Political science is starting to wake up. Long dormant, the fruit of foundational work in the field, such as by David E. Wilkins, is starting to blossom. Increasing inquiry into American Indian politics and tribal governance matters by political scientists is evidenced by the recent symposium published in Perspectives on Politics, which (ironically) entertains the central question “Why Does Political Science Hate American Indians?” (Ferguson Reference Ferguson2016), as well as by recent books in discipline-prominent presses such as Oxford (Lerma Reference Lerma2017) and Cambridge (Kessler-Mata Reference Kessler-Mata2017), that ask questions of Indigenous political philosophy on the one hand, and the application and extension of western philosophy and institutions to Indigenous governance on the other.

Reservation Politics is a part of this awakening and makes significant contributions to understanding American Indian political behavior, by examining the impact of trauma on the internal decision making processes of tribes. To do so the book offers cases studies of contemporary intratribal conflict, profiling three distinctive tribal communities: the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, the Isleta Pueblos, and the Rosebud Lakotas. Each case offers critical insights into the influence historical trauma may play on the lived experiences of contemporary tribal community members. The cases feature difficult decisions tribal communities must make and Orr focuses on moments of intratribal conflict around questions that could result in material benefit to tribes. Unfortunately, however, Orr takes a cue from the flawed approach of some urban poverty research and cultural studies that suggest not acting in one's self-interest invariably indicates pathology is present. Orr terms this explanatory pathology the melancholic worldview and suggests that it is formed through the historical trauma of individuals, manifesting in the collective decision making of tribal polities in moments where non-self-interested decisions win the day (p. 9).

I am unconvinced by this framing of material self-interest as the inherently right choice for tribal individuals or governments, and am equally uncomfortable with the determinative role ascribed to trauma, in explaining these moments of intratribal conflict. While I appreciate Orr's attempt to incorporate Indigenous theories of community harmony and social cohesion as an important logic in these decisionscapes (p. 52–56), working against self-interest and the melancholic logic, these logics are not isolated from one another and often work simultaneously and at different levels. Moreover, the data for these logics are assessed at the individual level of community member informants. Applying the same (individual) logic to decisions arrived at by the polity necessarily assumes similar conditions and similar constraints. However, the use of individual-level assessments to make claims about collective decisions does not fully consider the distinct pressure and commitments of polities as such. To this end, contestations over power within the tribe and the struggles between polities (tribal and non-tribal) disappear. This is a mistake, though one that appears unavoidable given the design of the study. In no way does this critique of Orr's theoretical approach diminish the many other significant contributions in the book, including its serious attention to the potential import of trauma in tribal self-governance.

Two aspects of Orr's work hold the most benefit and promise for advancing the discipline's consideration of American Indian politics. First, Orr dares to go where few scholars do: his ethnographic work places him within tribal communities where he listens to tribal members, observes tribal decision making, and provides historical context to important conflicts. In addition to being a time consuming and difficult enterprise, it is also a delicate one. As Orr himself discusses, a focus on conflict in relatively small communities puts his interpersonal relationships at risk. Worse, the method risks representing what the informants themselves may not want to be revealed, both in relation to themselves and the public's potential perception of the tribe. Orr identifies four common secrets shared amongst the Indigenous communities he works with (p. 35). The exposure of these secrets to non-Indian communities runs the risk of “sharing information that is harmful” and unflattering about the community. Orr is right to raise this issue as the demands of the discipline to make ‘discoveries’ is often at odds with the needs and interests of the communities we study. As American Indian political scientists, we are often better positioned to access otherwise inaccessible information given that tribal communities have reason to be suspicious of outsiders in general and academics in particular. This access also means we are sometimes better positioned to problematize Indian Country's politics and to make such ‘discoveries’ apparent to the profession. However, doing so can come at a high and very personal cost. Orr's thorough and largely unviolatory presentation of intratribal conflict provides a useful model for other scholars looking to navigate these boundaries while working with tribal communities.

Secondly, Orr explicitly incorporates the potential impact economic development has on shaping tribal self-interest and, relatedly, political behavior (p. 9). This focus has implications far beyond the specific text and through further development and extension can serve as a springboard for any number of inquiries by scholars into how economic self-interest plays into a wide variety of political activities that tribes participate in (lobbying, party politics, etc.). While Orr focuses on intratribal politics, intertribal politics may also be examined through the lens of economic self-interest, and contrasted against other prevailing assumptions about tribes as governments.

There are large and small lessons embedded in this work for scholars interested in pursuing questions of Indigenous political behavior and the decision making processes of self-governance. There is no doubt that Orr's work can and should be used to increase the visibility and knowledge of intratribal political dynamics, as well as the degree to which existing studies in political behavior are applicable in an Indigenous context. Reservation Politics breaks new ground in connecting the discussion of American Indian politics to the discipline. While I may ultimately disagree with much of the framing and approach of the book, I appreciate its significance and acknowledge its important contributions to the field.