Co-facilitators: Bill Chaloupka and Kara Shaw.
Present: Laurie Adkin, Tzeporah Berman, Kevin Brown, Joanna Gislasson, Lilian Howard, Martha McMahon, Paul Senez, Cate Sandilands, Duncan Taylor, Geoff Whitehall.

This workshop began with Bill Chaloupka attempting to frame politics in Clayoquot Sound at the level of identity production. He talked about a "radically open or indeterminate field" of politics, within which multiple identities are constituted and enacted. From this perspective, politics ceases to be an objective field, but one which is always determined, to some extent, by the identities of the various actors and observers. Chaloupka pointed to the paragraphs which had been submitted on the subject of identity an authority, citing Laurie Adkin's discussion of the identity of "industrial worker," and Gary Shaw's observations about the absence, within the documents, of any positive identities available for First Nations.

Discussion quickly centred on the sorts of identities that had been conferred upon, and enacted by, the various agents involved in Clayoquot politics. It was observed that, in the process of the international media campaigns, identities had become fixed into rigid categories, categories which were incapable of representing the diversity within the community. Laurie Adkin pointed to this tendency to homogenize identities of First Nations communities, forest workers, and environmentalists. The former group, she noted, consists of both supporters and opponents of development projects such as the joint-venture agreement with MacMillan Bloedel. On this point, Lilian Howard made reference to the diversity within the Nuu chah nulth community, suggesting that it ought to be recognized and reconciled. She also suggested that the rigid identities which frame politics in the region do not adequately account for the connectedness of issues and problems within her own community. For example, fisheries and forestry issues cannot be seen as two distinct problems. This diversity is, in part, a reflection of the tension between her community's economic needs and its spiritual connection to the land.

More broadly, participants attempted to come to terms with the processes through which identities became constituted and performed. There was some speculation that perhaps identities were constructed by external forces--for example, the media--and conferred upon local actors. Another formulation suggested that identities were not enforced from without, but consciously accepted and enacted by those involved as the only legitimate means by which to engage politically. Also, a number of participants made suggestions as to how the constraints of existing formulations of identity could be disrupted and/or corrected. There seemed to be a consensus that identities had been formulated in a way that, by not adequately representing the diversity of the communities involved, limited the possibilities for political reconciliation. The "oppositional" and "compartmentalized" status of identities was discussed, particularly in reference to the emergence of rigid definitions of "community." As soon as a local identity became visible, it required the creation of an outside identity. For example, in response to the local identity of "forest worker," a generalized notion of "Vancouver yuppie" was produced in opposition.

One thread of discussion pursued observations regarding the fragmentation of politics, and the need for either broader categories or democratic practices within which to unite disparate groups. Laurie Adkin speculated about the potential and limits of political ecology as a counter-hegemonic discourse. She further pointed out that discourses of sustainable development are being used to legitimate the proposals and positions of labour groups, environmentalists, and First Nations. Each of these groups is attempting to assert a more authoritative interpretation of "sustainable developement." Also, she observed that almost all collective subjects involved were forwarding claims about democracy, and that a discourse of radical and plural democracy might link up the positions of various actors.

Kara Shaw began the second half of the session with an attempt to redirect discussion toward the concept of authority. She offered a summary of some of what had been said on the subject of identity. "Hard identities" had been produced as rigid categories, and did not capture the diversity which actually existed amongst the subjects involved. As a result, "soft identities" were being devised which could bring divergent identities back together. She proposed that one possible way to approach this problem was to conceive of political activity as being about "risk." In this sense, politics cannot be analysed without an openness to the destabilizing of authoritative discourses used to talk about identities. Shaw suggested that the Science Panel's report on First Nations "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" (TEK) offered a good example of competing discourses of authority. The panel introduces TEK as an authorizing discourse which contains the same kind of status or legitimacy as that of western science.

The discussion proceeded to address some of the issues surrounding the work of the Science Panel, considering "authority" as something involved in legitimating knowledge claims. Adkin noted that the invocation of science to settle conflict reflected a characteristically social democratic manoeuvre. Science had been introduced, and the problem had been defined as one of technical--not political--possibility. A number of participants noted this shift in the debate, away from one of democratic discourse and toward one of what is objectively possible. That is, the democratic question of what should happen in Clayoquot Sound is superseded by the technical question of what, scientifically, can happen in Clayoquot.

The discussion also considered "authority" in its more familiar sense of political authority. Paul Senez noted the failure of the Science Panel to make allowances for monitoring the implementation of its own recommendations; he argued that the Panel ought to be reconvened in order to conduct such evaluation. Also, Lilian Howard suggested that the foregoing reflections on authority had left her removed from the discussion. Several times she stated that authority must be community-based, and that government has failed to manage natural resources adequately. Clayoquot Sound should not be compartmentalized as separate from other areas on the coast. Different sectors of the community must be recognized, and the Science Panel must be implemented through a community-based process. At this point, she perceived little willingness for different parties to come together. Howard concluded that authority must be local, taking into account global contexts.

Several participants made comments regarding the status of authority in traditional First Nations knowledge. Some felt that, just as science narrowed the possibility for competing knowledge claims, so too do traditional discourses. Bill Chaloupka suggested that neither discourse is capable of producing fluidity of identities. However, there was also another perspective offered, which claimed that the acceptance of traditional knowledge enabled a variety of interests to be recognized as valid--that tradition refused to locate authority in any one place. Kara Shaw suggested that it is precisely in the Panel's inability to resolve the tension between science and tradition that conventional channels of authority become destabilized.

There was also attention paid to the related issue of the Panel's status as an institutional process. Some felt that, while its recommendations appeared to be radical, they, like those of the Brundtland Commission, would become co-opted by political forces. In this sense, the Science Panel ought not to receive an inordinate amount of attention. Others attempted to posit the Science Panel as a "place" rather than an answer or a solution, and the remaining discussion attempted to come to terms with what is meant by this claim. Kara Shaw conceived of the Science Panel not as something which should or should not be implemented--something which is good or bad--but as a site of conversation. In this sense, the "place" of the Science Panel represents the seeds from which reconceptualizing politics may begin. The session concluded with several participants expressing a reluctance to accept the Science Panel strictly as a site of conceptual politics. The political process of the Science Panel, they suggested, is already determined by economic and political commitments.

Co-facilitators: Richard Atleo and Jim Tully.
Present: Barbara Arneil, Juliet Craig, Radhika Desai, Hamar Foster, Maureen Fraser, Donna Haraway, George Hoberg, Tom Kuehls, Michael M'Gonigle, Ross McMillan, Ashis Nandy, Uma Nandy, Harry Post, Jeremy Rayner, Gary Shaw, Chris Tollefson, Nancy Turner.

Richard Atleo began the discussion by pointing out that, while the content of academic conversations may differ, the process by which they are conducted can be similar to that of conversations in traditional First Nations communities. With this orientation, a round of introductions began, and produced some common themes. After introductions, Jim Tully noted that people seemed particularly interested in the language of both sovereignty and property, and in the possibility of thinking about new languages and new knowledge claims. Also, participants pointed out that democracy and governance, particularly in relation to resource management, need to be addressed.

The discussion began with various attempts to read the relationship between traditional or local knowledge and scientific or universal knowledge. Ashis Nandy suggested that there is, at present, a tendency to think about knowledge as operating at two distinct levels: the local level, wherein local problems are thought about within locally generated categories, and the broader level, wherein local problems are conceived in local terms but also in the context of the universal categories which apply to the rest of the world. That is, rationalities employed at the local level need not face those with universal status. This tendency is, he claimed, a form of dominance, and it can be disrupted by thinking in terms of knowledge as a system of competing rationalities. Participants attempted to situate the Central Region Board (CRB) and the Science Panel as negotiations between these competing rationalities. The Science Panel in particular also operated with a process rooted in traditional decision-making practices.

The latter recognition led to questions of what is meant by traditional knowledges and traditional democratic practices, and of how both the latter challenge dominant modes of rationality. Richard Atleo pointed out that knowledge acquisition and legitimation in oral cultures differ from those of western science. Knowledge for First Nations peoples does not operate outside a moral universe; ideas and knowledge claims are based in a spiritual realm which serves as a legitimate source of evidence. First Nations' knowledge of medicine, of how to relate to one another, and of governance were all derived from stories, teachings, and sayings which are actual reflections of reality. Although First Nations' knowledge has, historically, never been accorded legitimacy by Europeans, even a cursory understanding of their spoken language reveals evidence of conceptions of governance and sovereignty.

Apart from their epistemic status, the Science Panel and CRB also received attention as institutional bodies. A number of participants, some involved directly in the Board, noted that the government was attempting to contain the expression of traditional knowledge within Clayoquot Sound. One example of this containment has been the government's efforts to render the CRB an unsuitable model for use in other areas and to control the language and concepts used in the Board's deliberations. Donna Haraway responded to these criticisms by resituating the analysis of these institutions and processes at the level of knowledge production. Specifically, she pointed out that colonialist presuppositions about the universality of western knowledges are being deemed unacceptable by institutions such as the CRB. Haraway also noted that First Nations people are, through processes such as those in Clayoquot Sound, making contact with other native sovereignty movements internationally.

The discussion also addressed questions associated with the concept of rights. Harry Post offered an interpretation of the various claims to rights in Clayoquot Sound, suggesting that First Nations ought to claim qualitative rights as opposed to quantitative rights. The former are those associated with claims to national sovereignty, and include the rights of future generations vis a vis environmental and cultural sustainability. International law may be able to reconcile some part of the problem for First Nations by according to them the same kind of qualitative rights as Canada. Several participants remained uncomfortable with discussing First Nations claims in terms of a "rights"-based discourse. It was speculated that such concepts reflected older languages of politics, and that they may constrain contemporary conversations. Jeremy Rayner pointed out that rights are talked about within First Nations traditions in a way that assumes rights of individuals remain consistent with those of the community through time. It is with this assumption that traditional societies are able to talk about the rights of future generations. At the same time, First Nations traditions posit a privileged member of the community who has better access to knowledge, and these traditions may thus appear undemocratic. The complexity of these practices and their associated concepts make it very difficult to integrate ideas from traditional to western societies.

Much of the remaining discussion attempted to come to terms with the status of First Nations traditions, and the possibility and desirability of their being integrated into the institutions and discourses of western society. There was speculation that traditional knowledge threatens to delegitimate the entire knowledge system of the courts, and, as such, would never be truly accepted. However, a number of participants felt that representing differences as incommensurable was inaccurate. While the claims being made for First Nations sovereignty have been perceived by the courts as different and threatening, that difference is, in fact, being exaggerated. Along a similar line of thinking, it was argued that, beneath the superficial representation of intractable positions, there are common interests regarding the livelihoods of both native and non-native communities in Clayoquot Sound. With attention to these common interests, the oppositions between traditional and non-traditional may be overcome. Richard Atleo attempted to clarify the status of these apparent oppositions by stating that First Nations are traditionally neither exclusively individualistic nor exclusively group oriented; rather, there was, in traditional societies, a balance between group and individual rights. In a similar vein, Jim Tully suggested that, if engaged in dialogue, people who have both divergent and shared ideas may be able to establish forms of reasonable deliberation and reach agreements across their differences. He suggested that the Science Panel, CRB, and the treaty process are all producing solutions--not out of theory--but from the actual implementation of democratic practice.

The discussion concluded by addressing the practices of the CRB and Science Panel and their status as functioning institutions. Comments were made regarding the Board's inability, due to government constraints, to realize its potential as community-based, joint-management body. Plans for inventory work and the framework for planning in Clayoquot Sound were not being carried through with attention to traditional knowledge. In this sense, some of the most significant innovations in Clayoquot Sound are not being implemented as a result of government resistance. On another issue, Harry Post expressed ambivalence about the possibility of international Biosphere Reserve status for Clayoquot Sound. He noted that when powers are introduced from the outside for the purposes of mediating between divergent interests, they necessarily brought with them their own set of interests.

Co-facilitators: Bill Carroll and Dhirubhai Sheth.
Present: Graham Ashford, Ben Cashore, Fred Gale, Bob Hackett, Chris Hatch, Anita Kranjc, Bill Irving, Clive Pemberton, Sol Chrom, Rob Walker.

The session began with introductions from the facilitators. Bill Carroll attempted to situate issues in Clayoquot Sound with respect to capital. He suggested that capital be thought of as a relation or set of relations. Social movements, he claimed, can be seen as both part of these relations and at odds with or against them. Carroll also pointed to the tension between ecological needs and what he called the "grow or die ethic of capital." Dhirubhai Sheth also made some opening comments, in which he offered an interpretation of what capital might signify in contemporary politics. He suggested that capital is a set of historical movements, and that the question becomes one of situating those movements in a reconceived arena of power. Power is not only exerted within the state system, but between global social movements and the "micro-movements" of people. Dhirubhai argued that these micro-movements cannot engage politically until they adopt particular discursive strategies for legitimation. In this sense, power is distributed not only amongst states, but in local arenas, where micro-movements undergo transformation in order to legitimate themselves.

These comments spawned a discussion about the status of capital as for or against "the environment." The question arose as to whether environmental sustainability could ever be achieved in the context of a capitalist mode of production. On the one hand, it was noted that maintaining local trade has become almost impossible. As the mobility of capital increases, the mechanisms for maintaining accountability are diminished. On the other hand, multinational capitalism enables the sorts of international boycott campaigns which brought so much attention to Clayoqout Sound; in some sense, the globalization of capital is a source of potential for environmental critique. Despite these moments of optimism, there was, overall, a sense that capitalism posed a more fundamental threat to the environment. There were attempts to characterize the problem as political--one which demands alternative, social-democratic principles of local government.

Along similar lines, a number of participants suggested that the problem of capital was related to its production of attitudes and strategies of ideological rationalization. It was noted that, even with material transformations, existing attitudes would remain. It is with these attitudes that individuals continue to consume products made extra-locally, and that communities come to expect assistance from the state. There was talk about resocializing relations of production, and about redefining notions of citizenship in ways that do not represent citizens only as consumers and taxpayers. It was also suggested that the 'old' social movements which addressed capital at the level of material and class relations did not adequately address the problem of worldviews and values. One participant noted that environmental movements were redefining international normative conventions.

The discussion also addressed the status of the state vis à vis capital. There were suggestions that the B.C. government has, in fact, already proven that the state can resist the destructive tendencies of capital. In the same vein, one participant pointed to the government's ability to respond with taxation measures as evidence of its potential to resist capital. However, a number of participants felt that even the liberal-democratic state was incapable of maintaining popular accountability in the face of capital. A number of participants agreed that the state was confined by capital, and that any progressive changes comprised merely the optics of change. Despite incremental policy changes, capitalism marches on beneath the surface. Several participants speculated that environmentalism was not addressing the material conditions established by capital. In particular, Tim Luke characterized environmentalism as essentially a means for relegitimating capitalism. Environmentalism is a set of representational practices through which capitalism can project the appearance of being socially and environmentally sensitive. Various strategies to environmentalize consumption were discussed, reflecting the larger question of whether environmental movements were challenging capital or relegitimating it.

Another relationship addressed was that between labour and capital. Tim Luke observed that the relations of production have been de-politicized so that issues of how work is done and by whom it is controlled are deemed technical or managerial problems. He suggested that social movements are attempting to re-politicize these issues of control and knowledge in production. A number of participants noted the relationship between the IWA and MacMillan Bloedel as an example of the state of labour relations in contemporary economies. Clive Pemberton explained that the IWA has historically developed a irreversible dependency upon the MNCs with whom it deals. This dependency has resulted in the reluctance of labour groups in Clayoquot Sound to re-appropriate some of the means of production through joint-venture arrangements.

Toward the end of the session, the question of the relationship between local and global contexts came up in a number of ways. One participant noted the need for politics to move to the local level, and for communities to accept responsibility for local problems. Some of the activists at the session examined their own practices and what those practices said about local/global relations. First, environmental movements have been attempting to link global-scale consumption and trade with its local consequences. Second, these movements have tried to situate local resource issues in the context of the status of resources and biodiversity at the global level. The discussion also addressed the issue of whether extra-local environmental movements could justifiably intervene in a community's resource management issues.

Attention was also paid to the potential for movements in Clayoquot Sound to redefine the categories within which politics is conceived. Rob Walker suggested that, in the context of Clayoquot Sound, politics is not presented as a choice between social movement, state, or capital. These are not things but phenomena whose boundaries become blurred. There is a simultaneous need to deal with politics locally, and maintain activity nationally and internationally. Dhirubhai Sheth characterized the local/global relation as one of locales becoming subjected to, and collab-orating with, the metropolitan rationalities of urban centres. He maintained that the integration which occurs between local and metropolitan centres is vertical, infused with relations of power.

Throughout the session, there were also other attempts to use the examples posed by Clayoquot Sound to rethink politics. In particular, several participants noted the need to reconsider our notions of power and the channels in which it operates. Power is not simply something wielded by states and capitalists. It was suggested that power is inherent in the knowledge with which production is enacted. The suppression of the local knowledges of workers with respect to safety and alternative, value-added modes of manufacturing is always an application of power. Analysis of social movements has also revealed power in local attempts to redefine human relationships with natural environments. That power exists in the application of divisions such as that between natural and social environments became quite apparent. Several participants noted that environmental movements have operated on a narrow conception of "environments." That is, they assume "the environment" exists in a state of detachment from the human relations through which it is experienced and known. This conceptual problem, it seems, provides the basis for environmental movements to legitimate inattention to social issues.

Co-facilitators: Peter Stephenson and Sharon Zukin.
Present: Charles Agobia, Marlene Atleo, Jan Bate, Jack Gillie, Valerie Langer, Rachel Magnusson, Warren Magnusson, Tom Stere, Adam Wellstead, Jeremy Wilson.

[Unfortunately, the audio recordings for this session did not work properly, and the only record of the discussion was contained in written notes by several participants. As a result, the following synopsis is less comprehensive than those provided for the other sessions.]

This discussion covered a range of topics related to community economic development. Although there was some discussion of investment possibilities, the main focus was on the obstacles to, and opportunities for, community control. There was general recognition that questions about the organization of production were at the heart of disputes over Clayoquot Sound. One participant identified the current forest tenure system as the basis of production in the area--a basis that represented a serious obstacle to change. Peter Stephenson pointed out that post-industrialism was just a variant of old-fashioned industrialism, with all the attendant problems of community health, environmental degradation, and external domination. Others expressed concerns about the devaluation of local knowledge and the tendency to turn Clayoquot into a spectacle for the benefit of outsiders.

The discussion did address some specific options and opportunities for economic development. Participants talked about alternative medicine ventures and further development of ecotourism, as well as the value added manufacturing options proposed in the recent Ecotrust publication, Seeing the Ocean Through the Trees. However, there was a general ambivalence about these strategies, and several participants saw them as symptoms of the ongoing external pressure to develop Clayoqout Sound in ways that ignore local values. For example, the environmental and social sustainability of ecotourism was questioned. On this theme, questions were raised about the nature of work in a 'postindustrial' context. Jeremy Wilson suggested that the environmental preservation movement in Clayoquot Sound reflected a very particular attitude towards work. Wilson cited Richard White, observing that conservation groups have typically been unable to understand work as a point of human interaction with and knowledge of nature. These comments represented an attempt to come to terms with the abstraction of nature from work, a division which posits 'work' as unnatural and 'nature' as unworked. This line of thinking pointed to the question of whether developments in Clayoquot Sound represent 'the end of work' or the beginning of new forms of economic activity.

The discussants also stepped back from specific questions of economic strategy, and inquired about the status of ideals and institutions of democracy and community in the area. Some attention was given to recent efforts to identify community goals and values as a basis for planning. Jack Gillie, a resident of Tofino, warned that the 'community' was constantly changing, and another resident, Jan Bate, noted that there were problems about identifying the scope of the relevant community (or communities). This led to a discussion about the boundaries of the Clayoquot Region. Gillie noted the seaward-orientation that linked communities around the Sound, but Marlene Atleo pointed out that the Nuu-chah-nulth community extended far up and down the coast. Participants agreed that, however the region was defined, regional political institutions were relatively weak in relation to the provincial government in Victoria and to the large companies that held tree farm licenses.

A central issue for all participants was the relation of the local to the global. Both Valerie Langer and Marlene Atleo expressed concerns about the way that environmental campaigns had configured Clayoquot as an object for consumption. Local people generally were insistent on the need for developing institutions and practices for local control over decisions. However, it was recognized that 'the global' was present in the local--often in ways the reconfigured local ways of living for touristic consumption--that modalities of community control were necessarily complex and contradictory.

Co-Facilitators: Donna Haraway and Gary Shaw.
Present: Barbara Arneil, Graham Ashford, Richard Atleo, Tzeporah Berman, Kevin Brown, Juliet Craig, Fred Gale, Joanna Gislasson, Tom Kuehls, Peter Stephenson, Karen Mahon, Martha McMahon, Ashis Nandy, Uma Nandy, Jeremy Rayner, Duncan Taylor, Nancy Turner, Kara Shaw, Adam Wellstead, Sharon Zukin, Graham ?, Scott ?.

This discussion began with a round of introductions, in which participants were asked to reflect on how their discussions from the morning session might contribute to a discussion of science in Clayoquot Sound. Participants from the morning session's group 1 noted that they had talked about the limitations inherent in the identities, upon which the actors in Clayoquot politics articulated their interests. That group had also discussed issues surrounding the authority with which the Science Panel had legitimated its knowledge, and the potential the Panel represented for a new form of politics. Group 2 had discussed the notions of sovereignty and rights, and how they are grounded in appeals to science, reason, and authority. Members of group 3 noted that they had discussed the relationship between local and global politics, and how these categories had become blurred. Participants from group 4 had looked at the vulnerability of local knowledge to cooptation, and at the resistance to accepting other traditions and understanding across differences.

The group entered a discussion of the Science Panel and its ability to, on the one hand, maintain strong knowledge claims and, on the other hand, negotiate amongst knowledges with divergent histories. The group quickly deferred to Richard Atleo and Nancy Turner, two members of the panel. They noted that the panel was able to operate on the basis of some core principles, rooted in Nuu chah nulth tradition. The most important of these were the concepts of 'everything is one' and of consensus decision-making. It was within this framework that different knowledges could be reconciled. Atleo explained how Nuu chah nulth tradition recognized that reality consists of a continual presence of conflict, and that problems only become resolved in the spiritual realm. It was also noted that one factor that facilitated the Panel's success was the absence of an economic perspective. One participant suggested that such a perspective could not have been included without sacrificing the Panel's perceived impartiality.

Another, related area of discussion centred on the interpretation of the Panel's work. Several participants noted that its recommendations have already been, and may continue to be, interpreted other than as they were intended. Richard Atleo noted that the Panel's recommendations were not meant to be written in stone, and recognized that science's inability to undergo adaptation was one of its biggest weaknesses. Examples were also introduced which pointed to areas where some groups--particularly environmentalists--have felt they simply cannot accept the results of a scientific process. Several participants argued that science always operates within particular social contexts, and that scientific decisions are, ultimately, always political ones. Donna Haraway pointed out that these sorts of ideological investments have always, necessarily, been a component of science. Science is never a strictly objective field, but a combination of material and "meaning-making" practices oriented toward some end.

A number of questions were introduced which further addressed the nature of science and its presence in the Science Panel's work. One participant asked whether the Science Panel considered their own work to be scientific. Nancy Turner suggested that the members of the Panel all came from different scientific backgrounds and they had to learn to respect and trust that they were all doing science. Traditional knowledge was no exception; it too was considered science. Several participants toward the end of the session speculated that science was no more than another way of stating what was intuitively obvious. Fred Gale noted the opposite, claiming that science was concerned precisely with the attempt to see the causal factors which lay beneath what is accessible to the senses. It is with this purpose that science is a source of both danger and potential for environmental sustainability. Peter Stephenson drew attention to the fact that the search for these kinds of 'deep structures' was not peculiar to science; much of traditional knowledge performs a similar function.

At various points in the discussion, participants offered thoughts on the relative significance of the Science Panel's reports. Some discussed the problems associated with the implementation of the recommendations, and with the implementation of the protocol for scientific research in Clayoquot Sound. Some activists in the group noted that they had been pressured to accept the Panel's recommendations. It was recognized that the question of whether or not the Panel's recommendations were being implemented was a function of how one interpreted those recommendations. This sort of recognition helps explain why so much of the discussion was spent talking about processes and practices of interpretation. In particular, Kara Shaw attempted to make explicit the need to look beyond the status of the Panel's recommendations as either good or bad. Rather, the Science Panel reports implicitly contain statements about the conceptual conditions which demand that politics be enacted on the basis of authorized commonalities.

The second part of the discussion centred on various reflections and understandings of "democratizing interpretation." Several participants attempted to make a distinction between a pluralist resolution of differences and an interpretive practice which maintains differences but translates between them. Donna Haraway suggested that there needs to be a place for both strong knowledge claims about what is true and for a commitment to an understanding of knowledge claims as historical constructions, particular representations of what is true. She talked about this as a "razor's edge," upon which we want to be permanently situated. This statement situated what others had noted as the need to maintain strong truth claims in relation to the need to remain open to competing knowledge systems. Haraway also affirmed the possibility of learning other interpretive practices without necessarily resolving the differences between them. At several points in the discussion, it was noted that the Science Panel's 'translation' work entailed compromises to be made on both sides. Both conventional science and traditional knowledge were seriously compromised; neither one remained intact.

Co-Facilitators: Tim Luke and Warren Magnusson.
Present: Ben Cashore, Bill Chaloupka, Maureen Fraser, Bob Hackett, Chris Hatch, Anita Kranjc, Rachel Magnusson, Andrew Ross, Cate Sandilands, Jeremy Wilson, [later] Richard Atleo, Sharon Zukin.

The session began with statements from each of the facilitators. Tim Luke drew attention to the way in which the media have constructed the conflict in Clayoquot Sound. He suggested that the media do not simply mirror events and actors, but produce the terms by which they are known. Warren Magnusson provided another way of looking at the media in Clayoquot Sound. He noted that the Clayoquot campaign signified developments in old forms of politics--developments which have complicated the centres of political action. In particular, he noted that environmentalists recognized that they were operating in a political space which was defined by the media, one which exceeded the envelope of either local or global politics.

The discussion proceeded with a number of different attempts to determine what "the media" are, what functions they come to serve, and, to the extent that these functions are undesirable, what sorts of measures ought to be taken in response. One of these attempts was put forward by Bob Hackett, who proposed that the media needed restructuring and democratization. He noted that, although environmental groups may use the media successfully for incremental gains, those media nevertheless promote some fundamentally anti-democratic structures. Hackett identified concentration of ownership as a particularly acute concern. He suggested that what is needed is an appeal to social movements to devote part of their resources to these sorts of structural transformations. There were a number of participants who resisted these proposals, arguing that the likelihood of success is simply too low to justify the necessary resources. Tim Luke pointed to other means of communication, such as the Internet, bumper stickers, and so on. This latter point reflected a larger tendency amongst some participants to conceive of the media as less an institution or corporation than a site of a variety of discursive practices. Bill Chaloupka suggested that environmental groups could own the media simply by owning the types of images which enter public consciousness. A number of comments reflected this line of thinking. Several participants noted the relative importance of the image as opposed to the text or voiceover, although some noted that the latter have historically contained more depth. The analysis of media at the level of signifying practices reflected an attempt to recognize "the media" as a field of cultural production which exceeds its more narrow, structural or material manifestations.

The discussion also addressed questions of what types of media were capable of representing particular sorts of messages. It was noted that the media only represented environmental stories if they articulated within a disaster scenario. There were different evaluations of this observation, some suggesting that important environmental issues were excluded by this criterion, others arguing that environmental groups could use those representational practices strategically for any type of issue. Several participants expressed interest in the coverage offered by "alternative media," such as the Internet and left-oriented publications. Chris Hatch of the Rainforest Action Network noted that the Internet had not played a significant role in 1993 and '94, but was becoming increasingly prolific. A number of participants recognized that coverage was generally more substantive in alternative publications, such as the Georgia Straight in Vancouver, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee tabloids, and outdoor magazines like Sierra. Bill Chaloupka attempted to complicate this sort of thinking, suggesting that much of what environmentalists might consider 'negative' coverage in fact wins them support. Tim Luke agreed, pointing out that, on the one hand, environmental conservation is advocated by such conservative segments of society as outdoors persons, hunters, and sport-fishers. (One participant noted that it was Rafe Mair's right-wing talk show which mobilized support among sport-fishers for the cancellation of the Kemano Completion Project.) On the other hand, seemingly environmentalist outdoors-oriented publications such as Sierra have represented environmentalism as a lifestyle, a particular way of consuming goods.

Following from some of Warren Magnusson's comments, the discussion also addressed the relationship between local and global centres of political activity. Maureen Fraser, a resident of Tofino, had observed that the media were only capable of representing local residents according to very static and generalized identities, such as 'environmentalist.' She pointed out that, beneath these simplified constructs, there was a local reality which revealed more complex and diverse identities, such as 'Maureen-the-baker' or 'Joe-the-baseball coach.' Fraser also noted that the media active at the local level were/are different from those active in representing issues outside Tofino. She pointed to community papers, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound newsletters, community bulletin boards, public meetings, and the bakery all as sites for political debate and disseminating information. Several participants recognized that some of the most politically significant developments--the Science Panel and Central Region Board--have received virtually no media coverage. Some attributed this silence to the inability of mainstream media to represent Clayoquot politics once it ceased to be glamorous and began exploring complex and concrete political solutions. Some participants implied that, despite the lack of extra-local coverage in this scenario, local people active in these processes have maintained sophisticated understandings of the issues. On the other hand, as Fraser observed, political debate in general had waned in the local community, and Tofino may currently be experiencing a state of exhaustion.

Co-Facilitators: Hamar Foster and Rob Walker.
Present: Harry Post, Chris Tollefson, Valerie Langer, Geoff Whitehall, Radhika Desai, Dhirubhai Sheth, Clive Pemberton, George Hoberg, and Lilian Howard.

[Unfortunately, the audio recordings for this session did not work properly, and the only record of the discussion was contained in written notes from Hamar Foster. As a result, the following synopsis is less comprehensive than those provided for the other sessions.]

The facilitators began the discussion outlining the following issues: the dual nature of law as an aspect of hegemony and as a vehicle for social change; the sources and legitimacy of law--aboriginal, national, local, international, and so on; whether the law has changed as a result of the events in Clayoquot Sound; the relationship between law and ethics, and whether civil disobedience as a tactic is highly dependent upon time and place (i.e. would it work again?); the role of the courts. Hamar Foster spoke about the role of the courts, and about changes in Aboriginal law that might presage the sort of wished-for changes in environmental law that most people were speaking about.

There were several comments made about the social impacts of civil disobedience strategies. Valerie Langer noted that these had devastating implications for people personally and for communities, and that they represented a squeezing of twenty years of political organization into a few weeks. Lilian Howard clearly felt that civil disobedience tactics had hurt First Nations, and emphasized the need for a protocol requiring environmental groups to check with the relevant First Nation. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure that such groups do not purport to speak for First Nations. Howard was especially concerned about the divisiveness of these approaches and their potentially negative impact upon Aboriginal interests.

The discussion also broached the question of how law is conceptualized, and the need for new legal discourses. Langer noted her inability, within the legal system, to explain in court what her protest was all about; there was no way for her to address what she saw as the real issues. Towards the end of the discussion, the group addressed more explicitly the need to find new ways of thinking about legal matters. Foster noted that, given the time constraints, the group had not been able to get very far on these questions. It was noted that ignorance of the law is a hindrance to social action and that the environmental movement in B.C. was, to a degree, being 'lawyerized' as it has been in the U.S..

To the extent that the group reached a conclusion, it was that people should seek out the 'commonalities' within their community and that skilled mediation of disputes was crucial. Participants recognized that these solutions are only viable if there is a relative power balance among the different parties. It was noted that reform of the tenure system was a crucial component of such a power balance.

Co-Facilitators: Laurie Adkin and Michael M'Gonigle.
Present: Marlene Atleo, Bill Carroll, Ross McMillan, Paul Senez, Jim Tully.

The discussion began with a number of statements about the barriers to the full realization of the Central Region Board (CRB) and the Science Panel, as well as that of social democracy more generally. Several participants noted structural obstacles, such as current tenure arrangements and the globalization of capital. It was speculated that the government has stonewalled the CRB in Clayoquot Sound so as not to set a precedent for allowing significant local and First Nations participation in decision-making. Others talked about "ideological" barriers, such as the inability of social democracy to accept First Nations concepts such as hahoolthe. Also, components of conventional social democracy, such as the bureaucracy and the state, were thought to represent both structural and ideological barriers.

The remaining part of the first half of discussion addressed various components of the question 'what is social democracy?' Several participants felt that social democratic values and solutions could no longer be adequately represented by the state. Some noted that appeals to the state in fact represented a dysfunctional dependency within social democratic movements. There was also concern that social democratic movements, once institutionalized at the level of the state, became diluted and their democratic principles became undermined. Laurie Adkin noted that the NDP in B.C. has failed to fight for reform of the state; citizens have still needed to fight in order to have input on decision-making. Several participants noted that social democratic governments have, historically, been centrist and managerial, imposing technical solutions on social problems. There was disagreement as to whether sustainable development-oriented policies were more likely to derive from a social democratic or a conservative government.

Another component of the same question ('what is social democracy') referred to whether social democracy is an institution, a party, or some kind of critical attitude. Jim Tully offered the observation that social democracy was no longer a centralized mass movement but a decentred, multi-faceted set of critical perspectives, all engaged in dialogue. He noted that social democracy now engages in First Nations and environmental politics--in a variety of new political struggles. In this view, social democracy is not simply a party platform but a range of critical perspectives engaged in dialogue. Tully claimed that, while its field of activity has changed, social democracy has maintained its traditional composure as a locus of critical dialogue. This statement was reflected in some of Marlene Atleo's comments; she noted that social democracy ought to be seen as a value and not and ideology or a set of goals. Some participants felt that, despite these attempts to 'decentre' social democracy, it remains a movement which, first and foremost, opposes capital. With this understanding, the globalization of capital may be seen as the most significant obstacle constraining social democratic governments.

In the second half of the session, discussion moved toward practical solutions which could be implemented in Clayoquot Sound. Michael M'Gonigle's book Forestopia (1994), as well as one of his most recent research projects, provided the focus for discussion. M'Gonigle described some of his proposals, characterizing them as opportunities for "land reform." He offered a framework which, if legislated, would offer communities a vehicle for a new forest tenure system. A community could opt into the "trust" scheme enabled by the legislation, and their land would then be subject to ecological management criteria. M'Gonigle's plan would not impose a solution on unwilling or unprepared communities; it would merely create a space within which communities who choose to do so could opt for a new resource management regime.

One issue which arose from these proposals was related to the question of community definition and demarcation. Several participants noted the potential for conflict in areas like Clayoquot Sound; there, the desires of one community (Tofino) are at odds with those of other communities (Port Alberni and Ucluelet), which are dependant on the same resources. M'Gonigle acknowledged these as serious problems, and suggested that, in such cases, communities could opt out of the process after a trial period, or the government could step in to legislate community boundaries. He also suggested that provincial subsidies from currently unsustainable harvesting practices could be allocated to communities with acute problems of displaced labour. Another problem pointed to was the need to compensate licensees under current tenure arrangements. M'Gonigle claimed that tenure allocations were not, as such, being altered; rather, the forestry practices used within those tenures were being subjected to an ecologically responsible management regime. Companies may, of course, find that the ecological criteria render harvesting activity unviable.

Another concern was over the status of First Nations land claims under this new system. Marlene Atleo and Ross McMillan both pointed out that there is, amongst the Nuu chah nulth, a range of opinion related to such alternatives. Atleo noted that First Nations communities have had so little success dealing with governments, that they are now experimenting in cooperative arrangements with industry groups. On the subject of land claims, M'Gonigle speculated that First Nations land would exist alongside the lands cooperatively managed through the trust scheme. There would be some mechanism to ensure that First Nations land conformed to the same ecological standards. McMillan suggested that the land trust scheme would actually offer First Nations communities in many areas of the province opportunities they do not currently have.

Several participants expressed concern about the capacity of the trust scheme to overcome the material conditions of global capital. Laurie Adkin asked about the role of the B.C. government, and whether it would need to play an active role in any economic transition. She noted that communities constructed according to regional boundaries do not exist, but need to be defined. Adkin wondered whether, under M'Gonigle's scheme, communities would be less or more vulnerable to market forces. Bill Carroll asked about the reaction of labour groups to these changes; in response, M'Gonigle proposed that labour groups could cooperatively take control of the tenures which large operators choose not to use.

Co-Facilitators:Warren Magnusson and Kara Shaw

This session provided an opportunity to discuss issues which arose at the previous day's workshops in the presence of the entire group. This forum, it was hoped, would provide the basis from which smaller groups could break up for a final session of discussions. Time permitting, the smaller groups would then reconvene for a final, wrap-up session.

Kara Shaw began by advocating a new direction for analysis--one which did not hesitate to explore critical terrain which may seem unfamiliar to the 'politics of Clayoqout Sound.' She asked what significance the Clayoquot Sound material represented, and whether it posed new or unusual questions. Warren Magnusson suggested that the diversity of perspectives and levels of analysis evident in the previous day's proceedings could provide the basis for a variety of different discussion groups.

A number of participants offered reflections on the previous day's workshops, both on their content and the process by which dialogue proceeded. Jim Tully felt that the political practices which were discussed pointed to the primacy of practice over theory. He noted that the problems which theorists worry about are, in the institutional practices of Clayoquot Sound, being played out in theory. As a result, there is a need to reorient theoretical investigations in relation to the dialogues and transformative experiences of the political actors involved. Tully talked about the enormous political and cultural differences which have been worked through, and the new languages and understandings which have been invented. These comments provoked contributions from other participants on the same subject. Bill Chaloupka tried to "rehabilitate" theoretical activities as themselves political strategies; he wanted to offer strategic thinking as one way of acting politically. It is this sort of thinking, he suggested, which groups in Clayoquot Sound have demonstrated.

Several activists responded to these statements, noting that they had already been attempting to come to terms with the previous day's dialogue. Valerie Langer noted that many of the questions being asked by this group of academics were the same questions activists had been asking themselves for a long time. She noted that, as activists, they seldom have time to stop and address these issues more abstractly. Langer recognized the need, not to talk about solutions, but to hear about the analyses of which activists are not aware. Karen Mahon echoed Valerie's comments, and called for increased dialogue between the activist and academic communities.

Several participants contributed some variation on the point that there was still considerable theoretical work to be done. It was noted that actors involved in local politics have, for some time, been running around engaging in various initiatives. These people have been making decisions and moving in particular directions in order to acquire power and legitimacy. What is needed at this point is analysis and evaluation of these moves, and increased communication within the community. Dhirubhai Sheth addressed the subject in a slightly different way. He pointed out that discussions thus far have not been about the local circumstances of Clayoquot Sound, but about the possibility of rethinking the way in which politics is enacted. He felt that such rethinking could not happen strictly within the context of Clayoqout Sound because that context still consists predominantly of a politics of inclusion and exclusion. Sheth suggested, in relation to First Nations politics, that what appears to be groundbreaking in practice nevertheless rests upon some important closures or compromises. In order to be understood politically, First Nations groups must articulate their positions within symbolic practices which are not theirs.

Lilian Howard also offered some reflections on the workshop's process. She stated that she had been having a difficult time negotiating for space in the discussions, and that First Nations were not adequately represented in the dialogue taking place at the workshop. She noted that it is impossible for her to think of the area of Clayoquot Sound without thinking of the people--both First Nations and non-native. Howard felt that, beneath the theoretical discussions, there are real issues, such as employment and tourism. Saturday's discussions maintained very positional divisions between environmentalists, academics, and First Nations, and this reflected a lack of willingness to engage in dialogue about the issues. After a short break, Richard Atleo attempted to contextualize the question of First Nations involvement in dialogues such as this workshop. He suggested that, upon contact, Europeans listened to some of the observations First Nations people had of European culture. It was not long, however, before this listening stopped, and the newcomers purported to have the right answers to all matters. Atleo talked about the kind of respect which is needed to reach common understandings across cultural differences. He pointed to Jim Tully's Strange Multiplicity, and its key concepts of recognition, mutual consent, and continuity. Atleo recognized the workshop as the best opportunities First Nations and non-First Nations communities have for dialogue. He also acknowledged some of the reasons First Nations communities have to be ambivalent about such dialogue.

At this point, participants began making proposals for small group discussions. Although these suggestions arose in the context of dialogue, only those comments which led directly to the formation of a particular group are included here.

1. Praxis of breaking down barriers between groups. Radhika Desai identified the actual experiences of people in the Clayoquot community as the basis for the most provocative discussion. She proposed that, in order for 'theory to speak with practice,' a group discuss how the categories in which we think were broken down in actual negotiations.

2. Talking inheritances. Donna Haraway expressed interest in a discussion about the need to restructure the ways in which we talk about these issues. She claimed that these ways of talking were inherited historically, and that the way histories were constructed both opened up and closed down ways of being with one another.

3. Health. Peter Stephenson felt that health issues could potentially transcend conventional boundaries and bring people together.

4. Economic strategies. Charles Agobia asked if there could be discussion of economic strategies. Sharon Zukin concurred and noted that workshop participants had, until that point, been reluctant to discuss these issues.

5. Policy. Agobia also talked about the need for policy solutions which would assist communities with these strategies.

6. Institution building. Ross McMillan talked about the need for solutions, and the need to develop the capacity with which to produce them.

7. Community. Michael M'Gonigle talked about the centrality of the concept of "community," and how the concepts and institutions of community relate to the state system. Several suggestions were made to collapse some of these groups into larger categories. Ultimately, groups 4, 5, 6, and 7 were merged into a group variously called "community economic development" and "politics and the state."

8. Gender politics. Earlier in the discussion, Tzeporah Berman had stated that, while environmental groups could support First Nations right to form governments, they did not necessarily endorse all decisions or practices of those governments. She pointed to the gender relations between women activists and male First Nations leadership as one area from which she was not willing to suspend judgement. Later, Martha McMahon echoed Berman's call for a group on gender politics. Donna Haraway noted that gender is not a category which stands on its own, but an analytical axis which transforms the way one thinks about everything else.

9. Law. Hamar Foster observed that the status of the law had not been addressed in the morning session, and suggested that it is central, even if it simply mirrors power relations.

Present: Laurie Adkin, Tzeporah Berman, Bill Chaloupka, Juliet Craig, Bob Hackett, Donna Haraway, Anita Krajnc, Valerie Langer, Tim Luke, Warren Magnusson, Karen Mahon, Cate Sandilands, Chris Tollefson.

The small group discussions on Sunday were not audio taped, and therefore proceedings have not been compiled for them. However, since those involved in the gender politics discussion reported that it had been extremely useful, it has been summarized on the basis of written notes.

One major thread of discussion was the gender politics which accompanied dialogue between environmentalists and First Nations leadership. This subject was introduced by Tzeporah Berman, who elaborated on some of the comments she made in the larger group. She noted that male First Nations chiefs were reluctant to acknowledge women in positions of leadership. Women environmentalists have had to ensure that a man accompany them to meetings with First Nations chiefs in order to garner more respect. Berman found that she and her colleagues tended not to stand up to the male leaders, out of respect for them as representatives of First Nations communities involved in their own struggles. She and Valerie Langer offered some reflections on a series of events which occurred last summer. In that context, environmentalists' opposition to forestry operations in the lower Bulson Creek were construed by First Nations leaders as hostility toward the Nuu chah nulth people themselves. This situation raised an issue to which Berman had alluded in the plenary session. Environmentalists were being asked to respect not only the process by which decisions were being made, but also the decisions themselves. Berman and Karen Mahon insisted that they could respect First Nations rights to make decisions as a government and uphold the ability to criticize those decisions if they deemed it necessary.

Another area of discussion centred on women's roles in industry and in environmental organizations. Several participants noted that they had a number of interests in common with women such as Linda Coady of MacMillan Bloedel. They noted particular concerns about such issues as child care, but also referred to general values these women share regarding a political process which emphasizes dialogue as an opportunity for cooperation rather than conflict and domination. The presence of women in the industry reflects a larger process of feminization as a public relations strategy. Participants noted that even in the industry women are domesticized as housekeepers responsible for cleaning up. Nevertheless, it was noted that Linda Coady has made positive contributions for women within MacMillan Bloedel. Women's roles in environmental movements were also talked about. Chris Tollefson noted a lack of women in leadership roles within certain environmental groups. It was recognized that women's presence in the environmental community has increased slowly, and that women have been brought into various organizations by others already involved.

The status of women in First Nations communities was also discussed. Warren Magnusson asked if, in the context of media reports about violence against women in First Nations communities, there were any women's networks which cut across cultural boundaries. Langer responded, noting that First Nations women may have different parameters in which in which to express their discontent. She stated that women have faced violence for allying themselves with environmentalists, and some have been forced out of the community.

Another area of discussion addressed the gendered nature of employment issues in Clayoquot Sound. Langer suggested that much of the discussion around jobs in Clayoquot Sound implicitly represented discussion about men's jobs. There has been very little discussion about employment opportunities for women in the community, and now, with few alternatives, women have begun operating bed and breakfasts. Tim Luke speculated that jobs play an important role in maintaining male identities; ecotourism is seen as an inadequate activity for 'real men.' Laurie Adkin made a similar point, suggesting that "gender ideologies" construct identities among subjects. The forest industry may reinforce forestry work as a masculine activity in order to maintain the support of its employees. Similarly, environmental and citizen's groups are often feminized and represented as deficient in technical or scientific expertise. Adkin was interested in the possibility that such issues as environmental health and safety were similarly being rendered feminine, and thereby dismissed.

A number of the issues touched on in this discussion drew attention to the complexities and contradictions which become visible when gender is used as an analytical axis. Donna Haraway attempted to make these contradictions explicit and come to terms with them as a site of political action. She noted that, since every person represents a site of intersecting privileges and oppressions, alliances can be struck with people such as Linda Coady, and disagreements can, at the same time, be maintained. These contradictions are not the result of negligent allies unwilling to participate in more wholesome partnerships; rather, contradiction is a permanent condition of political life. Laurie offered a distinction between a "profoundly radical politics" and "identity politics." The former involves a recognition that the objectives of one subject cannot be attained by reinforcing or perpetuating the subordination of another. In this approach, multiple forms of domination, as well as our own implications in them, are addressed. Adkin argued that what are at stake are privileges and exclusions--that is to say, relationships of power--rather than mere 'differences.' With this approach, she noted, political strategies become more truly transformative of social relationships.