Towards a Decolonial Ecology
Indigenous Conceptualizations of, and Cosmological Relationships to, the Natural World
Like Creation stories everywhere, cosmologies are a source of identity and orientation to the world. We are inevitably shaped by them no matter how distant they may be from our consciousness. One story leads to the generous embrace of the living world, the other to banishment. One woman is our ancestral gardener, a cocreator of the good green world that would be the home of her descendants. The other was an exile, just passing through an alien world on a rough road to her real home in heaven. And then they met – the offspring of Skywoman and the children of Eve – and the land around us bears the scars of that meeting. (Kimmerer 2020, 7)
In the first chapter of Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants,Wall Kimmerer (2020), an Anishinabekwe[1] plant scientist from Eastern Canada, tells the Creation story that is shared by the Original Peoples throughout the Great Lakes in present day North America. In the story a woman falls from the skies and is caught by geese. Animals then provide her with mud, and a turtle lends his back for land to be cultivated on. The ‘Skywoman’ gifts a handful of fruits, plants, and seeds for the mud to grow into land. This is how Turtle Island is born. As the quote above shows, the story of Skywoman expresses a very different cosmology than the Christian Creation story.
Creation stories express cosmologies in which history, identity, language, land base, and beliefs all connect, secure, and regulate one’s orientation to the natural world (Salmón 2000, 1327-1332). Humans’ orientation to the natural world is of particular importance when looking at the ecological crisis. The ecological crisis has not been caused by all humans, but by certain exploitative and oppressive systems in which humans relate to the natural world in a certain way. As an alternative to this exploitative and oppressive relation, this paper seeks to connect the wider decolonial project to ecological and environmentalist discourses by looking at different conceptualizations of, and cosmological relationships to the natural world as reflected in Indigenous languages.
First, I will discuss the conceptualization of the natural world that is expressed in the Christian cosmological orientation to the world, that has resulted in the ecological crisis. Then, I will discuss various Indigenous conceptualizations of, and cosmological relationships to the natural world. As a non-Indigenous student, raised and educated in a Western (ontological, linguistic, and epistemic) frame of reference, and without prior long-term fieldwork experience with the Peoples discussed in this paper, I am aware of my limitation in understanding, translating, and interpreting Indigenous knowledges, sciences, and wisdoms. Therefore, I will closely follow the interpretations, formulations, and translations of the discussed authors. Moreover, I am careful not to generalize Indigenous languages as I am aware of the vast variety of Indigenous languages that express different cosmologies. However, this paper does build on the premise that Indigenous languages express abstract concepts related to the land and natural world differently than does the English language, thereby following (amongst others) Rarámuri scholar Enrique Salmón (2002). In recognition of the importance of place, I have added a notes section with short information on the Indigenous Peoples I discuss.
1: The Epistemic Decolonial Turn
Contrary to what the term Anthropocene suggests, the ecological crisis is not caused by a universal Human, but rather by certain humans behaving within oppressive and exploitative systems, such as capitalism, colonialism, racism, and the patriarchy (Di Chiro 2017, Patel & Moore 2017). These systems are founded on an ontological, epistemic, and linguistic framework that divides the world in hierarchically opposing concepts, including the dichotomies culture/nature, man/woman, colonizer/colonized, and human/nonhuman (Descola 2013, Patel & Moore 2017). Characteristic of these dichotomies is the hierarchical power relation between its counterparts in which one side is active, dominant, and highly valued, whereas the other is passive, to be subjugated, and lower valued (or not at all). Alluding to the social and the natural realm, Braidotti (2022, 75) states that whereas the former has rights and agency, the latter has none, and is accessible and disposable. Indeed, decolonial, Indigenous, and ecofeminist scholarship recognizes the entanglement of oppressive and exploitative systems, and hierarchical dichotomous thinking (cf. Merchant 1990, Di Chiro 2017). More specifically, some scholars show how these systems are entangled with a Christian orientation to the world. Ferdinand (2022, 42) recognizes the influence of Christianity on the justification of colonialism, and refers to ‘Christian colonial inhabitation’, and Patel and Moore (2017) make explicit the link between enslaved labor, capitalism and the Church.
Following social- and political ecology, and ecofeminism, Malcolm Ferdinand (2020) argues that environmental destruction is inseparable from racial and colonial domination and stems from the settler colonialist’s sense of entitlement in appropriating the planet. In his book Decolonial Ecology: Thinking from the Caribbean World, Ferdinand (2022, 42) further argues that colonial inhabitation was presented as the will of God, and that, after the genocide of the Indigenous Peoples, lands of the Americas were reduced to (exploitable) resources. Hence, the exploitative and oppressive systems can be considered expressions of a Christian cosmology in which history, identity, language, land base, and beliefs connect, secure, and regulate how people within these systems relate to the natural world. As such the oppressive and exploitative systems that have caused the ecological crisis are radically different from how Indigenous Peoples relate to the world.
Notably, the Christian cosmology is the same ontological, epistemic, and linguistic framework that historically dominates academia, as has been recognized by decolonial- (Ferdinand 2020; Grosfoguel 2007, 217), and Indigenous scholars (Wall Kimmerer 2020). Although Wall Kimmerer has written the Creation story of Skywoman in English, the original is told across various Anishinabee languages. The differences between them are significant. Where English consists for 70% of nouns, Potawami consists of only 30% nouns, the rest is verbs; in Potawami nouns and verbs are animate and inanimate; and whereas European languages often assign gender to nouns, Potawami does not gender the world. In Potawami, one for example does not say ‘hill,’ as in English, but ‘to be a hill’ instead. Rocks, mountains and water and places are all animate, only human made ‘things’ are not (ibid., 53).
Such linguistic differences express and influence one’s orientation to the world (ibid., 58; Salmón 2000; Flaherty 2001). Moreover, each language contains cosmology-specific concepts that are often difficult to translate, as I will further discuss in section two. Grosfoguel (2007) has therefore coined the term ‘epistemic decolonial turn,’ to call for a broader canon of thought than the Western canon; critical dialogue in what is recognized as a pluriversal world; and taking seriously epistemic cosmologies from (formerly) colonized bodies. The radically different cosmologies, and consequently ways of interacting with the natural world of Indigenous Peoples, that I will discuss in the second part of this essay, are situated within this epistemic decolonial turn.
2: Indigenous Conceptualizations of, and Cosmological Relationships to, the Natural World
Challenging western dichotomous thinking, posthuman feminism, Indigenous and decolonial feminists are sharing philosophies that emphasize a reciprocal relationship with land and nature that is centralized around care (Braidotti 2022). This reciprocal relationship is already present in various Indigenous conceptualizations of the natural world. The Yoeme of Sonora, Mexico, and southern Arizona[2] use the term huya ania to describe natural areas outside of their villages (Evers and Molina 1987 in Salmón 2000), which roughly means ‘nurturing life’. The Rarámuri[3] refer to their homeland as gawi wachi, ‘the Place of Nurturing’. The Hawaiian[4] concept ʿĀina, commonly translated as ‘land,’ literally means “that which feeds” (Beamer 2021, 350). Despite these conceptual similarities, among Indigenous Peoples, relationships to land and place are diverse, specific, ungeneralizable, and based on long histories (Lowan 2009, 47).
This relationality is further reflected in Indigenous scholarship on Land pedagogy. Styres and Zinga (2013) purposefully distinguish ‘Land’ (capitalized), which extends beyond a material fixed space, from ‘land,’ which refers to landscapes as a fixed geographical and physical space including earth, rocks, and waterways. Like Lowan (2009, 47), they explain that “Land is a spiritually infused place grounded in interconnected and interdependent relationships, cultural positioning, and is highly contextualized.” (2013, 300-301). For Kimmerer (2020, 124-125), this is a relationship of love:
Knowing that you love the earth changes you, cultivates you to defend and protect and celebrate. But when you feel the earth loves you in return, that feeling transforms the relationship from a one-way street into a sacred bond.
Similarly, Innuit[5] have “powerful, intimate, and spiritual connections to country that center love and mutual respect,” for them “the land is alive and ‘nature’ is like another person” (Lobo 2019, 395). In these Indigenous cosmologies relationality to the natural world extends beyond relationality to Land. For Shawn Wilson, an Opaskwayak Cree from Canada[6], for example, relationships extend to interaction with all creation, meaning that relatedness transcends human beings, and is extended to Land, including animals, plants waters, the sky and spirits (Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew pii tai poo taa 2020, 67).
For many Indigenous Peoples land and elements within the natural world are recognized as animate persons or relationships of kin (Salmón 2001, 1327-1332). Whitehouse et al. (2014, 59), for example, note that for Peoples on the Torres Strait Islands within Australia[7], “Land, water and sky become animate through relationships – to ancestors, to plants and animals, and to clouds, hills, rocks and mineral forms.” Knowledge is thus considered ‘living knowledge’. Similarly, Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer (2008, 219 as cited in Tuck et al. 2014, 9) writes:
Land is our mother. This is not a metaphor. For the Native Hawaiians speaking of knowledge, land was the central theme that drew forth all others. You came from a place. You grew in a place and you had a relationship with a place. This is an epistemological idea […] One does not simply learn about land, we learn best from land.
Such Indigenous conceptualizations of land and the natural world as persons or kindred relationships not only imply that humans are at an equal standing with the rest of the natural world and land, but it also implies that humans have a certain responsibility (Salmón 2001, 1327-1332). This is also present in Indigenous conceptualizations of sovereignty. In 1977, Hawaiian George Helm, whose words became the philosophical essence of the Aloha ʿĀina movement that challenges American capitalism, exploitation, and misuse of the Hawaiian Islands, notes:
The truth is, there is man and there is environment, one does not supersede the other. The breath in man is the breath of Papa (the earth). Man is merely the caretaker of the land that maintains his life and nourishes his soul. Therefore, ʿāina is sacred. … My duty is to protect Mother Earth, who gave me life. And to give thanks with humility as well as ask for forgiveness for the arrogance and insensitivity of man. (Beamer 2021, 359)
Similarly, Mohawk[8] scholar Taiaiake Alfred (2005, 45) points out that having “a spiritual connection with the land established by the Creator gives human beings special responsibilities within the areas they occupy, linking them in a natural and sacred way to their territories […].” Such relations and responsibilities are thus very different from the hierarchical dichotomies from the Christian cosmology.
Leanne Betaamosake Simpson, Michi Saagiig Nishnaabe[9] scholar, writer, poet, and musician, connects several of the aforementioned points when she argues that through giving more than what we take from aki (the land), intimate webs of relationships between plants, animals, rivers, lakes, and the cosmos will flourish. In ‘Land As Pedagogy,’ she tells the story of Binoojiinh (meaning ‘child’), a nonbinary child, who learns how to extract maple syrup water by looking at a “Ajidamoo” suck from the tree “Ninaatigoog” (Simpson 2017, 146-149). Similarly to both Wall Kimmerer and Manulani Aluli Meyer, the story revolves around the Nishnaabeg values of love, compassion, and understanding, and portrays a relationship to land in which humans “learn both from the land and with the land.” (ibid., 150). Although there is a wide variety of Indigenous stories and cosmologies, the examples of Indigenous conceptualizations of, and cosmological relationships with the natural world and land discussed above have important similarities that distinguish them from the western dichotomous thinking in the Christian cosmology.
Conclusion
This paper sought to connect the wider decolonial project to ecological and environmentalist discourses by looking at different conceptualizations of, and cosmological relationships to, the natural world as reflected in Indigenous languages. I have discussed decolonial and Indigenous scholarship that argues that Western science has historically been dominated with an ontological, epistemic, and linguistic framework that stems from a Christian cosmology. These frameworks consist of a hierarchical dichotomous thinking that separates and elevates humans from the natural world. As noted by decolonial, Indigenous, and ecofeminist scholarship, these are the same frameworks that have fueled the oppressive and exploitative systems of capitalism, colonialism, racism, and the patriarchy which, in turn, have caused the exploitation of the natural world that has resulted in the ecological crisis.
In order to further decolonize Western academia, two steps need to be taken. First, there needs to be a more widespread awareness of the influence of the Christian cosmology on (a misleadingly assumed secular) academia. This influence is for example visible in conceptualizations of the natural world and humans’ relations to the natural world that remain unquestioned, with exceptions of decolonial and Indigenous scholars, ecofeminists, posthuman- and queer theorists. Second, more space needs to be created for Indigenous cosmologies that have been historically erased, oppressed, or disregarded within academia. Doing so requires the consideration of linguistic differences, and the risk of losing Indigenous cosmological understandings of the natural world when translating. Finally, following Wall Kimmerer (2020), different cosmologies and knowledges should be negotiated without prioritizing either one.
Bibliography
Alfred, T. 2005. “Sovereignty,” in Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination, edited by J. Barker. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, 33-50.
Beamer, Kamanamaikalani. 2021 “He Aliʿi Ka ʿĀina, Ua Mau Kona Ea: Land is the chief, long may she reign.” In Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies, edited by Brendan Hokowhity, Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Linda Tuhiwai-Smith, Chris Andersen, and Steve Larkin, 348-361. New York: Routledge.
Braidotti, Rosi. 2022. “Chapter 3: Decentring Anthropos: Ecofeminism Revisited.” In Posthuman Feminism, 68-104. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cutting, Janna. 2021. “Anishinaabe Storytelling for Coping and Adapting to Climate Change Impacts.” Major Research Paper presented to The University of Guelph.
Descola, Philippe. 2013. “Chapter 3: The Great Divide.” In Beyond Nature and Culture, 57-88. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2017. “Welcome to the white (m)Anthropocene? A feminist-environmentalist critique.” In Rouledge Handbook of Gender and Environment, edited by Sherilyn MacGregor, 487-505. London: Routledge.
Eve Tuck, Marcia McKenzie, and Kate McCoy. 2014. “Land Education: Indigenous, Post-colonial, and Decolonizing Perspectives on Place and Environmental Education Research,” Environmental Education Research 20(1): 1-23, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.877708.
Ferdinand, M., A. Chaillou and L. Roblin. 2020. “Why we need a decolonial ecology.” Revue Projet 2, 52-56.
Ferdinand, Malcolm. 2022. Decolonial Ecology: Thinking from the Caribbean World, edited by Natalia Brizuela, Victoria Collis-Buthelezi and Leticia Sabsay. Translator: Anthony Paul Smith. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Flaherty, Mary. 2001. “How a Language Gender System Creeps into Perception.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(1), 18-31. DOI: 10.1177/0022022101032001005.
Grosfoguel, Rámon. 2007. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn: Beyond Political-Economy Paradigms.” Cultural Studies 21(2-3): 211-223. DOI: 10.1080/09502380601162514.
Lobo, Michele. 2019. “Affective ecologies: Braiding urban worlds in Darwin, Australia.” Geoforum 2016: 393-401.
Lowan, Greg. 2009. “Exploring Place from an Aboriginal Perspective: Considerations for Outdoor and Environmental Education.” Canadian Journal of Education 12: 42-58.
Mathews, A. 2020. “Anthropology and the Anthropocene: Criticisms, Experiments, and Collaborations. Annual Review of Anthropology 49, 67-88.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1990. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.
National Park Service. 2023. “Native Peoples of the Sonoran Desert: The Yoeme.” Accessed on 3 November, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/articles/yoeme.html.
Opaskwayak. 2023. “About us.” Accessed on 3 November, 2023. https://opaskwayak.com/about-ocn/.
Patel, Raj., and Jason W. Moore. 2017. A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature and the Future. Oakland: University of California Press.
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. 2023. “Culture and History.” Accessed on 3 November, 2023. https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/culture_and_history.
Salmón, Enrique. 2000. “Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous Perceptions of the Human-Nature Relationship.” Ecological Applications 10(5), 1327-1332.
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2017. “Land as Pedagogy.” In As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance, 145-174. Minneapolis: University of Minesota Press.
Styres, Sandra, and Dawn Zinga. 2013. ”The Community-first land-centered Theoretical framework: Bringing a ‘Good Mind’ to Indigenous Education Research.” Canadian Journal of Education 36(2): 284-313.
Vásquez-Fernández, Andrea, and Cash Ahenakew pii tai poo taa. 2020. “Resurgence of Relationality: Reflections on Decolonizing and Indigenizing ‘Sustainable Development’.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4: 65-70.
Wall Kimmerer, Robin. 2020. Braiding Sweetgrass. London: Penguin Books.
Whitehouse, Hilary, Felecia Watkin Lui, Juanita Sellwood, M.J. Barrett, and Philemon Chigeza. 2014. “Sea Country: Navigating Indigenous and Colonial Ontologies in Australian Environment Education,” Environmental Education Research 20(1): 56-69. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.852655.
Willox, Ashlee Cunsolo, Sherilee L. Harper, Victoria L. Edge, Karen Landman, Karen James D. Ford, the Rigolet Inuit Community Government. 2013. “ The land enriches the soul: On climatic and environmental change, and emotional health and well-being in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada.” Emotion, Space and Society 6: 14-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.emospa.2011.08.005.
[1] Anishinaabe is a collective term for the Ojibway (Chippewas), Potawatomi, and Odawa nations who share similar cultures and language. Some sources suggest other groups such as the Ottawa, Algonquin, Slateaux, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Oji-Cree communities to be included in this collective term. The Anishinaabe territory spans from Southern Ontario, the Northern States, Northern Ontaria, and Manitoba, and includes a diverse landscape (Cutting 2021, 10-11). The Anishinaabe speak Anishinaabemowin with around 36.000 speakers today (Cutting 2021).
[2] The Yoeme, or Yaqui or Hiaki, live in Sonora, Mexico, and southern Arizona. Their homelands include the Río Yaqui valley in Sonora, Mexico, southern Arizona in the United States, and they have communities in Chihuahua and Durango, Mexico. They speak a Uto-Aztecan language. Using their intimate knowledge of the Sonoran Desert landscape, the Yoeme cultivated a variety of crops, including maize (corn), various bean and squash varieties, cotton, wheat, and more. More information can be found on the website of the National Park Service (2023).
[3] The Rarámuri, also known as Tarahumara, occupy one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world. The homeland, Gawi Wachi, is located in the eastern Sierra Madres of Chihuahua, Mexico. Approximately 60.000 Rarámuri continue to live a traditional lifestyle of horticulture, gathering, and agroforestry (Salmón 2001, 1327-1332).
[4] The Archipelago of Hawaiʿi consists of eight main islands (Niʿihau, Hawaiʿi, Oʿahu, Maui, Molokaʿi, Lānaʿi, and Kahoʿolawe) and the uninhabited 124 Northwest Hawaiian Islands situated above Kauaʿi, situated in the North Pacific Ocean. The Hawaiian is originally a spoken language, and can be written with Latin/Roman letters since it was first written down by American missionaries. Due to a ban on teaching or speaking Hawaiian language in schools, only around 24.000 people, including self-identified speakers, currently speak Hawaiian.
[5] The study that is being referred to here was done with the Inuit populations in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Labrador, Canada. See Willox et al. (2013) for further information.
[6] Opaskwayak Cree Nation has over 6000 people, most of whom live on the 15.000 acres of Opaskqayak Cree Nation land which is located in Manitoba, Canada. More information can be found on the Opaskwayak website (2023).
[7] Whitehouse et al. (2014) focus on various Peoples living on the Torres Strait Islands in the Coral Sea at the far north of tip of Cape York, Australia. They also discuss policies that address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories.
[8] The Mohawk people are the most eastern nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, or Iroquois Confederacy. Their original homeland is the north eastern region of New York State extending into southern Canada and Vermont. They speak Iroquoian. More information can be found on the website of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.
[9] Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg territory is along the north shore of Chi’Niibish, or Lake Ontario. Chi’Niibish literally means ‘big water,’ and this lake is shared with the Roinonhseshá:ka with whom they have good relationships. The Michi Saagiig Nishnaabe are travelers, meaning they move through their lands rather than settling one place. They are the eastern doorway of the Nishnaabeg nation (Simpson 2021, 2).