As a result, self-government can become more rooted in self-administration of programs than in recognition of true self-determination, as understood in Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So the best answer I can give here is that this issue is complex and can offer a real challenge to recognition of human rights when policy approaches cannot account for the intersections between Indigenousness, gender and sexual diversity, and disability. 

In your chapter, you explain that to “follow the turtle” is to use your privilege to uplift marginalized voices, so that disabled Indigenous women are leading the research. How did you put this idea into action and what lessons will you be taking away from this research to apply to other projects? 

KCR: Our chapter grew out of the work Kaitlyn and I did with Dr. Deborah Stienstra on the shadow report for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on behalf of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. Dr. Stienstra mentored Kaitlyn and me throughout this process, and she ensured that the shadow report was created in a way that brought forward the expertise and experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people with disabilities.  Part of this process involved working closely with an Advisory Committee—which included Indigenous women and/or 2SLGBTQQIA people with disabilities—in the creation of both the shadow report and the book chapter.  We are deeply thankful to Advisory Committee members Carrianne Agawa, Valdine Alycia, Lynn Gehl, and Kathy Loon for their support and feedback on this chapter. 

Outside of incorporating feedback from the Advisory Committee into our final chapter, we were able to think through what it truly means to "follow the turtle" and bring those most marginalized to the front of movements and advocacy.  For me, what this meant was using the privilege I had through this conference and publishing opportunity to further amplify the lived experiences brought forward within the shadow report.  There is often little overlap in academic spaces between students and academics working within the Indigenous rights space, and those working with the disability rights space. So it felt like an important opportunity to use our privilege to really showcase how policy approaches, which are rooted in single identities, can continue to create the same outcomes which they seek to prevent in the first place. 

In your chapter, you explain that many Indigenous languages do not have a word for disability. What are the advantages and disadvantages to not defining disability?   

KCR:  As a white settler-scholar, I don’t think it is my place to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of how diverse Indigenous Nations understand disability and impairment.  However, what I can say is that participating in the shadow report process really gave me the opportunity to think through how I understood disability.  If you asked me before writing this paper if I understood disability as a form of difference, I would have said no—because I felt I understood that part of being human included understanding that humans come with all different types of abilities, difficulties, and differences.  But, after working on this project, I can really see that there is a HUGE difference between acknowledging disability as part of human diversity and understanding Indigenous approaches to disability which instead see that each one of us holds unique gifts, which are of benefit to our communities.  It really made me take a step back and ask myself why I did see difference first?  Because even if my view on difference was positive, I was still seeing difference first—and community membership second. 

Resources  

Gehl, L. (2013, April 23). “Clearing the Path for the Turtle.” The Feminist Wire. https://thefeministwire.com/2013/04/clearing-the-path-for-the-turtle/  

Gehl, L. (2021). The Gehl Report: Indigenous women and girls with disabilities and gender-based violence. https://www.lynngehl.com/uploads/5/0/0/4/5004954/the_gehl_report_may_2021.pdf   

Live Work Well Research Centre. Shadow Report for United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people with Disabilities. Native Women’s Association of Canada, 2022. https://liveworkwell.ca/sites/default/files/pageuploads/Shadow%20Report%20-%20Rights%20of%20Persons%20with%20Disabilites%20%281%29.pdf   

Pothier, K., & Reinders, K. C. (2024). Complex erasures: Re/Production of disability under settler colonialism. In E. Grafton, J. Melançon, A. Parker, & I-O. Fasunhan (Eds.), Canadian Settler Colonialism: Reliving the Past, Opening New Paths. University of Regina Pressbooks.