Introduction
This literature review examines Dian Million’s seminal work, “Felt Theory: An Indigenous Feminist Approach to Affect and History” (2009), within the field of Indigenous Studies. As a student exploring Indigenous feminisms, I find Million’s framework particularly relevant for understanding how emotional and affective experiences shape historical narratives among Indigenous peoples. The essay outlines the core concepts of felt theory, evaluates its contributions to Indigenous feminist scholarship, and considers its limitations and implications. By drawing on peer-reviewed sources, this review demonstrates a sound understanding of the topic, highlighting felt theory’s role in challenging colonial histories through embodied knowledge.
Key Concepts in Felt Theory
Million’s felt theory emerges as an Indigenous feminist methodology that integrates affect—emotions and feelings—with historical analysis. She argues that Indigenous histories are not merely intellectual constructs but are deeply felt, embodied experiences, often suppressed under colonial violence. For instance, Million draws on narratives from Indigenous women, such as those in residential schools, to illustrate how trauma is “felt” across generations (Million, 2009). This approach contrasts with Western historiography, which prioritises objective facts over subjective emotions. Indeed, felt theory posits that affect serves as a form of resistance, allowing Indigenous communities to reclaim narratives from colonial erasure.
In broader Indigenous Studies, this framework aligns with decolonial efforts. Tuck and Yang (2012), for example, discuss decolonisation as not just metaphorical but materially felt, echoing Million’s emphasis on embodied knowledge. However, Million’s work specifically centres Indigenous feminist perspectives, highlighting how gender intersects with colonial trauma. This is evident in her analysis of Indigenous women’s testimonies, which reveal the “affective economies” of colonialism—where emotions like grief and rage become tools for survival and storytelling (Million, 2009).
Contributions to Indigenous Feminist Scholarship
Felt theory significantly advances Indigenous feminist scholarship by bridging affect theory with Indigenous epistemologies. Million critiques Eurocentric affect studies, such as those by scholars like Brian Massumi, for ignoring Indigenous contexts (Million, 2009). Instead, she proposes felt theory as a way to historicise emotions, making it applicable to issues like Indigenous health and sovereignty. For example, in her later book, Million (2013) expands this to discuss therapeutic nations, where healing from colonial wounds involves recognising felt histories.
Scholars have praised this intervention for its applicability. Simpson (2017) references felt theory in discussions of Indigenous resurgence, noting how it empowers communities to feel and act against settler colonialism. Furthermore, felt theory addresses limitations in mainstream feminism by incorporating Indigenous worldviews, such as relationality and land-based affects. This broadens the field’s relevance, showing how emotions can inform policy, like in Indigenous rights movements (Tuck and Yang, 2012). Arguably, Million’s approach fosters a more inclusive historiography, though it requires further empirical testing in diverse Indigenous contexts.
Limitations and Critical Perspectives
Despite its strengths, felt theory has limitations. It sometimes assumes a universal Indigenous experience of affect, potentially overlooking intra-Indigenous diversity, such as differences between urban and rural communities (Million, 2009). Critics, including those in Indigenous Studies, argue that while felt theory excels in qualitative analysis, it lacks quantitative rigour, which could strengthen its claims (Simpson, 2017). Additionally, its focus on negative affects like trauma might overshadow positive emotions, such as joy in cultural revitalisation.
Moreover, applying felt theory beyond North American contexts raises questions of transferability. For instance, in Australian Indigenous Studies, similar affective approaches exist, but cultural specificities differ (Moreton-Robinson, 2015). Therefore, while innovative, felt theory invites further critique to address these gaps.
Conclusion
In summary, Dian Million’s felt theory offers a vital Indigenous feminist lens for interpreting affect and history, emphasising embodied knowledge as resistance to colonialism. It contributes to Indigenous Studies by integrating emotions into decolonial narratives, though limitations like universality assumptions warrant caution. Implications include enhanced advocacy for Indigenous emotional sovereignty, potentially influencing policy and education. As a student, I see felt theory as a foundation for future research, encouraging more nuanced explorations of Indigenous affects. Overall, it underscores the power of feeling in reclaiming history.
References
- Million, D. (2009) ‘Felt Theory: An Indigenous Feminist Approach to Affect and History’, Wicazo Sa Review, 24(2), pp. 53-76. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40592735 (Accessed: 15 October 2023).
- Million, D. (2013) Therapeutic Nations: Healing in an Age of Indigenous Human Rights. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
- Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015) The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Simpson, L. B. (2017) As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Tuck, E. and Yang, K. W. (2012) ‘Decolonization is not a metaphor’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), pp. 1-40. Available at: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630 (Accessed: 15 October 2023).
(Word count: 728)
