World Views and the Concept of “Traditional”
Abstract
Whether individuals hold static or dynamic worldviews underlies a number of contemporary controversies, including evolution/creationist debates, the reality of climate change, and application of treaty rights by Indigenous cultures. In this last case the debate is often framed in terms of whether or not Indigenous cultures are still using traditional methods when engaged in hunting, fishing, or harvesting. My purpose is to evaluate these issues by arguing that traditional means quite different things in different cultural traditions. In Western cultures, whose roots lie in static worldviews, e.g., those put forth by Aristotle and Descartes, traditional tends to mean unchanged or perhaps timeless. In Indigenous cultures, which typically have dynamic worldviews, traditional (a Western concept), implies that technologies employed, knowledge bases, and even ceremonial practices can change when conditions require. Western thinking assumes that use of the word traditional implies that such concepts or knowledge are of the past and thus unchangeable and irrelevant to the contemporary world. Non-Indigenous investigators have contended that traditional and change are contradictory concepts and that “[traditional] carries the unacknowledged connotation that the item in question is in decline, thus in need of being preserved.” In Indigenous thinking, the term traditional implies primarily that such knowledge and its related concepts have been in existence for a lengthy time, precisely because their ability to incorporate new observations and information has kept them fresh and relevant. I discuss these alternative concepts in the contexts of treaty and land rights and contemporary conservation concepts of biodiversity.
References
Boyd, R., ed. 1999. Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
Deloria, V. 1992. God is Red. North American Press, Golden, CO.
Chapin, M. 2004. A Challenge to Conservationists. World Watch Magazine 17:17–31.
Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred Year Conflict Between Global Conservation and Indigenous Peoples. MIT Press, Boston.
Drollinger, R. 2018. The Bible and Policy [web page]. Capitol Ministries. Available at: https://capmin.org/coming-to-grips-with-the-religion-of-environmentalism/. Accessed on August 15, 2018.
Glavin, T. 1998. A Death Feast in Dimlahamid. New Star Books, Vancouver.
Gould, S. J. 2002. I have Landed: The End of a Beginning in Natural History. Harmony Books, New York.
Kidwell, C. S., H. Noley, and G. E. Tinker. 2002. A Native American Theology. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY.
Nadasdy, P. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Nesper, L. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for Ojibwe Spearfishing and Treaty Rights. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Pierotti, R. 2011. Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London.
Sullivan, R. 2000. A Whale Hunt: Two years on the Olympic Peninsula with the Makah and Their Canoe. Scribner Press, New York.
Swift, E. 2018. Chesapeake Requiem: A Year with the Watermen of Vanishing Tangier Island. Harper Collins Publishing, New York.
Taylor, L., G. K. Ward, G. Henderson, R. Davis, and L. A. Wallis. 2005. The Power of Knowledge, The Resonance of Tradition. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, Australia.
Watson-Verran, H., and D. Turnbull. 1995. Science and Other Indigenous Knowledge Systems. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, pp. 115–139. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wilson, J. 2018 Surrounded by Fire, California Politicians Question Links to Climate Change [web page]. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire. Accessed on August 16, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2018 Raymond Pierotti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.
