[In the following review, Cornell traces the policy issues addressed in Deloria's American Indian in the Twentieth Century.]

Vine Deloria introduces this valuable new collection[, American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century,] with the observation that the last few decades in Indian affairs have seen substantial progress. This progress, he argues, has been in the formulation of Indian policy, where Indian input is greater than it has ever been. Whether or not policy outcomes actually have improved remains, as these papers indicate, a complicated question.

Indian-white relations generally have been viewed as just that: relations between two more or less monolithic groups in which the interesting events happen where the two meet head-on, as they continually do. It is the strength of this book that it often abandons this traditional, dyadic conception and examines instead the array of actors and interests, both Indian and non-Indian, which in fact are involved. On the Indian side this includes not only tribes but tribal bureaucracies, traditional communities, economic interest groups, nonreservation Indians, and others, each often with their own agendas. The non-Indian world is no less diverse, including the national Indian affairs bureaucracy, local bureaucrats, state governments, corporations, distant policy makers such as Congress, and an assortment of publics both friendly and unfriendly to Indian concerns. These actors sometimes work with each other, sometimes against each other. Only occasionally or at an abstract level can one think simply in Indian-white terms.

That we have tended to think in just such terms in the past is probably less an indicator of how much more complex has become the array of actors than of how much less lopsided has become the distribution of power. As Indian-white relations have become more negotiated and less imposed, the various interests and agendas on the Indian side in particular have become more apparent. Where there is power there is conflict, and there is power in Indian hands these days. It is by no means ultimate power. As Sharon O'Brien effectively points out in her chapter on Indian policy and human rights, Congress' plenary power in Indian affairs inevitably pulls the teeth from "self-determination," the catchword and idea which supposedly describes Indian policy today. But Deloria's point remains, and it is precisely because of this enlarged Indian role in policy formation that the complexities of the Indian world have become so important.

The most compelling chapters in this book are sensitive to this new political landscape. For example, the chapters by Tom Holm on factional conflict in tribal government, by Fred Ragsdale on the complexity of jurisdictional issues and the legal powers of tribes, and by Daniel McCool on Indian voting give some sense of the ways in which these interests and actors aggregate and disaggregate in various contexts, both within and across intergroup boundaries.

The chapters by Ragsdale and McCool speak also to questions of how Indians pursue these interests. McCool's is one of the few systematic studies of Indian voting we have. Deloria finds support in it for Indian voting power; I found it less encouraging. There aren't many Indians in this country, and in only a few places are they numerous and concentrated enough to put substantial pressure on the electoral system (though they have done so on occasion with decisive effect). But even there, as McCool points out, it requires close races and a disciplined electorate to accomplish very much.

As Ragsdale observes, Indians have had more clout in the courts, which on the whole have been friendlier to Indian interests than have the other branches of government. But Ragsdale advises caution. How Indians use the courts has consequences. As tribes act more and more like non-Indian corporate actors, and demand similar standing, they may find themselves increasingly subject also to the limitations and obligations attached to such standing. Defining and preserving tribal sovereignty is a tricky business.

It is made trickier by the inconsistency of the judiciary. Mary Wallace provides a critique of recent court decisions on water rights which should be read in conjunction with Ragsdale. She is especially concerned with recent court decisions which favored adjudication of water rights in state as opposed to federal courts. Taken together these two papers document advancing erosion in the crucial separation of state and tribal rights and jurisdictions.

Of course increased Indian participation raises a host of control issues which are resolved in ways other than litigation. If Indians are to be involved in policy making, how can the interests of non-Indians continue to be served? Robert Nelson and Joseph Sheley offer an intriguing analysis of how the Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains control of tribal actions at the local level while paying lip service to self-determination. And Michael Lacy applies the concept of co-optation to a number of policy-related events to understand how the federal government has tried either to give legitimacy to its own interests within Indian communities, or to channel Indian opposition into institutionalized patterns of politics where outcomes can be more easily controlled.

The area where the clash of diverse interests is most apparent is reservation economic development. David Vinje argues that the fundamental issue is the nature of the bottom line: is the point to develop viable economies or to preserve distinct cultural communities? His three case studies suggest the two need not be in conflict, but that too often tribes "view the economic sector as culturally neutral," and fail to consider ways to develop which build on, rather than ignore, cultural traditions. His chapter also supports Deloria's argument that what we need is not so much broad national policies as more focused, small-scale programs designed to meet the particular needs—and take advantage of the distinctive strengths—of discrete Indian communities.

Six of the book's eleven papers appeared in The Social Science Journal, Vol. 19 (July 1982); the others are published here for the first time. As a thematic collection it has some holes: there is no discussion of urban Indians, victims of a kind of default mode in Indian policy; none of Indian education; and none of Indian health services. All present difficult and important policy issues. But one cannot have everything. What we have here is very welcome indeed, and recommended not only to specialists in Indian affairs, but to political sociologists and others as well.