Western Epistemology K - Michigan7 2014

8/9/2019 Western Epistemology K - Michigan7 2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/western-epistemology-k-michigan7-2014 1/150

Western Epistemology Kritik

Three quick notes:- I think it would be a good idea to always read the general link as well as anotherspecific link in the 1nc.- You can articulate this argument in many different ways based on whatconcepts (indigenous studies anthropocentrism capitalism etc.! you want toemphasi"e or deemphasi"e.- This file could easily supplement other kritiks or be supplemented by otherkritiks. I#d encourage anyone to borrow e$idence from other files whenanswering or going for this argument. (International %aw &!



First Negative Constructive



1NC General Link

The 1AC’s orientation toar! the ocean is tainte! "y a Western orl!vie that shuts out alternate epistemologies an! re!uces the

ocean to an o"#ect to "e e$ploite!Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

The thesis for this discussion has been that particular conceptions of oceans de$eloped and perpetuatedin the 3estern discourses of law aesthetics and science are highly influential instructuring contemporary human-relations. These conceptions are unnecessarily constraining uponpossibilities for imagining and understanding human-ocean relations in 3estern societies. 4onsequently 5ust ocean e6istences are being

hindered for identifiable reasons. Impro$ing the prospects for 5ust ocean e6istences can be achie$edthrough the use of politically generated knowledges about oceans to shift policy towards aset of social-en$ironmental goals that are not widely imagined by the 3esternmind.

In de$eloping my thesis I ha$e taken on board and tra$elled with a number of philosophical social and political theories. Thesetheories ha$e assisted me in the task o' !eveloping a criti(ue targete!toar! the social and cultural dimensions of human e$ploitation an! !egra!ation o'oceans as ell as e$ploring ays to inclu!e non)human agency in addressingthe abuse.In going beyond critique I ha$e ad$ocated for the structuring of policy debates and outcomes with a form of political epistemology that de-centres the e6perts. I ha$e highlighted in particular the problem of defining oceans scientifically ahead of inclusi$e debate and constituti$ediscussion about what comprises oceans and marine en$ironmental concerns. I ha$e argued for a form of political epistemology that isinclusi$e of a di$ersity of perspecti$es7human and non-human7and takes seriously the possibilities of a democratic process as a basis forgreater knowledge and imagining of human-ocean relations.The discussion of the thesis is de$eloped from a social construction perspecti$e that is attuned to the problems of realist accounts of ocean

dwelling life and forces. In 4hapters 0 to 8 I demonstrated that conceptions of the oceans that are largelytaken for granted in 3estern societies7that is oceans as the property of all (public access

rights! oceans as the sublime archetype (or oceans as the trigger for the sublime in the case of &ant! oceans as resourcesand commodities and more recently oceans as a great store of biodi$ersity7are notob5ecti$e accounts of oceans but mediated by historical material socio-economicand cultural factors. I ha$e demonstrated that different conceptions of oceans ha$edominated 3estern consciousness in different historical periods and suggested as part of my argument that this is

testimony to the understanding that ideas about oceans are always mediated.y ma5or concern in 4hapters 0 to 8 of this dissertation was with pro$iding some of the social conte6t for the de$elopment of particular andinfluential meanings ascribed to oceans in the 3estern discourses of law sublime aesthetics and science. These chapters were furthermoreconcerned with how these particular meanings structure and delimit human-ocean relations. 3hat I ha$e demonstrated about the

meanings attributed to oceans in the discourses of law science and aesthetics is that they oftennarrowly define human-ocean relations. 4hapters 0 to 8 focused primarily on supporting that part of my thesis

which states: particular conceptions of oceans de$eloped and perpetuated in the Western !iscourses o' la*aesthetics an! science* are first highly influential in structuring contemporary human-ocean relations and

second unnecessarily constraining o' the possi"ilities 'or imagining an!

un!erstan!ing human)ocean relations in Western societies+



1NC ,mpact

This Western relationship ith nature guarantees e$tinction+

Avelar 1- (Idelber $elar is a 9ull 'rofessor speciali"ed in contemporary %atin merican fiction literary theory and 4ultural

tudies. ;e recei$ed his 'h.<. from <uke )ni$ersity in 1==> arch 021? *4ontemporary Intersections of @cology and 4ulture: +n merindian 'erspecti$ism and the 4ritique of nthropocentrismhttp://muse.5hu.edu.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/5ournals/re$istaAdeAestudiosAhispanicos/$2?B/?B.1.a$elar.pdf .! //ky

To think the contemporary according to this logic is to identify and think through the present#s locus of non-coincidence with itself its blindspot so to speak. The contemporary thus fundamentally names a relationship with the present but the relationship takes place with that

which remains hidden and repressed in the present as its condition of possibility. n epoch in which the contemporary can be thought isthen necessarily one in which the present lodges within itself some seeds of discord with itself. gamben rephrases that energy7let usunderstand the untimely as an energy an intensity in <eleu"e#s sense of the word7as the ability to stare at the present in the face so as tosee its darkness not its light.1 In order to think through the contemporary therefore the question to be posed is not so much what is thedifference between our age and pre$ious ages but what is our age#s difference with itself what is so to speak its point of non-coincidence

with itself what is its untimely ground. I will de$elop in this essay the hypothesis that such a blind spot unique to ourtime#s relationship with itself must be understood in the conte6t of what geologists ha$e

called the nthropocene @ra. This is a period marked by our ability to do such se$eredamage to the en$ironment that humans ha$e now become geological agents

equipped with the concrete possi"ility o' e$tinguishing our on species an!most others* no longer as a result o' one single catastrophic event as it was commonly feared when a possible nuclear e6plosion loomed behind the 4old 3ar * "ut as an unintended long-term conse) (uence o' an unsustaina"le model of !evelopment.

In a piece entitled *The 4limate of ;istory: 9our Theses in my estimation one of the great papers of our time Indian historian

<ipesh 4hakrabarty offers the historical background for the concept of the nthropocene:

The period of human history usually associated with what we today think of as the institutions of

ci$ili"ation7the beginnings of agriculture the founding of cities the rise of the religions we know the in$ention of

writing7began about ten thousand years ago as the planet mo$ed from one geological period the last ice age or the 'leis- tocene tothe more recent and warmer ;olocene. The ;olocene is the period we are supposed to be inC but the possibility of anthropogenic climate

change has raised the question of its termination. Dow that humans7thanks to our numbers the burning of fossil fuel and other related acti$ities7ha$e become a geological agent on

the planet some scientists ha$e proposed that we recogni"e the beginning of a newgeological era one in which humans act as a main determinant of the en$ironment of the planet. The name they ha$e coined forthis new geological age is nthropocene. (02BE2=!4hakrabarty has drawn a brilliant set of conclusions from the premises underlying the concept of the nthropocene. In short 4hakrabartyargues that it is no longer possible to write the histories of globali"ation of capital of culture without taking into account at the same timethe history of the species. There are so many of us cutting down so many trees and burning so many fossils that the history of our culturecan no longer be separated from the history of nature such as it once was. 3hereas *FfGor centuries scientists thought that earth processes

were so large and powerful that nothing we could do could change them. . . . that human chronologies were insignificant compared with the

$astness of geological time (+reskes qtd. in 4hakrabarty 02>! we ha$e now become agents of de$astation tothe en$ironment who are capable of changing the most basic physical processes of the earth of which global warming and the acidificationof the oceans are but two of the most terrifying components. +ur time is then characteri"ed by an unprecedented con$ergence betweenecology and culture whereby it is no longer possible to separate human history and natural history. s 4hakrabarty states it is only recently that humans ha$e become geological agents to the e6tent that the dynamic of human history has begun to impact natural history. 3emust therefore *put global histories of capital in con$ersation with the species history of humans (010!.The concept of the nthropocene coined by ecologist @ugene toermer and later widely used by Dobel 'ri"e winner atmospheric chemist'aul 4rut"en inaugurates for 4hakrabarty a period that puts in crisis the separation between human history and natural history a relati$ely stable one at least since ;obbes and ,ico. Hi$en their tra5ec- tory in recent decades this places the humanities in a particular bind: if we

could single out the ma5or feature that tra$erses these disciplines in the twentieth century it would be the culturali"ation that has accom-panied the so-called linguistic turn. The culturalist critique of natural- i"ation has been one of the distincti$e features of the humanities(and to a certain degree the social sciences! o$er the past century if not the structuring one. The un$eiling as cultural of traits assumed ormistaken as natural has been the bread and butter of humanistic disciplines. In that operation nature occupies the position of a recedinghori"on a limit that keeps being pushed back toward a realm that is ne$er really present ne$er embodying a positi$e e6istence. In that

model we ne$er really know what nature is only what it is not and what the mistaken other has

taken it to be. In the humanities throughout the twentieth century nature has "een aconstant presence* "ut only negatively* i+e+ as the o"#ect of an operation ofdenaturali"ation. The renewed insepa- rability of natural history and human history pointed out abo$e and e6perienced today challengesthe humanities to understand nature in ways other than simply through the lens of a culturalist critique of naturali"ation. It i s no longer

enough to un$eil the cultural ground of concepts notions and habits hitherto taken to be natural. In the ur- gency of the

http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/journals/revista_de_estudios_hispanicos/v048/48.1.avelar.pdf

http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/journals/revista_de_estudios_hispanicos/v048/48.1.avelar.pdf



ecological crisis we li$e today we can no longer afford not to face the question ofa nature as positi$ity.

To be sure there are recent e6amples of how the relationship between nature and culture has been recast on a new basis. 4ulturalstudies anthropology %egal tudies and other disciplines ha$e all been led to rethinkparadigms that implicitly assumed nature and human history to be separate

spheres. ichel 9oucault#s concept of biopolitics as well as Hiorgio gamben#s notion of thanatopolitics crossed that di$ide by

inaugurating an understanding of go$ernmentality as a technology for the administration and disciplining of life. In the concept of biopolitics nature is no longer a receding hori"on or an illusion to be unmasked. 9oucault#s use of the term biopolitics has $ery little incommon of course with earlier usages either in Herman thinking of the 1=02s characteri"ed by the understanding of the state as a li$ingorganism or in 9rench thinkers of the 1=>2s such as tarobinski and ean orin who attempted to e6plain human history from life. Jio-politics for 9oucault is not only a method for population control but also a technology for the production and reproduction of life. The eraof biopolitics is then the era of the biological regulation of population. @specially suggesti$e to me among the heirs of 9oucault has been

rgentinean philosopher 9abiKn %udueLa who in a book entitled %a comunidad de los espectros argued against gamben#s conception ofpolitics as a supplement to bios simply added a posteriori on to a realm of raw "oe. s Jra"ilian essayist le6andre Dodari noted in hisre$iew %udueLa#s questioning of the opposition between bios and "oe grounds his choice for the term *"oopolitics rather than*biopolitics to des- ignate the primary substance of human politics (Dodari *9abricar 0!. 3hat is stake in the production of humanity for%udueLa is not simply an e6clusion of "oos of the animal. 'olitics has set itself from the beginning *el arte de la domesticaciMn del animalhumano in a process where politics is always coe6tensi$e with eugenics (%udueLa Nomandini 01!.0 It is not by chance then that Dodarisees a link between census and censorship insofar as *the counting of properties and of population its redistribution according togo$ernmental calculations in classes the registry of births and deaths etc. allowed for a better organi"ation of the republic facilitating thedetection and correction of unproducti$e elements (the $agabonds! by the censor (Dodari *9abricar !.

Joth in the ristotelian response to 'latonic eugenics as well as in 4hristianity %udueLa reads different attempts atproducing an anthropotechnique that demands life to be separated away from its in-

tensity its force its animality which must then be measured confinedcalculated and framed. 4hristianity would later of course think of immortality as the essential attribute that separates thehuman from the animal. 9or Thomas quinas for e6ample the non-human animals had *no place in the &ingdom of Hod (Dodari*9abricar ?!. The 4hristian in$ention of man then draws upon a methodical elimina- tion of the primordial animal. ocratic Hreece and

4hristianity shared an attempt to purge animality out of man to abolish the animalitas proper to man. %udueLa traces acontinuity between the anthropo- techniques of 4hristianity and of modernhumanism: from <escartes to ;eidegger animals tend to appear in the philosophical te6t precisely when the essence of humanity is

being defined. %udueLa is rightfully skeptical of some of the alternati$es to this anthropotechnique that ha$e been proposed from thepro5ect of an *affirmati$e biopolitics to the illusory attempt to $oid 4hristian patriarchalism by returning to its 'auline foundations such ase6emplified by lain Jadiou or la$o5 OiPek (%udueLa Nomandini 00?!. %udueLa#s book does not quite get there but the conclusion seemsineluctable that a line of flight away from 4hristian-3estern anthropocentrism imposes itself.

ccording to what has been presented so far what is then the contemporary in gamben#s sense i.e. what is the "one of untimeliness that

would allow us to see the darkness of the presentQ In this sense our times find their limit and their blindspot in the $ery pro5ect of the primacy of the human the special and unique

nature conferred on the homo sapiens. This is certainly not a fresh and unthought-of idea: from ontaigne toDiet"sche there is a distinct critique of anthropocentrism running parallel to the main tradition of 3estern philosophy. Jut learning what

we ha$e learned from 4hakrabarty#s analysis of the cultural and political consequences of the nthropocene @ra it is dif- ficultto refrain from the conclusion that the e$pansion an! !omination o' man*the 'ull reali.ation o' his poer (and I use the gender-specific form deliberately here! can onlymean the complete e$tinction o' all "io!iversity in the planet* much likeThomas quinas had imagined the &ingdom of Hod without any animals. 3hat is contemporary to us and therefore most in$isible in a $ery

literal sense is precisely that the reali"ation of the human pro5ect to its fullest e6tent can only lead tothe destruction of his natural surroundings and along with them of course the destructionof the $ery conditions of possibility in which man can e6ist as such . ;ere is the cru6 of thecontemporary or to use 3alter Jen5amin#s famous phrase the inde6 to a memory that *flashes up in a moment of danger (088!. It seems

clear that we must think outside the anthropocentric paradigm or pretty soon we will

not be thinking anymore. n internal deconstruction of this paradigm will not suffice.

Amerin!ian societies have* in 'act* a ealth o' knole!ge ac)cumulate! in hat e might call a non)anthropocentric un!erstan!)ing o' the orl!. y firm belief is that one of the inalienable ethical task s for %atin merican intellectualstoday is to come to terms with that knowledge to the fullest e6tent possible. Its mostsophisticated account in contemporary anthropology has coalesced around the theory of *merindian perspecti$ism de$eloped byJra"ilian anthropologist @duardo ,i$eiros de 4astro o$er the past two decades. It should be pointed out at the outset that perspecti$ismhere is not reducible to relati$ism sub5ecti$ism or any of the other correlate terms within the 3estern philosophical tradition. In fact

merindian perspecti$ism ,i$eiros de 4astro has argued should be understood as orthogonal to the opposition between uni$ersalism andrelati$ism (*+s pronomes 118! such as it will become clear with an anecdote told by %R$i-trauss in Nace et histoire and Tristes tropiques.



1NC /olitical Epistemology Alternative

The alternative to re#ect the 1AC’s totali.ing estern orl!vie an!open up to a ne political epistemology that !e)centers e$perts an!

allos alternative relationships to the oceanKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

In this dissertation I chart se$eral meanings attributed to oceans in modern 3estern societiesthat are highly influential in shaping human-ocean relations and highlight ethical and politicalissues to which we should respond. In so doing the e6amination of conceptions of oceans I carry out throughout this dissertation does notpro$ide a complete narrati$e of the historical de$elopment of meanings attributed to oceans in 3estern societies. Nather this dissertationplots a particular course through the great though insufficiently e6plored e6panses of 3estern conceptions of oceans. y approache6amines meanings attributed to oceans that are anchored in the 3estern discourses of law science and aesthetics.8 I seek out these three

discourses of law aesthetics and science because they are producti$e dimensions for illuminating human-ocean relations in 3estern societies. oreo$er as these three discourses are comple6 I deal with only a fraction of their possible scope. Jutto limit is sometimes to re$eal and thus I hope the limited scope of my engagement has resulted in a purposi$e analysis of the way certain

3estern discoursesha$e produced particular norms that influence the way the 3esternsub5ect relates to the oceans.

I suggest that the contemporary !iscourses of oceanic li$es I am concerned with have "eentotalising * leaving little room 'or !iversity. They ha$e also been colonising *leaving little room 'or non)human 'lourishing. I argue that totalising and colonising practices in relation to oceans nee! to "e resiste! in or!er to 'acilitate #uste$istences 'or oceans. y focus on the facilitation of 5ust e6istences for oceans will beelaborated upon further in this

dissertation. Jut to briefly indicate here how 5ust e6istences for oceans may be facilitated I argue for inclusi$eknowledge production and decision-making processes in which there is a capacity for a di$ersity of

$iews to influence outcomes.'art of my task in $aluing and $ouching for 5ust ocean e6istences in this way7for humans and non-humans7leads me to argue in thisdissertation that some conceptions of oceans are better than others. I concur with ;araway when she writes:

3e e6ist in a sea of powerful stories: They are the condition of finite rationality and personal and collecti$e life histories. There is no way

out of storiesC but no matter what the +ne-@yed 9ather says there are many possible structures not to mention

contents of narration. 4hanging the stories in both material and semiotic senses is a modest inter$ention worth making. (1==S ?8! ccordingly my thesis is that particular conceptions of oceans de$eloped and perpetuated in the 3estern discourses of law aesthetics andscience are highly influential in structuring contemporary human-ocean relations. oreo$er the conceptions that I discuss unnecessarilyconstrain possibilities for imagining and understanding human-ocean relations in 3estern societies. 4onsequently 5ust ocean e6istences

are being hindered for identifiable reasons. Impro$ing the prospects of 5ust ocean e6istences can beachie$ed through the use of politically generated knowledges about oceans toshift policy towards a set of social-en$ironmental goals that are not i!elyimagine! "y the Western min!+

s will become clear in the course of my discussionthe scope of my thesis does not pro$ide for sustained

engagement with specific marine en$ironmental disputes or policy initiati$es . y concern is withthe discourses that frame debates and policymaking more generally and then with a modelin which specific disputes and policymaking acti$ities can take place.

In arguing my thesis I take on board and tra$el with a number of philosophical social and political theories. 'rincipally the insights offeminist and ecological feminist thinkers into forms of oppression and social and en$ironmental 5ustice ha$e stirred the analysis I carry out.The conceptual analysis and theoretical insights of a$ariety of thinkers across a range of disciplines assist me to de$elop a critique targetedtoward the social and cultural dimensions of human e6ploitation and degradation of oceans. I also go beyond critique to e6plore ways ofacknowledging non-human agency that work toward addressing the abuse.

It is important to add that in going beyond critique I ad$ocate for a $iew in which policy debates andoutcomes are dri$en at least in part with forms of political epistemology that de-centresthe e6perts7scientists in particular. /olitical epistemology is a term , use toconceptualise !emocratic 0reciprocal knole!ge making (9awcett 0222 1>!. Ialso ad$ocate for ocean policy that centres both the non-human realm (which is often



backgrounded! and our acti$e construction of reality (which is often o$erlooked!. theme in my inter$entions inthis dissertation is to ad$ocate for understandings of oceans that acknowledge *both our acti$e construction of reality and nature#s role in

these negotiations (4heney 1==? 1S8!. 'olitical epistemology that is inclusi$e of a di$ersity ofperspecti$es and roles7 human and non-human 7 and takes seriously the possibilities of a

democratic process is for me the basis of ethical politics . y concern with democratic political epistemology is discussed in detail in my final 4hapter. ;owe$er the central themes in mydissertation of democratic process and ethical politics bear further elaboration prior to introducing the contents of each chapter. The

following preamble establishes the background against which much of my discussion of the 3estern discourses of law aesthetics and

science can be read. That is to say much of what is considered the reality# of oceans throughthese discourses is a social construction herein rarely* i' ever* !o these!iscourses take seriously the possi"ility that oceans have agency+



1NC 2top ,nternal 3ialogue Alternative

The alternative is to stop internal !ialogue+ 4pening up space 'oralternative epistemologies is the "est strategy 'or resisting a Western

orl!vie that turns nature into a stan!ing reserve an! ensurese$tinctionTony War! says5 (*Indigenous 4osmologies $s. 3estern Nationalityhttp://www.tonywardedu.com/images/criticalAtheory/indigenous-cosmologies-$s-technical-rationality.pdf! Uoreinformation on Tony 3ard can be found on http://n".linkedin.com/pub/tony-ward-barch-phd/8/bbb/>??

The Tupuna of atata: true but unlikely story.

There has always e6isted an uneasy tension between 3estern academicrationality and indigenous knowledge systems + The latter has invaria"ly been

su"#ugate! "y the 'ormer* but ha$e somehow sur$i$ed albeit in colonisedforms through to the present. The Hrand Darrati$es of 'rogress and Indi$idual @mancipation and nthropomorphism worked through the matri6 of scientific technical rationality

ha$e displaced and colonised indigenous cosmologies associated with cyclictemporalities relatedness and species interdependency. 4ritics of the 3estern systems of

knowledge E critical pedagogues with their roots in ar6ist analysis ha$e tended until recently to focus on the

social political and economic shortcomings of western knowledge systems and education E ignoring for the most part

ecological and en$ironmental concerns sa$e as a peripheral outcome of capitalist e6cess.1 s criticaleducation theorist Ilan Hur- Ve#e$ has noted:

*)ntil today 4ritical 'edagogy almost completely disregarded not 5ust the cosmopoliticaspects of ecological ethics in terms o' threats to present and future life conditions of allhumanity . It disregarded the fundamental philosophical and e6istential challenges ofsub5ect-ob5ect relations in which *nature is not concei$ed as a standing reser$eeither for mere human consumption or as a potential source of dangers threats andrisks.0

ore recently critical pedagogues ha$e begun to recogni"e and to insist on the need toinclude sub5ugated epistemologies of those pre$iously e6cluded oppressed and silenced communities E

particularly indigenous communities - as an important requirement for building a broad

consensus of popular resistance through e!ucation to the o$erarching free-market-dri$en imperati$e of %ate 4apitalism. 9or the most part these critical pedagogues ha$etended to imagine a kind of melding of western and indigenous rationalities andepistemologies in pursuit of political cultural and economic transformation. They link their pro5ect

to the search for new forms of understanding of key concepts such as @ducation <emocracyulticulturalism Identity etc. E concepts that are still grounded in a western rationality. In this attempt to embraceepistemological difference the one key concept that is rarely if e$er discussed - and the one that ultimately distinguished

the indigenous (pre-colonial! cosmology - is The piritual. 3estern attempts to include indigenousknowledge systems are willing to grant them a greater degree of sensiti$ity to en$ironmental

systems a more refined understanding of ecological interrelatedness drawn from local

e6perience a deeper awareness of cultural and social relations and a more comprehensi$e conception of both

self-sufficiency and sustainability. Jut when it comes to the spiritual framework upon whichall such knowledge systems rest western (and westernised! scholars seem at a loss. Talk ofspirit-beings katchinas guardians spirit-helpers fairies and ancestor-helpers seem perhaps too freaky too alien to take

on board. Indeed it is hard to imagine how they might be taken on board without thecomplete fragmentation and disintegration of a western perspecti$e.? The epicrecounting of 4arlos 4astaneda#s e6periences with the Yaqui sorcerer <on uan atus offer ample e$idence of thisdichotomy.8 <on uan told 4arlos that in order to become a Wman of knowledgeW he must practice Wstopping the worldW



through a process of Xstopping the internal dialogueW. ;e placed great emphasis upon the fact that being a Wman ofknowledgeW in$ol$es a cessation of the normati$e meanings which language carries and that it is the role of the teacher tofacilitate this process:

WThe first act of a teacher is to introduce the idea that the world we think we see is only a $iew adescription of the world. @$ery effort of a teacher is geared to pro$e this point to an apprentice. Jut

accepting it seems to be one of the hardest things one can doC we are

complacently caught in our particular $iew of the world which compels us tothink and act as if we knew e$erything about the world. teacher from the $ery first act he

performs aims at stopping that $iew. orcerers call it Wstopping the internal dialogueW and they are con$inced

that it is the single most important technique that an apprentice can learn.W>%anguage which forms the basis of our internal con$ersations about the world is therefore fundamental not 5ust

to the process of describing reality but in constructing and maintaining it. nd sincelanguage is a social phenomenon it follows that our conception of reality is mediated by thesocial forms which structure e$eryday life. ocial groups who use the samelanguage (be it e$eryday language or specialised technical language! implicitly reproduce and con$ey

through their con$ersations a model of the world imbued with particular meanings andassociations of which they themsel$es may not be fully aware but which bind together the concrete reality the world inquestion.S In addition we should keep in mind that as 3ittgenstein reminds us the meanings inherent in language itselfdo not come ready-made:*...a word hasn#t got a meaning gi$en to it as it were by a power independent of us so that there could be a kind ofscientific in$estigation into what the word really means. word has the meaning someone has gi$en to it.B

3hat all of this boils down to is the suggestion that western academics ha$e tended to interpretindigenous realities and meanings through their own western lens pro$ided bytheir own culturally/linguistically-determined understanding. The piritual in this sense has defied

easy interpretation and stands still in stark aloofness from our ability to incorporateassimilate or otherwise digest it. 3hat follows is one simple local e6ample of this problematic.



Top)Level



6NC Frameork

Challenging mo!ern representations o' the ocean is the "est startingpoint 'or social change+ 4pening up alternative relationships ith theocean can com"at the violent cartographies o' statism2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainablede$elopment capital mobility and nostalgia in the world ocean file://$mware-host/hared029olders/<ownloads/ustainable02<e$elopment.pdf

In this paper I ha$e tried to demonstrate how three popular and dominant images of ocean space actually emerge from long-standingtensions in the capitalist appropriation of the ocean and how these images mask underlying contradictions in the spatial and ecological

organi"ation of capital. I want to conclude by emphasi"ing that current struggles o$er the disposition ofocean space are simultaneously about the direction of social change. There is a long history

of the ocean as an arena of social transformation. It is generally acknowledged that the early se$enteenth

century XJattle of the JooksX ga$e birth to the modern structures of international law (4olombos 1=>S page B! and ocean law

remains an important arena for shaping the system of international relations thatstructures states as well as go$erning relations among them (Nobles 1==>C Nuggie 1==C Taylor1==C 1==8!. long with contributing to some of the social categories that ha$e pre$ailed in land space including modern notions of

masculinity (4reighton 1==8! and class solidarity (Nediker 1=BS! struggles over ocean access havealso inspire! oppositional movements+ They have provi!e! an arena'or challenging what hapiro (1==S! calls the 9violent cartographies9 o' statism. Thus9oucault points to the ship at sea as the Wheterotopia par e6cellenceW: WIn ci$ili"ations without boats dreams dry up espionage takes the

place of ad$enture and the police take the place of piratesW (9oucault 1=B> page 0S!. ;istorical e6amples of the roleof the sea in forging alternati$e identities and social structures range frompirate bands (&uhn 1==S! and anarchist collecti$es (ekula 1==8! to en$ironmentalmo$ements (Jrown and ay ? 1==1! and diaspora nations (Hilroy 1==!/ ! Juilding upon this history and

reflecting on the recent %aw of the ea negotiations a number of scholars ha$e suggested that the collecti$e go$ernanceof the sea be used as a model for radical notions of global citi"enship andentitlements (Jorgese 1==BC 'acem in aribus 1==0C ,an <yke et al 1==!. &eith (1=SS! in a discussion that has parallels to theactual case of the proposed manganese nodule mining regime speculates that the emergence of Xfloating citiesX would likely challenge the

entire system of territorial states that pro$ides the foundational political di$isions for capitalist competition. In literature too thesea is increasingly depicted as a space of social liberation from the oppressions ofmilitarism capitalism and patriarchy (Jcrthold 1==8! as in the no$els of +eta$ia Jutler )rsula %cHuin and

oan lone"cwskl Whether these visions o' the sea as a site o' social changecome to 'ruition is not the point . s we ha$e seen from the recent e6ample of manganese nodule mining

the crisis in the regulation of ocean space has intensified to the point where for aconsiderable duration the worldXs powers found themsel$es supporting a regimethat seemed to challenge the principles of capitalist enterprise . The broad support that this

regime recei$ed suggests the depth of the regulatory crisis and in this conte6t one shoul! not un!erestimatethe trans'ormative potential o' struggles over oceanic space*resources* an! access. This conte6t7the structural contradiction of capitalistspatialtty7also demonstrates the superficiality (and indeed the danger! of the three imagesthat increasingly characteri"e ocean space . 9or the images not only tell partial stories They o"scure material relations o' e$ploitation e$perience! "y those ho!erive their living 'rom the sea7seafarers dockworkcrs artisanal fishing communities and others who may

be XmanagedX out of e6istence by the regulatory strategics with which each image is aligned. <espite their erasure from the popular

imagination these indi$iduals e6perience on a daily basis the fact that the ocean is a locus of intense capitalist contradiction and

a potential source o' social change+ To interpret this contradiction and tocontri bute to the authoring of that social change * it is imperative that e look

http://smb//vmware-host/Shared%20Folders/Downloads/Sustainable%20Development.pdf






"eyon! the prevailing ocean imagery an! pierce the maritimemysti(ue+

Alternative epistemologies taught ithin the Western aca!emic'rameork have ra!ical potential:constant re#ection an! criti(ue is

key Jrantley Nicholson 6;;8 %ecturer and Nesearcher at the )ni$ersity of Nichmond in %atin merican Z Iberian tudies*piritual +rgani"ation and @pistemic Nupture: [uesting for Vion in Noberto Jolano#s The a$age <etecti$es published in 4efiro ournal

$olume B.1

@pistemic rupture is reali"ed through the questioning and challenging of thetotali"ing narrati$es and epistemic organi"ation of knowledge. If epistemology is carried outtemporally through the reproduction of bodies and minds challenges and epistemic shifts in modern intellectual community cause aresistance of biopower that creates a space of e6teriority to the framework of totali"ed knowledge highlighting the fallbacks andreductionisms of totality. In other words epistemic shifts that are reali"ed through the reproduction of biopower that constitutecounternarrati$es should constantly question the $alidity of the counternarrati$e itself or while remaining conscious of the inherent flawsof knowledge. Jorrowing from 4astro-Home"#s $ocabulary the do6a would not flee from the episteme but would tra$el to its borders. 'lurallocution can work its way into the totali"ed episteme by becoming acti$e sub5ects instead of docile ob5ects. ,iewed then within the four-

domain framework of the colonial matri6 of power alternati$e knowledges and ontologies can becreated by agents consciously breaking with the codified norm within the border of

all of the delineated fields. lternati$e knowledges and epistemes can be taught within the 3estern academic framework. 4ross-dressing and the e6ercise of se6uality and gender that escapes from the

institutionali"ed status-quo has occurred and will continue to occur despite what traditional epistemology will argue. uthority ischallenged through constant critique and by reali"ing the imperfection of allgo$ernmental systems. In terms of the economy the black market does wonders to manipulate the official economy on a

global scale. +ntologies and knowledges that escape from the colonial matri6 of powere6ist. The challenge is to make these practices $isible or to create alternati$eepistemologies without committing the same reductionisms and $iolent codifications of the colonial matri6 of power. This is

where a$ant-garde mo$ements and splinter groups of knowledge are good e6amples of challenges that can result in positi$e ends. $ant-garde mo$ements wage constant attack on the status-quo from the position of the periphery. Splinter groups of knowledge work from the

border of the totali"ed episteme to highlight its flaws thus causing the questioning of all facets of the colonial matri6 of power. Joth signal

possible ways of e6isting and learning otherwise. They do not passi$ely accept institutionali"edontology but recogni"e its frailty and acti$ely through the reproduction ofalternati$e ontologies and knowledges begin to pick at the glue that holdscoloniality together.



6NC Frameork5 3ecolonial Knole!ge

,nterrogating the colonial un!erpinnings o' aca!emics re(uires analternate 'rameork 'or !e"ate that moves past current !emarcations

an! opens itsel' to noncolonial epistemologiesLan!er 6k (@dgardo ociologist ,ene"uelan professor at the 4entral )ni$ersity of ,ene"uela and a 9ellow of the Transnational Institute 0222 Depantla: ,iews fromouth ,olume 1 Issue *@urocentrism and 4olonialism in %atin merican ocialThought 5stor accessed S/1/1? sbl p. 80B-0= arh!

It is not the same to assume that the historical patrimony of the social sciences ismerely parochial as to conclude that it is also colonial. The implications arcdrastically different. If our social-science heritage were 5ust parochial knowledgerelated to 3estern societies would not need any questioning. It would be enough to e6pand thereach of the e6periences and realities to be studied in other parts of the world. 3e could complete theories and methods of knowledge which

thus far ha$e been adequate for some determined places and times but less adequate for others. The problem is adifferent one when we conclude that our knowledge has a colonial character andis based upon assumptions that imply and Wnaturali"eW a systematic process ofe6clusion and subordination of people based on criteria of class gender raceethnicity and culture. This perspecti$e introduces crude distortions not only inknowing others but also in the self-understanding of @uropean and northernsocieties. To recogni"e the colonial character of the hegemonic forms of knowledge in the contemporary world would imply more

difficult and comple6 challenges than those identified in The Hulbenkian Neport. This knowledge is intertwined incomple6 and inseparable manners in the articulations of power of contemporarysocieties. +nly a timid and partial dialogue with other sub5ects and cultures would be achie$ed by incorporating into the social sciences representati$es of

those sub5ects and cultures that were once e6cluded. s is acknowledged in the report thisrequires long learning and sociali"ing processes in certain truth-systems at theend of which one could well e6pect that only internal criticisms of the discipline would be likely+ Given for e6ample the current !emarcations of economics there arelimite! possi"ilities 'or the 'ormulation* from within that discipline o' ra!ically!i''erent alternatives to mainstream liberal economics. %iberal cosmology (a conception of human nature of wealthof the relationship of man to nature of progress! is incorporated as a fundamental metatheoretical premise in the disciplinary constitution

of that field of knowledge. The achievement o' e''ective intercultural* hori.ontal!emocratic communications* noncolonial an! thus 'ree o'!omination* su"or!ination* an! e$clusion* re(uires a !e"ate "eyon!the limits o' the o''icial !isciplines o' mo!ern sciences open to

dialogues with other cultures and other forms of knowledge. part from epistemological

rigidities and the o$erwhelming burden of institutional and academic inertia the main obstacles are political+ The possibilities fordemocratic communications are se$erely limited by the profound differences of power that e6ist today between different cultures and

between different peoples.



E$ts & Frameork5 3ecolonial Knole!ge

Frameork is Eurocentric an! e$clu!es other 'orms o' knole!ge+<celli 76 (uliet and <ennis founder Dew York ar6ist chool and +#Deil regular contributor to 9orward otion *4hallenging

@urocentrism http://www.wengewang.org/read.phpQtid\1=?8 acc. S/1/1? arh!

+ngoing battles o$er the content of social studies classes in public schools andthe canon in liberal arts education are thrusting the term *eurocentrism towardthe mainstream of political discourse in the )nited tates. It is a concept whichhas been fairly easy for those of us on the left to become comfortable with butthat sense of ease could actually pose a problem of complacency for re$olutionary socialists. The fact is that the critique of eurocentrism is still in its early stages andthat the e6traordinarily per$asi$e hold this framework has on the thinking ofe$eryone raised in 3estern societies is not fully appreciated. nd the problem of what kind of

world$iew it is to be replaced with has barely been considered. The point then is that eurocentrism will not be understood neutrali"ed orsuperseded without considerable effort and as shown by the current counterattack waged by the bourgeoisie against *political correctness

without fierce struggle. good starting point in thinking about eurocentrism is the recent spate of books produced by frican Dorth

merican and @uropean academics. They ha$e thrown down the gauntlet inside classics comparati$e linguistics economic historysociology and other academic disciplines. This recent scholarship builds on the pioneering work of frican merican scholars like 4.%.N.ames and [email protected]. <ubois whose work was marginali"ed by white supremacist academia yet studied continuously o$er the past fifty years

by organic intellectuals of color and some white leftists. nother foundation is the insistence on the centrality of culture psychology and the

internali"ation of oppression coming from frican thinkers like 9rant" 9anon milcar 4abral and 4heikh nta <iop. To some e6tent acritique of eurocentrism is implicit in the opposition to imperialism which(howe$er flawed! has characteri"ed the re$olutionary wing of the socialistmo$ement since the time of %enin. ;owe$er at least until ao#s writings became an influence @uropean socialistsgenerally grasped more easily the concepts of the super-e6ploitation and $ictimi"ation of non-@uropean peoples and had more difficulty

recogni"ing their scientific achie$ements and cultural contributions. The concept of eurocentrism as currentlyused pays more attention to precisely this aspect: the distortion of theconsciousness and self- knowledge of humanity by the insistence of people of@uropean descent that all $alid *uni$ersal scientific knowledge economic

progress political structures and works of art flow only from their ancestors. +rin its more subtle form eurocentrism acknowledges contributions from non-@uropean cultures but says that if they#re important enough they#ll be subsumed within the 3estern legacyC that the current global cultural marketplace willautomatically absorb and disseminate any new cultural products of uni$ersal $alidity.

Their 'rameork arguments are part o' coloniality’s epistemologicalstructure & re#ect an! (uestion their 'raming o' ho !e"ate shoul!'unction=ignolo 7 (3alter 'rofessor of literature-<uke )ni$ersity 'h.<. from the @cole des ;autes @tudes academic director of

<uke in the ndes an interdisciplinary program in %atin merican and ndean tudies in [uito @cuador at 'ontificia

)ni$ersidad 4atMlica del @cuador and the )ni$ersidad 'olitRcnica alesiana *@pistemic <isobedience] Independent Thought and] <e-4olonial 9reedom Theory 4ulture Z ociety 022=!

The introduction of geo-historical and bio-graphical configurations in] processesof knowing and understanding allows for a radical re-framing (e.g.] de-coloni"ation! of theoriginal formal apparatus of enunciation.0 I ha$e] been supporting in the past those who maintain that it is

not enough to] change the content of the con$ersation that it is of the essence to change] the terms of the con$ersation. 4hangingthe terms of the con$ersation] implies going beyond disciplinary orinterdisciplinary contro$ersies and the] conflict of interpretations. s far as contro$ersies and

interpretations remain] within the same rules of the game (terms of the con$ersation! the control] of knowledge is

http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=19345



http://www.aas.duke.edu/study_abroad/andes/index.php






not called into question. nd in order to call into question] themo!ern>colonial 'oun!ation o' the control o' knole!ge* it isnecessary ] to 'ocus on the knoer rather than on the knon+ It meansto go to the $ery ] assumptions that sustain locus enunciations.] In what follows I re$isit the

formal apparatus of enunciation from the] perspecti$e of geo- and bio-graphic politics of knowledge. y re$isiting is]

epistemic rather than linguistic although focusing on the enunciation is]

una$oidable if we aim at changing the terms and not only the content of the] con$ersation. The basic assumption is that the knower is always implicated] geo-and body-politically in the known although modern epistemology (e.g.] thehubris of the "ero point! managed to conceal both and created the figure] of thedetached obser$er a neutral seeker of truth and ob5ecti$ity who at] the same timecontrols the disciplinary rules and puts himself or herself in] a pri$ileged positionto e$aluate and dictate.]



6NC 4"#ectivity ,mpossi"le

The meaning o' nature changes )) the emphasis "y socialconstructionists on the historical* material* socio)economic an!

cultural 'actors challenges any claims o' pure o"#ectivity in accountso' oceans an! that’s hy investigation o' all the interactions is "estKenne!y % <octor of philosophy (<ebrah urdoch )ni$ersity +cean ,iews n in$estigation into human-ocean relations 022Shttp://scholar.google.com/scholarQq\^human-ocean^relations^relating^to^feminism^ZbtnH\Zhl\enZasAsdt\2040ZasA$ is\1 //N%!

ocial construction perspecti$es can be thought of as *a reaction against andcritique of those naturalistic e6planations that sought to e6plain societale$olution and reproduction as a continuation of natural processes (mith 022111S!. 9eminist and ecological feminists ha$e been instrumental in pro$idingconstructionist critiques of the categories woman# and nature# demonstratingthat there is considerable di$ersity within these categories and that the categoriesthemsel$es are perpetually unstable (andilands 1===!. ocial constructionperspecti$es of the non- human natural world offer *a way of seeing thatfunctions as a guide to understanding the natural world that does not make e6actpredictions (carce 0222 12! but rather demonstrate how the meaning ofnature changes in different periods and cultures.] The emphasis by socialconstructionists on the historical material socio-economic and cultural factorschallenges any claims of pure ob5ecti$ity in accounts of oceans. ocialconstructionists obser$e for e6ample that scientific in$estigations cannot beseparated from the social and cultural biases and political interests of the

scientists and scientific discourses (Jleier 1=B?C Jocking 022?!. ocialconstructionist critiques of con$entional claims about the non-human natural world (such as the notion of ocean-as-resource# which is ubiquitous in a range of 3estern discourses! point out that the natural world is often defined to ser$especific social interests (oper 1==8!.] 3hile social construction perspecti$esdiffer some being stricter or more $ociferous than others few take the $iew thatoceans are simply artefacts of culture. That is few social constructionists wouldtake the $iew that oceans are things we bring into being like a commodity madein an industrial process or nothing more than *a sign with shifting patterns ofmeaning determined only by its position in its systematic relations to other signs(mith 0221 10>!.> s I emphasised with Norty#s quote abo$e to say there is a

cultural conte6t is not the same as stating that this is all there is to oceans.+ceans are li$ing entities constituted by comple6es and systems that areindependent of humans. 3e will e6perience oceans in a form that is not whollypartially or at all caused by humansC nor do oceans rely on human witness fortheir being. +ceans could e6ist without humans but humans could not e6ist without them. The indifference of oceans to and freedom from humanity isgi$en to us in clues and hints such as the interplay between our bodies and thesea: for e6ample people commonly drown in it. 3hile many writers ascribe

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+human-ocean+relations+relating+to+feminism+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&as_vis=1








conscious agency to oceans I would simply highlight that oceans do place reallimits on us that no amount of talking or any other making of culturalrepresentations will change: a person whostays under the water too long dies.This in my $iew is an e6ample of a real constraint as opposed to socialconstructionist ones.] cknowledging that oceans do e6ist apart from human

constructions of them is crucial to the possibility of ocean politics. If nothinge6ists outside of language ocean politics becomes merely a process of deciding what kind of oceans should be formed to satisfy human policies of safeguardingor e6ploiting oceans: oceans can only e$er be spoken for by humans inaccordance with their passi$e identity. I argue that in working towards 5ust oceane6istences oceans must be considered acti$e participants in marineen$ironmental disputes and policy-making that shape sel$es culture and the $alues of humans. This needs to occur through pluralistic democratic processes.

Their attempt to kno oceans plays ithin the logic o' esternrationalism that naively attempts to o"#ectively represent the ocean+

4ur un!erstan!ing o' oceans are alays historically an! sociallycontingentKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

eanings ascribed to oceans in 3estern traditions are di$erse and multi-layered.

ncient images coe6ist with more recent ones to form a comple6 picture drawn from among other things

ambi$alences and contradictions. +ceans are thought of as both formless matterand ali$e comple6 li$ing entities. They are represented as a demonic chaotic female force thatmust be quelled and con$ersely as an archetype for the sublime the ultimate other# thatcannot be quelled. ;erman el$ille in the passages quoted from oby <ick abo$e en$isions oceans as

enigmatic benign treacherous unyielding and merciless. 9rom other perspecti$es oceans are or ha$e

been regarded as common property pri$ate property highly regulated a locale of unlimited resources for

e6ploitation a barren waste an unci$ilised domain and an inherently $aluable independent sphere intheir own right. +ceans are used as a metaphor for death or the great $oid to come but also for rebirth and regeneration.

They are the primal mother the last frontier and ultimate wilderness. +ceans are thepro$inces of male work ad$enture sentiment stoicism and chau$inism physical and spiritualliberation. +ceans are also a symbol for the unconscious which our conscious sel$es ignore at our own peril.

ll of our understandings about oceans7all our scientific facts religious beliefs myths laws and

feelings7are the composition of a highly comple6 interaction between humanminds bodies and oceans. ?et the i!eas e 'orm a"out the oceans are!i''erent 'rom the ocean itsel' an! in this language plays a pivotalrole. Norty for e6ample writes: 3e need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that truth is out there. To say

that the world is out there that is not our creation is to say with common sense that most things in space and time arethe effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply

to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth that sentences are elementsof human languages and that human languages are human creations. (1=B= ?-8!

That is to say there is certainly a nature that e6ists independently of humans yet any

accounts we make of nature cannot be separated from their human origins ('roctor

0221!. 3hen we speak of nature we rely on *human modes of perception in$oking human culturalapparatus in$ol$ing human needs and desires7in short when we speak of nature we speak of culture as well ('roctor

0221 00=!. 3e ne$er speak of the ocean itself.



The understanding that necessarily flows from our inability to distinguish between the reality of nature and itsrepresentation is that human capacity to know things about oceans is limited. ;araway lends support to Norty#s $iew

when she says about the human condition: there is no Go!’s eye vie* only partialperspectives (1==1a!.

+r again in 4astree#s words *F wGhat counts as the truth about nature $aries depending on theperspecti$e of the analyst (0221 =!. y point is that all perspecti$es of oceans are only e$er partial truths

about oceans: the ocean in itself is always more than we can say.;umans form oceans in at least two ways: first they are shaped and transformed materially by certain practices such aso$er-fishing and climate change leading to rising sea le$els. econd they are e6perienced through discourses andrepresentations. I suggest that interactions between these two modes are usually both present in any instance where

humans are in$ol$ed in forming oceans. oreo$er to the e$tent that humans 'orm oceans

they are the result o' historically speci'ic economic* political* social* an!se$ual relations o' pro!uction+ The way in which these relations play out will ine$itably gi$e rise to a di$ersity of outcomes and therefore oceans aresub5ect to a multitude of contested meanings.In this dissertation my main $ehicle for discussing the social construction of oceans is through a focus on discourses and

representations of oceans more so than the material construction of oceans. I argue that in theorising about oceans it isimportant not to assume that *what is percei$ed as natural is self-e$ident and e6istse6ternal to the domain of power and politics (Jraun Z 3ainwright 0221 ?0 emphasis in original!. Nather

meanings attributed to oceans should be understood within the historicalmaterial socio-economic and culturally specific conte6ts in which they arecreated.ocial construction perspecti$es can be thought of as *a reaction against and critique of those naturalistic e6planationsthat sought to e6plain societal e$olution and reproduction as a continuation of natural processes (mith 0221 11S!.9eminist and ecological feminists ha$e been instrumental in pro$iding constructionist critiques of the categories woman#and nature# demonstrating that there is considerable di$ersity within these categories and that the categories themsel$es

are perpetually unstable (andilands 1===!. ocial construction perspecti$es of the non- human natural

world offer *a way of seeing that functions as a guide to understanding the natural world that does not make e6act predictions (carce 0222 12! but rather demonstrate how themeaning of nature changes in different periods and cultures.

The emphasis by social constructionists on the historical material socio-economic and cultural factors

challenges any claims of pure ob5ecti$ity in accounts of oceans . ocial constructionists

obser$e for e6ample that scientific in$estigations cannot be separated from the social andcultural biases and political interests of the scientists and scientific discourses(Jleier 1=B?C Jocking 022?!. ocial constructionist critiques of con$entional claims about the non-human natural world

(such as the notion of ocean-as-resource# which is ubiquitous in a range of 3estern discourses! point out that thenatural world is often defined to ser$e specific social interests (oper 1==8!.



6NC @iolence ,mpact

Western epistemologies are totali.ing an! violentNicholson 8 & J.. The 4ollege of 4harleston] .. Indiana )ni$ersity] 'h.<. <uke )ni$ersity (Jrantley *piritual+rgani"ation and @pistemic Nupture: [uesting for Vion in Noberto JolaLo#s The a$age <etecti$es] * $olume B.1 Z B.0 spring Z fall 022Bhttps://www.academia.edu/SB=B1/piritualA+rgani"ationAandA@pistemicANuptureA[uestingAforAVionAinANobertoAJolanosATheAa

$ageA<etecti$es//N%!

Neflection upon the modernist pro5ect of the categori"ation of knowledge and the

seculari"ation of culture has caused an e6istential crisis for contemporary intellectuals. The modernapproach to knowledge demonstrates a polemical e6istence in attempting tocritically approach culture while at the same time maintaining a conscientiousness of the shortcomings of epistemic

organi"ation signaling a light nostalgia for an approach to culture that precedes thetotali"ing epistemology that odernity implies. s intellectuals reflect upon the $iolent ad$ent of theirrespecti$e fields they show a latent desire to return to a mythological pre-modern idyllic space through the intellectual critique ofodernity. t the same time howe$er intellectuals tend to recogni"e the benefits of odernity and the impossibility of returning to a pre-

odern social organi"ation. The resulting e6istential crisis causes intellectuals to look 'orne options outsi!e o' the violent epistemic totali.ation waged by secular pro5ects.

%ike Jen5amin#s ngel of ;istory being blindly pro5ected through linear time

current intellectuals know that theyare mo$ing they 5ust do not yet know where they are going. =otion is the keyhoever+ =otion opens up the altern space necessary to pro#ect the'antasy o' hope a hope that flirts with pre-bourgeois spirituality whileremaining a product of secular 4apitalist society a search that becomessomewhat spiritual in itself . 3e obser$e this e6istential search down the alleyways of knowledge teetering on the brinkof the transcendental through the ,isceral Nealists an a$ant-garde group that appears in Noberto JolaLo#s groundbreaking no$el Thea$age <etecti$es offering us a cross-section of the contradictory and problematic ontology of contemporary intellectual life and in doing

so showing hints of cathartic re5oinders.To approach knowledge in the 3estern/odern sense of the word is toapproach a comple6 colonial systemati"ation of plural e6istence. 3hen I sayplural e6istence I do not mean that the totali"ing epistemology of the 3est is plural in

itself but that it singulari.es the plural. It is to say that Western>=o!ern knole!geco!i'ies plurality singularly or through the singularity of locution an! !oes not necessarily give agency to the cultures>knole!ges totali.e! ithin its systematicorgani.ation. %et us take the panish conquest as an e6ample of the sub5ugation of autochthonous agency in the name of atotali"ing episteme. common trend in the disregard of local knowledge in the name of a grander metanarrati$e within the Dew 3orld can

be traced from 4olumbus#s arri$al through the present day. 3ith the arri$al of 4olumbus the panish 5ustified the sub5ugation of theautochthonous populations through the metanarrati$e of the sal$ation of souls. This narrati$e was of course superficial as 4olumbusmerely used religiosity as a means of marketing the continuation of his e6ploration of the Dew 3orld which in turn paid di$idends inresources such as gold and sil$er that were e6otic to @uropeans and as a result were $alued commodities. This fact accompanied by theinitial impetus of 4olumbus#s $oyage the e6ploration of new trade routes to the Indies signals that e$en the pre-4apitalist $oyages funded

by 9erdinand and Isabelle showed signs of foundational tlantic mercantile dominance. dditionally the sub5ugation ofautochthonous knowledges and religions as a means of 5ustifying the furthere6ploitation of the Dew 3orld resources shows that in this no$el historicalmoment of the conquest of mind body and soul the ine6tricable link between

economic epistemic and spiritual dominance arises.Jut the panish conquest of the Dew 3orld precedes the seculari"ation of knowledge that occurs through the rise of a] @uropean middleclass democratic re$olutions and the rationali"ation of society. In other words the e6ample of panish colonialism does not adequatelydescribe the odern coloniality of knowledge because in effect it precedes odernity. It is during the 1Bth century that the metanarrati$eof reason and the creation of the nation-state displaces the metanarrati$e of the sal$ation of souls. ;omocentric and democratic

@uropean/Dorth merican society purports the rationali"ation of knowledge based onthe inheritance of odern @uropean philosophy as their founding narrati$e thus

painting the spiritual or the non)eurorational as ontologically in'erior in allaspects+ Donetheless enlightened society continues to be economically dependent on trade with the colonies showing the

continuation of the pre-modern panish colonial pro5ect on at least one le$el. @$en in dam mith#s %eyenda Degra ridden account of

https://www.academia.edu/738981/Spiritual_Organization_and_Epistemic_Rupture_Questing_for_Zion_in_Roberto_Bolanos_The_Savage_Detectives






pain#s imperial failure mith describes @ngland#s dependency on the colonies as a means of maintaining an economic ad$antage o$erother @uropean nations. s Dorthern @urope namely 9rance and @ngland displaces the panish religious-based conquest with their own

reason-centered culturally-based conquest they essentially do little more than displacethe discourse of the sal$ation of souls with the discourse of ci$ili"ation while at the

same time maintaining the same colonial dynamic under the guise of a new name . TheDorthern @uropean approach then falls $ictim to its own critique due to the fact that the rationality that oderns use as a measuring stickto classify and organi"e society and e6istence in the process of turning ontology into a commodity of knowledge within the uni$ersalacademic system repeats the centrality of religion in the panish conquest. 4hrist is simply replaced by &ant and <escartes and sal$ation is

replaced by the eurorationality that pretends to be an ob5ecti$e ahistorical entity thatgrants itself the right to codify and organi"e the world.]

A estern epistemology is intrinsically violent it is "ase! on poer*control an! shutting !on other 'orms o' knole!ge+Grimsru! ;B E (*The ocial @thics of ohn ;oward Yoder 'eace Theology 022!//http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/1>-pacifism-and-knowing-5ohn-howard-yoders-epistemology/

%et us define epistemology as *that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of

knowledge its possibility scope and general basis.F>G In line with this understanding we may saythat when Yoder speaks of pacifism as an epistemology he asserts that a pacifist commitment actually shapes how a person knows. pacifist sees the world in a certain way understands in a certain way. The commitment to non$iolence is a life-shaping mind-shaping kindof con$iction7a con$iction that shapes all other con$ictions. Yoder refers to Handhi and artin %uther &ing r. in asserting that pacifism

is more than simply *a position in political ethics. *The renunciation of $iolence_is_an epistemology .That is pacifism is a way of knowing that has at its center the decisi$e commitment to offer *good news for the other.FSG Handhi and &ing

both shaped their pragmatic strategies in line with their underlying core philosophical commitment to non$iolence. In aligning himself with

Handhi and &ing in this way Yoder commits himself to a process of knowing and understanding that isunwilling to rely on power o$er others. This is a ma5or mo$e away from theepistemology o' estern philosophy that is essentially at its core coercive Cone *knows on the basis of logically compelling 5ustifications irresistiblyfollowing from certain absolutes or foundations. +ne has no *choiceC one mustassent to such knowledge. Yoder re5ects seeking a truth system that is based on a sense of possession. Instead of seeking*a truth system with which to defend oursel$es as those who possess it he argues for an approach that accepts relati$e powerlessness o$er

against others.FBG In this way as with the rest of his ethics he draws his cues from his understanding of esus. +ne of the most rele$antelements of esus# way for Yoder#s pacifist epistemology is esus# $ulnerability e$en to the point of his crucifi6ion. In his $ulnerability esusmodeled a willingness to respect others# freedom either to accept or re5ect his message. Yoder contrasts this $ulnerability with the quest forin$ulnerability he sees in foundationalist appeals to *truths that must be accepted. *The foundational appeal remains a mental power play

to a$oid my being dependent on your $oluntary assent to bypass my becoming $ulnerable to your world in your otherness.F=G bigproblem with the way people in the 3est ha$e approached knowledge is that it is based upon a desire to be *on top to be in power. If we oursel$es do not happen to be in power we still tend toimagine being in power. ;ow would I think if I were the one in chargeQ ;owe$er being in such a position or wanting to be in such aposition is in Yoder#s $iew the opposite of being in a position to know accurately. ;e wrote *being on top of the heap consistently keeps

one from seeing things as they are. @$en wanting to be there has that effect.F12G 9or Yoder there is a direct connection between the fact that thinkers within the 3estern epistemological tradition areopen to the use of $iolence and that they ha$e difficulty accurately percei$ing thenature of reality. To say that pacifism is an epistemology is to say that there are elements of a pacifism commitment that

actually ser$e to foster better more accurate knowing. +ne of the ways that

pacifism can foster knowing is thatdoes not understand the quest for truth to be a "ero-sum scarcity-orientedcompetiti$e process. Nather our understanding of truth depends upon our listening to others e$en our ad$ersaries. 9or

Yoder as for Handhi knowing requires non$iolent ways of relating to others all others. ;e wrote *the reason one renounces $iolence insocial conflict is that the ad$ersary is part of my truth-finding process. I need to act non$iolently in order to get the ad$ersary to hear me

but I need as well to hear the ad$ersary.F11G

http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/16-pacifism-and-knowing-john-howard-yoders-epistemology/

http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/16-pacifism-and-knowing-john-howard-yoders-epistemology/



6NC Whiteness ,mpact

A purely estern approach to knole!ge normali.es the invisi"le yetoppressive regime o' hiteness+

=oreton)o"inson ’;- & <r ileen oreton-Nobinson is a Heonpul woman from [uandamooka (oreton Jay[ueensland!. he is 4on$enor in Indigenous tudies at the chool of ;umanities Hriffith )ni$ersity. he has been in$ol$ed in the strugglefor Indigenous rights at local state and national le$els and has worked for a number of Indigenous organisations. ;er writing has beenpublished in ustralian and international anthologies and 5ournals. (ileen *3hitening race: @ssays in social and cultural criticism

boriginal tudies 'ress pg. S8-S>!//Noetlin

Irene 3atson#s questions in$ite us to think about the limits of knowing and the epistemology of those who profess to know . borigines ha$e often been represented as sub5ects as knowers#. s 3atson acknowledges it isacademics who represent themsel$es as knowers# whose work and training is toknow#. They ha$e produced knowledge about Indigenous people but their way ofknowing is ne$er thought of by white people as being radicali"ed despite whiteness being e6ercised epistemologically . 3hiteness establishes the limits of what can be known about the other through itself disappearing beyond or behind

the limits of this knowledge it creates in the other#s name . s aid (1=SB! has argued the 3est interpreted and made sense of the +rient producing knowledge andconstructing representations as signifiers of its reality . This is because in the 3est whiteness defines itself as the norm and is always glimpsed only negati$ely: it is what allows us to see the deficient and the abnormal without itself being seen#

(ontag 1==S:0=1!. In this way hiteness is constitutive o' the epistemology o' the West it is an invisi"le regime o' poer that secures hegemonythrough !iscourse an! has material e''ects in every!ay li'e. In this essay I

e6amine the relationship between knowledge representation and whiteness. Jyanaly"ing this relationship we can come to understand the silence normati$ityand in$isibility of whiteness and its power within the production of knowledgeand representation. I begin by considering how whiteness assumed the status of an epistemological a priori in the

de$elopment of knowledge in modernity by uni$ersali"ing humanness. Whiteness as an epistemological a priori provi!es 'or a ay o' knoing an! "eing that is pre!icate! onsuperiority* hich "ecomes normali.e! an! 'orms part o' one’staken)'or)grante! knole!ge. The e6istence of others who are considered less than human. Thede$elopment of a white person#s identity requires that they be defined againstother less than human# beings whose presence enables and reinforces theirsuperiority . aking a direct connection between the a priori of whiteness and colonisation in ustralia I e6amine the work of

white and Indigenous scholars in boriginal postcolonial studies



6NC E$clusion ,mpact

Western epistemologies 'rame social norms & the normative 'unctiono' race* gen!er* se$ an! other i!entities are en'orce! "y euro)

centrism+ The impact is inevita"le e$clusion+Daker* 8 (ichael )ni$ersity of Nochester Hraduate tudent chool of @ducation and ;uman <e$elopment *Teaching and%earning bout and Jeyond @urocentrism: 'roposal for the 4reation of an +ther chool arch 1> 022Bhttp://academia.edu/181>B8B/TeachingAandA%earningAboutAandAJeyondA@urocentrismAA'roposalAforAtheA4reationAofAanA+therAchool accessed S/1/1?!

The +ther chool would be oriented around an alternati$e framework for knowledge and understanding that we might call the decolonialparadigm since its central aim is to decoloni"e thinking and being in part through dialogue (not 5ust the study of cultures as ob5ects ofknowledge! with the di$ersity of ways of knowing and being that ha$e been de$alued and eclipsed in @urocentric education. The decolonialparadigm of education would focus on concepts of culture and power. 4ulture is not separate from politics and economics contrary to the

taken-for-granted disciplinary di$isions. *_.political and economic structures are not entities inthemsel$es but are imagined framed and enacted by indi$iduals formed in acertain type of sub5ecti$ityC a sub5ecti$ity that is also framed in the dominantstructure of knowledge (ignolo 0228 p. 110!. The cultural group (in the ).. -- nglo-merican! withthe most money and the most political power is also the dominant culturereproduced in the school curriculum. ost of us (particularly if we not white! recogni"e that aracial hierarchy e6ists and is maintained by the dominant cultural group (for e6ample

see ;untington 022?!. 4ultural di$ersity in *multicultural education is often more a wayto manage or contain difference while maintaining the racial hierarchy. ulticulturalismonly became an issue and concept in education during the unsettling >2s when ethnic groups labeled *racial minorities raised their $oicesdemanding that the promises of modernity be made a$ailable to them as well as to whites. Nacism is not simply the result of indi$idual

pre5udice and hateful e6pressions but the consequence of the relations of power that are historical and structural. The powerside of culture can be con$eniently neutrali"ed in the classroom as teachers andstudents learn about *di$ersity without e6amining how these differences ha$e been constructed how they are reproduced in the curriculum and how theseconstructions continue to ser$e the white power elite . In @nglish classes for e6ample *students read

works that mo$ingly depict personal struggles against discrimination without gaining any sense of how @nglish literature was used to teach

people their distance from the center of ci$ili"ation (3illinsky 1=B= p. !. ] ulticultural education needs to include the study of *how fi$ecenturies of studying classifying and ordering humanity within an imperial conte6t ga$e rise to peculiar and powerful ideas of race cultureand nation that were in effect conceptual instruments that the 3est used both to di$ide up and to educate the world (3illinsky 1=B= pp.0-!. Nace in other words is a *mental category of modernity ([ui5ano 0222 p. 8>! created along with @uropean coloni"ation of the

mericas and the emergence of capitalism in the tlantic commercial circuit in the si6teenth century. odernity/coloniality came together in the si6teenth century during the emergence of the tlanticcommercial circuit that propelled an incipient @uropean capitalism and chartedthe racial geopolitical map of the world . Nacial classification and the di$isions andcontrol of labor are historically intertwined E the two parts of colonial matri6 ofpower ([ui5ano 1===C [ui5ano Z 3allerstein 1==0!. Types of work incomes earned and geographical locationamong the world#s population today profoundly reflect this racial capitalisthierarchy and domination E the coloniality of power . 4oloniality of power has been since the si6teenthcentury and is still today an epistemic principle for classifying the non-@uropean world in relation to @urope on the principle of skin color

and brain capacity (i.e. race and rationality!. @thnicities (local community identities based on shared knowledge faith languagememories tastes etc.! ha$e been raciali"ed within this modern matri6 of power (ardar Dandy Z

3yn <a$ies1==!. ] ulticultural education therefore should be understood andconsequently taught within the colonial hori"on of modernity since the si6teenthcentury. Nacism is a symptom of the persistence of coloniality of power and thecolonial difference. ] +ne of the achie$ements of imperial reason was to affirm@uropean or white 4hristian male heterose6ual merican as a superioridentity by constructing inferior identities and e6pelling them to the outside of



the normati$e sphere of the real (ignolo 022>!. 4ultural differences then would be recogni"ed as part of thecolonial difference in the 822-year history of control and domination by the white @uropean heterose6ual 4hristian male through the

intersection of race religion gender class nationality and se6uality. The coloniality of power is a @uropeanimposed racial classification system that emerged 822 years ago and e6pandedalong with (is constituti$e of! the modern/colonial world capitalist-system. Naceclass gender and se6uality and religion intersect as hierarchical elements within

the modern/colonial capitalist system of classification and power relations.



6NC ,nter!epen!ence ,mpact

The ina"ility to recogni.e our inter!epen!ence ith the orl! aroun!us is groun!e! in a 'lae! anthropocentric lens that guaranteese$tinction

Ahkin 1; E (elanie hkin onash )ni$ersity 0212 *;uman 4entrism nimist aterialism and the 4ritique ofNationalism in ,al 'lumwood#s 4ritical @cological 9eminism @mergent ustralian 'hilosophers a peer re$iewed 5ournalof philosophy http://www.eap.philosophy-australia.com/archi$es.html!

These fi$e features pro$ide the basis for hegemonic centrism insofar as they promote certainconceptual and perceptual distortions of reality which uni$ersalise and naturalisethe standpoint of the superior relata as primary or centre and deny andsubordinate the standpoints of inferioris ed others as secondary or deri$ati$e. )sing standpoint theoryanalysis 'lumwoodXs reconceptualisation of human chau$inist frameworks locates and dissects these logical characteristics of dualism andthe conceptual and perceptual distortions of reality common to centric structures as follows.

Nadical e6clusion is found in the rationalist emphasis on differences between humansand non-human nature its $alourisation of a human rationality concei$ed as e6clusionary of nature and its minimisation of si milarities between the two realms.

;omogenisation and stereotyping occur especially in the rationalist denial of consciousness to nature and its denial of the di$ersity of mental characteristics found within its many different

constituents facilitating a perception of nature as homogeneous and of its members asinterchangeable and replaceable resources. This definition of nature in terms of its lack of human rationality and consciousness means that its identity

remains relati$e to that of the d ominant human group and its difference is marked as deficiency permitting its inferiorisation. Jackgrounding and denial may be obser$ed in the conception of

nature as e6traneous and inessential background to the foreground of human culture in the human denial of dependency on the natural en$ironment

and denial of the ethical and political constraints which the unrecognised ends and needs of non-human nature might otherwise place on human beha$iour. These features together create an ethical

discontinuity between humans and non-human nature which denies natureXs $alue and agency and thereby promote its instrumentalisation and e6ploitationfor the benefit of humans.11 .This dualistic logic helps to uni$ersalise the human centric standpoint making in$isible and seemingly ine$itable the conceptual andperceptual distortions of reality and oppression of non-human nature it en5oins. The alternati$e standpoints and perspecti$es of membersof the inferiorised class of nature are denied legitimacy and subordinated to that of the class of humans ultimately becoming in$isible oncethis master standpoint becomes part of the $ery structure of thought.10uch an anthropocentric framework creates a $ariety of serious in5ustices and prudential risks making it highly ecologically irrational.1The hierarchical $alue prescriptions and epistemic distortions responsible for i ts biased reducti$e conceptualisation of nature strips thenon-human natural realm of non-instrumental $alue and impedes the fair and impartial treatment of its members. imilarlyanthropocentrism creates distributi$e in5ustices by restricting ethical concern to humans admitting partisan distributi$e relationships withnon-human nature in the forms of commodification and instrumentalisation.

The prudential risks and blindspots created by anthropocentrism are problematic for natureand humans alike and are of especial concern within our current conte6t of radical humandependence on an irreplaceable and increasingly degraded natural en$ironment. These prudentialrisks are in large part consequences of the centric structureXs promotion of illusory human disembeddedness self-enclosure and insensiti$ity to the significanceand sur$i$al needs of non-human nature:The logic of centrism naturalises an illusory order in which the centre appears to itself to be disembedded and this is especially dangerousin conte6ts where there is real and radical dependency on an +ther who is simultaneously weakened by the application of that logic.1?

3ithin the conte6t of human-nature relationships such a logic must inevita"ly lea! to'ailure* either through the catastrophic e$tinction of our natural

en$ironment an! the conse(uent collapse o' our species or more hopefully by the

abandonment and transformation of the human centric framework.18

http://www.eap.philosophy-australia.com/archives.html






Links



3evelopment Link

The a''irmative’s vision o' neoli"eral !evelopment only serves tomaintain glo"al structural ine(uality an! e$ploit the ocean as a

resource to consume+ac(ues ; & 'rofessor of political science at 4entral 9lorida ('eter Globalization and the World Ocean p. ->!

Nespected ecological philosopher ndrew <obson pro$ides a helpful discussion of the accompanying asymmetry to this e6pansion when heconsiders how globali"ation has changed citi"enship. <obson uses 4astells for conte6t: In a global approach there has been o$er the past

three decades increasing inequality and polari"ation in the di stribution of wealth .... The poorest 02 percent of the worldXs people ha$e seen their share of global income decline from 0. percent to1.? percent .... eanwhile the share of the richest 02 percent has risen from S2 percentto B8 percent.W (4astells in <obson 022 I =!Thus globali"ation is not an e$en process of economic e6pansion and opportunity where e$eryone is connected and e$eryone becon1es anequal part of a wondrous network of global in$isible hands. Instead while there are some opportunities for poor countries and their ci$icgroups globali"ation mo$es mostly in one direction. Hlobal acti$ist ,andana hi$a elaborates that WThrough its global reach the Dorthe6ists in the outh but the outh e6ists only within itself since it has no global reachW (hi$a in <obson I S!. T his does not mean thatglobali"ation is inherently WbadW and locali"ation WgoodWC it means that historically globali"ation has occurred to the pri$ilege of some and

at the e6pense of others. Donsustainable trends are embedded in inequitable powerrelationshipsC thus glo"al material e(uity is necessary 'or cur"ingmal!istri"ution an! e$ploitation o' resources. <obson re5ects the more cosmopolitan belief that there is a reciprocal obligation of e$eryone to one another in fa$or of a distributionalresponsibility such as from Dorth to outh based on the materials produced and reproduced through asymmetrical globali"ation. This is amore sophisticated iteration of the material equity included in the Jorgese Test described below. I take <obsonXs (and hi$aX s! point thatglobali"ation enables this connecti$ity through and within ecological spaces and budgets and that sustainability requires benefits to beredistributed throughout transnational communities (<obson 022!. It is worthwhile to reflect on the question W;ow much has changed forthe ma5ority of poor countries in the last fifty years and in particular the last twenty years in the face of 3estern XhelpXQW and then to

simultaneously ask W 3hat is the direction of ecology in this same last 82 yearsQW inus a few

e6ceptions the promise and dream of Wde$elopmentW 0 for the global outh has actuallyW pro!uce! its opposite5 massive un!er!evelopment an!impoverishment * untol! e$ploitation an! oppression 9 (@scobar I==? ?! at the same

time ecology has seen 9structural9 !eclin e)that is* a !ecline o' the 'rame

an! 'oun!ation o' ocean ecology+ tructure is important economically and socially as well and implies thesame meaning of the larger frame and construction of a system where constituent agents and decisions are made but which do notfundamentally alter the larger design. s a political scientist I cannot count this situation as an accident but instead a purposeful resultthat can come about only through disproportionate and asymmetrical structural arrangements of power-but from whereQ

3hile localities cannot escape some responsibility poor localities ha$e unquestionably been marginali"ed and their ability to change their

situation has been fraught with obstructions that originate from the colonial period. uch of this poer has cone 'rom!evelopment !iscourses and pro5ects hich em"o!y the i!eals o' hatprogress shoul! "e through mo!ernityH and this has then framed the reality that poor countriesfind themsel$es in when needing stabili"ation loans or making trading arrangements (@scobar I ==8!. This follows the $arious ghosts ofmodernity now supported re-created and defended most by the ideology of W neoliberalism.W

%iberalism is the central 3estern political theory ideology and political economy preferring a leastrestricted market pluralistic competing political groups such as DH+s $arious strong ci$il freedoms for indi$idual citi"ens ( e.g. of speechreligion etc.! and a neutral tate which affords procedural equity (procedures of the state treat e$eryone the same e.g. in a courtroom! toall citi"ens and most agendas.

Deoliberalism is a reformed liberalism that places much more focus on the market aspect of liberalism and

much less focus on ci$il liberties. Deoliberal policies focus on pri$ati"ing formerly public enterprises andindustryC lowering social e6penditures of the state (particularly those which tend to redistribute wealth!C

reducing or eliminating tariffs toward other countriesC and creating a ta6 and physical infrastructure that fa$orsindustrial production and trickles down to lower classes to create economic growth and employment and reduce po$erty (9ri

edman I =>0!. Deoliberal policies are not concerned with creating a social safety net lea$ingthis up to a robust economic growth nor do they like regulatory en$ironmental policies which they prefer to lea$e up to the pricing ofgoods. This ideology is e6ported through trade and loan arrangements to other countries from the 3estern power elite such as 3orld Jankthe +@4< or indi$idually through the )nited tates Jritain and some other @uropean countries that ha$e ma5ority $oting power in the

3orld Jank and the International onetary 9und (I9!.Deoliberalism changed its focus from simple capital accumulation models to include the de$elopment of institutions. @$ans (022?! seesthese institutions imposed such as through international finance institutions which are nglomerican generated models. These



institutional designs are all the sameC he calls them Winstitutional monocroppingW where the Wbest response to bad go$ernance is less

go$ernanceW ( 8!. This arrangement is a fundamental problem with neo liberalism because itcreates fewer limits on e6ploitation of people and natural resources* and placesthe profit moti$e of firms in a pri$ileged position without any sense of citi"enship mentioned abo$e. Incontrast @$ans proposes along with scholars <ani Noderick and martya en that the building of institutions should center around moredirect and participatory deliberati$e democratic institutions where minority $oices ha$e more influence to stem e6ploitation.Ironically the nglo-merican set of institutions and countries ne$er strictly employed neoliberalism themsel$es. It is well known that statein$ol$ement and guarantees (to differing degrees! of some ci$il rights and social welfare ha$e been key elements in the building of stableindustriali"ed affluent countries (; ettne Inotai and unkel 0221!. The )nited tates and the @uropean )nion (@)! consistently use statesubsidies and protections such as for agriculture-the primary area in which industriali"ing countries ha$e a competiti$e ad$antage (&utting

022?!. 9or ocean politics the Dorthern subsidies of fishing fleets are a source ofo$erfishing and a prime e6ample of a non-neoliberal policy which is now being negotiated in the 3orld Trade +rgani"ation (3T+!.

Donetheless nglo-merican countries demand lightning-fast change towardfree markets and liberal democracy without some le$el of democratic guarantees and social welfare. @$idence

indicates that this can and has led to instability $iolence and ethnic genocide because these rapidchanges create unequal market and political controls among factious ri$al groups (4hua 022!. This is not occurring only at the nationalle$el.The Third 3orld cannot compete against Dorthern subsidies. This problem was symboli"ed by a outh &orean farmer %ee &young ;ae

who committed suicide outside the 022 3T+ meeting in 4ancun e6 ico as a protest to 3T+ rules that allow agricultural protectionsfrom the free market (,idal 022!. 'rotesters at this n1eeting numbered o$er ten thousand and hailed from more than thirty countriesC they presented some recurrent demands which W included protection from big business abandonment of genetically modified crops inde$eloping states and no pri$ati"ation of water forests and landW (,idal 022!.Dow the world economy is growing at about 8 percent per year-the fastest in almost thirry years (International onetary 9und 022?!. This

global economy is based on flows of energy material and capital. This flow is called throughput and is used to sustain (and impo$erish!groups within the population greater than si6 billion people. These energy flows start and end within natural systems. ore throughput

means more withdrawals and additions from and into natural systems. Therefore the basis for connectingeconomic globali"ation to ecological decline is that current globali"ation e6pandsthe scale and intensity of throughputC this kind of growth is $iewed as essential toprogress and de$elopment within neoliberalism.

The inherent disconnect between resource decline and global economice6pansion is hidden structurally by distancing or WdistanciationW (&utting 022?!. 4apitalism in general

but in particular petroleum-based capitalism creates e6pedited pathways for e6port and trade that become separated or

distanced from their local meaning so that WTime-space separation disconnects social acti$ity from its particular social

conte6tW (&utting 022? !. This is related to what ecological economists ha$e described in terms of ecological burdens remaining outside the pricing system as e6ternalities which ecology and

third parties e$entually pay . 4urrent globali"ation allows affluent populations toshift en$ironmental costs through a global economy and these populations arestructurally permitted to li$e off of the carrying capacity of others (&utting 022?C uradian

and artine"lier 022Ia 022IbC artine"-lier 1==8C Junker 1=B8!. 3hen one fishery is depleted the worldeconomy can mo$e on to the ne6t fishery structurally obscuring the problem because consumers are not dependent on local ecological budgets . 4hanges donot affect affluent consumers because these customers are not forced to careabout the first depleted fishery and in this way human)ocean relations have'un!amentally change! ith economic glo"ali.ation.



6NC 3evelopment Link

Their !evelopment !iscourse 'rames the ocean as an empty space aiting to "e manage! "y scienti'ic rationality* re#ecting this!iscourse is critical+2tein"erg 1 & Heography ̀ <urham ('hilip The ocial 4onstruction of the +cean p. 0-8!

Nepresentations of ocean-space: discourse The third pillar of the territorial political economy perspecti$e is representation the process by which social meaning (including the social meaning of spaces! is transmittedamong indi$iduals through literary creations $isual images and other media. The history that

follows makes frequent reference to representations in art law cartography literature public policy andad$ertising. @ach of these media is generated in a social conte6t and ser$es as a means by which ideas arecommunicated and diffused throughout the general public inscribed into the images and assumptionsthat guide the e$eryday thoughts and beha$iors of indi$iduals. The significance of representationlies in its role in the perpetuation and contestation of discourses Wframeworks ... FthatG

constitute the limits within which ideas and practices are considered to benaturalC that is FthatG set the "oun!s on hat (uestions are consi!ere!relevant or e$en intelligentW (Jarnes and <uncan 1==0: B!. obili"ed by policy makers discourses are used toestablish Wcommon-senseW parameters for problems and solutions (Noe 1==?!. C: 3hilediscourses are utili"ed by policy makers their reach is deeper than policy-making elites and their truth-claims are more resilient than thatof elite-generated ideologies. )nlike an ideology a discourse does not misrepresent the power relations underlying material reality. Nather

discourses enable reproduce and perhaps most importantly diffuse these relations throughout society. Dy repro!ucingthe hegemonic !iscourse ) something that in!ivi!uals !o unittinglyas they act* speak* an! think ithin e$isting social conventions*!e'initions* an! categories ) in!ivi!uals repro!uce their on!omination+ 4on$erselythe conscious creation of alternati$e discourses can play acentral role in the imagination promotion and implementation of strategies for

social change (9oucault 1=SSC arcuse 1=>=!. Jecause the sea so often is referred to in literary and artistic creations thereis a substantial literature on marine representation and its meaning within broader social discourse(see for instance 4onnery 1==>!. Interpretations of modernityXs obsession with the sea ha$e ranged from its being the embodiment of thedesire of Wodern anW to return to the womb to ;is desire to deny ;is corporeality to ;is search for new material conquests. To look atthese (and other! marine representations within their social conte6ts this book focuses on the emergence of marine representations within

three discourses: de$elopment geopolitics and law. The !iscourse o' !evelopment is "uiltaroun! an a"solute !e'inition o' progress* an assumption that the more de$eloped can lead the

less de$eloped along this path to progress and the belief that this progress can be achie$ed byapplying scientific rationality to de$elopment WproblemsW (achs 1==0C 3atts 1==!. The!evelopment !iscourse is roote! in Enlightenment concepts o'science an! reason : The world is knowable and indi$iduals can shape it toser$e themsel$es if only they utili"e science to find the proper formula . It follows that both

society and space are amenable to de$elopment. pace is percei$ed as an abstract field in whichindi$iduals can embed and redistribute social relations and structures in anattempt to better their li$es. Jy establishing a grid (graphically e6pressed in the system of latitude and longitude lines!the location of e$ery space in relation to e$ery other space is made generali"able a key prerequisite for scientific inquiry and the formation

of scientific laws. n abstract element susceptible to manipulation (or to use ackXs terminology WemptyingW and WfillingW! space isrepresented as a can$as on which planners and engineers may test and applytheir insights and work toward human progress (;ar$ey 1=B=C %efeb$re 1==1C mith 1==2!. The modernconstruction of ocean-space is in some senses the antithesis of this land-space territorial construction. The sea largely has been constructedas a Wnon-territoryW an untamable space that resists WfillingW or Wde$elopment.W nd yet this construction of oceanspace as a Wnon-territoryWor WotherW in which rational planning cannot pre$ail also lies within the de$elopment discourse of scientific rationality and space-orientedplanning. This discursi$e construction is possible only as a counterpoint to the paradigmatic modern construction of land-space as



amenable to rational planning and as aid (1==! notes antithetical counterpoints play a crucial role in producing discourses. seconddiscourse frequently informing (and being reproduced by! the construction of ocean-space is the discourse of geopolitics by whichWintellectuals of statecraft Xspatiali"eX international politics in such a way as to present it as a XworldX characteri"ed by particular placespeoples and dramasW (> Tuathail and gnew 1==0: 1=0C see also > Tuathail 1==>n the modern eraXs geopolitical discourse as in the eraXsde$elopment discourse ocean-space typically is represented as a WspecialW space that lacks the paradigmatic attributes of WregularW space.9or the de$elopment discourse the key spatial unit is the manageable block of land that can be WfilledW and Wde$elopedW and the oceantherefore is unique and an WotherW because it i s Wunde$elopable.( 9or the geopolitical discourse the key unit is the territorially defined state

that interacts with the worldXs other states. s space outside state territory the ocean is constructed within the

geopolitical discourse as an empty Wforce-fieldW within which and across whichstates e6ercise their relati$e power o$er their competitors. This geopolitical counterpoint

like that of the de$elopment discourse lies firmly within dominant ways of thinking:It reproduces the representation of space as a landscape of (de$elopable andgo$ernable! terrestrial nation-states separated by an (unde$elopable andanarchic! marine $oid. third discourse referred to here is that of law. %egal discourse theorists challenge the acceptedperception of law as an autonomous set of rules and reasoning systems lying outside the structures and power relations of social life: %egalcritics ... insist that law ... is not only deeply embedded in the messy and politici"ed contingencies of social life but FisG actually constituti$eof social and political relations. (Jlomley 1==?: S- B! %ike the other discourses discussed here the legal discourse does more than

operationali"e and legitimi"e social relations. 3hen one appeals to the legal discourse onerepresents relations in a particular manner that ser$es to Wnaturali"eW materialreality as well as the autonomy of a seemingly distinct sphere of legal reasoning. 4ritical legal geographers demonstrate how this scripting of social relations within a legal discourse ser$es to define places theirhierarchical order and the scale and boundaries of social organi"ation. The legal discourse historically has ser$ed both to reflect andconstruct social conceptions of space. Ideas about property and the relati$e mobility of pri$ately held goods within the realm of oneso$ereign and among the realms of multiple so$ereigns are at the foundation of legal thinking.qhe legal discourse plays a crucial role inreproducing the ideal of mutually e6clusi$e so$ereign nation-state territories that taken as a whole and mapped ne6t to each other seriallyacross the surface of the earth represent the rule of law and the space of society. s with the other discourses the legal discourse impliesthat the sea is a W lawlessW antithetical WotherW lying outside the rational organi"ation of the world an e6ternal space to be feared usedcrossed or conquered but not a space of society.



E$ploration Link

The e$ploration* an! su"se(uent !estruction* o' the ocean is 'oun!e!on a min!>"o!y !ualism that seeks masculinist knole!ge an!

control over nature Alamio 11 (tacy <epartment of @nglish )T rlington Dordic ournal of 9eminist and Hender Nesearch 12/1 *Dewaterialisms +ld ;umanisms or 9ollowing the ubmersible http://www.uta.edu/english/alaimo/pdfs/D+N029ollow02the02ubmersible-1.pdf !

The early tenty)'irst century has ushere! in a ne era o' !eep)seae$ploration* marine science* in!ustrial 'ishing* mining* !rilling* an!*conse(uently* ecological !evastation. 9eminists en$ironmentalists and new materialists of all sorts must follow these $entures in order to witness not only the da""ling newly

disco$ered creatures of the abyssal "one1 but also the outdated yet obdurate narrati$es pro5ected intothe depths. Nobert <. Jallard former <irector of the 4enter for arine @6ploration at 3oods ;ole +ceanographic Institution(assachusetts )! concludes his personal history of ocean e6ploration with a section entitled *%ea$ing the Jody Jehind describing the

drawbacks of human-occupied di$ing machines and submersibles. Tethers he writes *remain a problem: They

snap they tangle they restrict (Jallard 0222: 12!. Jallard muses that robotics and telecommunications

technologies will allow us to . . .

cut the ultimate tether7the one that binds our questioning intellect to $ulnerablehuman flesh. Through telepresence a mind detaches itself from the body#s restrictions andenters the abyss with ease . . . s acques 4ousteau used to say the ideal means of deep-sea transport would allow us tomo$e *like an angel. +ur minds can now go it alone lea$ing the body behind. 3hat could be more angelicthan thatQ (Jallard 0222: 11!

material feminist critique would point out the gender dichotomies lurking in Jallard#s mind/body dualism and e6amine how the wish to be free of the $ulnerable (mother#s! body betrays an epistemology thatdistances and supposedly protects the masculine transcendent knower from the realities complications and

risks of the material world. The fantasy of masculinist knowledge of control o$er

the depths of the ocean relies upon the pro5ection of corporeality onto the womb-likesubmersibles with their umbilical-cord tethers. 4on$ersely the more ad$anced robotics and telecommunications

technologies are cast as pure intellect a masculine melding of mind and machinethat weirdly erases the eyes and hands7not to mention the hearts lungs and other bodily organs7that thesetechnologies will still require. ( feminist cyborg submersible7a heretical mi6 of body mind technology and prosthesis7is unimaginable

within Jallard#s conceptual uni$erse.! This small but symptomatic e6ample suggests why the reconceptuali"ation of materiality remainscrucial for feminist theory since female bodies continue to be cast as the dumb matter that male intellect seeks to escape. oreo$er theintersecting categories of race and class ha$e also been constituted by their pernicious associations with brute matter.

Jallard#s desire to se$er himself from the $ery world he would seek to know alsosuggests why new materialist theories should not di$ide human corporeality froma wider material world but shoul! instea! su"merse the human ithinthe material 'los* e$changes* an! interactions o' su"stances*ha"itats* places* an! environments+ s new materialisms proliferate some bear an uncannyresemblance to (old! ;umanisms in that they ignore the li$ely agential $ast material world and the multitude of other-than-human

creatures who inhabit it. ome of the essays within <iana 4oole and amantha 9rost#s fascinating collection Dew aterialisms: +ntology gency and 'olitics for e6ample 'ocus on the materiality o' human li'e) orl!s*ignoring non)human animals an! ecosystems. eanwhile 4ary 3olfe#s momentous andpro$ocati$e book 3hat is 'osthumanismQ pays scant attention to gender theory feminist corporeal theory or feminist science studies e$enthough all three are rele$ant to the questions he poses. There is certainly not enough space here to detail the intersections alliances andproducti$e interrelations between new materialisms feminisms post-humanisms and science studies0 but I would like to propose thatmaterialisms transgress the outline of the human and consider the forces substances agencies and li$ely beings that populate the world.

'ost-humanist new materialisms I contend are poised to topple the assumptionsthat confine ethical and political considerations to the domain of the ;uman while feminist theories of many sorts offer decades of scholarly contestations of

http://www.uta.edu/english/alaimo/pdfs/NORA%20Follow%20the%20Submersible-1.pdf







the $ery ethics epistemologies and ontologies that ha$e underwritten ;umane6ceptionalism.



6NC E$ploration Link

E$ploration o' the ocean is intimately tie! to a !estructive

relationship to ocean creatures that has alrea!y ren!ere! a myria! o'ocean creatures e$tinct+ @isi"ility ren!ers ocean creatures as o"#ectsun!er our control+

Alaimo 1B E professor at the )ni$ersity of Te6as asterXs in @nglish from )ni$ersity of 3isconsin-adison and my 'h< in@nglish along with a graduate certificate in interdisciplinary critical theory from )ni$ersity of Illinois 4hampaign-)rbana (tacy*4omposing Jlue @cologies: <eep ea 4reatures and the 4all of the esthetic!

In the wrenching conclusion to 4ary 3olfe#s Jefore the %aw: ;umans and nimals in a Jiopolitical 9rame he admits that *allcannot be welcomed nor all at once. The necessity to choose which life forms we will embrace will mean that *in the future we will ha$e been wrong (12!. Theethical biopolitical imperati$es here in this compressed elegy for all those we will undoubtedly ha$e neglected to

welcome bears a strange relation to the 'ate o' myria! ocean creatures hoare "eing ren!ere! e$tinct before they ha$e e$en been recogni"ed as ha$ing

e6isted + s the human plunder of the seas far outpaces knowledge about the creatures who

inhabit(ed! them we will ne$er e$en know in how many ways we will ha$e been wrong. The impossible Juddhist $ow to sa$e all sentient beings despite how innumerable they may be also suggests an ethics in which theprincipled stance is not quashed by a recognition of unattainability. The staggering magnitude of the number of creatures within a

biopolitical or Juddhist frame gestures toward the possibility that pondering sheer numerical scale may pro$oke ethical considerationsrather than predictable fantasies or mechanisms of control. t least since the work of ichel 9oucault the concept of a census the practiceof counting and categori"ing people which would of course be related to other mechanisms of sur$eillance e$okes systems of domination

and control. t the turn of the 01st century as the cameras of science and industry descend toheretofore unthinkable depths digitally capturing images of ne$er before seencreatures it is useful to remem"er that 0visi"ility is a trap (9oucault!. nd yet* it is notpossi"le 'or anthropocene humans to imagine that e can #ust leaveeven the !eepest o' the seas ell enough alone . @$en if we were to createmore marine protected areas in the global seas the political will to do so would

actually depend upon the sort of data and images that highly public *big sciencecan pro$ide.



A!vantage Links



A(uaculture Link

A(uaculture severs human)ocean relations an! e$acer"ates thepro"lem)it is su"#ect to the estern pro'it)!riven orl!Clark an! Clausen 8 (Jrett 4lark and Nebecca 4lausen *the oceanic crisis: 4apitalism andthe degradation of marine ecosystem onthly Ne$iewhttp://monthlyre$iew.org/022B/2S/21/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem!//%

The immense problems associated with the o$erhar$est of industrial capture fisheries has led some optimistically to offer aquaculture as an

ecological solution. ;owe$er capitalist aquaculture fails to re$erse the process of ecologicaldegradation. Nather it continues to se$er the social and ecological relations between humans and the ocean. The massi$e decline in fish stocks has ledcapitalist de$elopment to turn to a new way of increasing profits7intensifiedproduction of fishes. 4apitalist aquaculture represents not only a quantitati$e change in the intensification

and concentration of productionC it also places organisms# life cycles under the complete control of pri$ate for-profit ownership.1 This new industry it is claimed is *the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world.

It boasts of ha$ing ownership from *egg to plate and substantially alters the ecological and humandimensions of a fishery.0 quaculture (sometimes also referred to as aquabusiness! in$ol$essub5ecting nature to the logic of capital. 4apital attempts to o$ercome natural and social barriers through itsconstant inno$ations. In this enterprises attempt to commodify in$est in and de$elop new elements of nature that pre$iously e6istedoutside the political-economic competiti$e sphere: s @dward 4arr wrote in the @conomist the sea *is a resource that must be preser$edand har$ested_.To enhance its uses the water must become e$er more like the land with owners laws and limits. 9ishermen must beha$emore like ranchers than hunters. s worldwide commercial fish stocks decline due to o$erhar$est and other anthropogenic causesaquaculture is witnessing a rapid e6pansion in the global economy. quaculture#s contribution to global supplies of fish increased from .=percent of total worldwide production by weight in 1=S2 to 0S. percent in 0222. In 022? aquaculture and capture fisheries produced 12>million tons of fish and *aquaculture accounted for ? percent.? ccording to 9ood and griculture +rgani"ation statistics aquaculture is

growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. ;ailed as the *Jlue Ne$olutionaquaculture is frequently compared to agriculture#s Hreen Ne$olution as a way toachie$e food security and economic growth among the poor and in the third world. The culti$ation of farmedsalmon as a high-$alue carni$orous species destined for market in core nations has emerged as one of the more lucrati$e (and

contro$ersial! endea$ors in aquaculture production.8 uch like the Hreen Ne$olution the Jlue Ne$olution mayproduce temporary increases in yields but it does not usher in a solution to foodsecurity (or en$ironmental problems!. 9ood security is tied to issues of distribution. Hi$en that theJlue Ne$olution is dri$en by the pursuit of profit the desire for monetary gaintrumps the distribution of food to those in need.> Industrial aquaculture intensifies fish production by transforming the natural life histories of wild fish stocks into a combined animal feedlot. %ike monoculture agriculture aquaculture furthersthe capitalistic di$ision of nature only its realm of operation is the marine world. In order to ma6imi"e return on in$estment aquaculturemust raise thousands of fish in a confined net-pen. 9ish are separated from the natural en$ironment and the $arious relations of e6changefound in a food web and ecosystem. The fish#s reproducti$e life cycle is altered so that it can be propagated and raised until the optimum

time for mechanical har$est. quaculture interrupts the most fundamental metabolic process7the ability of an organism to obtain its required nutrient uptake. Jecause the mostprofitable farmed fish are carni$orous such as tlantic salmon they depend on a diet that is high in fishmeal and fish oil. 9or e6ampleraising tlantic salmon requires four pounds of fishmeal to produce e$ery one pound of salmon. 4onsequently aquaculture production

depends hea$ily on fishmeal imported from outh merica to feed the farmed carni$orous species.S The inherent

contradiction in e6tracting fishmeal is that industries must increase theire6ploitation of marine fish in order to feed the farm-raised fish7therebyincreasing the pressure on wild stocks to an e$en larger e6tent . uch operations also increasethe amount of bycatch. Three of the world#s fi$e largest fisheries are now e6clusi$ely har$esting pelagic fish for fishmeal and these fisheries

account for a quarter of the total global catch. Nather than diminishing the demands placed onmarine ecosystems capitalist aquaculture actually increases them acceleratingthe fishing down the food chain process. The en$ironmental degradation ofpopulations of marine species ecosystems and tropic le$els continues.B 4apitalistaquaculture7which is really aquabusiness7represents a parallel e6ample of capital following the patterns of agribusiness. imilar to



combined animal feedlots farmed fish are penned up in high-density cages making themsusceptible to disease. Thus like in the production of beef pork and chicken farmed fish are fedfishmeal that contains antibiotics increasing concerns about antibiotic e6posure in society. In *ilent pring of theea <on taniford e6plains *The use of antibiotics in salmon farming has been pre$alent right from the beginning and their use inaquaculture globally has grown to such an e6tent that resistance is now threatening human health as well as other marine species.

quaculturists use a $ariety of chemicals to kill parasites such as sea lice and diseases that spread quickly throughout the pens. The

dangers and to6icities of these pesticides in the marine en$ironment are magnified because of the long food chain.= +nce subsumed into the capitalist process lifecycles of animals are increasingly geared to economic cycles of e6change bydecreasing the amount of time required for growth. quabusiness conforms to these pressures asresearchers are attempting to shorten the growth time required for fish to reach market si"e. Necombinant bo$ine growth hormone (rJH;!has been added to some fish feeds to stimulate growth in fishes in aquaculture farms in ;awaii. @6periments with fish transgenics7thetransfer of <D from one species to another7are being done to increase the rate of weight gain causing altered fish to grow from >2

percent to >22 percent larger than wild stocks.?2 These growth mechanisms illustrate capitalistaquaculture#s dri$e to transform nature to facilitate the generation of profit. Inaddition aquaculture alters waste assimilation. The introduction of net-pens leads to a break in the natural assimilation of waste in themarine en$ironment. The pens con$ert coastal ecosystems such as bays inlets and f5ords into aquaculture ponds destroying nursery areasthat support ocean fisheries. 9or instance salmon net-pens allow fish feces and uneaten feed to flow directly into coastal waters resulting insubstantial discharges of nutrients. The e6cess nutrients are to6ic to the marine communities that occupy the ocean floor beneath the net-pens causing massi$e die offs of entire benthic populations.?1 +ther waste products are concentrated around net-pens as well such as

diseases and parasites introduced by the caged salmon to the surrounding marine organisms. The Jlue Ne$olution is not

an en$ironmental solution to declining fish stocks. In fact it is an intensificationof the social metabolic order that creates ruptures in marine ecosystems . *The coastaland marine support areas needed for resource inputs and waste assimilation FisG_82222 times the culti$ation area for intensi$e salmon

cage farming.?0 This form of aquaculture places e$en more demands upon ecosystemsundermining their resiliency . lthough aquabusiness is efficient at turning fish into a commodity for markets gi$en thee6tensi$e control that is e6ecuted o$er the producti$e conditions it is e$en more energy inefficient than fisheries demanding more fuelenergy in$estment than the energy produced.? 4onfronted by declines in fish stock capital is attempting to shift production toaquaculture. ;owe$er this intense form of production for profit continues to e6haust the oceans and produce a concentration of waste thatcauses further problems for ecosystems undermining their ability to regenerate at all le$els. Turning the +cean into a 3atery Hra$e The

world is at a crossroads in regard to the ecological crisis. @cological degradation under global capitalisme6tends to the entire biosphere. +ceans that were teeming with abundance are being decimated by the continual

intrusion of e6ploiti$e economic operations. t the same time that scientists are documenting thecomple6ity and interdependency of marine species we are witnessing an oceanic

crisis as natural conditions ecological processes and nutrient cycles are beingundermined through o$erfishing and transformed due to global warming. Thee6pansion of the accumulation system along with technological ad$ances in fishing ha$e intensified the e6ploitation of the world oceanCfacilitated the enormous capture of fishes (both target and bycatch!C e6tended the spatial reach of fishing operationsC broadened the species

deemed $aluable on the marketC and disrupted metabolic and reproducti$e processes of the ocean. The quick-fi6 solutionof aquaculture enhances capital#s control o$er production without resol$ingecological contradictions.

We shoul! interact ith the ocean using a nature)society!ialectic hen e$ploiting the ocean’s resources "y !raing onthe environmental sociology an! the historical materialist

tra!itionClausen an! Clark I )ni$ersity of t. 9rancis] )ni$ersity of outhwestern %ouisianaD< 'h< ociology)ni$ersity of +regon (Nebecca and Jrett +rgani"ation Z @n$ironment *T;@ @TJ+%I4 NI9T D< NID@@4+%+HY: n nalysis of the +cean 4risis 3ithin 4apitalist 'roduction ] *<ec 0228 ] proquest ,ol. 1B Iss. ?C pg. ?000 pgs http://courses.arch.$t.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia880?/clausen.pdf //N%!

bstract (ummary!] This article de$elops a theoretical 'oun!ation 'or un!erstan!ing thehuman in'luence on the oceans an! the resulting oceanic crisis as it relatesto the !epletion o' 'ish stock an! the e$pansion o' a(uaculture+ 3raing onenvironmental sociology an! insights 'rom the historical materialist

http://www.linkedin.com/edu/university-of-st.-francis-18325


http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia5524/clausen.pdf






tra!ition* the authors stu!y the nature)society !ialectic as it relates tohuman interactions ith the ocean 'or the capture o' 'ish. We e$ten! =ar$Jsconcept o' the meta"olic ri't to the marine environment to aH un!erstan!the human trans'ormations o' the ocean ecosystem* "H e$amine theanthropogenic human)generate!H causes o''ish stock !epletion* cH stu!ythe !evelopment o' a(uaculture in response to the oceanic crisis* an! !H

reveal the ecological conse(uences o' ongoing capitalist pro!uction inrelation to the ocean environment. F')J%I4TI+D JTN4TG] 9ull Te6t (11SS> words!] 4opyright

H@ ')J%I4TI+D ID4. <ec 0228] F;eadnoteG] This article de$elops a theoretical 'oun!ation 'orun!erstan!ing the human in'luence on the oceans an! the resulting oceaniccrisis as it relates to the !epletion o' 'ish stock an! the e$pansion o'a(uaculture+ 3raing on environmental sociology an! insights 'rom thehistorical materialist tra!ition the authors study the nature-society dialectic as it relates to humaninteractions with the ocean for the capture of fish. 3e e6tend ar6Xs concept of the metabolic rift to the marineen$ironment to (a! understand the human transformations of the ocean ecosystem (b! e6amine the anthropogenic(human-generated! causes offish stock depletion (c! study the de$elopment of aquaculture in response to the oceaniccrisis and (d! re$eal the ecological consequences of ongoing capitalist production in relation to the ocean en$ironment.] &eywords: metabolic riftC historical materialismC multinational corporationsC commodificationC ocean fishingC

aquaculture] 4NII ID T;@ 3+N%<X +4@D The orl!Js oceans are e$periencing a crisiso' rapi! "iomass !epletion+ The )D 9ood and griculture +rgani"ation (9+ 0220! report The tate ofthe 3orld 9isheries and quaculture states that S8 of ma5or fisheries are fully e6ploited o$ere6ploited or depleted (p.0!. It is estimated Wthat the global ocean has lost more than =2 of large predatory fishesW (eyers Z 3orm 022!. Thedepletion of ocean fish stock disrupts metabolic relations within the oceanic ecosystem at multiple trophic and spatial

scales. 4urrent pro!uction tren!s are likely to have pro'oun! ecological e''ects ith uncertain conse(uences+ ,n light o' severe stock !epletions*technological innovation an! capital investment in marine a(uaculture areo''ere! as the solution to increase! !eman! 'or glo"al 'oo! supplies+ TheDlue evolution* the moniker under which intensi$e aquaculture is e6tolled has rapi!ly emerge!on the glo"al market intro!ucing ne social an! ecological issues 'or theocean environment an! marine management policy+ quaculture commonly known asfish fanning is Wthe fastest- growing form of agriculture in the worldW ('rakash 022?!.X ultinational corporations ha$e built a global network of salmon farms growing high $alue fish for year-round markets (;ites et al. 022?!. The ecologicalimpacts offish farming on surrounding marine en$ironments ha$e garnered scientific and public attention due to wasteaccumulation and the escape of nonnati$e farmed species into wild salmon habitat. 'otential human health effects fromconsuming fanned salmon ha$e captured an e$en greater share of public attention as researchers disco$er highconcentrations of organochlorine contaminants ('4Js! in aquaculture-produced salmon (;ites et al. 022?!.] imultaneous with the rapid transformations in ocean fisheries marine scientists and oceanographers ha$e maderemarkable disco$eries about the intricacies of marine food webs and the richness of oceanic biodi$ersity (,aliela 1==8!.)nfortunately the e6citement for new gains in marine research is dampened by the growing awareness that the centuries-long record of oceanic e6ploitation has reached critical thresholds due to marine ecosystem degradation] http://proquest.umi.com.e"pro6y.lib.$t.edu:B2B2/pqdwebQinde6\10Zsid\1Zsrchmode\... S/00/022B] <ocument ,iew'age 0 of 18] (ackson et al. 0221!. 3e ha$e reached a point where the cumulati$e and ongoing human effect on theoceanic en$ironment is threatening the biological integrity of marine ecosystems. In turn the ability of marineen$ironments to pro$ide li$elihoods for those who depend on the sea is placed at risk. The body of scientific knowledgeabout oceanic systems presents a sobering lesson on the coe$olution of human society and the marine en$ironment duringthe capitalist industrial era. The une 022 'ew +ceans 4ommission report to the nation highlights this concern: ] arinelife and $ital coastal habitats are straining under the increasing pressure of our use. 3e ha$e reached a crossroads wherethe cumulati$e effect of what we take from and put into the ocean substantially reduces the ability of marine ecosystemsto produce the economic and ecological goods and ser$ices that we desire and need. 3hat we once consideredine6haustible and resilient is in fact finite and fragile. (p. $!] Joth land and sea are confronting serious en$ironmentalstresses that threaten their ability to regenerate. The particular problems e6perienced in each biological realm cannot be $iewed as isolated issues or aberrations only to be corrected with further technological de$elopment. Nather theseecological conditions must be understood as they relate to the systematic e6ploitation of nature for profit. The negati$ehuman health and ecological consequences of capitalist fish production must be analy"ed in relation to an economicsystem based on the accumulation of capital.] The capacity of humans to transform nature in ways detrimental to societieshas long been known. +nly recently howe$er ha$e social interactions with nature as well as ecological limits becomema5or sub5ects for sociological inquiry (Juttel 1=BSC <unlap 1==SC 9oster. 1==?!. s the scale of en$ironmental problemsescalates the ecological sustainability of human societies is being called into question (Juell 022C 4ommoner 1=S1 C@hrlich Z ;oldren 1=S1 C 9oster 0220C ,itousek ooney %ubchenko Z elilo 1==S!. The oceans ser$e as a critical

realm where society interacts with nature. A historical materialist approach illuminates ho the human relationship ith the ocean has change! over time as speci'ic



social an! economic con!itions evolve!+ Although social science has "eenslo to e$amine issues relate! to oceans* the range o' social issuessustenance* employment* transportation* pollution* etc+H relate! to the seas!eman!s more attention+



E$clusive Economic ones Link

The a''irmative is an e$tension o' legal sovereignty that seeks tocontrol the oceans as an o"#ect 'or human e$ploitation+

Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

The Dorthern %and 4ouncil points out here that while the 3estern legal tradition does not attribute ownership

of the oceans to any one person it allows for a so$ereign to make rules o$er the sea for itsuse. This obser$ation refers to historical de$elopments that ha$e occurred. tate security is anotherob5ecti$e of regulation (although not mentioned by the Dorthern %and 4ouncil! that was well entrenched bythe end of the eighteenth century wherein:

FtGhe new principle of freedom when it approached the shore met with another principlethe principle of protection not a residuum of the old claim but a new independent basis and reasonfor modification near the shore of the principle of freedom. The so$ereign of the land washed by the sea asserted a new right to protect his sub5ects and citi"ens against attack

against in$asion against interference and in5ury to protect them against attack threatening their peace to protect their re$enues to protect their health to protect their industries. (Noot 1=0S cited in nand 1=B 1S!In short early e6pressions of limits on the relationship between so$ereignty o$er territorial waters (e6pressed as

5urisdiction! and freedom of the seas were made on the basis of arguments about state security. The most saliente6pression of this concern is the so-called cannon shot rule# first introduced into international law by <utch 5urist Jynkershoek in 1S2 and adopted by the larger maritime powers (nand 1=B!. The cannon shot rule

states: *the territorial dominion of a state e6tended as far as pro5ectiles could be fired from cannon on the shore (nand 1=B 1B!. Thus areas of up to appro6imately three nautical miles were considered ascoastal state property7*precisely the kind of claim Hrotius sought to deny in principle7at least in his early work (Jutler1==2 01>!. 3hile this so$ereign right to territorial waters of at least three nautical miles wide for the protection of coastal states was

generally accepted in @urope the specific e6tent of the $arious rele$ant 5urisdictions was not until $ery recently

settled upon. In 1=B0 the Third )nited Dations 4onference on the %aw of the ea ()D4%+ III! established

the e6tent of territorial seas to 10 nautical miles in the 4on$ention on the %aw of the ea (%+! ()nitedDations 1=B!. The rather straightforward codification that is the cannon shot rule# became acomple6 and comprehensi$e regime of law and order in the oceans go$erning all uses.

;erein so$ereign regulation of the oceans in$ol$es large tracts7e6clusi$e economic "ones (@@Vs! of upto 022 nautical miles in breadth and in some cases further depending on the depth of the continental shelf and certain

other considerations.B 3ithin the @@V so$ereign rights to certain resources# and economicacti$ities coe6ist with some freedoms of the seas including free transit to all $essels ()nited Dations 1=B!.Ine$itably *FtGhe state practice and international treaties of the post-1=?8 era ha$e seriously eroded the original anduncompromising simplicity of Hrotius# $iew of the high seas (Jutler 1==2 01S!.= In e6amining what is left of Hrotius#original concept of freedom of the seas under )D4%+ III Jutler concludes:The measure of how far we ha$e departed from Hrotius# spatial conception of high seas is e6pressed in rticle B> of the1=B0 %+ 4on$ention: the 4on$ention pro$isions regarding the high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not includedin the e6clusi$e economic "one in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state or in the archipelagic waters of anarchipelagic tate#. (1==2 01S!12There is then a discernible mo$e back to practices reminiscent of mare clausum7 albeit with the introduction of whollynew principles within a web of reason than was utilised prior to the acceptance of Hrotius# notion of freedom of the seas.

These new principles continue to recognise the importance of freedom of the high seas but are largelypremised on the desire to control ocean resources. 'rior to 3orld 3ar II the ocean had beenpercei$ed as limited in use with the e6ception of fishing and whaling and therefore of little importance (nand 1=B!.The high seas had primarily been thought of as a means of na$igation and transport to e6ploit and trade land-based

resources with others. 3hile na$igation and transportation remain $itally important in the post-3ar periodthe perception of the usefulness of the oceans has increased with the disco$ery ofresources especially oil in the sea itself. In recent decades there has also been a push tosecure coastal fisheries brought under pressure through technological inno$ation in na$igation fishing and



ocean e6ploration ()nited Dations 022S!. Therefore part of my concern in this 4hapter7that the way the oceansare conceptualised in law of the sea has significant material consequences for theoceans7is in scale and broad interest among nations a recent phenomenon.9ishing aside my concern in this 4hapter is tied up with the relati$ely new recognition of economic wealth in the oceanitself and the seabed. Degotiations leading to the %+ 4on$ention ha$e been as in the past largely marked by self-interest. Jut in this new era @uropean and )nited tates e6pansion has not been dictated by old $iews about how the

ocean can be used which sought to control ocean trade mo$ements. The primary focus now has becomeaccess to and control of ocean resources.



Fisheries Link

Their scienti'ic approach to 'isheries is tainte! "y a Westernrationalist approach "ase! on the economic e$ploitation o' nature*

alloing its !estructionKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

'reikshot and 'auly (0228! note that contemporarily fisheries scientists generally work ingo$ernment laboratories and see themselves in the service o' meeting theshort)term economic o"#ectives o' in!ustry . Nogers (1==8 120! also likens the role of fisheries

science to a ser$ice# for industry whereby science *pro$ides information about the a$ailability ofraw material to industry. 9isheries "iologists are traine! to emphasiseeconomic uses o' 'ish an! employ rationalist tenets o' capitalisteconomics* such as pro!uctivity an! e''iciency* as measures o'success (carce 0222!.12 The focus of fisheries biology has been almost e6clusi$ely on

assessing stock# le$els (rather than indi$iduals or communities! of commercially har$ested#species in order to preser$e biomass# production (Dorse Z 4rowder 0228aC Nogers 1==8!. 4ceansare conceptualise! as a 0'actory hich pro!uces an annual surplus'or e$ploitation which can be skimmed off (Nogers 1==8 1B!. In short the agenda in fisheries science is the de$elopmentand production of fish for consumptionC fish are the raw material awaiting con$ersion into products by scientific and managerial e6pertise

and industry. In this manner scientists are $ital cogs in a process that relentlesslycommodifies ocean-dwelling life (carce 0222!.

;umans are of course dependent on certain ocean dwellers and their ecosystems and other

physical functions of oceans and thus need to think instrumentally about oceans. omeamount of human use of oceans must take place. ;owe$er as Nogers argues to!escri"e ocean !ellers as Mresources’* M"iomass’ or M'ish stocks’ an! toconceptualise oceans as M'actories’ is in!icative o' an impoverishe!perspective (and I would add imagination! based on a production model world $iew a"out thepossi"ilities 'or relationship "eteen humans an! the rest o' nature

(1==8 1B ==!. I concur with Nogers $iew and note that there is a crucial 5udgement implicit in this relationship that

'ish are valua"le only to the e$tent that they satis'y human en!s .It is worth e6amining in some depth the apparent legitimacy of the $alue 5udgement embedded in fisheries science about fish and the

relations between humans and fish because it #usti'ies human insensitivity to ecologicallimits* !epen!encies an! connections to ocean !ellers an!ecosystems+ In this regard 'lumwood (1==C 0220! offers a cogent critique of the de$aluing of non-human nature in 3esternsocieties and the narrowly defined and highly instrumental conception of ocean dwellers at work here7fish as *tools for economic gain ascarce (0222 B>! states.

'lumwood argues that dualistic conceptual frameworks pro$ide the structure forthinking and relations with non-human nature in 3estern societies and that this

e6plains many of the life threatening features that underlie discourses such ascon$entional fisheries science.11 'lumwood argues that there are deeply ingrained historically traceabledistortions of the concepts of nature human mind reason and culture that ha$e resulted in narrowly defined highly instrumental relations

with the non-human natural world that are tied to a decepti$e sense of human independence fromnon-human nature (1==C 0220!. n outline of the distortions in the concepts to which 'lumwood refers to is gi$en below asthey are found in the ideas of 'lato <escartes and %ocke.'lumwood#s (1==! concern is with the domination and oppression of nature (human and non-human! in 3estern culture and the inabilityto acknowledge human dependency upon non-human nature. 'lumwood focuses on the hierarchical dualisms of human/nature

mind/nature and reason/nature where the sphere of human mind and reason are allsystematically construed as the dominant superior side of the dualism and nature



as the inferior and sub5ugated side . <ualisms are more than distinctions or dichotomiesC dualisms are *a way ofconstructing difference in terms of the logic of hierarchy that establishes the supremacy of a superior o$er an inferior ('lumwood 1==0!. That is to say one side of the dualism is $alued more highly than the other.



Fisheries Link Not NeutralH

Fisheries science is historically pre!icate! on "oth controlling an!un!erstan!ing the oceans in or!er to posit scienti'ic rationality as the

only metho! o' engaging the oceanKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

ocio-economic imperati$es are a key to understanding the close ties between theestablishments of the ocean sciences and declining fish catches. round the turn of the

century the go$ernments of Dorthern @uropean nations were willing to fund scientific research based onconcerns about declining numbers of commercially e6ploited species of fish in theDorth tlantic +cean (4ushing 1=BBC No"wadowski 0220!. t this time the economies of northern @uropean countriesprospered and suffered in relation to the a$ailability of herring and cod especially and thus counted studies of commercialfish stocks as their most important marine research (No"wadowski 022 0!. mith (1==?! identifies further the role of

profit in the establishment of the study of fluctuations in the fish catch in Dorthern @urope. ccording to mith theprofit to be made from fishing was recognised as early as the fourteenth century. Jy the nineteenth

century the de$elopment of steam power led to greater economic opportunities for both fishermen and fish processors. tthis time in$estors became interested in fishing fleets banks were encouraged to lend money and profits were e6pected.

Jecause of this e6pectation of profits the causes of fluctuations in the catches became of increasing interest not only to the fishermen but also to the in$estors and bankers and hence tothe politicians. (mith 1==? 12!

In response to growing concern about falling catches of commercially e6ploited fish species theInternational 4ouncil for @6ploration of the ea (I4@! was founded in 1=20 by eightnorthern @uropean nations7Jritain Jelgium <enmark 9rance Hermany The Detherlands Dorway and weden(No"wadowski 0220!. 3hile I focus on the links between politics and the de$elopment of fisheries science as it transpiredin I4@ because of its great influence in the field it can be noted that the study of fluctuations in fish catches was alreadyunderway by the late nineteenth century in the )nited tates Dorway Nussia <enmark cotland @ngland Hermany andthe Detherlands (mith 1==?!.

I4@ is the world#s first collaborati$e peak body for the theory and practice of themarine sciences. It remained in the $anguard of scientific de$elopment

throughout the twentieth century particularly in the fields of fisheries biology and oceanography(chwach 022?!. t the time of creation 4ouncil collaborators were of the $iew that science should pro$ide the basis forthe e6ploitation of fish stocks in line with turn- of-the-century internationalist ideals that science had the potential toimpro$e society (No"wadowski 0220!.S

In The ea &nows Do Joundaries: 4entury of arine cience )nder I4@ No"wadowski (0220! narrates a

comprehensi$e history of the de$elopment of fisheries science as it transpired under thedirection of the 4ouncil. No"wadowski#s research from archi$al material and inter$iews with many of the 4ouncil#s

present and former participants depicts the close association o' science* governmentinstitutions an! in!ustry . he notes that from its inception the 4ouncil was largely 'un!e! notin pursuit o' scienti'ic knole!ge for itself "ut on the "asis that it oul!help o"tain larger catches an! regulate 'ish stocks. No"wadowski writes: 3hile the original scientific program for the International 4ouncil included plenty of work that looked like pure science#delegates also included go$ernment officials concerned with equitable management and promotion of national fisheries. ...

,irtually all of the 4ouncil#s early in$estigations were animated at some le$el by an underlying confidence that learningabout the oceanic en$ironment would shed light on fish distribution migration and a$ailability for capture.Ho$ernments 5oined these international collaborations only in part because of the enhanced potential to produce more or better knowledge by pooling national resources. It was instead the uses intended for this knowledge that promptednations to commit resources for the proposed International 4ouncil. If its founders had not en$isioned inter$ention inaddition to so-called pure science# their international in$estigations might ha$e remained on the drawing board a nobleand scientifically interesting but politically untenable idea. (0220 12-11!4ouncil scientists embraced the mission of promoting fisheries (No"wadowski (0220!. <etails of the close links betweenscience and politics of I4@ member nations can be found throughout No"wadowski#s (0220! te6t forming a comple6

account. It is also important to note here that the links between science and politics ha$ehistorically e6isted in a tension for many scientists working for the 4ouncil. s an indication of



this point No"wadowski#s (0220! discussion of the 4ouncil#s e6panding ad$isory role in the northwest tlantic in the1=S2s and 1=B2s and the workings of the d$isory 4ommittee on 9isheries anagement (49! established in 1=SSre$eal the apprehension with which some scientists $iewed the 4ouncil#s e$ol$ing responsibility and practices. Thecreation of 49 for e6ample was contro$ersial because @uropean coastal states with significant interests in e6pandingfisheries were gi$en a $oice in this I4@ forum that formulated scientific ad$ice. ome dedicated 4ouncil participantsobser$ed about I4@ that by the end of the 1=B2#s control was largely in the hands of national fishing commissions andthe @uropean 4ommunity (No"wadowski 0220!.

Another important 'eature o' the !evelopment o' 'isheries science7indeed

from its inception at the turn of the twentieth century7 as the conviction that sciencean! technology oul! make possi"le greater un!erstan!ing an!control o' the marine environment. It was e6pected that science and technology

oul! 'in! the tools to a!!ress !eclining 'ish stocks increase others anddisco$er new ones (No"wadowski 0220!. This con$iction became most intense in the period following 3orld 3arII. No"wadowski describes the pre$ailing confidence of the era:

'ost-3orld 3ar II @urope held a newly abiding faith modern science and technology wouldsol$e the western world#s practical problems. 9isheries scientists shared thisoptimism for the prospect of effecti$e conser$ation of fish stocks enlarged by the wartimefishery closures. The failure to take ad$antage of the post-3orld 3ar I opportunity to protect stocks heightened theirresol$e. In 1=?S one scientist stated with confidence It is now possible to formulate measures of control which whenaided by continuous scientific super$ision will permit a rational e6ploitation of fishing grounds.# This conser$ation ethosdid not by any means imply serious concern about general declines of oceanic resources as would emerge in the 1=S2#s.Indeed post-war scientists thought themsel$es well placed to promote dramatic e6pansion of the amount of fish har$estedfrom the sea. (0220 1?>!The technological inno$ations of echo sounding more efficient fishing gear and long-range fleets together with biological

in$estigations into new species for commercial e6ploitation and new theoretical tools to predict and ad$iseon yields supported the deeply held faith in the potential of science andtechnology to ad$ance scientific knowledge of fisheries and directly facilitate thefishing industry to e6pand and profit to an e6tent pre$iously unimagined (No"wadowski 0220!.



Fisheries Link =o!els Flae!>3estructiveH

Fisheries science is "ase! on a 'lae! anthropocentric un!erstan!ingo' 'ish that ignores the interconnecte!ness o' nature* guaranteeing'ish collapseKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

any scientists portray themsel$es as engaged in ob5ecti$e disinterested enquiry where the self is concei$ed as hyperseparated# from the sub5ect. That is where*sharing and connection Fare construedG as a hindrance to knowledge the ob5ectknown as alien to the knower and the knowledge relation as power ('lumwood 1== 11S!.

In this construction of sub5ect and ob5ect the scientist is the knowing agent and has thepower to attribute meaning to the ob5ect. Jy construing the ob5ect as only ha$ingmeaning to the e6tent that science attributes it the ob5ect appears a$ailable foranne6ation moulded to the ends of reason and treated as if it has no needs oragency of its own ('lumwood 1==!. 'lumwood#s argument here is also then that the sub5ect/ob5ect dualism is basic to thecommodification of nature.'ractices of fisheries science and management

The separation of the sub5ect from ob5ect (or hyperseparation in 'lumwood#s logic of dualism! is astructure that underpins the models used in con$entional fisheries science.;istorically scientific models of fisheries biology ha$e taken a data-intensi$e single-speciesapproach that treats each species of fish as if they e6ist independently of othercommunities of fish in$ertebrates and an e$er-changing physical and chemical en$ironment ('reikshot Z 'auly 0228!. Theydo not take into account the comple6ity of interactions between species andpredator-prey relationships or other natural or human-induced factors that mayimpact upon fish and their habitats such as storms disease pollution and climatechange (@arle 1==8!.

These characteristics of single species modelling are displayed in the concept of ma6imumsustainable yield (Y! that has been at the core of fisheries science and management for

decades. Y is defined as the greatest tonnage of stock that could be remo$ed froma population annually while still maintaining a constant a$erage si"e of thepopulation (No"wadowski 0220!. Y pro$ides fisheries managers with a single-species yield cur$e from which to predict the totalallowable catch for a targeted stock (3ilder 1==B!. In its practical essence Y pro$ides a number located at the ape6 of the cur$e to which

managers aspire in calculating and regulating catch quotas and maintaining optimum fish production. It is taken in a generalsense to mean *that there is a greatest catch that can be safely taken for a longtime (4ushing 1=BB 01?!.@arle a marine biologist and former chief scientist of the Dational +ceanographic and tmospheric ssociation of the )nited tatesdescribes the underlying rationale for the Y concept as follows:In theory a related group of animals ... normally increases in si"e to a point where the rate of growth slows through natural limits of foodspace or other factors e$entually reaching a final si"e# that reflects the so-called carrying capacity of the habitat for that particular

population. upposedly at this stage a steady state# is reached where births are balanced by death. ... FTGhis hypothetical steady state isreferred to as the initial# or pre-e6ploitation stock. 3hen fishing begins this initial stock is reduced but if the take is not too great thepopulation will continue to reproduce allowing for repeated takes. (1==8 1B=!

@arle outlines the key assumptions upon which the Y concept is built as follows:

That the population of indi$idual species under consideration are of known si"e and do not mi6 with other populations of the same species (i.e. are self- contained#! that the carrying capacity of the habitatremains stable that the population when first e6ploited is in fact the peak final si"e# that natural fluctuations in the population are not

large and that an initial stock# has the potential to reco$er from reduction by fishing. ost important and o$erlooked is the

assumption that the populations being e6ploited somehow li$e in isolation not linked



in comple6 systems that are modified when changes are brought about in anyspecies not 5ust the target# species. (1==8 1B=-=2 emphasis in original!

@arle then outlines the serious 'las that e$ist in relation to the model#s assumptions stating that:

De$er has reliable information on which the abo$e assumptions are based beena$ailable prior to e6ploitation of a population. Dor has adequate knowledge of the life history of any speciese$er been worked out beforehand to determine whether or not timing fishing methodology or other special finesse might be applied to

ensure continued health of the fishery. (1==8 1B=-=2!Hi$en these limitations @arle notes that Y fails to account for:

athematically untidy factors such as competition among species for food disruption of thetarget species# close interaction with other organisms $ariables in times ofmaturation $ariable social structures that influence reproducti$e rates changesin the habitat because of pollution climate shifts shoreline modification andnatural or human-induced stress. (1==8 1=!@arle#s analysis of Y7the way ocean dwellers are studied as if separate from food webs ecosystems and many other factors that

constitute comple6 ocean systems7highlights how this simplistic concept has been applied to acomple6 situation. It is consistent with the shift in fisheries science away fromocean based research and biology to mathematical models de$ised in thelaboratory that had few empirical points of contact with the oceans a trend that intensified

in the post-3orld 3ar II period.1?9isheries scientists celebrated the concept of Y when it emerged in the post- 3orld 3ar II period because they belie$ed fishingrestrictions would now be based *on clear and definite scientific e$idence in contrast to the former pattern of regulating in response topressure groups (No"wadowski 0220 1=2!. Y quickly became entrenched in most international fisheries agreements on the basis that itcan be reliably and accurately predicted. ignificantly it has been adopted as part of the )nited Dations 4on$ention on the %aw of the ea()D4%+! for the management of fisheries7and therefore much of fisheries management worldwide.18

Jut as @arle#s analysis demonstrates in practice fishing quotas based on Y are not reliable orprecise assessments for guiding sustainable le$els of fishing . Y pro$ides for educated guesses at best.The great difficulty associated with predicting ma6imum sustainable yields due to uncertainty and lack of data has been widely commentedupon (see for e6ample: 9u5ita 9oran Z Ve$os 1==BC 'itcher 0221C afina et al. 0228C and 3ilder 1==B!.

The o$ere6ploitation of fish is a comple6 issue. The precise causal relationship between fisheries science and itsfailures to produce reliable knowledge of ocean dwellers does not e6ist. It must also be stressed that the o$ere6ploitation of ocean dwellerslies with a comple6 array of factors7certainly not 5ust those within the control of science. The commercial fishing industry and global

demand play ma5or roles. De$ertheless despite a 82-year history of quantitati$e predicti$e theory 'isheries "iology isassociate! ith a very poor track recor! o' many an! repeate! 'ishery

collapses ('itcher 0221!. *@$ery year 'itcher further obser$es *fishery collapses continue to takefishery scientists by surprise (0221 >20!. ost commercially e6ploited fish species within the I4@ area (the

northeast tlantic and Jaltic ea! are o$ere6ploited or e6hausted notwithstanding the considerable scientificcontribution I4@ has made to fisheries management (Jocking 022?!.



Free!om o' the 2ea Link

This history o' M'ree!om o' the seas’ is intimately tie! ith colonialistan! capitalist e$ploitation that seeks to construct the oceans as an

open space to create 'rictionless e$ploitation+Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

Towards the end of the eighteenth century law of the sea began to turn toward the Hrotian model e$ol$ ing

in a way that furthered @uropean interests and protected @uropean rights . Hrotius#

concept of mare liberum was gradually recognised as ad$antageous to coloniale6pansion7the basis for @urope#s growing wealth7into frica and sia in the wake of the Industrial

Ne$olution (nand 1=B!. The powerful @uropean nations came to an understanding that *theeastern world the mericas and frica were big enough to be e6ploited bye$erybody and better together (nand 1=B 10>!. @uropean nations became preoccupied with their $ast claims ofland and estimated that efforts to maintain particular claims on the high seas were far less important. The )nited tates

from independence in 1SS> also played an important role in the acceptance of the freedom of the seas in the tlantic+cean and its restoration in sia and the 'acific (nand 1=B!. ;owe$er the Jritish unri$alled in termsof maritime might for most of the period between 1B18 and 1=1? became the strongestchampions of the freedom of the seas. The reason for this was that: *there was somuch trading and it could be done so much cheaper with a completely free andopen sea that the $ery idea of owning# the sea $anished (c9ee 1=82 cited in nand 1=B 10=!.

teinberg links the ascendancy of the Hrotian model in the late eighteenth century to the de$elopingindustrial capitalism of @uropean societies obser$ing that while industrial capitalism constructsthe ocean as *an empty $oid outside society as *non-territory and *a friction-free transportation surface7the oceans required social regulation because they were intensely used (0221108!. Throughout this period the regulatory idea of the Hrotian model was only implemented in a weak form7ships couldcontinue to act with freedom as long as they respected the freedom of other ships7so as to a$oid any degree ofterritoriality. ocial interactions in ocean-space were to be kept to the minimum necessary to preser$e access to resources

(teinberg 0221!. nand (1=B! who contests the hegemony of @uropean representation of the de$elopment of international law of the sea by highlighting the contributions of sian and frican societies to its de$elopment claims that in these changedcircumstances Hrotius was resurrected as a great hero and father# of maritime law by states such as Jritain that hadearlier practised mare clausum. Hrotius# arguments became *holy mantras and freedom of na$igation and trade almost*di$ine rights nand (1=B 00=!. The political and economic reasons that led Hrotius to write his famous doctrine offreedom of the seas and the fact that he had abandoned it to defend the interests of the )nited <utch @ast India 4ompany and the )nited 'ro$inces were irrele$ant to the new dominating interests of the @uropean maritime powers.

3hat becomes apparent in this history of e$ents is that the meaning of the oceans ininternational law has shifted in line with @uropean desires to industrialisecolonise and accumulate wealth. In Hrotius# own time it was 5udged that controlling the oceans throughmilitary might was the best way to produce this wealth whether we consider this to be within the framework of elden or

9reitas. s it transpired two hundred years later and up to the present day the generation of wealth is bestrealised by holding the seas in common. In particular open access to the oceans

continues to facilitate *frictionless trade that is the uninterrupted mo$ement ofgoods as quickly easily and cheaply as possible (corpeccio cited in 4orrey 022 0!.



egemony Link

The !estruction o' the ocean an! glo"al ine(uality an! the violentsymptoms o' the <nite! 2tate’s unsustaina"le !rive 'or hegemonyac(ues ; & 'rofessor of political science at 4entral 9lorida ('eter Globalization and the World Ocean p. 18>-18=!

Negarding the ma5or ecological changes around the world the ) nited tates is a leading force in thecruise ship industry supplying a bulk of the passengers and a ma5ority of theconsumers for the drug trade that plagues the 4aribbean. The )nited tates is also the worldXsleading emitter of carbon the most important human-related climate change dri$er. T his is literally killing coral reefs in large percentagesand is an act which has direct impacts on fish nurseries and coastal storm and sea le$el rise protections for people who typically do not

contribute to global carbon emissions in commensurable ways. The fact that the )nited tates is also the primaryaquarium-fish consumer is also a ma5or factor in the loss of coral reefs. 9urther the )nited tates is one of the top twoconsumers of shrimp. The other is apan another important global center and this is a factor in unsustainable coastal de$elopment social

policy and commons management. ll of these factors also ha$e local counterpart agents but there is no doubt that the ) nited tates is among the more powerful agents in ocean matters- it is for e6ample the only

globally forward deployed na$y (acques and mith 022!-

an! it is mostly !rivingecological con!itions toar! un!esira"le an! potentially irreversi"lechanges.Through comple6 systems theory the )nited tates can be seen as an attractor of information and structure through its own matri6 of

commerce and material power which then is significant in creating the system itself. In order to change the globalcapitalist system the relationships ith the <nite! 2tates an! the rest o' the orl! ill have to change. 4T demands that ultimately if the )nited tates is in part creating a stablesystem the system will become more comple6 because more and more nodes will be allowed to gain a foothold. Hlobali"ation of commerceis increasing the di$ersity of members in the global market though there is a measurable concentration of firms at the top e$en if thequality of these relations is suspect.

;owe$er when we connect the commercial system to the ecological one a more comple6 biological world is not apparent. Therefore if we define the @arth system as being the sum of the commercial/ economic socialand all ecological systems together the loss of di$ersity in the latter two indicates

an unstable larger system. In other words the )nited tates may be stabili"ingthe global economic subsystem but this effort is undermining other parts of the@arth that will ultimately disrupt these $ery efforts.

This would also mean that changes are likely on the way for the role of the )nited tates in the larger sociopolitical world. The< nite! 2 tates cannot "e e$pecte! to continue to maintain its positiono' relative hegemony i' this very unipolar position !esta"ili.es vastsocial an! ecological patterns around itC this structure has already begun to unra$el in outheast sia (Jeeson

022? !. 9rom a hermeneutic perspecti$e the role of the ) nited tates and its hegemonic power isone that interferes with the messages from other agents and the ecological world .

The )nited tates itself has the power to consume other countriesX and regionsXresources while distancing itself from local consequences. lso gi$en its use of instrumental reason

and ethics in relation to nature the ) nited tates has undoubtedly created numerousintermediary relations with nature so that the direct signs from nature and itslimits are hidden. I assume that this kind of communication block is another way that limits the $iability of ).. hegemony and its future security . imilarly from a criticaltheory perspecti$e such as according to 3allersteinXs ( 1=B=! Wworld system theoryW where the hegemonic powers order a coherent andsingle capitalist system this power historically operates in phases where hegemons o$ere6tend themsel$es so much that they de$our theirown power base and create their own disintegration opening up the way for a new hegemon. Indeed as much as this perspecti$e isinformed by the concept of historical material dialectic the creation of a hegemonic order creates and embeds its own antithesis and therole of ci$il society and other nations and forces will be to undermine this material power in the world o$er time through counterhegemonic

resistance. Thus through all of these theories it is possible to see that singular agents of unsustainable



systems create their own means of insecurity in the same way that they createinsecurity for others.

'ragmatic ramifications of this loss are the changes that are occurring infisheries and therefore in food security for the world . +$erfishing has been shownto affect fisheries in nonlinear ways indicating that the lessons from comple6 systems theory may be important.9or e6ample if the tlantic cod is any indication fisheries can sustain themsel$es in the face of mounting pressures until they approach

some WcliffW of permanent decline and perhaps decimation. Hi$en that about three-quarters of the worldXs fisheries are facing suchpressures we should $iew this potential with the utmost gra$ity. The language of the ocean continues to tell us through fairly clear signsthat this limit is real-fish are becoming harder and harder to catch and the kinds of fish caught are increasingly found lower on the food

chain. The worldXs poor e$en when their commons are not being enclosed forpri$ate interests are going to feel the first human burden because they depend onthis fish for more basic sur$i$al than affluent consumers who ha$e other choices. That fish is simply becoming more e6pensi$e and harder to attain is one e6ample of how our depletion of fisheries will further threaten thesecurity (o$erall well-being! of the most $ulnerable people.

@cological and social di$ersity is becoming simplified at the same time andshould not be seen as accidental but rather as a function of structural pressurescreating global patterns demonstrated by loss of higher trophic le$els of fish theloss of coral reef around the world through climate changes and unsustainablecoastal de$elopment and the loss of mangro$es and coastal forest and grasslands in addition to the losses of indigenouscultures languages and lifestyles that ha$e pers isted for eons (which in itself says something about their sustainability !. 4omple6 systemstheory sees this as unsustainable in relation to the future options systems can takeC hermeneutics sees this as unsustainable because it is a

sign of a sincere loss of meaning in the worldC and critical theory sees this loss of social and ecologicaldi$ersity as an unsustainable concentration of power that enables abuse ande6ploitation of nature and nonhuman nature. In all cases humanity is diminished bysuch losses because we are a part of these threatened spheres of the 3orld +cean .

Jetween the three perspecti$es then ocean communities are reducing their options for futurepathways losing depth and meaning in addition to the relati$e power to resistsuch trends.Hender inequality per$ades each of the regions with only a little $ariation apparently found mostly on the local le$el. 3omen aredisempowered in each of the regions and this has important implications for sustainability according to each of the three theories. In 4Tthe suppression of nodes in the system will again ha$e a negati$e effect on a$ailable options in future syst ems. In hermeneutics a readingof the whole social system sees that welfare is not impro$ing and key conditions indicate that o$er 82 percent of the worldXs populatione6perience a disproportionate share of $iolence po$erty and ecological problems in their labor in the household and in the workforce.ustainability is implausible for only one gender and these conditions indicate that the meaning of sustainability $ery often o$erlooks the

condition of women in society. @$en as I make this note I admit that the conditions of women ha$e not been the focus of this study and Ican see that this area requires more research and theori"ing.9rom what little attention I ha$e paid this issue it is clear that information and knowledge are organi"ed without a gender componentlea$ing the li$es of women unaddressed and mostly silent a state that is a prerequisite for the institutionali"ation of social hierarchies(@nloe I ==2!.o long as current power relations and go$ernance structures in and out of ci$il society remain the same and rely on the continued silent

work and suppression of women none of the impro$ements in sustainability will matter much and half of the worldXs lifestyles will berelying on the other halfXs work. In the end this is representati$e of the different le$els of hierarchy that are e6perienced in ci$il society and

in the organi"ation of go$ernment that Handhi and Jorgese warn against. o long as society looks more like apyramid with the ape6 resting on the conditions of the base the 3orld +ceancommunities will not be sustainable.



La o' the 2ea Link

La o' the sea promotes an e$clusively estern relationship o'!omination to oceansKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

;istorical research demonstrates that the meaning of the ocean in internationallaw of the sea has changed o$er time with regard to 3estern desire for ocean resources#

and use-rights. nd further that contemporary research shows that legal conceptions of the oceanscontinue to be dominated by the interests of 3estern nations . That internationallaw of the sea has changed in response to shifts in political and economic priorities is hardly

surprising. n orthodo6 $iew encapsulated in notions 'arliament or the o$ereign makespronouncements of how the law ought to be# and the udiciary applies it.1> ;ence it is part of 3estern tradition for the law to respond to the political will of the so$ereign. Je that

as it may the manner in which legal discourses ha$e supported the will of the so$ereign historically has quite often beenthrough appeals to reason in relation to the laws of nature7a tradition to which legal positi$ism generally stands inopposition. 4uriously and to the benefit of creating a synthesis between natural law and positi$ist traditions the laws of

nature seem malleable to changes in the will of the so$ereign. This insight into the close relationship between law and other discourses of power is familiar enough to us today (fore6ample in 4ritical Theory structuralist and post structuralist writings!. Donetheless this 4hapter highlights theparticular ways in which a dis5uncture between the rationalist construction of law and the reality of law e6ists.

%aw and positi$ist law in particular is posited as an ob5ecti$e disinterested anduni$ersally applicable body of knowledge and practice. Yet as I ha$e highlighted in the

abo$e discussions of Hrotius and the %+ 4on$ention international la o' the sea is in 'act a value)la!en enterprise that interprets the ocean to re'lect !ominant Western rationalist i!eologies+ Neason is thereby harnessed to supportpre$ailing power relations that work to ignore *struggle loss the pragmatic

response to messiness the $iolence of trying to impose one order o$er manyinterests (Jottomley 1==> 10!. 3e could say la o' the sea is not a matter o' reasonor #ustice "ut a matter o' !omination+The most de$eloped course of action we ha$e for protecting ocean ecosystems from o$ere6ploitation and degradation isthe %+ 4on$ention. Yet the %+ 4on$ention upholds the principle of the freedom of the seas that as we ha$e seen gi$eslittle if any capacity to appreciate different conceptions of the oceans that imbue it with meaning other than global public

rights. ccordingly the monological character of the %+ 4on$ention pro$ides little scope fordi$ersifying the legal foundations for 3estern human-ocean relations thatimpro$e the prospects for 5ust e6istences of oceans based on a democraticprocess.The capacity to acknowledge li$ing oceans as agents in the democratic processrelies in my $iew on debates that are inclusi$e of many perspecti$es about human-

ocean relations. y key interest at this 5uncture in my dissertation is to demonstrate the following: the ocean as anagent in political process can come to the fore when re$ealed through an inclusi$e debateC inclusi$e debate will bring tothe surface many perspecti$es on human-ocean relations. In so doing debate will assist in freeing the oceans fromparticular constraints say from a 3estern law $iew that only pays attention to the needs of humans7which ironically hasthe misnomer of freedom of the seas.



Li"eralism Link

Li"eralism is 'oun!e! on a hyper separation o' the sel' that can neverethically value or recogni.e the agency o' the otherKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-ocean

relations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

The instrumentalist and reductionist lens through which %ocke was interpretingthe social political and economic order of his time corresponds with the rise of liberalism.

Indeed %ocke is considered the progenitor of the political perspecti$e of liberalism (+#Jrien 1==>!. %iberalism *springsfrom a $ision of society as crucially composed of indi$iduals (rather than for instance classes!

and of their liberty as the primary social goal (Jullock tallybrass Z Trombley 1=BB ?S8!. %iberal theorycontends that the indi$idual competes with other indi$iduals to satisfy $arious interests (or may co-operate to satisfy their indi$idualinterests!.

In liberalism the indi$idual self is concei$ed as that which *stands apart from analien other and denies his own relationship to and dependency on this other('lumwood 1== 1?0!. 'rior to %ocke rationality was applied to mind and internal nature ('lato! and mind and e6ternal nature

(<escartes!. %ocke introduced a dualistic structure to mind and the social world 7perhaps

reaching its "enith in Jritish 'rime inister Thatcher#s famous remark in 1=BS that *there is no such thing as society (cited in &eays1=BS!.1 This further e6pansion of the scope of rationality is important because the sub5ect is now an alienatedindi$idual as a matter of principle. 'lumwood terms this take on the social world as egoism# and she sees it as acrucial foil in rationality#s instrumentalist intensification.In egoism there is no real cause for any indi$idual to demonstrate their separateness from particular ob5ects such as specified natural or

social phenomena. It is more the case that a connection and relationship must be demonstrated to a sceptical world and to make

things more difficult that relationship is only readily demonstrated if it is an instrumental one. Thus if we return to %ocke#s analogy in 'lumwood#s analysis we see that:If we di$ide a person#s goals into primary non-interchangeable ones pursued for their own sake and secondary ones pursued as contingent

and intersubstitutable means to the primary ones then the thesis of philosophical egoism is that e$en in the case ofenlightened self-interest the el'are o' others can 'igure only in thesecon!ary set* never the 'irst* primary set o' en!s. The resulting agents are concei$ed as

hyperseparated and self-contained because no internal relations of interest or desire bind people to one another and primary goal sets are e6clusi$e

without o$erlap. The primary interest set of such a rational agent is assumed to concern only himself . The welfare ofothers may be considered but only in ways which treat it as secondary to primary goals. (1== 1??!Thus %ocke increases the scope of reason beyond that which <escartes imagined. <escartes ad$ocated that the scientist has a professional

role in standing apart from nature as the ob5ect of his study but with %ocke it becomes possible forindi$iduals to take an alienated attitude to 5ust about any relation they may cometo ha$e with things in the world. ;ence as 'lumwood further obser$es:

In the egoist-instrumentalist model (the master model of self! the self erases the other as part of the ethicaldomain. The other appears only as a hindrance to or as a resource for the self#sown needs and is defined entirely in relation to its own ends. Thus such a selfdoes not recognise the other as another self a distinct centre of agency andresistance whose needs goals and intrinsic $alue place ethical limits on the selfand must be considered and respected. (1== 1?8!'lumwood#s historical analysis of the notion of rationality in @nlightenment thinking demonstrates a crucial shift to the meaning and effects

of rationality7to the point where rationality is reconcei$ed as egoism and nature ininstrumental terms as a resource for the master .



ule o' La Link

Their legalistic response to ocean threats is an attempt to e$ten!sovereignty over the sea to regulate security Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

The Dorthern %and 4ouncil points out here that while the 3estern legal tradition does not attribute ownership

of the oceans to any one person it allows for a so$ereign to make rules o$er the sea for itsuse. This obser$ation refers to historical de$elopments that ha$e occurred. tate security is anotherob5ecti$e of regulation (although not mentioned by the Dorthern %and 4ouncil! that was well entrenched bythe end of the eighteenth century wherein:

FtGhe new principle of freedom when it approached the shore met with another principlethe principle of protection not a residuum of the old claim but a new independent basis and reasonfor modification near the shore of the principle of freedom. The so$ereign of the land washed by the sea asserted a new right to protect his sub5ects and citi"ens against attack

against in$asion against interference and in5ury to protect them against attack threatening their

peace to protect their re$enues to protect their health to protect their industries. (Noot 1=0S cited in nand1=B 1S!



2cience Link

The a'' situates the ocean as the unknon 4ther to "e con(uere!

an! e$plaine! "y science:trying to categori.e an! un!erstan!the ocean is impossi"le an! strips it o' its agency essica Lehman 6;;8 Nesearcher at The )ni$ersity of Jritish 4olumbia in international fields and dataanalysis *@6pecting the ea: <isplacement and the @n$ironment on ri %anka#s @ast 4oast

In their introductory article for a special issue of the Journal of Historical Geography dealing with the sea %ambert and

colleagues (022>! mention that understanding cultural representations of the sea can offer animportant alternati$e to purely bioeconomic accounts. They pro$ide a helpfully thorough list of

recurrent themes in imaginati$e geographies of the ocean albeit from a largely 3esternperspecti$e. These include the $astness of the seaC the trope of the sublimeC the sea as a source of fear madness conflict and disorderC the e$asi$e detached and sensuous acti$ity of swimmingC theocean as prime$al source of life and the confrontation with the frailty of both theindi$idual and of entire societies. 4onnery elaborates on the sea within a 3estern conte6t citing

tropes of the sea as distinctly +ther and situated outside of time (022>!. 'artially in response to a notedlack of theori"ation around the ocean there ha$e been increased theori"ations on what occurs at sea most notably on boats. This includes the work on ?S ocean-based tourism mentioned abo$e. In another $ein 9oucault has written about

the boat as the ultimate heterotopia a *place without a place (1=B>: 0S!. ;eterotopias are for 9oucaultsites that e6ist in reality yet contain the opportunity for rules of go$ernance that differfrom those of e$eryday lifeC places where *all the other real sites that can be found within the culture aresimultaneously represented contested and in$erted (1=B>: 0?!. It is interesting to note that 9oucault describes thesesites as meaningful strictly because of their relational qualities E they both relate to yet in some ways contradict other

sites. %ikewise %ambert and colleagues state that what happens at sea is neither a continuation northe total opposite of what happens on land (022>!. 9iguring the sea as different from yetintimately related to the land is a recurring theme in imaginati$e geographies andcultural interpretations of the sea. ] The frequent recurrence of the ocean in relation touncertainty conflict and chaos is remarkable. 3esterdhal (0228! cites a widespread sense of

antagonism between the land and the sea elaborating on e6amples such as different languages that the same group ofpeople use when speaking at sea or on land and the different taboos at work in these different places. ;e goes so far as tostate that these are common traits in most maritime cultures. stronger sense of $iolence is belied in 4onnery#sdiscussions of the sea as the genesis of discourses of both human and supernatural conquering of the elements referring

hea$ily to biblical imagery (022>!. Yet the ocean he notes is ne$er fully conqueredC it has thepotential to become again an undifferentiated ungo$erned mass for e6ample in the case of Doah

and the flood. It is not 5ust in legend that the ocean has maintained a sense of mystery and power. The ocean alsochallenges scientists with its inhospitable conditions and unknowability. lthough there is

widespread agreement that it will be a significant issue sea le$el rise remains one of the most poorlyunderstood and uncertain aspects of climate change predictions (cf. %owe and Hregory 0212!. nd it is not 5ust sea le$el rise that is an important effect of climate change E it ?B is also e6treme high and low tidesstorm surges changes in ocean acidity and other effects of a warmer ocean such as coral bleaching (Jindoff et al. 022S!. lthough scientists estimate with $ery high confidence that these changes will happen their se$erity time frames andother $ariables are sub5ect to greater uncertainty and regional $ariability (Jindoff et al. 022S!. @$en without considering

climate change much remains unknown about the sea. uch of the ocean floor is une6plored and althoughit is likely home to millions of species currently only about 02222 ha$e been named (&un"ig 022S!. <espite themysteries that the ocean presents it is important to note that the sea is not always inherently *other from the land nor isit always powerful and unpredictable. 9or e6ample %ambert and colleagues (022>! discuss the significance of the beach asa liminal space. 3esterdahl (0228! also mentions that the worlds of the land and the sea meet in one figure thefisher/farmer. This is significant for my work as the participants in my research often embodied this land/sea hybrid in

their daily practices. ;owe$er it is important to note that the centrality of the ocean e$en as an elemental force

is not uni$ersal. In 4hina 4onnery (022>: 82?-828! notes the same word for the sea can also refer to a $ast e6panseof land and despite 4hinese history of na$al prowess the ocean does not feature as an elemental power in historicalaccounts. The word ahel means *shore in rabic but is used in reference to the region at the edge of the ahara <esert.imilarly in rabic the same word can be used to describe riding a camel and riding a ship (teinberg 0221: ?=!. The $arious elements I discuss abo$e ha$e one thing in common: they are all ways that people ha$e come to understand and



make meaning from the sea or ways that people ha$e used the sea to make meaning of other parts of life. ;owe$er%ambert and colleagues insert an important caution: *o$eremphasis on human agency F...G makes for a curiously empty

conception of the sea in which it ser$es mainly as a framework F...G (022>: ?B0!. 3hen the ] ?= focus rests onhow humans ha$e created understandings of the sea the materiality and the agency of the sea isoften lost E we fail to recogni"e how the sea itself creates human understandings ofreality and indeed reality itself . 9urthermore e$en work that more centrally locates the sea as a connectorcreates incomplete theori"ationsC as 4onnery aptly states *connecti$ity itself functions to demateriali"e the connector

(022>: ?=S!. ;e goes on to assert that the demateriali"ation of the ocean is *linked to the long process of capital#sconcealment of its spatial and social character (022>: ?=B! which further disarticulates production and consumption

(teinberg 0221!. imilarly teinberg (0221! notes that while society has seemingly become reorientedaround flows and networks (cf. 4astells 0221! it fails to account for the materiality (and I would insert

agency! of these spaces themsel$es. 3hile scientific analyses can reinforce the physicalimportance of the sea they often neglect the discursi$e elements that work in dynamicassociation with the material to gi$e full weight to the ocean. ;ence both many social theories

an! scientific studies of the sea reinstate a problematic di$ision between the natural andthe social. Therefore I find it $ital to bring this literature into con$ersation with posthumanist political ecologicalpoststructural and feminist contributions to socio-natural theory discussed in 4hapter 1 in order to reali"e the sea morefully as an actor.



2u"lime Link

2u"lime O esternKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-ocean


In this chapter I argue that eighteenth century 3estern philosophical discourse of the sublime is influential in shapingcontemporary conceptions and representations of the oceans. @ighteenth century aesthetic discourse has been importantin determining 3estern orientation to the oceans contributing substantially to the position that 3estern societies placehumans in relation to oceans. In particular the aesthetic theories of @dmund Jurke (1S0=-1S=S! and Immanuel &ant(1S0?-1B2?! ha$e been highly influential in shaping representations of the oceans as sublime in the literature and paintingof the Nomantic o$ement (1B22-1=22! that continue to inform our present day conceptions of oceans. In short

whate$er it is the 3estern sub5ect feels toward the oceans we can probably thank the sublime.1

The sublime is a discourse about human sub5ects# attempt to gi$e e6pression toe6periences of anything that is absolutely great $ast o$erwhelming andincomprehensible. ;istorically the ocean has e$oked this sense of humane6perience. Neference to the ocean re$erberates throughout eighteenth century debate on the sublime (Naban 1==!.

Indeed the ocean has been celebrated as the sublime in nature or as gi$ing rise to sublime e6perience on account of itscapacity to act on a monumental scale that e6ceeds all human control and comprehension.

3hen appeals are made to a collecti$e appreciation of oceans for the purpose ofde$eloping marine ethics and politics by promoting a sense of awe and wonder inrelation to oceans and as a place of re$erie we are tapping into eighteenth century and Nomantic traditions of the sublime. That may be quite the appropriate thing to do by $irtue of the sublime as arepository for the collected wisdom in 3estern traditions of thinking feeling and acting. Donetheless I argue that inde$eloping ocean ethics and politics we need to e6amine closely the usefulness of appeals to traditional sublime aesthetics.

&ant#s concept of the sublime for e6ample presents the following difficulties: first it authorises a relationof human superiority to and transcendence of oceansC second in drawing upon oceans as atrigger for sublime feelings it makes uni$ersal prescriptions that effecti$ely erasefeelings toward oceans that are not e6pressed in terms of superiority and

transcendenceC and third &ant#s sublime facilitates a conception of oceans as a $astsource of wilderness. Neflecting upon these three areas of concern I argue that the traditionalsublime as we find in &ant should be $iewed as a unique 3estern cultural concept andthat the cultural imperialism that it tends towards is a problematical referencepoint for the de$elopment of ethical democratic ocean politics in pursuing 5uste6istences for oceans.This chapter begins with a re$iew of conceptions of the sublime in the work of influential eighteenth century theoristsoseph ddison (1>S0-1S1=! @dmund Jurke and Immanuel &ant. I demonstrate how the oceans ha$e been drawn uponand associated with sublime aesthetics historically and the way the sublime conceptualises self# in relation to oceans.&ant#s concept of the sublime recei$es particular attention in this 4hapter on account of its substantial and enduring

influence. 9ollowing on from this re$iew &ant#s concept of the sublime is critically e6amined withregard to the way the self is conceptualised in relation to oceans and the way the oceans are conceptualised as aphenomenon.

s with 4hapters 0 and 4hapter ? demonstrates in the first instance how the sublime is influential in

pro$iding structure to contemporary human-ocean relations and second how that structure

unnecessarily constrains possibilities for imagining different forms of human-ocean relations in 3estern societies. The sublime presents problems for aninclusi$e political epistemology because it obstinately denies some perspecti$esincluding an acti$e e6clusion of the idea that oceans ha$e agency .

3e"orah Kenne!y says: (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-ocean relationshttp://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!



To employ &ant#s sublime aesthetic uncritically is to imperil the de$elopment ofethical democratic ocean politics in se$eral ways. &ant#s $iew that the magnitude and might of theocean is the $ery thing that re$eals our command o$er it (through the application of practical reason!

is certainly at odds with an ocean politics that attempts to be inclusi$e of the agencyof oceans. The reason/nature dualism that &ant sets up in the sublime categorically e6cludes the

oceans from the realm of reason and concei$es of them instrumentally7theocean is merely the trigger for the sublime. oreo$er the oceans are en$isaged as unable to

reciprocate. s a passi$e entity the oceans can be filled with the sub5ect#s purposeand will and is thereby made a$ailable for human e6ploitation.B)ni$ersal prescription of feelings for the ocean&ant does not pro$ide his concept of the sublime with positi$e definitions about what constitutes the foundations for thesub5ect#s separation from nature and its moral superiority o$er nature. Nather &ant asserts his particular paradigm to bethe actual case. 3e can recall from earlier discussion that practical reason and the supersensible are at the core of the sub5ect#s pleasure inthe sublime e6perience. In order to e6perience the sublime one must understand and e6perience human e6istence asfreedom from bodily senses and e6ternal nature. 4ritically &ant does not elaborate on what the supersensible isconstituted by or what the supersensible does to e6ceed the realm of nature in positi$e forms. ;e only defines thesupersensible negati$ely by defining what the supersensible is notC Jurnham points out for instance that in relation tothe sublime *absolute totality means totality without natural limitsC freedom means acti$ity without natural

determination (0222 ==!. Thus in &ant#s argument about how the mind transcends nature he determinesthat the mind is separate from and superior to nature without stipulating whatthe sphere of feeling is in itself that transcends nature. 3ith the e6ception of the abstracttheoretical requirement of the supersensible &ant#s concept of the sublime is unanchored and drifting.

The implication of &ant#s sublime aesthetic is that the sub5ect asserts superiority o$er nature by performing the *god-trick (;araway 1==1a 1=1!. &ant ne$er brings the partialness ofthe sub5ect to the surface7as a particular and pri$ileged perspecti$e of the @uropean

bourgeois urban male. Nather &ant presents his conception of the sublime as the absolute anduni$ersal understanding of the aesthetic e6perience (conditioned only by the correct moralculture!. ;owe$er more contemporary philosophy (indeed since ;egel first made the sub5ect a problem#! makes itunconscionable that sub5ects could sustain unlocated $alue-neutral and uni$ersalising theories of knowledge.

The sublime aesthetics of &ant and Jurke and the Nomantic o$ement they subsequently fed did notcome out of nowhere but are linked to specific de$elopments of the age in

particular *scientific @nlightenment the growth of industry and the increasingdomestication of nature and the *attitudes to nature engendered by those de$elopments (oper 1==8 00>-S!.

4ertainly in @ngland the Nomantic oceanic sublime thri$ed in reaction to industrialisation. s access to @nglish terrestrial spaces decreased Nomantic representations ofoceans in literature and painting swelled.= Naban touches upon this trend in writing: s @ngland de$eloped the biggest cities and the most mechani"ed industries in the world so its access to the sea7that

alternati$e uni$erse7became more and more precious. 9or the sea was the realm of man as solitary creature the herostruggling with elemental forces and to go to sea was to escape from the city and the machine and fromthe regulated and repetiti$e patterns of life in a comple6 industrial society. (1== 18!In @ngland the oceanic sublime was de$eloped in the Nomantic literature of Jyron 4oleridge and helley and the

painting of . . 3. Turner among others.12 The Nomantics depicted the ocean as wild nature

untainted and untamed by the forces of modernity and a space to be treasured and re$ered7

despite the sea becoming increasingly used and industrialised (Naban 1==C teinberg0221!. Yet it is important to note that Nomantic representations of the ocean had its basis in the industrial era#sconstruction of the sea as the antithesis of ci$ilised and de$elopable terrestrial en$ironments (teinberg 0221!. In the

4lassical and neoclassical economic discourses of industrial-capitalism the ocean was conceptualised as

beyond society as a *great $oid and *empty transportation surface between ci$ili"edterrestrial places (teinberg 0221 11!. The Nomantic conception of the ocean as wilderness which I

discuss below further complements *the rationalist ideali"ation of the ocean as emptyand featureless (teinberg 0221 11B!.11oper proposes that we $iew:



the culti$ation of the sublime Fas anG e6pression of an6iety Fas well asG the aesthetic lu6ury# of a culture that has begun toe6perience its power o$er nature as a form of se$erance from it while Nomanticism only finds e6pression against the background of a certain mastery of its forces and a consequent concern for the alienation it entails. The romanticisation ofnature in its sublimer reaches is in this sense a manifestation of those same human powers o$er nature whose destructi$eeffects it laments. (1==8 00S!



2ustaina"le 3evelopment Link

2ustaina"le !evelopment !iscourse posit the ocean as an empty space'or capitalist e$ploitation* alloing its annihilation 'or the sake o'capital2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainable

de$elopment capital mobility and nostalgia in the world ocean file://$mware-host/hared029olders/<ownloads/ustainable02<e$elopment.pdf

This application of the sustainable de$elopment discourse to the ocean at theinter- go$ernmental le$el has been supported by representations of the ocean in thepopular media. In 1==8 alone two ma5or ) publications Time and Dational Heographic featured co$er stories celebrating the ocean as a

resource-rich but fragile en$ironment (%emonick 1==8C 'arfit 1==8!. Time tells an optimistic story: The sea is a frontierreplete with opportunity at last capable of being XconqueredX. Dational Heographic tells a more

pessimistic story: The sea is an endangered en$ironment wherein new technologies bothrespond to and reproduce scarcity (figure 1!. Joth stories howe$er place the sea

ithin a !iscourse o' sustaina"le !evelopment similar to that constructed by the promoters of

the IY+: s the sea is a space of Wfinite economical assetsW the commodification of itsen$ironment should be guided by long-run planning for ma6imum efficiency andproducti$ity . imilarly a 1==B supplement to The @conomist celebrates the ocean as a multiple-use space but one in which certain

uses are likely to crowd out others and destroy the ocean en$ironment unless we Wtake stewardship of the ocean with all the pri$ileges and responsibilities that impliesW (The @conomist 1==B page 1B!. lso associated with these efforts to promotein$estment in the sustained e6ploitation of the oceanXs riches is a general campaign for what %eddy (1==>! calls the X4ousteaui"ationX of theoceans a popular mo$ement to culti$ate public interest in the oceanXs biota with the effect of generating support for further marine researchand for go$ernmental and/or corporate stewardship of marine resources In the ) perhaps the most $isible spokesperson for thismo$ement has been publicist/authof/burcaucrat/oceanographcr yl$ia @arle supported by a marine research and de$elopment military-industrial comple6 represented by indi$iduals such as computer entrepreneur and former ) <eputy ecretary of <efense <a$id 'ackardand retired dmiral ames 3atkins a former ) 4hief of Da$al +perations and ) ecretary of @nergy who presently heads the

4onsortium for +ceanographic Nesearch and @ducation (Jroad 1==S!. The rise o' the sustaina"le!evelopment !iscourse howe$er is only one component o' a multi'acete!shi't in our perception* use* an! regulation o' ocean space. @$en as this

image of the ocean as a space of resources has gained popularity other images ha$e also been ascendant.

4ontrasting with the image of the ocean as a cornucopia of e6ploitable resourcescultural products such as the film 3aterworldand the tele$ision program ea [uest ha$e depicted the sea asa distinctly resource-free space an empty surface across which and through which people mo$e in search of ad$enture. In 3ater- world (1==8! for instance the ocean isde$oid of natureC the weather is always good the sea is always calm and with only one highlydenaturalised e6ception there is no e$idence of fish or other marine life. The sea docs not e$en pro$ide the resource of

waterC drinking water is obtained not by desalinating seawater but by purifying urine. This ;ollywood representation ofthe sea complements a corporate imagery in which the sea is portrayed as anempty space across which capital flows with increasing case as it seeks out profit-generating opportunities on land. Thus the geocconomic region known as the 'acific Nim is notable for its imagery

of discrete deccntered units (nation - states world cities sweatshops etc! re$ol$ing around a space of (marine! emptiness: WThe hegemonicconstruction of a 'ascalian sublime whose Xcircumference is e$erywhere and center nowhereX... Fcharacteri"ed byG the dcterritoriali"ingpower of oceanic $astnessW (3ilson and <irlik 1==8 page 1! Wa perfect image for a centeredness with no central powerW (4onnery 1==8

page ?C see also <irlik 1==!. 9or the corporate practitioner of capitalist globali"ation theocean that binds the rim (and more generally the space of the world economy! is anunprofitable nuisance space to "e progressively annihilate! "y capital inits search for complete freedom of mo$ement and the conquest of distance. 4orporatead$ertisements take this representation of the ocean to fantastic e6cessC in a 1==2 errill %ynch ad$ertisement a panoramic photograph ofthe ocean is accompanied by the caption W9or us this doesnXt e6itW (reproduced in Noberts 1==>! and in a 1==S ad$ertisement thetelecommunications firm 4oncert en$isions a Xglobal $illageX wherein the world has been impacted by a fortuitous act of tectoniccon$ergence in which the continents ha$e been squee"ed together eliminating practically all inter- $ening ocean space (figure 0!. TZT







similarly ad$ertises its international ser$ice with a slogan celebrating its ability to annihilate the marine di$ide: W+ceans separate. nd weconnectW (cited in 4ar$a5al 1==8!.

The !esire to e$plore or Mmo!erni.e’ the ocean is roote! in a capitalistepistemology that annihilates the ocean’s inherent in!epen!ence'rom capitalist structures2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainable


3e are now in a position to re$isit the three marine images with which this paper began: the ocean as a spaceprogressi$ely annihilated by capital in its conquest of distance as a space ofhistorical memory (and consumable icons! for postindustrial society and as a space ofsustainable de$elopment. @ach of these images represents an attempt by capital tocope with the increasing use of the ocean as an arena for both capital mobilityand capital fi6ity. The ocean as annihilated space Negarding the first of these images many scholars ha$e noted the importantrole that speed and the conquest of distance play in contemporary capitalism. @$en those who caution that this phenomenon masks thecontinued importance of place (for e6ample 4o6 1==S! or continuity with past political-economic processes (for e6ample ;ar$ey 1=B=!

acknowledge that the ability to transgress space with unprecedented speed and agility isa defining feature of todayXs capitalist political economy . 3ithin this system of hypermobile

capitalism the ocean has taken on special importance as a seemingly friction-free surface across which capital can mo$e without hindrance:W3ater is capitalXs element The bourgeois ideali"ation of sea power and ocean- borne commerce has been central to the mythology ofcapital which has struggled to free itself from the earth 5ust as the bourgeoisie struggled to free itself from tilling the soil. o$ing capital isliquid capital and without mo$ement capital is a mere +riental hoard .... FThe oceanG is capitalXs fa$ored myth-elementW (4onnery 1==8

pages ?2 8>!. There are se$eral layers of irony here. If capital were truly able to transcend the barriersto seamless mobility imposed by the distance and nature of ocean space then atthe point at which this transcendence were achie$ed the ocean could no longerha$e utilit y. lthough the ocean may be WcapitalXs fa$ored myth-elementW its utility to capital as a transportation

sur'ace lies in the ease ith hich it can "e annihilate! . s we ha$e seen the oceanXs ser$ice in a world of capitalfluidity lies in the apparent ability of corporations such as errill %ynch 4oncert and TZT to wish away both its nature and the $eryspace it occupies. The underlying utility of the ocean as an antithetical space of mo$ement (and the irony in capitalXs desire to annihilate it!is supported by <eleu"e and HuatarriXs iden- tification of the ocean as Wa smooth space par e6cellenceW (<eleu"e and Huatarri 1=BB page?S=!. s sites of alterity XsmoothX spaces ser$e as necessary counterpoints to the XstriatedX spaces of capital whose physical and socialfeatures and points of friction enable in$estment sedentari/ation enclosure sur$eillance and other processes associated with modern life

(<eleu"e and Huatarri 1=BB pages ?S? 822!. <espite their utility agents of capital progressi$ely seek toabsorb and Xmoderni"eX these smoolhX spaces because they are resistant toessential capitalist categories and institutions . Thus the tendency to annihilate theformal independence o ocean space is indicati$e of a more general tendencytoward self-destruction whether this annihilation is achie$ed throughcoloni"ation by modernist institutions of na$igation and militarism (as is depicted by

,irilio 1=B> pages S ?= as well as <eleu"e and Huatarri! or through physical obliteration (as is ideali"ed by errill %ynch and 4oncert!.

dditionally the inter$ening distance of ocean space amplifies difference and as poli-tical economists ha$e long asserted the ability to shift capital between XdifferentXplaces pro$ides a crucial mechanism for capital accumulation (;ilferding 1=B1C %enin 1==C

%u6emburg 1=>?!. 4apitalXs per$erse desire to annihilate its Wfa$ored myth-elementWalthough perhaps rational from a short-run profit-ma6imi"ation standpoint runs

the risk of also annihilating opportunities for the reali"ation of $alue throughmo$ement thereby reducing capital to the status of Wa mere +riental hoard.W %astthis capitalist fantasy of annihilating ocean space is ironic because despite its representation during the industrial capitalist era as afriction-free $oid the ocean may in fact be the portion of the earthXs surface least amenable to time space compression. @urodollars mo$efrom Dew York to Tokyo in fractions of seconds but hydrodynamics limit the speed of the ocean freighters that carry the bulk of the worldXscommodities to the same speed as at the end of the 9irst 3orld 3ar (ekula 1==8 page 82!. ckula elaborates on this characteristic of theocean in his discussion of transoceanic labor ;ows: Wcceleration is not absolute ... society of accelerated ;ows is also in certain keyaspects a society of deliberately slow mo$ement. 4onsider as a re$ealing case the glacial caution with which contraband human cargomo$es. 4hinese immigrant- smuggling ships can take longer than se$enteenth-century sailing $essels to reach their destinations spendingo$er a year in miserable and meandering transit. t their lowest depths capitalist labor markets e6hibit a miserly patienceW (ekula 1==8

page 82!. The ocean as nostalgic space The sea is also an ob5ect of consumption: a space (and a $iew! thatpro$ides historical groundings for the tourist-oriented spectacles that increasingly characteri"e the Xpost- modernX urban waterfront. s







scholars such as Jaudrillard (1=BB! and )rry (1==2C 1==?! discuss three dominant aspects of XpostmodernXcapitalism are incessant mo$e- ment the self-conscious production of places andthe perpetual consumption of images (see also ;ar$ey 1=B=C %ash and )rry 1==?C o5a 1=B=C 1==>!. Thesecharacter- istics all manifest themsel$es in tourism where the tourist (by definition a mo$ing sub5ect! seeks out notable places andconsumes their images (Jritton 1==1!. Indeed the links between tourism and postmodernism are so strong that )rry (1==2 page BS!claims that e$en during the modern era tourism was Wprefigurati$ely postmodern.W Donetheless for )rry post modern tourism isdistinguished by the ga"ed upon ob5ectXs lack of claim to authenticity and by the tourist who comprehends this charade but still chooses toaccept the presented ob5ect as an image to be consumed.



2ustaina"le 3evelopment Link ,t FailsH

2ustaina"le !evelopment isn’t sustaina"le+ Their !iscourseperpetuates capitalist control over nature* alloing 'or its

!egra!ation2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainable


The language of sustainable de$elopment suggests a belated recognition of thisecological contradiction as attempts are made to incorporate the materialobstacles of space and time into the business cycle with corporate leadershippro$iding en$ironmental stewardship (Jridge 1==BC +X4onnor 1==? pages 108- 181!. Thisdiscourse of a resource-rich but fragile ocean in need of comprehensi$emanagement and planning is the result (Dichols 1===!. Thus Dational Heographic asserts that indi$iduals engaged in fishing

must come to terms with Wthis world of ine$itable limitsW and gi$e way to long- range planning and

corporate management. This challenge has been taken up by the arine tewardship 4ouncil a 5oint effort of the multinational foodcorporation )nile$er and the 3orld 3ildlife 9und designed Wto harness market forces and consumer power in fa$our of healthy well-maintained fisheries for the futureW (arine tewardship 4ouncil 1==S!. lthough Dational Heographic regrets the loss of the independentfishing boat owner plying the oceanXs wilds the bureaucrati"ation of ocean management and the pri$ati"ation of rights to its resources ispresented as the maturation of our attitudes toward nature. The stewardship of marine resources by agents of capital is naturali"ed throughe6plicit parallels to the enclosure of agricultural land in the western )nited tates: fisheries like post-dust-bowl agriculture must beallowed to e$ol$e into Wbig industry: highly regulated tidyW where rational management is applied for long-term sustainability ('arfit1==8!. %ikewise The @conomist declares: WIn fact Fthe oceanG is a resource that must be preser$ed and har$ested. To enhance its uses the

water must become e$er more like the land with owners laws and limits. 9ishermen must beha$e more like ranchers than huntersW The

@conomist 1==B page ?!. This managerial en$ironmentalist perspecti$e is supporti$e ofgeneral guidelines for go$erning the uses of the sea without actually mandatingits go$ernance as territor y. Indeed parallels can be made with the mercantilist-era regime. )nder both regimes the oceanis recogni"ed as a crucial space for essential social processes but care is taken to protect it from the ra$ages of competiti$e territorial states. The mercantilist designation of the sea as a special space of commerce (res e6tra commercium!

immune to territorial appropriation but susceptible to e6ertions of social power is being

paralleled by a postindustrial designation of the sea as a special space of nature (rese6tra naturd!. In contrast to the inter$ening industrial era when the sea was denigrated as a $oid between the terrestrial spaces of

production and consumption the ocean is now once again configured as a significant space wherein states and intergo$ernmental entities are permitted to e6ercisenonterritorial power so as to manage the oceanXs resources in a rationalefficiency-ma6imi"ing manner. The regulatory policies consistent with thiscorporate en$ironmentalism will likely pro$e inadequate to resol$e the ongoingspatial crisis in the regulation of ocean space. @$en if an ocean-managementregime were to negotiate successfully the ecological contradiction of capital itstill would need to negotiate capitalismXs spatial contradiction. The account of the regulatorycrisis surrounding the proposed manganese nodule regime demonstrates that this spatial contradiction is increasingly intense in oceanspace and it is questionable whether any regulatory regime that preser$es the seaXs nonterritorial character (whether the Xcommon heritageXregime proposed at )D4%+ III or a regime whereby stewardship of the oceanXs resources is entrusted to a global XecocracyX! would pro$ide

enough security for potential in$estors in e6tra- state production sites.







Nostalgia Link

@ieing the ocean as a space 'or nostalgia provi!es the "ack!rop 'orits capitalist e$ploitation

2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainable


The image of the ocean as a space of nostalgia is particularly apparent in the harborside festi$al

marketplace an increasingly popular urban rede$elopment strategy that both reflects the spatiality of postmoderncapitalism (&ilian and <odson 1==>! and pro$ides an ideal backdrop for promotingconsumption of commodities within the postmodern tourist economy (Hoss 1==>!. In theharborside festi$al marketplace the placeXs mercantile past is celebrated through the fetishi"ation of human interactions with marine space.These marketplaces are frequently located in former customs houses or warehouses (or perhaps in a new building constructed to look like ithad ser$ed a former maritime function! fishing nets and anchors abound and there may e$en be a restored clipper ship parked outside.

nd of course the sea itself (or a surrogate water body! is within $iew pro$iding as it did during the industrial era romantic possibilitiesof escape danger and untamed nature. The difference from the industrial era is that this image of alterity although still linked with

romantic escape is now also linked with the potential for asserting indi$iduality through

the consumption of commodities. The sea is represented as a space ofconsumable icons and XmemoriesX. This representation of ocean space rests uneasily alongside that

of the ocean as an empty space without $alue an obstruction to be obliterated by theforces of hyper- mobility . +n the urban waterfront in contrast the sea and its landward referents are fetishi"ed as imagesto be consumed. any of the goods sold at festi$al marketplaces are marketed as global e6otica in which the ocean adds $alue by

contributing to global differentiation. Yet the Xglobal $illageX rhetoric used in marketing these products (such as Xglobal

$illageX! implies the time - space compression that is ideali"ed by the representation ofthe ocean as an empty space capable of being annihilated . The uneasy balance of contradictoryrepresentations is largely achie$ed by portray- ing the urban waterfront as a space of historical social acti$ity but one that is now de$oid ofany human interaction. @$idence of contemporary labor production or transportation7dockyards fish markets container terminals7

would contradict the oceanXs separateness and so designers of festi$al marketplaces consciously obscure such signs of contemporarymarine acti$ity while flaunting the safely historical (tkinson et al 1==SC tkinson and %aurier 1==BC Hoss 1==>C ekula 1==8!. Theparallel with the countryside presented to tourists in @ngland is striking: WThe countryside is thought to embody some or all of the followingfeatures: a lack of planning and regimentation a $ernacular quaint architecture winding lanes and a generally labyrinthine road system

and the $irtues of tradition and the lack of social inter$ention .... particular feature of this construction of the rural landscape has been toerase from it farm machinery labourers tractors telegraph wires concrete farm buildings motorways derelict land polluted water andmore recently nuclear power stations. 3hat people see is therefore highly selecti$e and it is the ga"e which is central to peopleXs

appropriationW ()rry 1==2 page =S-=BC see also itchell 1==>C 3illiams 1=S!. Thus the image of the sea as a spaceof nostalgia like its image as annihilated space rests at a point of uneasy balance between the tendency to $alue indi$idual places and the ideali"ation ofplacelessness inherent in the need of capital to embody fi6ity and mobilitysimultaneously. The sea is to be ga"ed at and e$en celebrated but as an actualplace of production and transportation it is largely hidden .







4cean Con'lict Link

<n!erstan!ing the ocean as an empty space 'or states to controlthrough con'lict is roote! in a estern capitalist orientation toar!s

the ocean* this vie props up 'alse political economic systems 'ocuse!on pro'it ma$imi.ation+2tein"erg 78 ('hillip @ <epartment of Heography 9lorida tate )ni$ersity 12/0B *The maritime mystique: sustainable


odern-era representations and regulations of ocean space are particular to oursociety and ha$e their origins in underlying social structures and uses of the sea . s

a point of departure modern regimes go$erning the ocean can be compared with those ofnonmodern societies (teinberg 1==>b! ranging from the societies of +ceania where thesea was go$erned like land as an integral space of society (ackson 1==8C Dakayama and Namp1=S?! to those of the Indian +cean where the sea was constructed as a "one so e6ternal to land-based society that the ships of states

warring on land ceased being ad$ersaries when they encountered one another at sea (nand 1=BC Jraudel 1=B?C 4haudhuri 1=B8!. etagainst this broad spectrum of possible systems for ocean go$ernance the e$ent usually heralded as the beginning of the modern ocean-space regime7the early se$enteenth century XJattle of the JooksX between Hrotius (1=1>! and elden (1=S0!7is re$ealed as a relati$elynarrow debate wherein all parties argued for modifications of pree6isting @uropean ocean-space traditions in an effort to craft a go$ernancesystem appropriate for the emergent era of merchant capitalism (nand 1=BC teinberg 1==>a pages 1B>-022!. lthough Hrotius andelden are typically portrayed as polar opposites the former ad$ocating freedom of the seas and the latter ad$ocating enclosure (see+X4onnell 1=B0 page 1 -1?! both authors shared a common basis in the legal principle of imperium that had guided Noman control of the

editerranean (9enn 1=08C Hormley 1=>C %obingier 1=8C +X4onnell 1=B0 pages 1?-02!. ccording to this doctrine the ocean isimmune to incorporation within the territory of any indi$idual state but as anessential space of society it is perceive! as a legitimate arena 'ore$ertions o' poer "y lan!)"ase! state entities+ This Early =o!ernocean)space regime as particularly ell suite! to the spatiality o' theeraJs mercantilist political economy+ +n the one hand the interstate political- economic system was(and remains! dependent upon competition among multiple so$ereign states (4hase-<unn 1=B=C 3allerstein 1=B?!. The transformation of

world hegemony into one global world empire would ha$e stifled the political competition that dro$e (and continues to dri$e! capitalismXs

search for e$er-increasing accumulation. +n the other hand during this early era of capitalism there were few domains in which so$ereignstates could actually compete with each other for economic dominance. ;igh-risk in$estments in the mainstays of mercantilist politicaleconomy7o$erseas agriculture mineral e6traction and the carriage trade7generally would ha$e run at a loss if mediated solely by aXdepolitici"edX free-enterprise market (ndrews 1=B?C Jraudel 1=B0C <a$is 1=>0! and there were few opportunities for profits to be

reali"ed from in$estment in @uropean production sites (<unford and 'errons 1=B!. ;owe$er rising @uropean powerssoon disco$ered that by applying state $iolence they could claim e6clusi$e rightsto the products of distant areas and gain monopolistic control o$er long-distancetrade routes and this ser$ed as a crucial means for generating capital accumulation (4haudhuri 1=B8C <a$is 1=>0C Di5man 1==?!.

naly"ing these factors Junker and 4iccantell (1==8C forthcoming! ha$e suggested that the one distinct characteristic of this early period ofcapitalism was that the primary means for capital accumulation was control of trade or channeled circulation and they ha$e suggested that

the era be renamed the age of transport capitalism. It follows that in a system in which economic power was based upon controlling discrete channels of trade the surface upon which muchof this trade was carried out (the ocean! would emerge as a site for e6ercisingpower and implementing state $iolence Thus the control of trade routes rapidly became conflated with political domination and military might and the deep seas became constructed as a Xforce-fieldX for e6ercis- ing these forms of power (ollat du

ourdin 1==! and inno$ations in the means for crossing its e6panse were among thedri$ing forces in modern technological progress (;ugil) 1==!. @$en as the sea became anessential arena for the gathering and e6pression of social power nascent international law

clearly placed the ocean outside the realm of state territoriality . Incorporation of ocean space within the borders of the state could interfere with its function as a circulation surface andduring this era circulation was the dominant means by which states accumulated







wealth. Thus although the 1?= 'apal Jull and the 1?=? Treaty of Tordcsillas are often described as di$iding the seas between painand 'ortugal (sec Hold 1=B1 page 8C Hrotius 1=1> pages S-B! a careful reading re$eals that these documents were specifically wordedto a$oid any implication that the seas were to be partitioned. Nather each state was granted e6clusi$e policing powers in its respecti$e

region of the sea (teinberg 1==>a page 1S>- 1B!. Jy constructing the ocean as a space where statescompeted for influence and use but not for outright possession the mercantilist-era ocean-space regime preser$ed both the interstate competition and the

channeled circulation that were essential attributes of the eraXs political-economicsystem. 3ith the Industrial Ne$olution of the mid-eighteenth century the spatiality of capitalism underwent a transformation as didthe social perception and regulation of the sea. lthough the dominant use of the sea7transportation of commodities across its surface7remained constant with the pre$ious era its percei$ed significance in the conte6t of political economy changed markedly. t the root of thistransformation in political economy were a host of new opportunities for in$esting in land space. 9ollowing from these opportunities theindustrial eraXs rationalist Xde$elopment discourseX5ustified the reification of de$elopable places and denigrated the spaces between.

ccording to the discourse all societies were to Xde$elopX themsel$es by identifying what they produced best and directing in$estment

toward production of that good. Through the application of reason to in$estment decisions asociety could progress (achs 1==0C 3atts 1==!. <e$elopment was to occur in XterritoriesX7units of land

space that could be bounded go$erned planned for and XemptiedXand XfilledXaccording to generali"ablcrules of profit ma6imi"ation (ack 1=B>C teinberg 1==?!. The de$elopment of a place7through the rational application of spatially fi6ed in$estments7was equated withenlightenment progress and ci$ili"ation. 4apital circulation remained an important aspect of politicaleconomy during this era but at least in the popular imagination fi6ity and de$elopment replaced it as the essential acti$ities of economic

life. HoldXs account of the lack of attention gi$en to trade at the 4ongress of ,ienna (1B18! e6emplifies how during the industrial era littleformal attention was gi$en to capital mobility or more specifically to the ocean as a space of capital circulation: W9or most @uropeancountries commerce was no longer XfashionableX nor something on which great amounts of energy needed to be e6pended. 4ommerce wasconsidered to be sufficiently self-moti$ated and self-perpetuating that whate$er loose regulation it needed could be supplied by lessergo$ernment bodies. s long as commerce could pro$ide a con$enient ta6 base for go$ernment ambitions necessary employment for thee6panding population and new markets for imports and e6ports it was left to its own de$ices. +cean transportation as a part of the

commercial structure fitted well into this laisse"-faire philosophyW (Hold 1=B1 page B2!. Thus the ocean becamediscursi$ely constructed as remo$ed from society and the terrestrial places ofprogress ci$ili"ation and de$elopment. o$ement across spaces that resistedde$elopment although necessary was rhetorically defined as a subordinate acti$ityoutside social organi"ation. The ocean was to ser$e capitalism as an empty spaceacross which the free trade of liberal capitalist fantasy could transpire withouthindrance from natural or social obstacles. s an XotherX space the ocean wascon- structed not so much as a space within which power could be deployed (as it had been during the mercantilist era when

control of channeled circulation was an essential component in garnering social power! but as an empty space across which power could be pro5ected (%atour 1=B>C %aw 1=B>!. @$idence of this abstraction of ocean space during theindustrial era can be obser$ed in both the regulatory and representational spheres. 3hen regulations were required for certain maritimeacti$ities such as shipping or piracy policymakers continued the mercantilist-era practice of a$oiding territorial control by so$ereign states.;owe$er unlike in the pre$ious era the sea was now also discursi$ely constructed as a subordinate arena beyond the social practice offormal interstate competition. In the case of shipping states largely abandoned global shipping regulation lea$ing the industry to go$ernitself and in some cases effecti$ely gi$ing national industry associations the authority to negotiate international treaties (Hold 1=B1!.Necogni"ing shippingXs dependence on the maintenance of an indi$isible ocean hegemonic players de$eloped a series of regulations andinstitutions that reflected their di$erse interests and their desire for systemic stability rather than promoting regimes crudely calculated tomulti- ply their social power and ma6imi"e short-term accumulation of economic rents (4afruny 1=BS!. somewhat different route was

taken with regard to piracy but here too regulation in ocean space was crafted so as to define the ocean as a space beyond state

competition (Thomson 1==?!. hips not flying a national flag7that is ships not claiming allegiance androotedness in one of the ci$ilised XplacesX of the land7were declared to be of the wild of the antici$ili"ation of the sea. They were defined in international law as hostis humani generis (theenemy of humankind! a designation that transcended the di$ision of land space into so$ereign states and left pirate ships legitimate prey

for ships of all land-based Xci$ili"edX nations. The a6is of social power enabling regulation of piracyin ocean space was thus scripted as a Xfree-for-allX between the forces of landspace and ocean space rather than a structured intrasystemic competition amongland powers seeking riches from assertions of social power in the sea.



Ansers to



AT5 /erm

Western epistemology is "ase! on a totali.ing orl!vie thatsingulari.es knole!ge an! claims an o"#ective un!erstan!ing thatnecessarily e$clu!es other knole!ge+ To "e inclusive is severing outo' the e$act reason e criti(ue estern epistemology the onlyinclusive approach is the alternative+Nicholson 8 & J.. The 4ollege of 4harleston] .. Indiana )ni$ersity] 'h.<. <uke )ni$ersity (Jrantley *piritual+rgani"ation and @pistemic Nupture: [uesting for Vion in Noberto JolaLo#s The a$age <etecti$es] * $olume B.1 Z B.0 spring Z fall 022Bhttps://www.academia.edu/SB=B1/piritualA+rgani"ationAandA@pistemicANuptureA[uestingAforAVionAinANobertoAJolanosATheAa

$ageA<etecti$es//N%!

To approach knowledge in the 3estern/odern sense of the word is toapproach a comple6 colonial systemati"ation of plural e6istence. 3hen I sayplural e6istence I do not mean that the totali"ing epistemology of the 3est is plural in

itself but that it singulari.es the plural. It is to say that Western>=o!ern knole!geco!i'ies plurality singularly or through the singularity of locution an! !oes not necessarily

give agency to the cultures>knole!ges totali.e! ithin its systematicorgani.ation. %et us take the panish conquest as an e6ample of the sub5ugation of autochthonous agency in the name of a

totali"ing episteme. common trend in the disregard of local knowledge in the name of agrander metanarrati$e within the Dew 3orld can be traced from 4olumbus#s arri$al through the present day. 3ith thearri$al of 4olumbus the panish 5ustified the sub5ugation of the autochthonous populations through the metanarrati$e of the sal$ation ofsouls. This narrati$e was of course superficial as 4olumbus merely used religiosity as a means of marketing the continuation of hise6ploration of the Dew 3orld which in turn paid di$idends in resources such as gold and sil$er that were e6otic to @uropeans and as aresult were $alued commodities. This fact accompanied by the initial impetus of 4olumbus#s $oyage the e6ploration of new trade routes tothe Indies signals that e$en the pre-4apitalist $oyages funded by 9erdinand and Isabelle showed signs of foundational tlantic mercantile

dominance. dditionally the sub5ugation of autochthonous knowledges and religions as ameans of 5ustifying the further e6ploitation of the Dew 3orld resources showsthat in this no$el historical moment of the conquest of mind body and soul theine6tricable link between economic epistemic and spiritual dominance arises .Jut the panish conquest of the Dew 3orld precedes the seculari"ation of knowledge that occurs through the rise of a] @uropean middle

class democratic re$olutions and the rationali"ation of society. In other words the e6ample of panish colonialism does not adequatelydescribe the odern coloniality of knowledge because in effect it precedes odernity. It is during the 1Bth century that the metanarrati$eof reason and the creation of the nation-state displaces the metanarrati$e of the sal$ation of souls. ;omocentric and democratic

@uropean/Dorth merican society purports the rationali"ation of knowledge based onthe inheritance of odern @uropean philosophy as their founding narrati$e thus

painting the spiritual or the non)eurorational as ontologically in'erior in allaspects+ Donetheless enlightened society continues to be economically dependent on trade with the colonies showing the

continuation of the pre-modern panish colonial pro5ect on at least one le$el. @$en in dam mith#s %eyenda Degra ridden account ofpain#s imperial failure mith describes @ngland#s dependency on the colonies as a means of maintaining an economic ad$antage o$erother @uropean nations. s Dorthern @urope namely 9rance and @ngland displaces the panish religious-based conquest with their own

reason-centered culturally-based conquest they essentially do little more than displacethe discourse of the sal$ation of souls with the discourse of ci$ili"ation while at the

same time maintaining the same colonial dynamic under the guise of a new name . The

Dorthern @uropean approach then falls $ictim to its own critique due to the fact that the rationality that oderns use as a measuring stickto classify and organi"e society and e6istence in the process of turning ontology into a commodity of knowledge within the uni$ersalacademic system repeats the centrality of religion in the panish conquest. 4hrist is simply replaced by &ant and <escartes and sal$ation is

replaced by the eurorationality that pretends to be an ob5ecti$e ahistorical entity thatgrants itself the right to codify and organi"e the world.]







/erm !oesn’t solve)policymakers ill alays e$clu!e in!igenous vies 'or estern epistemologiesTsosie 16)'roffessor of %aw-Indian legal program 9aculty fellow-4enter for law and globalaffairs ffiliate 'rofessor-merican Indian studies program (Nebecca Tsosie *indigenouspeoples and epistemic 5ustice: science ethics and human rightshttps://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1SS.1/11B8/BS3%N11.pdfQsequence\1!//%

s demonstrated abo$e many of the conflicts between indigenous peoples and scientistsre$ol$e around fundamental differences in their respecti$e systems of thoughtparticularly as these concern the categories of e6perience that are rele$ant tounderstanding the natural world. These epistemological differences in turnhea$ily influence the formation of public policy and can operate to cause forms of *epistemic in5ustice for the affected groups. 3ithin the )nited tates domesticpolicymaking is dependent upon a model of secular pluralism. ecular pluralismpri$ileges 3estern @uropean understandings of science economics andtechnology as the appropriate constructs for domestic public policy. lthoughindigenous peoples ha$e analogous concepts such as traditional ecological

knowledge these understandings are routinely disregarded within public policydiscourse. 'olicymakers and 5urists tend to understand indigenous cultural world$iews as *religious beliefs and marginali"e these interests as matters of*pri$ate conscience. To the e6tent that 3estern society e6cludes indigenous world$iews from important social interactions within domestic policy structuresindigenous peoples are likely to suffer epistemic forms of in5ustice. In most cases theseharms will not be seen or appreciated by others meaning that the legal system will be unable to pro$ide any redress. iranda 9ricker#s

account of *epistemic in5ustice facilitates an understanding of the subtle ways in which indigenous peoples ha$e been e6cluded from full participation in shapingdomestic law and public policy . lthough 9ricker#s account is potentially illuminating for all societies this rticlediscusses its utility for understanding the effect of ).. public policy upon Dati$e peoples in this country.

/erm !oesn’t solve)estern epistemologies !on’t take intoaccount ethics that are key to in!igenous knole!ge pro!uction)the est also suppresses in!igenous thinkingTsosie 16)'roffessor of %aw-Indian legal program 9aculty fellow-4enter for law and globalaffairs ffiliate 'rofessor-merican Indian studies program (Nebecca Tsosie *indigenouspeoples and epistemic 5ustice: science ethics and human rightshttps://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1SS.1/11B8/BS3%N11.pdfQsequence\1!//%%ittle Jear defines science on a more fundamental le$el as the *pursuit of knowledgeand claims that Dati$e peoples and 3estern peoples equally participate in thispursuit. ;owe$er they do so in different ways and with different understandingsof the uni$erse. In this way the effort of 3estern scientists to define the

parameters of a $alid *pursuit of knowledge may negate alternati$e accountsthat would re$eal $aluable information. nother danger is that 3estern scientists will seek an incomplete form of knowledge and perhaps unwittingly endanger theen$ironment or human health. This is one problem with contemporary scientificinno$ation that seeks to mine indigenous *traditional knowledge but re5ects theethical constraints that indigenous cultural norms place on such knowledge. Insum many conflicts between scientists and indigenous peoples result fromfundamental differences on what *science encompasses and what forms of



knowledge might be used to access information for society#s benefit. second setof conflicts arises from the use of science as a tool of public policy. In the public policy sense

science becomes a tool to effectuate a particular set of interests . s the following discussion

demonstrates conflicts between 3estern scientists and indigenous peoples typicallyarise because indigenous peoples are treated as the *ob5ects of 3estern scientific

disco$ery rather than as equal participantsin the creation of knowledge or public policy (as a shared

endea$or!. This is not the fault of science or scientists. It is largely the fault of a public policy discourse that uses terms such as

*knowledge and *benefit as though they are neutral and fully capable of intercultural e6change. In fact the terms areoften used as political de$ices to ad$ance or suppress particular interests and $alues.



AT5 Enviro /rag

Environmental pragmatism can never truly incorporate ocean agency

into the !ecision making processKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf !

n ob$ious shortcoming of a pragmatic approach to en$ironmental decisionmaking such as Dorton#s with its focus on policy and practical outcomes is that thepotential remains for the lou! voices o' the ma#ority or poer'ul elite to

"e rein'orce!+ Nepresentation in real-world liberal democracies is affected bysocial and economic inequalities. 3i''erences in income* ealth* status*knole!ge* an! communicative poer "eteen actors create!istortions to !emocratic process. ;ence we must ask as @ckersley (0220! does how we can account for the disparities between those with communicati$e and others forms of power

and those withoutQ 3here are the safeguards for a 5ust and informed hearingQ E$amine! 'rom theperspective o' non) humans an! other marginalise! and oppressed classes and

groups there may "e little or nothing to gain in such a process+@ckersley (0220! suggests that strategies of empowerment and special forms of representation for those whoare under-represented in debates and policy discussions can help ensure better le$els ofcommunicati$e equality in democratic processes. I describe %atour#s (022?! model of the collecti$e process below as one way ofpro$iding or at least impro$ing communicati$e equality among actors.

further limitation of Dorton#s pragmatic approach resonates with a point I made earlier in relation to stewardship: whileen$ironmental pragmatism may be able to account for non-humans in thedemocratic process indirectly by being inclusi$e of some ocean $iews that ad$ocate for the $alue and/or agency of non-

humans it falls short of guaranteeing specific representational rights to non-humansas a matter of procedure in the democratic process.

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/123/2/02Whole.pdf





AT5 Environmental =ovements

=ainstream environmental movements otheri.e the in!igenous "ecause o' 0cultural malpractice "y Eurocentric stan!ar!s &

lea!ing to cultural genoci!e an! $enopho"iaKitossa 6k (Tamari writer and en$ironmental acti$ist 'rof ̀ Jrock )ni$ersity

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ame^difference^biocentricîmperialismând^theâssaultônîndigenous...-a22220? 10/1/22 acc. S/11/1? arh!

@fforts to combat eco-imperialism increasingly focus on culture as the site ofarticulating critiques struggle and solutions to comple6 problems. The discourses

articulated by some 3hite en$ironmental and conser$ation organi"ations are being hotlycontested by radical 3hite scholars and world ma5ority peoples(1! and scholars. Heorge

3en"elXs (1==1! nimal Nights ,ersus ;uman Nights aptly captures what is at the heart of the growing conflict between someen$ironmentalists and animal rights acti$ists and large segments of Indigenous peoples in 4anada the ) and indeed worldwide.

@ariously calle! 9putting nature 'irst9 an! 9allocation 'or nature*9the "iocentric !iscourse prioriti.es environmental #ustice over social

#ustice . In so doing this discourse strikes directly at efforts to redress in5ustices to boriginal peoples. In keeping with this discourse biocentrists such as <a$id +rton arguethat Wany resolution e$en if respectful of the rights of Dati$e peoples would still be disrespectful of the rights of natureW (+rton 1==8: 18 see also 9ederation of +ntario Daturalists (9+D! 1==:

$i 3orld 3ildlife 9und (339! 1==: 0S!. 3ho determines the rights of natureQ boriginalpeoplesQ 4oloni"ersQ Dature itselfQ If nature is to speak for itself who translatesits languageQ I belie$e that determining the rights of nature -- as though naturearticulates itself outside the boundaries of culture -- is at issue in biocentricdiscourse. Consistent ith estern culture* hich ten!s to vie the

orl! in "inaries* "iocentrists construct social #ustice an!

environmental #ustice as mutually e$clusive+ 4onsequently where pre-e6istingIndigenous rights ostensibly stand in the way of en$ironmental 5ustice one of two

solutions is recommended by biocentrists. W Choice9 one )) cultural genoci!e . The charge ofgenocide against conser$ationists en$ironmentalists and animal rights acti$ists who fall within the rubric of biocentrism is apt in that they seek direct andpurposeful disruption of millennia old methods of socio-cultural organi"ationtechniques which center on boriginal land and animal use. 9or e6ample one anonymous deep

ecologist at the height of the anti-sealing campaign argued WTo me Inuit culture is a dying one. I see my 5ob as helping it to go quicklyW (cited in 3en"el 1==1: 8!. nd go boriginal cultures will if their right to hunt is

terminated without resistance. Heorges @rasmus among other boriginal leaders obser$es that without the right to har$est wildlife

according to tradition custom and necessity Waboriginal people FwillG lose both their li$elihood andtheir way of lifeW (cited in 339 1==: ?!. In this conte6t genocide is more than the physicale6tinction of boriginal ethnic groups as was the case with the Tobacco Deutral Tsetaut and the Jeothuks

('urich 1=B>: 1=!. It also includes actions Wintended ... to signify aiming at thedestruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups....W (%emkin cited inNobinson and [uinney 1=B8: SC see also 4ra$en 1==B: 00!. 4onsistent with %emkinXs $iew the 1==1 <raft )ni$ersal <eclaration on theNights of Indigenous 'eoples asserts that any effort to depri$e boriginal peoples of their traditional lifeways associated with the Wtotalen$ironment of the land waters air and sea which they ha$e traditionally occupied and otherwise usedW (cited in &nudtson and u"uki1==0: 02>! are acts of aggression and genocide. I assert that to separate en$ironmental 5ustice from social 5ustice leads ine6orably to the

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Same+difference%3A+biocentric+imperialism+and+the+assault+on+indigenous...-a030002334







perpetuation of 4anadaXs recorded efforts to physically and culturally eliminate the WIndian.W W4hoiceW two seeminglyless strident and offensi$e -- the abrogation of boriginal rights. ccording to this perspecti$e

Indigeneity is a strict function of legal statute outside of which boriginal landand animal use would ha$e no support (ustralians for nimals 1=== 3en"el 1==1: 1>2!. The 3est 4oast nti-

3haling ociety (343! argues WIt is our belief that whales hold an inherent biological $alue which should be respected and studied

and no group has the right legal or otherwise to hunt and kill whalesW Fmy emphasisG (343 1===!. It is ironic that no

mention is made by the 343 that WstudyingW the en$ironment has been aprinciple means for 3estern @uropeans to e6ploit nature to their benefit and tothe detriment of others. Thus in the name o' environmental protection* the

rights o' A"original peoples nee! to "e curtaile! or a"rogate!

altogether (9+D 1==: 0> 339 1==: >!. In an o$erly sanguine position taken by <onald 'urich the likes of biocentrists will

ha$e little success in abrogating boriginal rights because it would take Wa world re$ersalX in 4anadian law to take away Indian rightsW('urich 1=B>: ?B!. ;istory howe$er has shown that in spite of laws or because of them the desires of @uropeans ha$e generally o$erruledthe inherent rights of boriginal nations in 4anada (undown 1==B: 8! and the world o$er. )nless boriginals can successfully resist thesustained onslaught to disinherit them of their lands and life-ways 4anada will ha$e succeeded in its W9inal olutionW to the IndianWproblem.W ;owe$er if the 4hiapas &anaesatake and &ahnawake rebellions are any indication regardless of how we in consumer societymay feel about such uprisings boriginal peoples will not be accomplices to their own cultural demise. In defending boriginal hunting

rights Heorge 3en"el maintains: The animal rights perspecti$e is culture-specific. It takes aposition on the issue of Inuit consumpti$e use of wildlife based in its ownideological e$aluation of 3estern philosophy and ethics and its assumptionsabout the relationship of Inuit culture to southern society . In this regard it deser$es analysis and

challenge (3en"el 1==1: S!. evealing the Eurocentric universal pronouncement

on environmental protection* Wen.el !ras attention to the

repro!uction an! perpetuation o' White supremacist !omination o'

94ther9 cultures an! nature itsel'+ Juilding on 3en"elXs critique I will e6plore the moral and political

philosophy which guides the discourse of the biocentric perspecti$e through an analysis of its location within race and culture as relations of ruling (;igginbotham 1==0: 081 see also Jock 1=B=: 18 mith 1==2: >!.



AT5 Diocentrism

Diocentrism is inherently racist & a"original knole!gepro!uction puts hite* Eurocentric knole!ge pro!uction

un!er scrutinyKitossa 6k (Tamari writer and en$ironmental acti$ist 'rof ̀ Jrock )ni$ersity

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ame^difference^biocentricîmperialismând^theâssaultônîndigenous...-a22220? 10/1/22 acc. S/11/1? arh!

nalytical 9ramework Inspired by @dward aidXs (1=S=! +rientalism this essay may be called an +ccidentalist critique of biocentrism. Inreturning the ga"e I attempt a tentati$e but critical elaboration of the race and cultural consciousness which informs biocentrism.

@lsewhere the en$ironmental racism mo$ement demonstrates that class gender andrace are significant factors determining who is disproportionately affected byto6ins and e$en how en$ironmental concerns are framed in the public domain (seeJryant 1==8 Jullard 1==?!. This essay differs but is complementary to that literature. I lay out an initial e6ploration of the methodologies

and processes by which 3hite racism and imperialism in the en$ironmental mo$ement areperformed through discourses such as biocentrism. ome self-e$ident truthsX

follow the actions and political philosophy of biocentrists -- cultural chau$inismand anti-boriginal racism. I am not concerned to argue that all ad$ocates and all of what represents biocentrism isracist. There is no need for this. Hi$en a Wsaturated field of racial $isibilityW (Jutler 1==: 18! which has historically gi$en whiteX skinnedpeople pri$ilege in terms of social cultural and material $alue e$en if indi$idual 3hite people are not racists and re5ect their whitenessthey are automatically conferred a constellation of rights denied others who are not 3hite. %ike the dynamics of the physical principle thatenergy cannot be created nor destroyed whiteness is discursi$ely and unconsciously constructed for its beneficiaries as a fact of the present

with neither past nor future -- it 5ust e6ists -- and has a right to e6ist. In this way it is forgotten that whiteness can be abolished because it is

a matter of social contract rather than a natural law. In spite of the constructedness of whiteness biocentrists enact their discourse of en$ironmental protection as though theconstellated relations of ruling which place social $alue on their whiteness withinpolitical linguistic and e6periential fields are beyond their recognition. ;ence denial. 9orinstance the 3est 4oast nti-3haling ociety although an organi"ation largely of 3hite people argue that their anti-whaling stanceagainst the akah ha$e nothing to do with race (4anadian 'ress Dewswire 1==B: 0!. In protesting the akah whale hunt ea hepherd4onser$ation ociety too has attempted to demonstrate that the organi"ation is not racist. It did so in a di$ide and conquer strategy whichhelped frame media accounts of the akah as obstinate ananchronists by sending an entirely Dati$e crew into the waters of Deah Jay tointerfere with the hunt ('iatote 1==B: ?0!. In so doing ea hepherd 4onser$ation ociety constructed a discourse of boriginal $ersus

boriginal rather than a @uropean $ersus boriginal discursi$e framework . 3ith both organi"ations denying 3hite pri$ilege while being trapped within the @urocentric preferred discourseof polar e$aluati$es -- good $s. bad -- boriginal accusations of racism ha$etransfi6ed biocentrism under the light of scrutiny. The resolution to thecontradiction in which biocentrists find themsel$es is increasingly being workedout through the e6ertion of 3hite power and denial of that power itself ratherthan through an honest recognition and admission of how 3hite pri$ilege hasshaped biocentrismXs inter$entions in boriginal life.








AT5 2cience Goo!

4ur criti(ue is a"out opening up space 'or alternative non)esternepistemologies* it !oes not !eny that science as a practice* rather itcontests an unrelenting 'aith in ho science operates in society+Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

That fisheries science is tied up with certain $alues and beliefs is an important matter to address because

there is great store attached to the idea that science produces ob5ecti$eknowledge. +cean matters are widely percei$ed as scientific concerns: Ho$ernment institutions industry en$ironmentalists andother interest groups the media and the public draw hea$ily on scientific ad$ice to interpret marine en$ironmental issues. cientific

assessments are used in shaping regulatory decisions and other protection initiati$es. Thus science has a profoundeffect on the way we think of and interact with oceans in 3estern societies .

In recent decades the failures of fisheries science have un!ermine! claims to itsauthority to gui!e the sustaina"le human e$ploitation o' oceans. Natheruncertainty in the capacity of science to de$elop theories and make accurate predictions about comple6 and dynamic ocean en$ironmentshas come to the fore.02 I ha$e conte6tualised ' science as a response to this uncertainty.

' science employs a more inclusi$e approach to the production of knowledge than fisheries science because it must account for politicaleconomic and social factors. ;owe$er in discussing ' science I draw attention to the current tra5ectory toward marine reser$es and theperpetual propensity to define oceans in scientific terms. This makes oceans susceptible to conceptions and relations that place humansoutside of them.

This chapter has then continued the focus on that part of my thesis concerned with the ma5or 3estern discourses that

structure contemporary human-ocean relations. 9isheries science and ' science demonstrate how

the most widely accepted $ariants of ocean-related science constrain ourunderstandings of and possibilities for interacting with oceans in 3esternculture.

The shortfalls of science point to the need to open up assessment debate anddiscussion about oceans through processes that allow a broader range ofcommunities human and non-human to contribute . ;ence my dissertation continues to sail onward

guided by the thesis that improve! knole!ge a"out oceans ill "e generate! and

subsequently successfully applied i' greater inclusivity o' perspectives a"out theoceans are structure! into policy !e"ates .

oreo$er a space must be made for oceans themsel$es. 3e need a democratic processthat pro$ides for the agency of oceans so that oceans are not defined by sciencefrom the outset. Nather questions about what oceans are7resources for e6ample7can be contested. In this way knowledge can

better be connected to actions that ad$ance social and natural well being.

The criti(ue o' ocean science presented in this 4hapter is not inten!e! to argueagainst all scienti'ic un!erstan!ings o' the oceans or scienti'icsolutions to the vast pro"lems it 'aces. I suggest science as it is actuallypractised not in its idealised form is critical to de$eloping less e6ploitati$ehuman-ocean relations and this idea is a ma5or part of the discussion of the final 4hapter of this dissertation

2cience is never neutral* ocean sciences alays re'lect cultural*political an! social "iases hich attempt to 'urther a speci'ic agen!aor pro'itKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

cience is the dominant 3estern discourse for e6pressing knowledge about the

e6ternal and physical world or reality#. Indeed in 3estern societies the understandings of scientists



are regarded as the most legitimate form of knowledge for policy and managementdecisions about the natural world (Jlount 022C Jraidotti et al. 1==8C immons 1==!. That the pronouncements ofscience are so e6traordinarily powerful in 3estern societies in culti$ating our understanding of reality# is largely to do with the perception that science pro$ides the most rational methods we ha$e for in$estigating the world and practised

properly will yield ob5ecti$e knowledge7an accurate and reliable account of the e6ternal andphysical world free of bias and able to predict future e$ents.0

The last few decades ha$e brought a surge of criticism against the idea ofuni$ersal and $alue-free science in its pursuit of truth. 9or all its achie$ements scientificknowledge is always in part a product of social political and cultural world$iews . ?

The world$iews that inform scientific knowledges underpin the biases that e6istin scientific discourses and are made manifest through specific relationships with power. Jleier writes in thisregard:

while the work of discourse appears to be unco$ering truth it rests upon and conceals the struggle between those who ha$e the power to discourse and those who do not. Joth by their

practices of e6clusion and their definition of what is what is to be discussed and what is false or true !iscoursespro!uce rather than reveal truth. The conditions and circumstances under which the discoursestake place reflect conditions of social power at the time and thus themsel$es define the theories and practices (such asscientific methodology! brought to bear in the discourse consequently determining outcome. (1=B? 1=?!

broad e6pression of this insight is that specific de$elopments in scientific knowledge can beinterpreted in terms of the economic and social priorities of military agenciescorporations go$ernmental bodies and indi$iduals who finance and profit fromtheir creation and application (;allen 1=B=C Taylor 0228!. The link between science and $estedinterests un!ermines claims to o"#ectivity .;istorical studies of the ebb and flow of the de$elopment of the ocean sciences in the

twentieth century by and large reflects an alignment with powerful 3estern military andeconomic interests.8 4ertainly the two ma5or peaks in research interest and funding that aided the properestablishment of the ocean sciences ha$e been aligned with the economic and military interests of 3estern nations. Thefirst peak transpired in response to a declining fish catch in the Dorth tlantic in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury. This first peak is my ma5or concern in this 4hapter but it is noted that 3orld 3ar II sparked the second peak(<eacon 1=SB!.>



AT5 2cience Goo! & ,n!igenous Knole!ge Detter

,n!igenous metho!ologies are mutually e$clusive ith esternscience)they use to contrasting !ata sets in or!er to !ra

conclusionsester an! Cheney ;1)'rofessor of merican Indian tudies )ni$ersity of rts andciences of +klahoma 'rofessor at the )ni$ersity of 3isconsin-3aukesha (%ee ;ester and im4heney *truth and nati$e american epistemologyhttp://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/morourke/80?-phil/Neadings/hester.pdf!//%

In an epistemological sense there is no question that the tribal method of gatheringinformation is more sophisticated and certainly more comprehensi$e than 3estern science. In most tribal traditions no data are discarded as unimportantor irrele$ant. Indians consider their own indi$idual e6periences the accumulated wisdom of thecommunity that has been gathered by pre$ious generations their dreams $isions and prophecies and any information

recei$ed from birds animals and plants as data that must be arranged e$aluated and understood asa unified body of knowledge. This mi6ture of data from sources that the 3esternscientific world regards as highly unreliable and suspect produces a consistentperspecti$e on the natural world. It is seen by tribal peoples as ha$ing wide application. &nowledgeabout plants and birds can form the basis of ethics go$ernment and economicsas well as pro$ide a means of mapping a large area of land. This epistemologicalstyle of openness contrasts with the focus on e6tracting $ery speci fi c pieces ofinformation understood within an equally speci fi c set of concepts thatcharacteri"es the controlled e6periment of modern science. <eloria in factcontrasts Dati$e merican epistemology with Thomas &uhn#s understanding of science asproceeding within paradigms and as being therefore highly selecti$e both in itsattention to data and the problems on which it chooses to focus. Dati$e merican

epistemological style as depicted by <eloria is e$en more radical than I ha$e so far indicated. The principles of epistemological method sofar mentioned are at least straightforwardly epistemological. Jut <eloria goes further. any statements coming from Dati$e merican

worlds that non-Dati$e mericans would understand to be statements of belief (truth claims! concerning Dati$e merican world $iews are best understood as principles of epistemological method of arather different sort than those so far mentioned . 4onsider for e6ample <eloria#s portrait of the uni$erseas a moral uni$erse



AT5 ationality 2olves Environment

Western rationalism can never truly care 'or the environment thehyper separate! Mnature’ is alays a secon!ary concern


In liberalism the indi$idual self is concei$ed as that which *stands apart from analien other and denies his own relationship to and dependency on this other('lumwood 1== 1?0!. 'rior to %ocke rationality was applied to mind and internal nature ('lato! and mind and e6ternal nature

(<escartes!. %ocke introduced a dualistic structure to mind and the social world 7perhapsreaching its "enith in Jritish 'rime inister Thatcher#s famous remark in 1=BS that *there is no such thing as society (cited in &eays

1=BS!.1 This further e6pansion of the scope of rationality is important because the sub5ect is now an alienatedindi$idual as a matter of principle. 'lumwood terms this take on the social world as egoism# and she sees it as acrucial foil in rationality#s instrumentalist intensification.In egoism there is no real cause for any indi$idual to demonstrate their separateness from particular ob5ects such as specified natural or

social phenomena. It is more the case that a connection and relationship must be demonstrated to a sceptical world and to make

things more difficult that relationship is only readily demonstrated if it is an instrumental one. Thus if we return to %ocke#s analogy in 'lumwood#s analysis we see that:If we di$ide a person#s goals into primary non-interchangeable ones pursued for their own sake and secondary ones pursued as contingent

and intersubstitutable means to the primary ones then the thesis of philosophical egoism is that e$en in the case ofenlightened self-interest the el'are o' others can 'igure only in thesecon!ary set* never the 'irst* primary set o' en!s. The resulting agents are concei$ed as

hyperseparated and self-contained because no internal relations of interest or desire bind people to one another and primary goal sets are e6clusi$e

without o$erlap. The primary interest set of such a rational agent is assumed to concern only himself . The welfare ofothers may be considered but only in ways which treat it as secondary to primary goals. (1== 1??!



AT5 ,mpacts eversi"le

Anthropogenic phenomena have "een empirically proven tohave irreversi"le ecological e''ects

Norton % (imon <. Dorton 'h< (<epartment of aritime tudies )ni$ersity of 3ales! 12/21/022S *The natural en$ironmentas a salient stakeholder: non-anthropocentrism ecosystem stability and the nancial marketshttp://www.lib.umich.edu/articles/details/9@T4;-proquestAdllA1S>?000>11.!//ky

<istinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic phenomena risk anduncertainty In the conte6t of phenomena occurring in the natural en$ironment a distinction should be made between anthropogenic and

non-anthropogenic causes. inteer et al. (022?! ha$e a$erred to the distinction as follows: the former comprises theeffects of human inter$ention in the natural en$ironment while the latter is confined to biologically

or ecologically rooted e$ents. @6amples of the former would be deforestation to make way for increased

soya production deliberate introduction of new species of plant life into an en$ironment to enhance food

production or the culti$ation of genetically modified crops to pre$ent pest infestation. n e6tremee6ample of human inter$ention would include the attempt by the former o$iet)nion to become a global producer of cotton by di$erting ri$ers feeding the ral

ea. The result was an en$ironmental catastrophe C the ea effecti$ely dried upand became desert the attempt to create a cottongrowing region a failure .

@cological damage was irre$ersible as a consequence of this anthropogenicinter$ention the natural en$ironment unable to return to the status quo ante dueto the formation of desert where there had pre$iously been sea. @6amples of non-anthropogenic causation would include forest fires started by sunlight striking dry forest floor debris floods e$olution of species inresponse to naturally occurring phenomena such as meteorologically deri$ed shortening or lengthening of seasonal weather patterns.



AT5 4ceans esilient

The "elie' that the ocean ill "e resilient 'rom human impact is 'alse*re#ect their scienti'ic knole!geKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

)nderpinning these aspirations is a long-standing and widely held belief in 3estern societies that oceans are safe from o$erfishing and other forms ofhuman induced degradation because of its si"e and depth and the abundance of ocean dwellers. 3e can recall an early e6pression of this $iew in Hrotius# assumption in are %iberum that the ocean would *remain in thesame condition in perpetuity as when it was first created by nature (Hrotius 1=1> 0S!. 'rofessor Thomas ;enry ;u6ley(1B08- 1B=8! esteemed nineteenth-century e$olutionary biologist and 'resident of %ondon#s Noyal ociety (1BB-1BB8! isanother influential progenitor of this $iew. In addressing concerns about falling numbers of fish catches in the latenineteenth century ;u6ley (1BB! maintained the $iew that fish could not in fact be e6hausted in the open oceans becauseof their abundance.BThere were at the same time far less optimistic $iews about the effect of fishing on fisheries. Nay %ankester (1B?S-1=0=!another of Jritain#s most prominent scientists noted both sides of the debate at %ondon#s International 9ishery @6hibition

in 1BB. %ankester obser$ed that some participants took the position that protecti$e measures and regulations werenecessary to a$oid disaster for salt-water fisheries (as was the case for fresh-water fisheries! while others argued for theremo$al of all restrictions to *quench the spirit of enterprise (cited in mith 1==? B!. ;owe$er %ankester himself arguedthat *FiGt is a mistake to suppose that the whole ocean is practically one $ast store-house (cited in mith 1==? =!.

ome prominent scientists continued to e6press their belief in the bounteousnessof the oceans well into the twentieth century. 9or e6ample Jritish biologist ichael Hraham states:It seems that the effects of man on the ocean has been small that there remain relati$ely untouched sources of wealth andthat e$en if these are greatly e6ploited in the future the ocean will remain much as it is and has been during the humanepoch. It may be rash to put any limit on the mischief of which man is capable but it would seem that those hundred andmore million cubic miles of water containing e$ery natural chemical element and probably e$ery group of bacteriasupporting e$ery phylum of animals mo$ing on the surface from the equator toward the poles and returning belowstirred to many fathoms depth by the wind7it would indeed seem here at the beginning and the end is the great matri6that man can hardly sully and cannot appreciably despoil. (1=8> 821! =

In summary scientific research of fisheries in the twentieth century has been directed by political forces toward the critical problem of the day as defined by social and economic concerns. Thede$elopment of fisheries science has furthermore been informed by entrenchedcultural beliefs and attitudes about the character of oceans. Those beliefs hold theoceans and ocean dwellers to be ine6haustible and resilient to the impacts offishing and that there is the potential for e$er-increasing fishing yields facilitated by the application of science and technologies. cientific enquiry into concerns about

falling fish numbers of fish is not an ob5ecti$e enterprise. 4ultural assumptions and beliefs

political and socio-economic interests technological and scientific de$elopments ha$e all worked to directscientific lines of enquiry and shape the theories and practices of fisheriesscience. To better understand why the knowledge and practices of fisheries science ha$e taken the form they ha$e wemust think about them in the conte6t in which they de$elop.



AT5 4theri.ing the 4cean

2tatus (uo environmental !estruction necessitates an e$amination o'human>ocean relations+ e#ecting the estern notion o' the ocean asalien is key

Alaimo 11 (tacy <epartment of @nglish )T rlington Dordic ournal of 9eminist and Hender Nesearch 12/1 *Dewaterialisms +ld ;umanisms or 9ollowing the ubmersible http://www.uta.edu/english/alaimo/pdfs/D+N029ollow02the02ubmersible-1.pdf !

lthough trans-corporeality begins as an anthropocentric moment it unra$els the ;uman as such by tracing thematerial interchanges between each human body and the substances flows andforces that are ultimately global in nature. The current crisis in ocean ecologiescalls us to e6amine human entanglements with the far reaches of pelagic and benthic "ones7the $erylimits of trans-corporeality. It is difficult7 scientifically and imaginati$ely7to trace how terrestrial human bodies are accountable to and

interconnected with as yet unknown creatures at the bottom of the seaC moreo$er e$en the Western conception o' the ocean as 0alien* or as so vast as to "e utterly impervious to

human harm* encourages a happy ignorance a"out the state o' theseas. Donetheless the ocean creatures themsel$es embody something akin to the ontologies that new materialisms and post-humanisms

ad$ocate. Take for e6ample the 5elly-fish which seems barely to e6ist as a creature not only because it is a body without organs

but because it is nearly indistinguishable from its watery world . eemingly flimsy and fragile thesegelatinous creatures are nonetheless thri$ing pro$oking fear of a clear planet in which 5ellies o$er-populate the degraded oceans causing

harm to fisheries mining operations ships and desalination plants. ore generally the nekton (swimming organisms! in theoceans may be considered *ecosystem engineers because as they transportthemsel$es they *take a portion of their original en$ironment with them andthus they *acti$ely support the chemical and biological processes on which theydepend (Jreitburg et al. 0212: 1=?!. Thinking with marine life fosters comple6 mappings ofagencies and interactions in which7for humans as well as for pelagic and benthic creatures7there is ultimately

no firm di$ide between mind and matter organism and en$ironment self and

world. Thinking with sea creatures may also pro$oke surprising affinities from @li"abeth Jrown Jlackwell#s feminist musings on theparenting duties of male sea-horses (Jrown Jlackwell 1BS8: S?! to @$a ;ayward#s recent e6ploration of what her own *being transse6ual

knows about being starfish (;ayward 022B: B0!. ubmersing oursel$es descending rather thantranscending is essential lest our tendencies toward ;uman e6ceptionalismpre$ent us from recogni"ing that like our hermaphroditic aquatic e$olutionaryancestor we dwell within and as part of a dynamic intra- acti$e emergentmaterial world that demands new forms of ethical thought and practice. I would like toin$ite feminists queer theorists new materialists and post- humanists to follow the submersible.








AT5 Trage!y o' the Commons

The trage!y o' the commons is "ase! on a estern vie o' humannature that ignores alternative human)ocean relations+Kenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-oceanrelations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!

Hrotius# rationale for freedom of the seas was in part a belief that marine dwellers such as fish were ine6haustibly

abundant. In contemporary times this assumption is demonstrated to be incorrect. A i!ely hel! vie in Western resource management discourse about the threat posed by Hrotius# concept of freedom of the seasto ocean en$ironments can be summarised as follows: the right of open access e6acerbates problems associated with limitsto ocean resources# because it continues to facilitate largely unconstrained le$els of e6ploitation of the oceans (Jocking022?!. That is to say open access pro$ides for each state or indi$idual to pursue their own best interest without regard forfish or ocean en$ironments. Jy holding the oceans in common theoretically they are a$ailable for e$erybody to use buteffecti$ely nobody takes responsibility for their ecological well being.

This $iew draws upon ;ardin#s influential thesis* Mtrage!y o' the commons’* first published in cience

maga"ine in 1=>B. ;ardin a resource economist argues that freedom in the commons ine$itably

leads to a tragedy which is basically that the gains to each indi$idual user from o$er-e6ploiting natural resources will always compensate any indi$idual for losses owing todegradation of the commons. 4entral to ;ardin#s thesis is the assumption that indi$iduals will always attempt to ma6imise their own gains in spite of the wider and long-term consequences.In short he equates the pursuit of one#s own best interest in the commons with the irresponsible use of resources.;ardin#s thesis has successfully brought attention to the relationship between open access rights to the e6ploitation ofoceans and ocean dwellers and their subsequent o$er-e6ploitation and degradation. ;ardin writes:The oceans of the world continue to suffer from the sur$i$al of the philosophy of the commons. aritime nations stillrespond automatically to the shibboleth of the freedom of the seas#. 'rofessing to belie$e in the ine6haustible resources of the oceans# they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to e6tinction. (1==> 1SB!There is considerable historical e$idence to support ;ardin#s thesis especially since the mid-twentieth century whereinthe alignment of technology and dominant industrial-capitalist discourse has led to the o$ere6ploitation and pollution ofocean en$ironments at unprecedented rates a topic I discuss in more detail in 4hapter 8. Donetheless I want to make the

case here that ;ardin#s notion of commons is narrowly defined and culturally biased

and that this has had important repercussions for how matters of o$er-e6ploitation and degradation of ocean en$ironments ha$e been addressed. 4ritically

;ardin is concerned with commons such as the high seas that are characterised by their right of open access. +penaccess commons are not the same as common property regimes historically associated

with $illagers in the @nglish commons (Nigsby 1==B!. Dor are they the same as the communalproperty rights of traditional maritime cultures such as ustralian coastalIndigenous groups. These types of commons7often referred to as communal sea tenure or customary marine

tenure7speak of rights held by a well-defined community of users accompanied bycertain agreed customs or rules in$ol$ing cooperation (Nigsby 1==BC harp 0220!. The

power to manage these types of commons lies with the community (9airlie ;agler and+#Niordan 1==8!.

;ardin#s thesis is founded upon a 3estern orthodo6 economic interpretation of

human beha$iour that each indi$idual will seek to ma6imise one#s self-interest.

This is a construction of human beha$iour as unreser$ed indi$idualism itself influenced by scientific notions of competition predation and parasitism (Nigsby 1==BC harp 0220!. 3e find this $iew in 4harles<arwin#s (1B2=-1BB0! influential theory of natural selection (or sur$i$al of the fittest#! for e6ample set forth in The+rigin of pecies and published in 1B8=.18 The upshot of ;ardin#s cultural bias is that competition among indi$iduals fornatural resources is emphasised at the e6pense of cooperation (Jerkes 1=B=!.;ardin#s thesis has had the effect of framing the debate about what is to be done with regard to the o$er-e6ploitation anddegradation of ocean en$ironments primarily in terms of two options: unregulated open access or pri$ate use-rights

(Nogers 1==B!. ituations that are characterised by cooperation between humans inrelation to the non-human natural world ha$e recei$ed relati$ely little attention



in resource management discourse. The trend toward pri$ate use-rights in the oceans is a powerful one.4ertainly economists and corporations ha$e embraced pri$ate property rights to the ocean en$ironment with enthusiasm(9airlie ;agler and +#Niordan 1==8!. The allocation of pri$ate property rights to fish has been the primary response to theknowledge that there are too many $essels chasing too few fish. The mechanism used to limit access to fisheries is theindi$idual transferable quota system (IT[s!. IT[s are transferable quotas representing fish stocks# that can be traded between fishers and fishing companies. IT[#s ha$e the effect of redistributing fish away from communities and indi$idualfishers into the hands of powerful corporate interests. )nder a system of IT[s *cash is what will more and moredetermine access to the seas (9airlie ;agler and +#Niordan 1==8 >0!.



Alternatives



Generic Alternative 2olvency

Changing our relationship to the ocean is key ac(ues ; & 'rofessor of political science at 4entral 9lorida ('eter Globalization and the World Ocean p. 12-11!

The Jorgese Test ost simply sustainability is the con$ergence of impro$ing social political economic and ecological conditions(Hoodland I==8!. In what I am calling the WJorgese TestW I specify what this means for the ocean. Jorgese was a political scientist andinternational-law scholar at <alhousie )ni$ersity in 4anada as well as a strident ad$ocate for the ocean and hunun 5ustice. oreo$er along

with her colleague and altese delegate r$id 'ardoe she was a sincere ad$ocate for the Wcommon heritage of humankindW (chapter !pro$ision within the %aw of the ea which intends to distribute resources from the high sea soil to the poor and the cause of internationalde$elopment. Jorgese wrote se$eral important documents but The +ceanic 4ircle (published in I ==B! was among her most important

contributions. The +ceanic 4ircle describes sustainable ocean go$ernance and she uses

Handhian thought to make her case for sa$ing the seas and people who are dependent on them. Donhierarchical andnon$iolent social relations should inform local management of resources withglobal cosmopolitan consciousness (knowing that what one locality does affectsand has a responsibility to others!. This is what she meant by making WoceaniccirclesW which she belie$ed reflected the actual organi"ation of the ocean itself.

;er plea is for radical democracy non$iolence and material equity which are

essential to nonhierarchical relations. Importantly global equity means that no one is depri$ed of basic needs. It

does not imply equal shares of goods or wealth. 9urther she argues that this social change can occur associeties !evelop a !eepening relationship ith the glo"al ocean. Thisrequires grassroots empowerment to make global go$ernance accountableCnon$iolenceC knowledge of interdisciplinarityC and global Dorth-outh equity some

of which is articulated by Handhi in his poem W+ceanic 4irclesW (Jorgese I==B!. N esources should be comanagedthrough decentrali"ed democratic authority with the aim of using and impro$ing ecological producti$ity

and function coordinated with national regional and global go$ernance (part of Wcomanagen1entW!. Dorth-outh equityimplies that material conditions of the industriali"ed countries should notimpo$erish poor countries. Interdisciplinary science is used to a$oid hierarchical knowledge-based power to approachcomple6 en$ironmental problematiques with WsolutiquesW or holistic global solutions. I impose on this definition the e6pectation thatsustainability is a set of long-term processes instead of an ideal which can easily become a form of authoritarian design from abo$eC I

belie$e Jorgese would find this acceptable (see %ee I==C 4apra 0220!. In sum sustainability is the e$olution of non$iolent go$ernanceaccountable to multiple le$els of human organi"ation ensuring global human material equity and producti$e ecologies throughinterdisciplinary knowledge. I will refer to this definition of sustainability as the WJorgese Test.W +ne region cannot li$e unsustainably

without endangering the li$elihoods of the rest. This is captured in JorgeseX s ideas of Dorth-outh equity. If the Dorth li$esoff of and undermines outhern ecology while the outh li$es in squalor socialand ecological sustainability is endangered to $arying degrees around the world.

lso note that sustainability could be defined as simple stocks and flows of energy and material but I use JorgeseX s ideal because it

includes the politics of 5ustice that determine human use of stocks and flows. teep social hierarchy oftenempowered through $iolence allows for ecological resources to becomeconcentrated and o$ere6ploited reinforcing the hierarchy and flow of resourcesand potentially triggering scarcity and more $iolence ad infinitum until thesystem reaches impenetrable limits forcing rearrangement. Thus distributi$e and non$iolent

5ustice is fundamental to a sustainable world. 3e are not building JorgeseX s hopeful oceanic circles and global ocean sustainability is if

anything slipping farther and farther away. Deoliberal globali"ation has increased hierarchies at the coastal le$el and I show that along with increased economic globali"ation comes increased armed conflict. ,iolence and neoliberal economics seem to be globali"ed together(4hua 022!.



6NC 2topping ,nternal 3ialogue Alternative

4nly opening up to in!igenous 'orms o' knole!ge an! em"racing thenatural orl! allos 'or goo! an! complete knole!ge pro!uction)

e nee! to re#ect their 'orm o' estern knole!ge hich is roote! inthe concept o' !omination an! control+ester an! Cheney ;1)'rofessor of merican Indian tudies )ni$ersity of rts andciences of +klahoma 'rofessor at the )ni$ersity of 3isconsin-3aukesha (%ee ;ester and im4heney *truth and nati$e american epistemologyhttp://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/morourke/80?-phil/Neadings/hester.pdf!//%

If speculation and analogy end where Dati$e mericans end it then the idea of the li$ing earth is not e$en speculati$e: it is ob$ious on the

face of it. Dot that it cannot be denied but at that point speculation theory construction or metaphysics isnecessary . The last two sentences in the quotation put another twist on the matter: They fold the idea of the li$ingearth into a ceremonial world orienting Dati$e mericans on the moral road. Thenotion of a li$ing world is not part of a Dati$e merican world $iew7a truthclaim7it is an e$eryday obser$ation fi tted into a ceremonial world in a way thatenhances its epistemological effecti$eness. That is by casting humans as lesser beings in relation to the li$ing earth we more effecti$ely gain insights andknowledge about the real essence of the earth#: 4oming last human beings were theyounger brothers## of the other life-forms and therefore had to learn e$erythingfrom these creatures. Thus human acti$ities resembled bird and animal beha$ior inmany ways and brought the unity of conscious life to an ob5ecti$e focus#. Thenotion of a li$ing uni$erse therefore is not merely ob$ious on the face of it but it also pro$idesepistemological direction in the search for knowledge (as 5ust stated! as well as powerful moral

direction. The epistemological direction is itself ethically informed as we ha$e seen. The li$ing uni$erse requiresmutual respect among its members and this suggests that a strong sense of indi$idual identity and self is a

dominant characteristic of the world as we know it. The willingness of entities to allow others to fulfill

themsel$es and the refusal of any entity to intrude thoughtlessly on anothermust be the operati$e principle of this uni$erse. 4onsequently self-knowledge and self- discipline are

high $alues of beha$ior . . .. Nespect . . . in$ol$es two attitudes. +ne attitude is the acceptance of self-discipline by humans and their communities to act responsibly toward otherforms of life. The other attitude is to seek to establish communications andco$enants with other forms of life on a mutually agreeable basis. Theseconclusions are not forced upon us by the notion of a li$ing uni$erse of course but they are the sorts of conclusions one might e6pect within a ceremonial world built around the moral purpose of finding the proper moral and ethical road upon which human beings should walk#. They e6tend in quite natural ways the general attitude of uni$ersal considerationdiscussed earlier as a feature of Dati$e merican worlds. The principles of epistemological method discussed thus far are perhaps summed

up7or uni ed rather7in the well-known phrase ll my relati$es# which is used as an opening in$ocation and closing benediction for

ceremonies. ll my relati$es# . . . also has a secular purpose which is to remind us of ourresponsibility to respect life and to fulfill our co$enantal duties. Jut few peopleunderstand that the phrase also describes the epistemology of the Indian world$iew pro$iding the methodological basis for the gathering of informationabout the world. (<eloria et al. 1=== p. 80! 3e are all relati$es# when taken as a methodological tool for obtaining knowledgemeans that we obser$e the natural world by looking for relationships between $arious things in it . . . and the total set of relationships makesup the natural world as we e6perience it. This concept is simply the relati$ity concept as applied to a uni$erse that people e6perience as ali$eand not as dead or inert. Thus Indians knew that stones were the perfect beings because they were self-contained entities that had resol$edtheir social relationships and possessed great knowledge about how e$ery other entity and e$ery species should li$e. tones had mobility



but did not need to use it. @$ery other being had mobility and needed in some specific manner to use it in relationships. 3e can see from

these passages that the line between principles of epistemological method and ceremonial worlds is rather arbitrary : theseprinciples could be said to (at least partially! constitute the epistemologicaldimension of ceremonial worlds. 3e can also see by this time that when <eloriasays that by employing $arious principles of epistemological method we gaininsights and knowledge about the real essence of the earth# (<eloria et al. 1=== p. 82! he is not

speaking of deep truths about the worldC rather he is speaking of a deeply practical map of the world (a ceremonial world!: Nealityfor tribal peoples as opposed to the reality sought by 3estern scientists was thee6perience of the moment coupled with the interpreti$e scheme that had been wo$en together o$er the generations. The central $alue that informs <eloria#s principles of epistemologicalmethod is that of adapti$e fit#-finding the proper road upon which human being should walk rather than domination and control.

+riented to the natural world by a set of what non-Dati$e mericans would think of as (probably false! beliefs

about the world but which are better understood as a set of (powerful! epistemological guidelines those whoadopt these guidelines become remarkably attuned to what the world tells themabout human adapti$e fit in the larger more-than-human community . &nowledgeshaped by indigenous principles of epistemological method guarantee thatknowledge is the result of deep and continuous communication between humans

and the more-than-human world of which they are citi"ens.

@pistemologiesshaped by $alues of domination and control of nature $irtually guarantee that theresulting knowledge#7 certainly not wisdom7is a human monologue that structures itsunderstanding of the world around human order and purpose. The world is notpermitted to speak on its own behalf. It merely answers questions posed byhuman culture and answers these questions not in its own $oice but in a $ocabulary and according to an agenda not its own. In 9rancis Jacon#s graphic imagery nature is put on the rack and forced toconfess. Dati$e merican epistemology by contrast is marked by respect.



F?,5 3i''ering Worl!vies

ester an! Cheney ;1)'rofessor of merican Indian tudies )ni$ersity of rts andciences of +klahoma 'rofessor at the )ni$ersity of 3isconsin-3aukesha (%ee ;ester and im4heney *truth and nati$e american epistemology

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/morourke/80?-phil/Neadings/hester.pdf!//%

This is because @nglish has equated belief with truth. Dow I#m doing some @uro- merican looking philosophy. I hope you don#t mind.

@uro-'hilosophers e6press beliefs as propositions and assign them truth $alues. 3hen we assert a belief we areasserting the truth of a certain picture of the world. There is on one hand our world$iew . . . whether we are Dati$e merican or @uro-merican . . . and on theother hand the world. 3hat has been called metaphorically the map and theterritory#. I think most of us agree that we all li$e in the same territory. I think it is also clear that the maps held by the Dati$e

mericans and @uro-mericans are quite different. ;owe$er the main point of this talk is belief. Jelief is our attitudetoward the relationship between the map and the territory. 3estern beliefgenerally implies some kind of correspondence between the map and territory.The most e6treme $ersion of this is that we can ha$e a completely clear and

correct map a one-to-one correspondence between the map and the territory . +r to

put it in the $ernacular we can ha$e the Truth#. This was clearly the pro5ect of the @nlightenment. @$en thoughmodern thought has cast doubt on this the 3est still clings to it. I would characteri"e theattitude of Dati$e mericans as one of agnosticism concerning the relationship between their map and the territory. Though this may seem strange from a 3estern stance it is actually $erypractical. Indeed I would argue that it can e$en make a great deal of sense gi$en modern 3estern understandings of the limits of

knowledge. Think of ;eisenberg and Hodel. )sing the map and territory metaphor ;eisenberg seems to be

telling us that the clearer our map of any particular part of the territory the less clearour map will be elsewhere. Hodel seems to be telling us that when our map becomes too broadit will be incorrect. If we go too far in detail or breadth our map becomesconfused. The Dati$e merican map is not meant to be a high fi delity picture of

the territory but is an action guiding set of ideas. Indeed the action guiding element is central.Nemember the ohn 'roctor story. 'articular actions are what makes one 4reek. +ne of the main pu""lements Indian people ha$ee6pressed historically is how @uropeans could assert the truth of their ideas but act in ways that did not correspond to the truths theyasserted. 'opular so$ereignty religious freedom the sanctity of property peace brotherhood and all the rest seem to be ignored nearly asoften as they are upheld. +f course one answer is that there are bad people and bad go$ernments who do not maintain their own lofty ideas.

Though this is true I think it is worsened by 3estern belief. If you are con$inced that yourmap truly embodies the territory despite the fact that it is necessarily incompleteor incorrect (and probably both! then you are going to make many false turns. Youractions will be contradictory. 3hen you ha$e mistaken the map for the territory you will continue to claim that you ha$e reached the right destination e$en when you are hopelessly lost. 3estern philosophers are perhaps the best e6amples ofthis tendency and it is one that has cost them much in the way of practical influence in society. 3e ha$e all entertained skepticalideas e6amined odd metaphysical systems and sometimes built careers defending their truth. Jut what if they are trueQ any of the maps

we ha$e posited be followed. ust how should a solipsist actQ %aying aside the question of truth if your map cannot be followed what use isitQ The 3estern re5oinder might be ;ow can agnosticism concerning the connection between the map and territory be action guidingQ# Theanswer is that it cannot but it is an attitude which can be $ery helpful. Though Dati$e mericans may not know what the connection is

between their map and the territory there are some things that they do know. &ey among these is their e6perience. This includes their ownactions and the obser$ed consequences of those actions.

=erculie'' an! o!erick 1B)@lder for ? decades of the luets of the 'ribilof Islands(Ilarion erculieff and %ibby Noderick *stop talking indigenous ways of teaching and learningand difficult dialogues in higher educationhttp://www.difficultdialoguesuaa.org/images/uploads/topAtalkingAfinal.pdf!//%



This is a comple6 sub5ect with many important nuances and threads and this discussion will of necessity be abridged. Jut as pre$iously

noted there are se$eral fundamental differences between the educational practicesof traditional laska Dati$e cultures and today#s higher education culture.4entral to 3estern educational systems is the quantitati$e scientific researchparadigm. 4entral to traditional laska Dati$e educational systems is the

qualitati$e e6periential obser$ation system that centers around a non-quantifiable e6perience of connectedness to the web of life. This is often referred to by Dati$eeducators as *spirituality. Dati$e traditions $iew the e6perience of being connected to and a student of all creation as central to theeducational process. ;igher education doesn#t e$en ha$e a good word for this. These two ways of attempting to understand the world ha$e

different goals. cientists seek to understand e6plain and predict the natural world.They want to understand how things work and to create technologies to betterhuman li$es. 'ractitioners of traditional knowledge and wisdom seek tounderstand adapt to and li$e in balance within the natural world so that allhuman and more-than-human worlds can flourish in perpetuity . lthough Ilarion has spokenabout this issue on many occasions we decided to share an outside $oice for this book as a way of linking our local laska Dati$e e6perience

with that of other indigenous peoples in Dorth merica. <ennis artine" is 4o-4hair of the Indigenous 'eoples# Nestoration Detwork anorgani"ation dedicated to supporting Dati$e and tribal communities in en$ironmental restoration cultural rehabilitation and theapplication of traditional ecological knowledge. ;e has ad$ocated for indigenous perspecti$es through forty years of work in resource andknowledge protection climate change forest restoration and pro5ects bridging 3estern science with traditional ecological knowledge. ;espoke at a national conference in 022B organi"ed by a society for the ad$ancement of 4hicano and Dati$e merican scientists.U *ust astraditional knowledge and culture is the conte6t for traditional ecological knowledge says artine" *so 3estern culture is the conte6t for

3estern science. 3estern science de$eloped historically within an increasingly secularand materialistic culture without spiritual reciprocal obligations to the natural world FoneG that $iews nature as without spirit. It is reductionist not holistic. Itis linear not circular. It is product more than process. Dature is di$ided into itscomponent parts in order to gain a large measure of control for technologicalinno$ations and de$elopment as well as for the $erification or falsification ofhypotheses through replicable empirical e6periments for predictions of naturalphenomena in short inter$als of time and space. In other words according to artine" 3esternscience seeks to understand nature at least in part in order to control it. It is a powerfultool he acknowledges but *the kinds of questions 3estern science asks or doesn#t ask of nature are culturally determined to a large degree

and it is a quantitati$e tool that operates in a spiritual and non-3estern culturaland historical $acuum. Tools can be used for the benefit or the detriment of the world. cience has done both. The samescientific toolkit can be used to benefit Indigenous peoples as well. Jut its technology has also led to the poisoning of our waters and lands

and has had more often than not a de$astating effect on our health. 3estern science stri$es for ob5ecti$ity to*reduce or eliminate biases pre5udices or sub5ecti$e e$aluations by relying on $erifiable data.UU uch of its practicemaintains a strict separation between obser$er and obser$ed that is intended to ensure the resulting data won#t be limited by human senses

or contaminated by personal or political agendas or biases. Traditional knowledge and wisdom relies onthe centrality of the obser$er#s intimate relationship to and e6perientialknowledge of a particular place and ecosystem. Traditional knowledge systemsuse keen obser$ation and direct personal e6perience by a community of data-gatherers to gain critical information from the en$ironment through sustainedintimate relationship with a particular place o$er a long period of time.



6NC /olitical Epistemology Alternative

The alternativeKenne!y % & 'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-ocean

relations http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10/0/203hole.pdf!%atour sets out the problem

%atour#s procedure for a political process that allows for a di$ersity of en$ironmental $alues and interests in making decisions about ocean e6istences is inclusi$e ofspecific representational rights for non-humans. %atour does not claim that non- humanscontribute to debates through the use of language but that they do contribute in other ways to debates about what is to be done. %atour argues for taking non- humansseriously and for the important role scientists ha$e to play in this but at the same time

the mediation of knowledge about non-humans should not be left entirely toscientists. %atour#s collecti$e process facilitates critical enquiry into and reconfiguring of pre$ailing 3estern knowledge andunderstandings of oceans.

%atour argues the problem with the model we are currently working with for determining the

common world or reality is that it is split into two houses: Dature and ociety . The construction

of these two houses has effecti$ely orke! to prevent political epistemology 7which is for%atour a superior form of epistemology to the myth of ob5ecti$ely determined epistemological models championed by some. %atour e6plainsthat the old 4onstitution# is founded upontwo equally illicit assemblies: the first brought together under the auspices of cience was illegal because it defined the common world

without recourse to due processC the second was illegitimate by birth since it lacked the reality of the things that had been gi$en o$er to theother house and had to settle for power relations# for achia$ellian cle$erness alone. The first had reality but no politics: the second hadpolitics and mere social construction#. Joth had in reser$e a quick shortcut that could bring discussion to an end: irrefutable reason indisputable force right and might knowledge and power. (022? 8?!

3ith respect to the first house %atour argues cience has posited itself as thespokesperson for Dature.B The method that cience uses in maintaining its role asspokesperson includes routinely withholding its debates and perple6ities aboutDature from wider society. 2ociety is only given access to Nature once ithas "een esta"lishe! "y 2cience as a Mmatter o' 'act’7that is once cience has

made Dature incontestable7thus ruling out or at least se$erely constricting the space forpolitics and democratic processes. andilands makes a similar argument: that if scientific understandings areestablished as *nature#s commonality before the e$ent or con$ersation *the essence of nature7and en$ironmental issues7Fare putG

beyond constituti$e public discussion (0220 101!. andilands makes this criticism in relation to en$ironmentalisms that rely on scientifictruth for $alidation on account of its effect which is to close the public spaces for a plurality of opinions to form a common understanding of nature.

9or %atour the isolation of cience from politics is a shortcut and a deficient approachto the production of soundly constituted knowledge. ;e argues that Dature concei$ed by ciencemakes *it possible to sub5ect the human assembly to a permanent threat of sal$ation by cience that paralysed it in ad$ance (%atour 022?

8S!. 9or %atour an inclusive !emocratic process prece!es:not 'ollos:thepronouncements o' science+ Indeed good process constitutes goodepistemology . %atour argues for a process that first of all insists the scientific mediation ofnature is $isible to society and second the ob5ectified uni$ersal conception of non-human

nature is replaced with natures# where they are gi$en a $oice in the collecti$e. 3ith respect to the second house ociety7located in the pro$ince of the social sciences where the work is done of describing and theorisingabout society-nature relations7%atour obser$es that the postmodern turn in the social sciences has done away with the reality of naturepri$ileging the social construction of nature. 3ith only a social construction of nature in place the politics of nature becomes impossible: ifnature does not e6ist apart from human constructions humans can only e$er speak for nature.=


4hapter > the final 4hapter focused on supporting that part of my thesis that is concerned with pursuing 5ust e6istences for oceans through

a democratic political process which I ha$e referred to along with others as political epistemology. 'olitical epistemology I



ha$e argued is useful for generating knowledge of oceans and for shifting policytowards a particular set of social-en$ironmental goals that are not widelyimagined by the 3estern sub5ect. /olitical epistemology involves a greaterinclusivity o' perspectives structure! into policy !e"ates including thecreation of spaces for the agency of oceans to contribute .

The importance of de-centring of e6perts7as a political and ethical strategyaimed at promoting 5ust e6istences for oceans7goes to the heart of myobser$ation and supporting argument that the 3estern discourses of law aesthetics andscience ha$e the effect of crowding out of different perspecti$es and a di$ersity of human-ocean relations. I ha$e demonstrated in this dissertation some of the ways in which 3estern sub5ects and institutions ha$e worked andcontinue to work tirelessly to sustain a sense of legitimacy and garner material benefits through assertions of authority and hegemony thatare grounded in the discourses of law aesthetics and science.

4hapter > was written as a challenge to the 3estern practices of assertingauthority and dri$ing toward hegemony in relation to questions regarding whatto do about the oceans. Integral to the discussion of 4hapter > was a further insight of a social construction perspecti$e

outlined in the Introduction to this dissertation that oceans are not simply artefacts of culture. Nather

oceans are li$ing entities that are independent of us. part of the discussion in 4hapter > focused onhow we might acknowledge the agency of oceans7indeed gi$e a $oice to ocean dwelling life in deciding what is to be done about oceans. I

argued in 4hapter > that in working towards 5ust ocean e6istences oceans must beconsidered as acti$e participants in marine en$ironmental disputes and policymaking. This needs to occur through pluralistic democratic en$ironmentalpolitical processes.I began 4hapter > with a discussion of the problems of essentialist and constructionist notions of nature and argued that we need a concept

of oceans that are not reducible to human ob5ecti$ity or human sub5ecti$ity or nature or culture but rather imagine oceans asa co-construction between humans and non-humans . I drew upon the insights of particular ecologicalfeminist theories and performati$e notions of nature that support the idea of oceans as indissolubly mi6ed in with culture.econd I discussed a range of approaches to ocean ethics and politics7a ea @thic marine stewardship and en$ironmental pragmatism. Ipointed out the strengths of all three approaches but was critical of their fai lure to consider the moral worth of the self-directedness of non-human oceanic life or how democratic representation might be widened to acknowledge non-humans as agents.

The approach I ad$ocated for in 4hapter > was a process for political epistemology in$ol$ing aninclusi$e democratic process7of humans and non-humans7that seekscooperati$e solutions to shared problems and critical enquiry. I argued %atour#s model of the

collecti$e procedure is a useful theoretical model in this regard that mo$es us toward consensus andcooperation in the pursuit of marine en$ironmental policy through multifacetedengagement. In setting out %atour#s model I highlighted that his approach specifically addresses andfacilitates non-human agency in a democratic process. This approach I belie$e

oul! help to per'orm the oceans along new lines or in the words of hakespeare (1=>?! a seachange into something rich an! strange+



F?,5 /olitical Epistemology an! 4ceans


;ealy supports his obser$ations by reference to ;abermas in writing that:

rational scientific instrumental-technical reasoning has been allowed to crowdout moral and emoti$e-aesthetic reasoning that more typically characteri"e thelifeworld of personal e6istence impo$erishing both our lifeworld and economic andpolitical life. (022 => emphasis in original!

In particular so called cooperati$e discourse# *informed and structured by representationalscientific rationality controls and circumscribes public in$ol$ement ultimatelyreflecting rather than transcending instrumental-technical reasoning (;ealy 022 =Semphasis in original!.

'olitical epistemology as an alternati$e approach to scientific rationality in the

production of knowledge is de$eloped in the work of %atour (022?!. %atour is an important thinker in de$eloping

the ideas of political epistemology into a practical form. %atour decentres the role of e6perts especially scientists

in defining the natural world. %atour#s collecti$e procedure re$ises and elaborates upon his earlier idea of the*'arliament of Things described in his te6t 3e ;a$e De$er Jeen odern (1==?!. ccording to %atour the 'arliament of Things (1==?!and the 4ollecti$e (022?! simply describe phenomena we are currently facing in en$ironmental policy making.There are two obser$ations to be made here about %atour#s $iew of the effects of present phenomena: the first relates to the $ery substance#of the world (%atour 1==? ?!. %atour (1==?C 022?! is concerned with hybrids7the not-quite-natural not- quite social7that ha$e becomeubiquitous in the world such as genetically modified organisms and climate change and %atour (1==?! employs a network metaphor forthinking about such socio-natural imbroglios. 4astree and acmillan e6plain about these networks that they *are multiple and relentlesslyheterogenous# typically in$ol$ing the unique alignment of humans machines animals inscription de$ices and other materials in relations

which $ary in stability time-space e6tension and time-space form (0221 011!.Detworks would for e6ample *link in one continuous chain the chemistry of the upper atmosphere scientific and industrial strategies thepreoccupations of heads of state the an6ieties of ecologists (%atour 1==? 11!. ocio-natural imbroglios cast in terms of networks signal theinter-connectedness between actors and *affecti$e relations between actors that are made up of *all manner of energetic e6changes withinand between them (3hatmore 022> 1>2->1!.

It is worth noting at this 5uncture that this way of conceptualising human-nature relations is de$eloped in ctor DetworkTheory (DT! of which %atour is a ma5or proponent. In elaborating here upon this conception of the network image DT can bethought of as *a set of o$erlapping propositions intended to guide thinking andresearch about human-nature relations (4astree Z acmillan 0221 011!. In describing e$ents DT

does not distinguish between natural and social actors in contrast torepresentational perspecti$esC rather *FoGb5ects or sub5ects which arecategorised as natural or social under modern ontology are described in the same terms (Jell022 8>!. In DT it is the relations between actors and the relations that comprise actors that are of interest (Jell 022C ;ealy 022!. Thesocial and natural are imagined as co-constituti$e within a multitude of networks (4astree Z acmillan 0221!.

DT#s hybridity and networks *makes for the re-ordering of ethical community beyond the human# (3hatmore 022> 1>1!. s 4astree and acmillan note:

FasG DT dissol$es any a priori di$ision of society from nature it requires a politicsattuned to all the actors in gi$en socionatural networks . Jecause the fate of any one actant in aparticular network is so intimately bound up with that of others DT suggests the necessity for hybrid politics in which the fate of humans

machines organisms plants and animals and so on are considered simultaneously7and on a case by case basis. oreo$er sincehuman and non- human actants are considered ontologically equi$alent here a

hybrid politics of nature should be neither anthropocentric or ecocentricC it would refuse toser$e the interests of one or other actor in a network. (0221 002!9urthermore networks pro$ide *the condition of immanent potentiality that harbours the $ery possibility of their coming into being(3hatmore 022> 1>1!. 3hatmore elaborates by wri ting that:

rticulated through the cartography of networks ... hybridity disturbs the habits that reiteratethe cumulati$e fault-lines between human/sub5ects and non- human/ob5ectsprescribed by an ethical reasoning abstracted from the particularity of embodimentand territoriali"ed as the e6clusi$e preser$e of a ociety# from which e$erything but the uni$ersal human has been e6punged. Instead a multitude of affecti$e actants-in-relation take and



hold their shape performati$ely as precarious achie$ements whose durability and reach is spun between the potencies and frailties of morethan human kinds. (022> 1>1!

The 5ust e6istences of oceans as they may be percei$ed through networks are states of being in which the ocean is able to play a part in taking and holding its own shape#7fluidas that may be.The second obser$ation to be made here about %atour#s $iew of phenomena we currently face in en$ironmental policy making is thatpolitical ecology has been ineffecti$e in producing positi$e en$ironmental outcomes because scientists ha$e defined en$ironmental issues

and agendas from the outset. ;owe$er defining the common world and making decisions about en$ironmentalproblems is beginning to reflect a greater collaboration of ethicists economistspoliticians and other communities (%atour 022?!. The idea that scientists in particularneed to be brought together with ethicists economists politicians and othercommunities to debate and decide upon en$ironmental public health andscientific and technological agendas has been identified in recent policy forumsand literature (see for e6ample %eshner 0228C %e$idow Z arris 0221C Dowotny 0228!. Inclusi$e approaches are beingemployed in some programs such as the )nited tates Dational ;uman Henome Nesearch Institute#s @thical %egal and ocial Implicationsprogram and the merican ssociation for the d$ancement of cience#s <ialogue on cience @thics and Neligion (%eshner 0228!.


The approach for which I ad$ocate in this 4hapter is an inclusi$e democratic process thatseeks cooperati$e solutions to shared problems. t the heart of my idea about an inclusi$e democratic

process is the recognition that non-humans *possess an interest in their ownsur$i$al (@ckersley 0220 >?! and that there are ways to be inclusi$e of non-humans. %atour(022?! pro$ides a useful theoretical procedure in this regard that mo$es us toward consensus and cooperation in the pursuit of marineen$ironmental policy through multifaceted human and non-human engagement. %atour#s procedure allows for what @ckersley (0220!

would see as a healthy constituti$e tension between those focused on mediating a plurality of moral $alues for practical democraticoutcomes as well as critical enquiry into and reconfiguring of pre$ailing 3estern human-ocean relations. y conception of politicalecology fits with this essentially democratic process for resol$ing ecological questions about what is to be done.

I begin this chapter by outlining the problems with essentialist and constructionist notions of nature arguing that we need tode$elop a more discerning concept of oceans that is not reducible to humanob5ecti$ity or human sub5ecti$ity nature or culture. I argue we need a theory that

imagines oceans as a co-construction between humans and non-humans. In this task Idraw on particular ecological feminist and performati$e theories of nature that acknowledge the instability of the categories of nature# andsociety# and human# and stress the independence and agency of non- human nature.This 4hapter includes a re$iew of a range of approaches to ocean ethics and politics. These approaches all ha$e their strengths. ;owe$ermy basic criticism of these approaches is that the meaning $alue and ideas are interpreted through a lens that focuses on what it means forhumans. They do not consider the moral worth of the self-directedness of non-human oceanic life (4uomo 1==B! or how democraticrepresentation might be widened to acknowledge non-humans as agents.

In the final section of this 4hapter I present %atour#s (022?! collecti$e procedure for facilitating political epistemology. 'oliticalepistemology is a term I use to conceptualise a process characterised by *reciprocalknowledge making (9awcett 0222 1>S! where all assertions of knowledge about theoceans are assessed openly and transparently . I concur with 9awcett when she writes that *FtGhechoices we make and the actions we take on any en$ironmental problem dependon the quality and refle6i$ity of our knowledge making in that area (0222 1>S!. In the

course of this 4hapter I will e6plain how knowledge can be generated democratically and

rigorously yet constantly open to challenge and change .



AT5 No Agency to 4ceans

The ocean has agency* it trans'orms relationships an! places ithem"e!!e! intent+essica Lehman 6;;8 Nesearcher at The )ni$ersity of Jritish 4olumbia in international fields and data analysis *@6pectingthe ea: <isplacement and the @n$ironment on ri %anka#s @ast 4oast

Nesonating with the understanding that 9oucault de$eloped of power as multi-nodal producti$e and creati$e (1=>B! a relationalontology sees the network or assemblage as saturated with powerC power that comes about as aresult of these burgeoning connections. DT theorists maintain that an analytical symmetry must be applied that considers in consideringthe weight of human and nonhuman actions (4allon 1=B>!C it must not be pre-determined which actors ha$e power. 9or the researcher

power relations can only emerge by following the actors and their connections. The ocean is both an actor and anetwork yet this is true of all actors e$en the human body (Jingham 1==>!. The sea works withine6tensi$e networks of soldiers ci$ilians fisherfolk coastlines managementpolicies ships and countless others to influence e$en or perhaps especially what are seen as

political or social realities in ri %anka.] 3hile it is superficially apparent that nonhuman entities canact (wa$es can crash on the shore bacteria decompose tree roots cause sidewalks

and roads to buckle! nonhuman agency means something more. In their work on the agency of trees ones and 4loke (022B!

re$isit questions of nonhuman agency. They draw on theoretical accounts that deny intentionality as aprerequisite for agency citing that it is relationality that gi$es meaning to actions

(;araway 022BC Jarad 022!. ones and 4loke (022B: B2-B1! identify four ways that nonhumans (in their case

specifically trees! can be understood to enact agency. They can engage in routine action]

which may be pre$ented encouraged or shaped by humans but renders them far from passi$e.] They canparticipate in transformati$e action creating or influencing relationships andplaces. They can act with purpose and imbedded intentC for e6ample <Dcontains an ob$ious plan for the future. 9inally they can act non-refle6i$ely with*a capacity to engender affecti$e and emotional responses from the humans who dwell amongst

them E to contribute to the haunting of place $ia e6changes between the $isible

present and the starkly absent in the multiple and incomplete becoming of agency (022B: B1!.] The oceancan be seen to possess all of these types of agency . It practices routine action in the

quotidian processes and acti$ities of tides currents not to mention its role in the biologicalfunctioning of its inhabitants. It transforms relationships and places throughincremental action such as physical weathering and also through e$ents such asthe 022? Indian +cean tsunami. 3hile ones and 4loke caution against being reductionist and essentialist with

regards to intent it could be said that the ocean also practices embedded intent in wearing awayrocks and other materials that impede its mo$ement . 9inally the ocean inspiresstrong affecti$e responses as seen in the preceeding discussion and radically contributes to themeaning of places through its absence or presence on multiple timescales. 3hile the focus of accountsof nonhuman agency has typically been on animals or technological hybrids such as ;araway#s cyborg other natural entities deser$eattention (ones and 4loke 022B!. ;ence my research contributes to pre$ious work on the agency of nonhuman entities particularly inshaping political and li$ed outcomes. In 4hapter Two I e6plore and build upon the growing literature on theori"ing the sea. 3hile some of

this work has made nods to posthumanism (cf. %ambert et al. 022>! in most cases the agency of the sea hasremained curiously absent. Jy bringing these bodies of literature intocon$ersation I belie$e we can come to a more complete understanding of the rolethat the ocean plays in shaping outcomes on ri %anka#s @ast coast.

The ocean is an actoressica Lehman 6;;8 Nesearcher at The )ni$ersity of Jritish 4olumbia in international fields and data analysis *@6pectingthe ea: <isplacement and the @n$ironment on ri %anka#s @ast 4oast



y pro5ect in this chapter has been to lay the foundations for an alternati$e frame with

which to] understand ri %anka#s @ast coast. 'ri$ileging the ocean as an actor I bringposthumanism into] con$ersation with social theories of the sea to create a framethat e6plains the emergence of power through discursi$e and material relations

(%atour 1==8!. This frame contributes to posthumanist literature by drawing attention to a non-sentient

natural element de$iating from recent focus on animals and

technology as key sub5ects for

posthumanist analysis (4onner 022>C ones and 4loke 022B!.] Dowhere is the significance of the ocean more e$ident than in @astern ri

%anka where the ocean has both materially brought about destruction and pro$idedsustenance and has also been a locus of relations through which humans andnonhumans negotiate power and resistance resilience and sur$i$al . In this chapter I

pro$ided e$idence to draw out three reflections on theori"ing the ocean that are particular to my research site. 9irst I ha$e shown that thesea occupies a central role in coastal residents# daily li$es and hence integrallyshapes both their physical and social en$ironments such that the sea becomesembodied as an actor. econd while for many the sea is thought of as a $oid or a space to betranscended (teinberg 0221! for the participants in my research the ocean at least near coastal areas was understood as aplace with defining material characteristics that allowed them to predict its dynamic qualities. 9inally as discussed by others yet

contrary to many dominant tropes for the residents of Jatticaloa the ocean was not inherently

unpredictable or +ther (%ambert et al. 0228C 4onnery 022>C 3esterdahl 0228!. ;owe$er unpredictability and $olatility

emerged with force as a result of the 022? tsunami changing the ways that people conceptuali"ed and obser$ed the ocean. 9urthermorethe tsunami rearranged the coastal network reconfiguring relations between human and nonhuman actors. In the coming chapters Ielaborate on the significance of understanding the ocean as an actor in ri %anka taking a network-based approach to e6ploring therelations that ha$e formed post-tsunami reality on the @ast coast.



AT5 o !o 4ceans 2peakP

They speak their on ay

Kenne!y % &'h.d in philosophy from urdoch )ni$esrity (*+cean ,iews: n in$estigation into human-ocean


There will be the new $oices of non-humans engaging in the debate. %atourallows for them by specifying a conception of sub5ects and ob5ects nature and society.

3hen introducing the idea that non)humans are active participants inprocesses o' knole!ge pro!uction %atour does not claim that non-humansspeak on their own. Indeed he makes the more radical obser$ation that *no beings not e$en humansspeak on their own but always through something or someone else (%atour 022? >Bemphasis in original!.12 3hat %atour means by non-human speech is that through the perple6ity and contro$ersies they pro$oke

speech comes from those *gathered around them and *arguing o$er them (022? >>!.

;owe$er %atour argues that all spokespersons for humans and non-humans must be treated withscepticism because their partial perspecti$es limit their ability to represent them.Don-humans act further through their associations with other actors. %atour challenges the often accepted wisdom that *a thing cannot besaid to be an actor in any case not a social actor since it does not act in the proper sense of the $erbC it only beha$es (022? S!. 9or

%atour non-humans are social actors because they modify other actors through theirassociations with them. This is how they participate in the constitution of theircollecti$e e6istence. oreo$er the idea of recalcitranceoffers the most appropriate approach to defining their action. ... ctors are defined abo$e allelse as obstacles scandals as what suspends mastery as what gets in the way of domination as what interrupts the closure and

the composition of the collecti$e. To put it crudely human and non-human actors appear first of all astroublemakers. (%atour 022? S=!11

Language is more than #ust human speech%ewis Williams 6;16 9ounding <irector of the &oru International Detwork ssociate 'rofessor with the <epartment of

Dati$e tudies and the <epartment of 'ublic ;ealth at the )ni$ersity of askatchewan *Nadical ;uman @cology: Intercultural andIndigenous pproaches

@$ery iwi (tribe! will ha$e its muanga (mountain! its awa (ri$er! its mana (di$ine authority! its people its whenua (land!. nd that#s the whole essence of who you are.

The words of this Dgai Te Nangi signify a fundamental truth for many in Indigenous societies: a human person does notstand alone but shares with other animate and in the 3estern sense*inanimate beings a relationship based on the shared essence of life. In aoridom this shared essence is referred to asmauri meaning life-force energy. auri is regarded as the binding life force energy that gi$es ride to unity in di$ersity and impels thecosmic process forward (arsden 022!. 3ithin this interconnected cosmology the significance of place of landscape and of other things

in the uni$erse are definiti$e in terms of shaping a person#s essential being (Tuawhai mith 1===!. 3ith their emphasis onthe shared essence inherent in the metaphysical underpinning of reality thesefundamentals of an Indigenous cosmology are profoundly different frommodernist (humanist! and postmodernist conceptuali"ations. ] Indigenous

world$iews concei$e the fundamental reality of the uni$erse as a continuum a uniti$efield or fabric of energy and consciousness that is beyond time space and all forms and yet within them (et"ner 1==S: ?!. Neferred toearlier as the mauri within oaridom this cross-culturally recogni"ed phenomenon is also recogni"ed as the Tao within Taoism and the

3akan-Tanka (creator spirit! and Joea 9ikcha/'uy$feke$ within some Dati$e merican %akota and 4reek traditions respecti$ely. 3ithin

this world$iew consciousness is embedded in the nature of all things and is intimatelylinked to matter7animate and again in the 3estern sense inanimate. The idea that all phenomena in the

world possess sub5ecti$e inner natures is distinct from anthropomorphism (pro5ecting human qualities into non-human forms! andtraditional notions of animism that held that *primiti$e man $iewed all ob5ects as being inhabited by spirits.] s the uniti$e fabric ofenergy of which we are part is also consciousness and we are at all times embedded in this unifying energy of consciousness we ha$e thepotential to *attune with identify with and communicate with any and e$ery other life form ob5ect or being in the uni$erse (et"ner0228b: 10!. This holistic perception is the keynote of traditional Indigenous cultures and includes but goes beyond the material sphere toembrace the metaphysical. s a form of *Dati$e cience (4a5ete 0222 022>! e6pertise in this area was commonly the pro$idence of the



haman in Indigenous societies. In essence this relational world$iew sees things in a more thanhuman-to-human conte6t. *it is a perspecti$e that in$ol$es human beings animals plants the natural en$ironment andthe metaphysical world of $isions and dreams (9i6ico 022: 0!. It is an inclusi$e notion of kinship that in <onald 9i6ico#s words

*in$ol$es more accountability on the part of nati$e people for taking care of andrespecting their relationships with all things (022: 0!. I see this as an *@thics of @cology which I belie$emust inform our work for planetary well-being.] The 3est#s partial re-emergence from modernity in recent years has intersected with andarguably been underpinned by an array of scholarly endea$or in the area of relational consciousness. In particular the work of aurice

eleau-'onty 9rench philosopher articulated in his famous book *The 'rimacy of 'erception (1=>?! and <a$id brams#s

(1==>! thesis of an *@cology of %anguage lay important theoretical groundwork with respect to theIndigenous and shamanic approach to ecological relationship ad$ocated here .

They do so in demonstrating the primacy of the embodied nature of human language and significantly de-centeringlanguage as an *e6clusi$e human property (bram 1==>: SB!.] erleau-'onty critiqued the 4artesiandualism of mind-body through his dialectical concept of consciousness7our ability to reflect comes through the pre-reflecti$e ground ofperception in which the body plays a central role. 9or erleau-'onty the body#s structures of perceptual consciousness are our first route of access to being and truth: *such structures underlie and accompany all the structures of higher le$el indi$idual consciousness (1=>?: 6$i!.'erception is therefore a reciprocal e6change between the li$ing body and the animate world that surrounds it. It is on this pre$erbal form

of inter-sub5ecti$e perception7which I refer to as *empathic resonance7that <a$id bram bases his *ecology of language:] 'rior tolanguage pre$erbal perception is already in e6change and the recognition thatthis e6change has its own coherence and articulation suggests that perception isthe $ery soil and support of that more conscious e6change we call language. (bram1==>: S?!] %anguage as articulated by erleau-'onty is rooted first in our sensorial e6perience of each otherC the gestural somatic

dimension of language is always present and underpins its abstract structure. It is only by solely concei$inglanguage as an abstract phenomenon a structure composed of arbitrary signsand linked by formal rules that it can be claimed as an e6clusi$ely humanattribute:] If language is always in its depths physically and sensorially resonant then it can ne$er be definiti$ely separated from the

e$ident e6pressi$eness of birdsong.. language as a bodily phenomenon accrues to all e6pressi$e bodies not 5ust human_ moreo$er if we allow that spoken meaning remains rooted in gesture and bodily e6pressi$eness we will be unable to restrict our renewed e6perience of language solely to animals_ as we ha$e already recogni"ed in the untamed world ofdirect sensory e6perience no phenomena presents itself as utterly passi$e or inert. (bram 1==>: B2-B1!] The terrain of

*@mpathetic Nesonance (my term! described in $arious ways by an array of Indigenous scholars (4a5ate 0222 9i6ico022 @rmine et al. 0228! and 3estern phenomenologists such as bram (1==8 1==>! and erleau-'onty (1=>?! is implicitly shamanic: it

allows the possibility of human attunement with all other life forms: animate and

inanimate (bram 1==8 et"ner 0228b!. This potential i s I argue a cross-cultural commonalityC not as a form oftranscendence but rather as a type of *incendence to our common archaic taproot of ancient community . This is not about going back. Nather it represents the perceptual wisdom we must carry intothe future. It was in the ancient communities of our ancestors that the shaman mediated between the human and non-human community

ensuring there was an appropriate flow of nourishment not 5ust from thelandscape to the human inhabitants but from the human community back to thelocal earth. Importantly to some e6tent e$ery adult in traditional communities was engaged in these process of listening and

attuning as part of their e$eryday sur$i$al (bram 1==8! a way of being that we need to reintegrate intocontemporary consciousness.



=isc+* "ut relevant



Earth 3emocracy A'' A!vocacy

We must engage in Earth 3emocracy & a system that challenges Western epistemologies o' groth an! capital accumulation an!

treats nature ith respect & giving an! taking* alays & thisallos 'or a critical reinvestigation o' our relationship ithnature2hiva ’11 (,andana author of many books eco-spiritualist *@arth <emocracy and the Nights of other @arthhttp://www.tikkun.org/ne6tgen/earth-democracy-and-the-rights-of-mother-earth 10/10/11 acc. S/11/1? arh!

The ecological and economic problems we face are rooted in a series ofreductionist steps which ha$e shrunk our imagination and our identity ourpurpose on the earth and the instruments we use to meet our needs + We are

'irst an! 'oremost earth citi.ens . nd our highest duty is to maintain the li$ing systems of the earth that

support our life. @arth citi"enship needs earth-centered cultures earth-based

democracy and earth-centered economies. ;owe$er society and culture ha$e been reduced to economiesC economies ha$e been reduced to market economicsCmarket economics has been reduced to financeC and finance has been reduced toabstract instruments like deri$ati$es securiti"ation and collateral debtobligations. imultaneously the conception o' humans as earth citi.ens :

glo"al su"#ects ith !uties an! rights to the earth : has "een

replace! "y a 'ocus on corporations* which ha$e no duties to either the earth or society only limitless

rights to e6ploit both the earth and people. 4orporations ha$e been assigned legal personhood and corporate rights are now e6tinguishingthe rights of the earth as well as the rights of people to the earth#s gifts and resources. 4orporate rights are premised on ma6imi"ation of

profits. There are two tools corporations use to ma6imi"e profits. The first is the use of technologies thattransfer production from local communities to distant corporations substitute biodi$ersity with to6ic products and make e$eryone into consumers of to6icnonrenewable products whose cost is high but price is cheap. The second instrument is thecreation of tools for wealth accumulation. These tools include measuring wealth as capital thus ignoring both nature#s wealth and society#s

wealth. They also include measuring wealth as the growth of HD' and H<'. t the core o' the secon!

instrument o' pro'it ma$imi.ation is the privati.ation o' ater an!

even the atmosphere+ =ore o'ten than not* the tools o' technology

an! economic tools o' ealth appropriation go han! in han!*

rein'orcing each other+ Thus genetic engineering goes hand in hand with patents on life and pri$ati"ation of

biodi$ersity. <ams for long-distance water transfer go hand in hand with water pri$ati"ation. 3e need a new paradigm for li$ing on the

earth because the old one is clearly not working. An alternative is no a survival imperative

'or the human species+ 3e nee! an alternative not only at the level o'tools* "ut also at the level o' our orl!vie+ o !o e look at

ourselves in this orl!P What are humans 'orP Are e merely a

money)making an! resource gu..ling machineP 4r !o e have a

higher purpose* a higher en!P , "elieve e !o have a higher en!+ ,

"elieve that e are mem"ers o' the earth 'amily E of ,asudhai$a &utumbkam. nd as

members of the earth family our first and highest duty is to take care of other @arth: 'rith$i



Haia 'achamama. nd the better we take care of her the more food water health and wealth we ha$e. *@arth rights arefirst and foremost the rights of other @arth and our corresponding duties andresponsibilities to defend those rights. @arth rights are also the rights of humansas they flow from the rights of other @arth: the right to food and water the right to health and a safe

en$ironment and the right to the commons (the ri$ers the seeds the biodi$ersity and the atmosphere!. I ha$e gi$en the

name @arth <emocracy to this new paradigm of li$ing as an @arth 4ommunityrespecting rights of other @arth. @arth <emocracy enables us to en$ision andcreate li$ing democracies. %i$ing democracy enables democratic participation inall matters of life and death 7 the food we eat or lackC the water we drink or aredenied due to pri$ati"ation or pollutionC the air we breathe or are poisoned by .%i$ing democracies are based on the intrinsic worth of all species all peoples allculturesC a 5ust and equal sharing of this earth#s $ital resourcesC and sharing the decisions about

the use of the earth#s resources. @arth <emocracy protects the ecological processes thatmaintain life and the fundamental human rights that are the basis of the right tolife including the right to water the right to food the right to health the right toeducation and the right to 5obs and li$elihoods. @arth <emocracy is based on therecognition of and respect for the life of all species and all people. himsa (non$iolence! is the

basis of many faiths that ha$e emerged on Indian soil. Translated into economics non$iolence implies that our systems of production

trade and consumption do not use up the ecological space of other species and other people. @iolence is the result

hen our !ominant economic structures an! economic organi.ation

usurp an! enclose the ecological space o' other species or other

people . ccording to an ancient Indian te6t the Isho )panishad: The uni$erse is the creation of theupreme 'ower meant for the benefits of FallG creation. @ach indi$idual life formmust therefore learn to en5oy its benefits by forming a part of the system in closerelation with other species. %et not any one species encroach upon other rights. 3hene$er we engage in consumption orproduction patterns which take more than we need we are engaging in $iolence. Don-sustainable consumption and non-sustainableproduction constitute a $iolent economic order. In the Isho )panishad it is also said: selfish man o$er utili"ing the resources of nature tosatisfy his own e$er increasing needs is nothing but a thief because using resources beyond one#s needs would result in the utili"ation of

resources o$er which others ha$e a right. The rights of corporations e6tinguish the rights of the@arth and all her children including humans. The economy as currentlystructured is centered on corporations and corporate profits. 4orporate profitsare based on destruction of the earth and dispossession and uprooting of people.The technological and economic systems that impo$erish the earth alsoimpo$erish local communities + The rights o' the earth are ultimately

intertine! ith the rights o' the people+ The rights of corporations to appropriate or

contaminate the earth#s resources undermine both the rights of the other @arth and the human rights of people to li$elihoods and basicneeds of food and water. That is why the rights of other @arth are the $ery basis of the human rights of people to land and naturalresource food and water to li$elihoods and basic needs. @arth rights are the basis of equity 5ustice and sustainability. +n @arth <ay 0212Joli$ian 'resident uan @$o orales yma organi"ed a conference on Nights of other @arth. The idea was to start a process for adopting a

)ni$ersal <eclaration of the Nights of other @arth on the lines of the )ni$ersal <eclaration of ;uman Nights + Without

Earth ights* there can "e no human rights+ It is time to deepen humanrights by deepening the recognition that humans depend on the earth. @arthrights are human rights. ;umanity stands at a precipice. 3e ha$e to make achoice. 3ill we obey the market laws of corporate greed or Haia#s laws formaintenance of the earth#s ecosystems and the di$ersity of her beingsQ The laws forma6imi"ing corporate profits are based on: 'ri$ati"ing the earth @nclosing the commons @6ternali"ing the costs of ecological destruction of

ha"ards The laws for protecting the rights of other @arth are based on: Nespecting the integrity of the earth#secosystems and ecological process Neco$ering the commons Internali"ing



ecological costs 4orporate ideology has presented corporate profits as growthand growth as beneficial to all e$en though corporate greed is taking awayresources necessary to meet people#s needs. 'eople#s needs for food and watercan only be met if nature#s capacity to pro$ide food and water are protected. <ead

soils and dead ri$ers cannot gi$e food and water. 3e'en!ing the rights o' =other Earth is

there'ore the most important human rights an! social #usticestruggle o' our times+

Earth 3emocracy is essential to counter pervasive notions o' violence an! !estruction2hiva ’16 (,andana author of many books eco-spiritualist *@arth <emocracy http://www.na$danya.org/earth-democracy acc.S/11/1? arh!

3e need a new paradigm to respond to the fragmentation caused by $ariousforms of fundamentalism. We nee! a ne movement* hich allos us to

move 'rom the !ominant an! pervasive culture o' violence*

!estruction an! !eath to a culture o' non)violence* creative peace

an! li'e . That is why in IndiaDa$danya started the @arth democracy mo$ement whichpro$ides an alternati$e world$iew in which humans are embedded in the @arth9amily we are connected to each other through lo$e compassion not hatred and $iolence and ecological responsibility and economic 5ustice replaces greedconsumerism and competition as ob5ecti$es of human life .



Counter)Conversion A!vocacy

Counter)conversion is key to casting aay hegemonic Americanism an! colonial imposition

Tillett Q Fear)2egel 1B (acqueline 9ear-egal is Neader in merican ;istory and 4ulture at the )ni$ersity of @ast nglia and the author of 3hite an#s 4lub: chools Nace and the truggle of Indian cculturation. Nebecca Tillett is enior %ecturer in merican %iterature and 4ulture at the )ni$ersity of @ast nglia and the author of 4ontemporary Dati$e merican %iterature. +ctober021 *Indigenous Jodies

http://muse.5hu.edu.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/books/=SB1?B??B002.! //ky

This chapter e6plores the representation of indigenous bodies within the conte6t of the trans-indigenous 'acific. <rawing on the life

narrati$es of @peli ;au#ofa and yaman Napongan two authors who are nati$e to the 'acific region I argue that 'acificindigenous body politics are $ery much connected to an *oceanic body andconstitute a *counter-con$ersion from land to sea. In his thought-pro$oking book Je lways

4on$erting Je lways 4on$erted: n merican 'oetics Nob 3ilson in$okes the e6perience of *counter-con$ersion as a re$ersal and turn away from mericanist codes of nation-state boundaries a *de$elopmentalist framework of global dependency andneocolonial entanglement in modern worlding that stresses Dati$e 'acific*smallness and belittlement (101!. ll such hegemonic mericanism across the'acific colonial imposition of nationhood race boundary lines and *falseconfinement into smallness littleness irrele$ance and global dependency (10S!

could be turned o$er and cast away $ia *counter$ision of 'acific place-makingand history-shaping (12!. If the )nited tates is the hegemonic superpower that hascon$erted the 'acific into *the merican %ake1 nowadays as 3ilson contends'acific Island authors and culture-makers figure the regenerations of *nati$eattitude taking place across the contemporary 'acific otherwise and elsewhere(102! which constitutes a *counter-con$ersion *re-worlding the 'acific throughtheir *counter-$isions and counter-memories (11=E102!. To this I would add that it is

furthermore a *counter-con$ersion from the continental to the insular fromland to sea from *islands in a far sea to an interconnected *sea of islands ali$e with mobility counter-mapping and counter-memory and generati$e of actionand community as ;au#ofa figures it in his influential essay *+ur ea of Islands (0SE?2!. 9or 'acific island peoples thisentails belonging to the region through *sea-lo$ing genes and by *adoring the sea. In 3e re the +cean (;au#ofa 022B! as well as 4old

ea <eep 'assion (Napongan 1==S! and Jlack 3ings (Napongan 1===! @peli ;au#ofa and yaman Napongan set out to liberatethe indigenous body from the limitations of nationalistic discourse and socialconstraintC the respecti$e resolutions of their life stories point us towardsolutions to global problems of discrimination and ethnic or racial e6clusion. Inthese works the indigenous body is a cultural cipher an inde6 of (post!colonialhistory as well as a figure upon which the cultural identities and life paths of'acific indigenous peoples are inscribed.

http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/books/9781438448220





We are the 4cean /oems

ome at lastauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky

I am tiredof being nai$e

talking to myself winding handless clocks

and bailing the oceantomorrow

I shall goto church the police station

parliament house the courts other corridors and the market

placesthey say

where you can buy truth easily.

,n TransitauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks


(thoughts from the windows of the 'alace +ffice!

Hrey light filtersThrough dusted leaf screen

Thrilling laughter from 'angaiTossed by the beat of breakers+n coral wallsThat check an oceanTo make it crawlTo alien guns guardingThe fishermen#s beach

nother day has gone'assed in time-filling chats

nd floorboard creaksIn this old houseThat nurses fading portraits +f those who led our landtood awhile

3ith the Dorfolk pines@$ergreen sentinels<warfing the red spires+f the kauri chapel

3ith arched doors nd arched windows

9oreign structureThat has sati6 generationsJreathing briny weathersarking &a$a 4allsTo become almost Tongan

s you and I+nly much older and

3ith the alien pines and guns 3ill still remain To gauge the tide when fter brief so5ournIn our nati$e land

3e lea$e.

http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//docDetail.action?docID=10386742.)//ky










Dloo! in the Kava DolauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky This card/poem has been modified for inappropriate and gendered language and we do not endorse the gendered language in this card/poem. 4ertain phrases ha$e been kept to maintain academic accuracy.

In the twilight we sitdrinking ka$a from the bowl between us.

3ho we are we know and need not sayfor the soul we share came from ,aihi.

cross the bowl we nod our understanding of the linethat is also our cord brought by Tangaloa from abo$eand the professor does not know.;e sees the line but not the cord for he drinks the ka$a not tasting its blood.

nd the ka$a has risen my frienddrink and smile the grace of our parentsat him who says we are oppressed

by you by me but it#s twilight in ,aihiand his $ision is clouded.

The ka$a has risen again dear friendtake this cup . . .

h yes that matter of oppression7from ,aihi it begot in us unspoken knowledgeof our soul and our bondage.

You and I hold the lo$e of that inner mountainshrouded in mist and spouting ashes spread by the winds from +no-i-%au%akemba and %omalomao$er the soils of our land shapingthose slender kahokaho and kaumeile

we offer in first-fruits to our ;au. nd the ka$a trees of Tonga grow wellour foreheads on the royal toesjThe ;au is healthyour land#s in fine fat shape for another season.

The professor still talksof oppression that we both know

yet he tastes not the blood in the ka$ami6ed with dry waters that rose to Tangaloa

who ga$e us the cup from which we drinkthe soul and the tears of our land.Dor has he heard of our brothers who slayed Takalaua

and fled to Diue anono and 9utunato be caught in )$ea by the tyrant#s offspringand brought home under the aegis of the priest of auito decorate the royal congregation and to chew for the kingthe ka$a mi6ed with blood from their mouthsthe mouths of all oppressed Tongansin e6piation to ;ikuleo the inner mountain

with an echo others cannot hear.

nd the mountain spouts ancestral ashesspread by the winds from +no-i-%au %akemba and %omalomao$er the soils of our land raising fine yamssymbols of our mynhood of the strength of our nationin first-fruits we offer to our ;au. The mountain also crushes our peopletheir blood flowing into the royal ringfor the health of the ,ictor and of TongaCthe red waters from the warm springs of 'ulotuonly you and I can taste and li$ein ancient understanding begat by aui in ,aihi.

The ka$a has risen my siblingdrink this cup of the soul and the sweat of our peopleand pass me three more mushrooms which grew in ururoaon the e6crement of the cows4aptain 4ook broughtfrom the &ings of @ngland and 9rancej







We are the 4ceans A''

Current communications prevent a true un!erstan!ing o'in!igenous cultures+

auJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky I belie$e that a ma5or part of the problem is the dis5unction between people#se6pectations of us7 probably they would like us to draw portraits of them7 andof our special social scientific aims . t times this arises from the fact that when we e6plain ourpurposes to those among whom we conduct our fieldwork we feel unable toe6plain fully to them our real aims. This is so partly because of the problems ofcommunication that we all know. 3hat we often end up saying is that we are there to learn their customs and to

write books about them.They cooperate with us thinking that we are going to tell theirstories taking their points of $iew into consideration. 3hen we produce our

articles and monographs and they and their children or grandchildren read themthey often cannot see themsel$es or they see themsel$es being distorted andmisrepresented. In many cases our field of discourse and our special social scientific languagepreclude any comprehension of what we are talking about e$en to those who ha$estarted training in anthropology . Thus for e6ample in the late 1=>2s perhaps the most popular first-year sub5ecttaught at the )ni$ersity of 'apua Dew Huinea was the introductory course in social anthropology. tudents flocked to it partly because ofthe belief that anthropology which purportedly deals with their traditional cultures and societies would help them with their problems of

alienation and partly to see what we are saying about them. Their interest dropped rapidly once they wereconfronted with our esoteric language. I do not think that we ha$e produced atthe )ni$ersity of 'apua Dew Huinea a nati$e graduate who has entered ourprofession. s in other parts of the 'acific students are attracted more to history that deals with their past as people.

Current research only presents the physical an! "rutal traits o' thein!igenous* they ignore the ethics an! moralirty o' the in!igenoustri"eauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky This may be an e6treme e6ample but it is indicati$e of the fact that after decades of anthropological fieldresearch in elanesia we ha$e come up only with pictures of people who fightcompete trade pay bride-price engage in rituals in$ent cargo cults copulateand sorcerise each other. There is hardly anything in our literature to indicate whether these people ha$e any such sentiments as lo$e kindness considerationaltruism and so on. 3e cannot tell from our ethnographic writings whether they ha$e a sense of humour. 3e knowlittle about their systems of morality specifically their ideas of the good and the bad and their philosophiesC though we sometimes get around to these wearingdark glasses through our fascination with cargo cults. 3e ha$e ignored theirphysical gestures their deportment and their patterns of non$erbalcommunication. Jy presenting incomplete and distorted representations ofelanesians we ha$e bastardised our discipline we ha$e denied peopleimportant aspects of their humanity in our literature and we ha$e therebyunwittingly contributed to the perpetuation of the outrageous stereotypes of











them made by ignorant outsiders who li$ed in their midst. 3e should not therefore be surprised when we see equally distorted pictures painted by angry nationalists depicting them as being more moral and better human beings than

us. These are reactions against years of indignities heaped upon them. 3e talk about this in

con$ersations among oursel$es but we do not care enough to write it down. 3e are not e$en aware that in 'apuaDew Huinea we and through us our discipline are being increasingly blamed formost of the nasty stereotypes of the people. 3e are generally innocent of the sins of commission but we

are guilty of the sins of omission and of insensiti$ity . 3e tend to be smug and complacent in our self-

generated self-perpetuated and self-righteous image of oursel$es as being better than any other category of foreigners in elanesia. 3econgratulate oursel$es for being of economic and medical benefit to thecommunities we study through our free dispensation of medicines old clothessome money and sticks of tobacco to the nati$es. 3e assume that because we li$efor one and a half years or so in their $illages and partake of their foods peoplemust 5udge us kindly . Today we are 5udged not so much on that as on our writings. It will not be through our interference inthe affairs of 'acific nations that we impro$e our relationship with 'acific peopleC rather it will be on the basis of what we ha$e written

what we are writing and what we will write.

3evelopment !ecreases cultural !iversity an! marginali.es the non)monetise! society

auJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orkshttp://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky

3hen people $iew things from the $antage point of national economies they may be e6cused for thinking that ustralia and Dew Vealand

are the main beneficiaries in the intraregional economic relationships. Jut when reality is percei$ed from thepoint of $iew of a regional economy then the answer to the question of who benefits most comes out differently. The main beneficiaries from this point of $iew are the pri$ileged elite groups all o$er the region not 5ust ustralia or Dew Vealand7 groups

that are directly or indirectly concerned with economic acti$ities in the outh 'acific. These include elements of boththe public and pri$ate sectors in the islands as well as in ustralia and Dew Vealand. These elite groupsare locked to each other through their pri$ileged access to and control ofresources mo$ing within the region and between the outh 'acific and other

regions of the world. They form the ruling tiers of the emerging regional society . Iuse the word *society deliberately. Through go$ernmental business professional educational and other connections including migrationand marriage members of these groups ha$e forged intimate links to the e6tent that they ha$e a great deal more in common with each otherthan with members of the other classes in their own communities. These groups to which most of us attending this conference belong form

the backbone of the emerging outh 'acific society. I include the intelligentsia in these groups becausethey are the intellectual arm of the ruling classes. s part of the process ofintegration and the emergence of the new society the ruling classes of the outh'acific are increasingly culturally homogeneous: they speak the same language which is @nglish (this language is becoming the first tongue of an increasing number of children in the islands!C they share thesame ideologies and the same material lifestyles (admittedly with local $ariations due to physical en$ironment and original cultural factors

but the similarities are much more numerous than the differences!. The pri$ileged classes share a singledominant regional cultureC the underpri$ileged maintain subcultures related tothe dominant one through ties of patronage and growing inequality . These localised

subcultures are modified $ersions of indigenous cultures that e6isted before the capitalist penetration of the outh 'acific. cholars andpoliticians often point to the enormous di$ersity and persistence of traditional cultures in the outh 'acific as a factor for disunity andeconomic backwardness at the national and regional le$els. Jut they o$erlook the fact that today the important differences and problems inde$elopment are due not so much to the multiplicity and persistence of indigenous cultures as increasingly to the emergence of classes inthe region. I suggest that we should not be misled by the e6istence of subsistence nonmonetised sectors of economy and by cultural

di$ersity as well as national politics into concluding that there is neither regional integration nor a regional class system. Thenonmonetised sectors are being marginalised especially through aidedde$elopment with its o$eremphasis on commercial and e6port-orientedproduction. ubsistence acti$ities are rapidly becoming the preser$e of the poor.







4ultural di$ersity is also largely found among the underpri$ileged classesespecially in rural areas.

The un!erprivilege! are key to preserving in!igenous relations an!are all !erive! 'rom the conse(ueneces o' current !evelopmenttren!s



mong the pri$ileged there is homogeneity throughout the region through the sharing of a single dominant culture. ,ariations among thesehomogeneous groups are minor in character: the differences largely add spice to social intercourse as 4hinese Indian %ebanese and othere6otic dishes make bourgeois dinner parties more interesting. It is one of the pri$ileges of the affluent classes to ha$e access to a wide rangeof superficial cultural e6periences and e6pertiseC it is the pri$ileged who can afford to tell the poor to preser$e their traditions. Jut their

perceptions of which traits of traditional culture to preser$e are increasingly di$ergent from those of the poor. In the finalanalysis it is the poor who ha$e to li$e out the traditional cultureC the pri$ilegedcan merely talk about it and they are in a position to be selecti$e about whattraits they use or more correctly urge others to obser$eC and this is increasinglyseen by the poor as part of the ploy by the pri$ileged to secure greater ad$antagesfor themsel$es. I return to this theme later. The point I wish to emphasise now is that the poor in the islands are not so different

in their relati$e depri$ation from the poor in Dew Vealand and ustralia. nd from the perspecti$e of theregional economy they all belong to the same underpri$ileged groups since theirdepri$ation is directly related to the same regional and indeed internationalde$elopment forces and trends that always seem to fa$our the already pri$ileged.

4nly sel')su''iciency an! a shi't aay 'rom !evelopment can lea! to!ecoloni.ationauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks


nother problem with the use of the term *aid in our region is that it purportedly aims to help the 'acific Islands to become self-reliant so

that there will be no need for further aid. Jut as I ha$e tried to show instead of increasing self-reliance thede$elopment trends o$er the past decades ha$e been towards economic andsocial integration. That the 'acific Islands will e$er again be truly self-reliant is an impossibility. It is animpossibility not because as e6perts say they lack the necessary resources to beself-reliant7 for gi$en a different economy and society they could $ery well beselfsufficient as they were for centuries until about a hundred years ago. Theycannot be self-reliant because they are in an economy that will not allow them to beC they are too much part of the o$erall regional strategic alignment for theprotection of that economy to be allowed any real measure of independence .9urthermore the ruling classes in the whole region benefit so much from the present arrangements that despite rhetoric to the contrary

they would ha$e it no other way. 3hat is termed *aid has in fact turned out to be a necessarycorrecti$e and integrati$e mechanism and as such will continue unabated and

grow for it does not really cost much to keep a few tiny communities with $erysmall populations within the system. In fact as I ha$e pointed out it costs ustralia and Dew Vealand hardlyanything to maintain and e$en to intensify the integration. I ha$e argued elsewhere that there is no such thing as aid. 1 I will not repeat thatargument here e6cept to reinforce it by saying that since aid has achie$ed the complete opposite of its stated aims it is no longer aid. @ither

we should adopt a new term for the resource distribution it represents or we should gi$e it a new and more honest definition.

<e$elopment towards self-reliance and full national so$ereignty has been thestated goal of decolonisation. Jut we ha$e seen that decolonisation has led tointegration. 3ithout self-reliance there can be no real national so$ereignty in theouth 'acific islands. It follows that what we call national so$ereignty in the region is little more than a measure of localautonomy in the hands of competing national interests within the larger regional economy. These interests are represented by the ruling











indolent pull up their socks (as if they had any to begin with! and adopt the 'rotestant 3ork @thic they could easily raise their standardsof li$ing. I submit that this is a red herring. 9irstly the problem is not so much a cultural issue of stubborn adherence to outmodedtraditions as it is an economic matter. The poor adhere to some of their traditions because they ha$e consistently been denied any real

benefits from their labour. Their adherence to their traditions is a matter of necessity and economic security. Hi$en real opportunities within the larger economy they would more than pull up their socks: witness the rush of 'olynesians to the factories of Dew Vealand ustralia and the )nited tates when real opportunities and alternati$es were in the offing.

,n!igenious society has "een "elittle! !ue to !erogatory !iscourse*removing this is key to promote autonomy


http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky ;a$ing clarified my $antage point let me make a statement of the ob$ious: $iews held by those in dominantpositions about their subordinates can ha$e significant consequences for people#sself-image and for the ways they cope with their situations. uch $iews oftenderogatory and belittling are integral to most relationships of dominance andsubordination wherein superiors beha$e in ways or say things that are accepted by their inferiors who in turn beha$e in ways that perpetuate the relationships.In +ceania derogatory and belittling $iews of indigenous cultures are traceable tothe early years of interaction with @uropeans. The wholesale condemnation by

4hristian missionaries of +ceanian cultures as sa$age lasci$ious and barbarichas had a lasting and negati$e effect on people#s $iews of their histories andtraditions. In a number of 'acific societies people still di$ide their history intotwo parts: the era of darkness associated with sa$agery and barbarism and theera of light and ci$ilisation ushered in by 4hristianity. In 'apua Dew Huinea@uropean males were addressed as *masters and workers as *boys. @$enindigenous policemen were called *police boys. This use of language helped toreinforce the colonially established social stratification along ethnic di$isions.4olonial practices and denigration portrayed elanesian peoples and cultures ase$en more primiti$e and barbaric than those of 'olynesia . In this light elanesian attemptsduring the immediate postcolonial years to rehabilitate their cultural identity by cleansing it of its colonial taint are natural reactions.%eaders like 3alter %ini of ,anuatu and Jernard Darokobi of 'apua Dew Huinea ha$e spent much of their energy e6tolling the $irtues ofelanesian $alues as equal to if not better than those of their erstwhile colonisers. @uropeans did not in$ent belittlement. In many societiesit was part and parcel of indigenous cultures. In the aristocratic societies of 'olynesia parallel relationships of dominance andsubordination with their paraphernalia of appropriate attitudes and beha$iour were the order of the day. In Tonga the term for commonersis mea $ale *the ignorant ones which is a sur$i$al from an era when the aristocracy controlled all important knowledge in the society.&eeping the ordinary folk in the dark and calling them ignorant made it easier to control and subordinate them. I would like howe$er to

focus on a currently pre$ailing notion about Islanders and their physicalsurroundings that if not countered with more constructi$e $iews could inflictlasting damage on people#s images of themsel$es and on their ability to act withrelati$e autonomy in their endea$ours to sur$i$e reasonably well within theinternational system in which they ha$e found themsel$es. It is a belittling $iewthat has been propagated unwittingly7 mostly by social scientists who ha$esincere concern for the welfare of 'acific peoples. ccording to this $iew the small island states andterritories of the 'acific that is all of 'olynesia and icronesia are too small too poorly endowed with resources and too isolated from thecentres of economic growth for their inhabitants e$er to be able to rise abo$e their present condition of dependence on the largesse of

wealthy nations.

We !on’t nee! cre!entials* e have the personal e$perience o'auJo'aauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky Initially I not only agreed wholeheartedly with this perspecti$e but participatedacti$ely in its propagation. It seemed to be based on irrefutable e$idence7 on the reality of our e6istence. @$ents of the

1=S2s and 1=B2s confirmed the correctness of this $iew. The hoped-for era of autonomy following











political independence did not materialise. +ur national leaders were in the $anguard of a rush to secure financial aid from e$ery quarterC our economies were stagnating or decliningC our en$ironments were deteriorating or threatenedand we could do little about itC our own people were e$acuating themsel$es togreener pastures elsewhere. 3hate$er remained of our resources including our

e6clusi$e economic "ones was being hawked for the highest bid. ome of our islands had

become in the words of one social scientist *INJ societies7pitiful microstates condemned fore$er to depend on migration

remittances aid and bureaucracy not on any real economic producti$ity. @$en the better-resource-endowedelanesian countries were mired in dependency indebtedness and seeminglyendless social fragmentation and political instability. 3hat hope was there forusQThis !eterministic vie lea!s to 'atalism an! moral paralysisauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky The idea that the countries of 'olynesia and icronesia are too small 1 too poorand too isolated to de$elop any meaningful degree of autonomy is an economistic

and geographic deterministic $iew of a $ery narrow kind that o$erlooks culturehistory and the contemporary process of what may be called world enlargementthat is carried out by tens of thousands of ordinary 'acific Islanders right acrossthe ocean7 from east to west and north to south under the $ery noses of academic and consultancy e6perts regional andinternational de$elopment agencies bureaucratic planners and their ad$isers and customs and immigration officials7making nonsense ofall national and economic boundaries borders that ha$e been defined only recently crisscrossing an ocean that had been boundless for ages

before 4aptain 4ook#s apotheosis. If this $ery narrow deterministic perspecti$e is notquestioned and checked it could contribute importantly to an e$entualconsignment of whole groups of human beings to a perpetual state of wardship wherein they and their surrounding lands and seas would be at the mercy of themanipulators of the global economy and *world orders of one kind or another.Jelittlement in whate$er guise if internalised for long and transmitted across

generations may lead to moral paralysis to apathy to the kind of fatalism we cansee among our fellow human beings who ha$e been herded and confined toreser$ations or internment camps. 'eople in some of our islands are in danger of being confined to mentalreser$ations if not physical ones. I am thinking here of people in the arshall Islands who ha$e been $ictims of atomic and missile tests bythe )nited tates.

A!opting the mythical tra!ition o' 4ceania gives us a holistic viethat counters colonial thoughtauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky Jut if we look at the myths legends and oral traditions indeed the cosmologiesof the peoples of +ceania it becomes e$ident that they did not concei$e of their

world in such microscopic proportions. Their uni$erse comprised not only land surfaces but the surroundingocean as far as they could tra$erse and e6ploit it the underworld with its fire-controlling and earth-shaking deni"ens and the hea$ensabo$e with their hierarchies of powerful gods and named stars and constellations that people could count on to guide their ways across the

seas. Their world was anything but tiny. They thought big and recounted theirdeeds in epic proportions. +ne legendary +ceanian athlete was so powerful thatduring a competition he threw his 5a$elin with such force that it pierced thehori"on and disappeared until that night when it was seen streaking across thesky like a meteor. @$ery now and then it reappears to remind people of themighty deed. nd as far as I#m concerned it is still out there near upiter or somewhere. That was the first rocket e$er sent into











space. Islanders today still relish e6aggerating things out of all proportion.mallness is a state of mind. There is a world of difference between $iewing the'acific as *islands in a far sea and as *a sea of islands. 0 The first emphasisesdry surfaces in a $ast ocean far from the centres of power. 9ocussing in this waystresses the smallness and remoteness of the islands. The second is a more

holistic perspecti$e in which things are seen in the totality of their relationships.

The success o' societies are "ecause o' the people* not !evelopementauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky In general the li$ing standards of +ceania are higher than those of most third- world societies. To attribute this merely to aid and remittances7 misconstrueddeliberately or otherwise as a form of dependence on rich countries# economies7is an unfortunate misreading of contemporary reality. +rdinary 'acific peopledepend for their daily e6istence much much more on themsel$es and their kin where$er they may be than on anyone#s largesse which they belie$e is largely pocketed by the elite

classes. The funds and goods that homes-abroad people send their homeland relati$es belong to no one but themsel$es. They earne$ery cent through hard physical toil in the new locations that need and pay fortheir labour. They also participate in the manufacture of many of the goods theysend homeC they keep the streets and buildings of uckland cleanC they keep itstransportation system running smoothlyC they keep the suburbs of the western)nited tates (including ;awaii! trimmed neat green and beautifulC and theyha$e contributed much much more than has been acknowledged. Islanders in theirhomelands are not the parasites on their relati$es abroad that misinterpreters of *remittances would ha$e us belie$e. @conomists do not

take account of the social centrality of the ancient practice of reciprocity7 the core of all oceanic cultures. They o$erlook thefact that for e$erything homeland relati$es recei$e they reciprocate with goodsthey themsel$es produce by maintaining ancestral roots and lands for e$eryonehomes with warmed hearths for tra$ellers to return to permanently or to

strengthen their bonds their souls and their identities before they mo$e onagain. This is not dependence but interdependence7 purportedly the essence of the global system. Tosay that it is something else and less is not only erroneous but denies people their dignity.

The in!igenous are the "est guar!ians 'or the oceanauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky Jut the islands are not connected only with regions of the 'acific Nim. 3ithin +ceania itself people are once again circulating in increasingnumbers and frequency. Negional organisations7 intergo$ernmental educational religious sporting and cultural7 are responsible formuch of this mobility. The )ni$ersity of the outh 'acific with its highly mobile staff and student bodies comprising men women and

youth from the twel$e island countries that own it and from outside the 'acific is an e6cellent e6ample. Increasingly the older mo$ers andshakers of the islands are being replaced by younger onesC and when they meet each other in u$a ;oniara pia ,ila or any other capitalcity of the 'acific they meet as friends as people who ha$e gone through the same place of learning who ha$e worked and played and

prayed together. The importance of our ocean for the stability of the global en$ironment

for meeting a significant proportion of the world#s protein requirements for theproduction of certain marine resources in waters that are relati$ely clear ofpollution for the global reser$es of mineral resources among others has beenincreasingly recognised and puts paid to the notion that +ceania is the hole in thedoughnut. Together with our e6clusi$e economic "ones the areas of the earth#ssurface that most of our countries occupy can no longer be called small. In this regard

&iribati the 9ederated tates of icronesia and 9rench 'olynesia for e6ample are among the largest countries in the world. Theemergence of organisations such as spachee (outh 'acific ction 4ommittee for











;uman @n$ironment and @cology! sprep (outh 'acific Negional @n$ironment'rogramme! the 9orum 9isheries gency and sopac (outh 'acific ppliedHeosciences 4ommission!C of mo$ements for a nuclear-free 'acific thepre$ention of to6ic waste disposal and the ban on the wall-of-death fishingmethods with linkages to similar organisations and mo$ements elsewhereC and

the establishment at the )ni$ersity of the outh 'acific of the arine cience and+cean Nesources anagement programmes with linkages to fisheries and oceanresources agencies throughout the 'acific and beyond7 all indicate that we couldplay a pi$otal role in the protection and sustainable de$elopment of our ocean+No people on earth are more suite! to "e guar!ians o' the orl!’slargest ocean than those 'or hom it has "een home 'or generations+

lthough this is a different issue from the ones I ha$e focussed on for most of this essay it is rele$ant to the concern for a far better future

for us than has been prescribed and predicted. +ur role in the protection and de$elopment of ourocean is no mean taskC it is no less than a ma5or contribution to the well-being ofhumanity. Jecause it could gi$e us a sense of doing something not only worthwhile but noble we should sei"e the moment with despatch.

Cooperation solves against the current market economic system o'gree! an! amoralityauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky common identity that would help us to act together for the ad$ancement of ourcollecti$e interests including the protection of the ocean for the general good isnecessary for the quality of our sur$i$al in the so-called 'acific 4entury when as we are told important de$elopments in the global economy will concentrate inhuge regions that encircle us. s indi$idual colonially created tiny countriesacting alone we could indeed *fall off the map or disappear into the black hole of a gigantic pan-'acific doughnut as our perspicacious friends the deni"ens of the Dational 4entre for <e$elopment tudies in 4anberra are fond of telling

us. Jut acting together as a region for the interests of the region as a whole andabo$e those of our indi$idual countries we would enhance our chances for areasonable sur$i$al in the century that is already dawning upon us. cting inunison for larger purposes and for the benefit of the wider community could helpus to become more open-minded idealistic altruistic and generous and lessself-absorbed and corrupt in the conduct of our public affairs than we are today.

In an age when our societies are preoccupied with the pursuit of material wealth when the rampant market economy brings out unquenchable greed andamorality in us it is necessary for our institutions of learning to de$elopcorrecti$e mechanisms such as the one proposed here if we are to retain oursense of humanity and community . n identity that is grounded in something as $ast as the sea should e6ercise ourminds and rekindle in us the spirit that sent our ancestors to e6plore the oceanic unknown and make it their home our home. I would like

to make it clear at the outset that I am not in any way suggesting cultural homogeneity for our region. uch a thing is neither possible nor

desirable. +ur di$erse loyalties are much too strong for a regional identity e$er toerase them. Jesides our di$ersity is necessary for the struggle against thehomogenising forces of the global 5uggernaut. It is e$en more necessary for thoseof us who must focus on strengthening their ancestral cultures in their strugglesagainst seemingly o$erwhelming forces in order to regain their lost so$ereignty.The regional identity that I am concerned with is something additional to the other identities we already ha$e or will de$elop in the futuresomething that should ser$e to enrich our other sel$es. The ideas for a regional identity that I e6press here ha$e emerged from nearlytwenty years of direct in$ol$ement with an institution that caters to many of the tertiary educational needs of most of the outh 'acificIslands Negion and increasingly countries north of the equator as well. In a $ery real sense the )ni$ersity of the outh 'acific is a







microcosm of the region. any aspects of its history which began in 1=>B in the era of decolonisation of island territories mirror thede$elopments in the regional communities it ser$es. The well-known di$ersity of social organisations economies and cultures of the regionis reflected in a student population that comprises people from all twel$e countries that own the uni$ersity as well as a sprinkling fromother regions. This sense of di$ersity is heightened by daily interactions7 between students themsel$es among staff and between staff andstudents7 that take place on our main campus in u$a and by staff $isits to regional countries to conduct face-to-face instruction of oure6tension students summer schools research and consultancy and to perform other uni$ersity duties.

The 4cean maintains isolate! an! pure tra!itions* "ut mo!erni.ationhas increase! cultural !i''usion* risking this


http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky +n the largest island of +ceania Dew Huinea products of the sea especially the much-$alued shells reached the most remote highlandssocieties shaping their ceremonial and political systems. Jut more important inland people of our large islands are now citi"ens of+ceanian countries whose capitals and other urban centres are located in coastal areas to which they are mo$ing in large numbers to seek

ad$ancement. The sea is already part of their li$es. any of us today are not directly or personallydependent on the sea for our li$elihood and would probably get seasick as soon as we set foot on a rocking boat. This means only that we are no longer sea tra$ellers or fishers. Jut as long as we li$e on our islands we remain $ery much under the spell of the seaC we cannota$oid it. Jefore the ad$ent of @uropeans in our region our cultures were truly oceanic in the sensethat the sea barrier shielded us for millennia from the great cultural influences

that raged through continental landmasses and ad5acent islands. This prolongedperiod of isolation allowed for the emergence of distincti$e oceanic cultures withno nonoceanic influences7e6cept on the original cultures that the earliest settlers brought with them when they entered the $ast uninhabited region. cholars of antiquitymay raise the issue of continental cultural influences on the western and northwestern border islands of +ceania but these are e6ceptions

and sian mainland influences were largely absent until the modern era. +n the easterne6tremity of the region there were some influences from the mericas but these were minimal. 9or these reasons 'acific +cean islandsfrom apan through the 'hilippines and Indonesia which are ad5acent to the sian mainland do not ha$e oceanic cultures and are

therefore not part of +ceania. This definition of our region that delineates us clearly from siaand the pre4olumbian mericas is based on our own historical de$elopmentsrather than on other people#s perceptions of us. lthough the sea shielded us from sian and merican influence the nature of the spread of our islands allowed agreat deal of mobility within the region. The sea pro$ided waterways that connected neighbouring islands into

regional e6change groups that tended to merge into one another allowing the diffusion of cultural traits through most of +ceania.These common traits of bygone and changing traditions ha$e so far pro$idedmany of the elements for the construction of regional identities. Jut many peopleon our islands do not share these common traits as part of their heritage and anincreasing number of true urbanites are alienated from their ancient histories. In

other words: although our historical and resource potentials of the open sea and theocean bed the water that united subregions of +ceania in the past may become ama5or di$isi$e factor in the relationships between our countries in the future. It istherefore essential that we ground any new regional identity in a belief in thecommon heritage of the sea. imple recognition that the ocean is uncontainableand pays no respect to territoriality should goad us to ad$ance the notion based onphysical reality and practices that date back to the initial settlement of +ceania that the sea must remain open to all of us.

We must "ecome the custo!ians o' the 4cean* the impacts are alrea!y happening* e #ust have to ake up to itauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky regional identity anchored in our common heritage of the ocean does not meanan assertion of e6clusi$e regional territorial rights. The water that washes andcrashes on our shores is the water that washes and crashes on the coastlines of











the whole 'acific Nim from ntarctica to Dew Vealand ustralia outheast and @ast sia and right around to the

mericas. The 'acific +cean also merges into the tlantic and the Indian +ceans toencircle the entire planet. ust as the sea is an open and e$er-flowing reality soshould our oceanic identity transcend all forms of insularity to become one thatis openly searching in$enti$e and welcoming. In a metaphorical sense the ocean that has been our

waterway to each other should also be our route to the rest of the world.

+ur most important role should be thatof custodians of the oceanC as such we must reach out to similar people elsewherein the common task of protecting the seas for the general welfare of all li$ingthings. This may sound grandiose but it really is not considering the growingimportance of international mo$ements to implement the most urgent pro5ects inthe global en$ironmental agenda: protection of the o"one layer the forests andthe oceans. The formation of an oceanic identity is really an aspect of our wakingup to things that are already happening around us . The ocean is not merely ouromnipresent empirical realityC equally important it is our most wonderfulmetaphor for 5ust about anything we can think of. 4ontemplation of its $astness and ma5esty itsallurement and fickleness its regularities and unpredictability its shoals and depths its isolating and linking role in our histories7 all thise6cites the imagination and kindles a sense of wonder curiosity and hope that could set us on 5ourneys to e6plore new regions of creati$e

enterprise that we ha$e not dreamt of before.

3hat I ha$e tried to say so far is that in order to gi$esubstance to a common regional identity and animate it we must tie history andculture to empirical reality and practical action. This is not newC our ancestors wrote our histories on the landscape and the seascapeC car$ed stencilled and wo$e our metaphors on ob5ects of utilityC and sang and danced in rituals andceremonies for the propitiation of the awesome forces of nature and society.

We nee! to engage in an 4ceanic enaissance* here e perceive acommonality as a step toar!s !ecoloni.ationauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky ome thirty years ago lbert 3endt in his landmark paper *Towards a Dew +ceania wrote of his $ision of the region and its first season

of postcolonial cultural flowering. The first two paragraphs read: I belong to +ceania7 or at least I am rooted in a fertile

portion of it7 and it nourishes my spirit helps to define me and feeds my imagination.

detached/ob5ecti$e analysis I will lea$e to sociologists and all the other ologists.# . . . +b5ecti$ity is for suchuncommitted gods. y commitment won#t allow me to confine myself to sonarrow a $ision. o $ast so fabulously $aried a scatter of islands nationscultures mythologies and myths so da""ling a creature +ceania deser$es morethan an attempt at mundane factC only the imagination in free flight can hope7 ifnot to contain her7 to grasp some of her shape plumage and pain. I will not pretend that I

know her in all her manifestations. Do one . . . e$er didC no one does . . . C no one e$er will because whene$er wethink we ha$e captured her she has already assumed new guises7 the lo$e affairis endless e$en her $ital statistics . . . will change endlessly. In the final instance our countriescultures nations planets are what we imagine them to be. +ne human being#s reality is another#s fiction. 'erhaps we oursel$es e6ist only in

one another#s dreams. F1=S> ?=G t the end of his rumination on the cultural re$i$al in +ceania partly through the words of the region#s

first generation of postcolonial writers and poets 3endt concluded with this remark (1=S> >2!: *This artistic renaissanceis enriching our cultures further reinforcing our identities/selfrespect/and prideand taking us through a genuine decolonisationC it is also acting as a unifyingforce in our region. In their indi$idual 5ourneys into the ,oid these artiststhrough their work are e6plaining us to oursel$es and creating a new +ceania.

This is $ery true. nd for a new +ceania to take hold it must ha$e a soliddimension of commonality that we can percei$e with our senses. 4ulture and







nature are inseparable. The +ceania that I see is a creation of countless people inall walks of life. rtists must work with others for creati$ity lies in all fields and besides we need each other. These were the thoughts that went through my mind as I searched for a thematic concepton which to focus a sufficient number of programmes to gi$e the +ceania 4entre a clear distincti$e and unifying identity. The theme for thecentre and for us to pursue is the ocean and as well the interactions between us and the sea that ha$e shaped and are shaping so much ofour cultures. 3e begin with what we ha$e in common and draw inspiration from the di$erse patterns that ha$e emerged from the successesand failures in our adaptation to the influences of the sea. 9rom there we can range beyond the tenth hori"on secure in the knowledge of

the home base to which we will always return for replenishment and re$ision of the purposes and directions of our 5ourneys. 3e shall $isit our people who ha$e gone to the lands of diaspora and tell them that weha$e built something: a new home for all of us. nd taking a cue from the ocean#s e$er-flowing and

encircling nature we will tra$el far and wide to connect with oceanic and maritimepeoples elsewhere and swap stories of $oyages we ha$e taken and those yet to beembarked on. 3e will show them what we ha$e createdC we will learn from themdifferent kinds of music dance art ceremonies and other forms of culturalproduction. 3e may e$en together make new sounds new rhythms newchoreographies and new songs and $erses about how wonderful and terrible thesea is and how we cannot li$e without it. 3e will talk about the good things theoceans ha$e bestowed on us the damaging things we ha$e done to them and how

we must together try to heal their wounds and protect them fore$er. I ha$e saidelsewhere that no people on earth are more suitable to be the custodians of theoceans than those for whom the sea is home. 3e seem to ha$e forgotten that weare such a people. +ur roots our origins are embedded in the sea. ll ourancestors including those who came as recently as si6ty years ago were broughthere by the sea. ome were dri$en here by war famine and pestilenceC some were brought by necessity to toil for othersC and some came seeking ad$enturesand perhaps new homes. ome arri$ed in good health others barely sur$i$ed thetraumas of passage. 9or whate$er reasons and through whate$er e6periences they endured they came by sea to the ea and

we ha$e been here since.If we listened attenti$ely to stories of ocean passage to new landsand of the $oyages of yore our minds would open up to much that is profound in

our histories to much of what we are and what we ha$e in common. We’ve let !evelopment take over our i!entity* e must use the sea as ametaphor to overtake this an! esta"lish a ne sagaauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky 4ontemporary de$elopments are taking us away from our sea anchors. ost ofour modern economic acti$ities are land based. 3e tra$el mostly by air flyingmiles abo$e the oceans completing our 5ourneys in hours instead of days and weeks and months. 3e rear and educate our young on things that ha$e scantrele$ance to the sea. Yet we are told that the future of most of our countries lies there. ;a$e we forgotten so much that we willnot easily find our way back to the oceanQ s a region we are floundering because we ha$e forgotten or spurned the study and

contemplation of our pasts e$en our recent histories as irrele$ant for the understanding and conduct of our contemporary affairs. 3eha$e thereby allowed others who are well equipped with the so-called ob5ecti$eknowledge of our historical de$elopment to continue reconstituting andreshaping our world and our sel$es with impunity and in accordance with their shifting interests at any

gi$en moment in history. 3e ha$e tagged along with this for so long that we ha$e kept oursilence e$en though we ha$e $irtually been defined out of e6istence. 3e ha$e flounderedalso because we ha$e considered regionalism mainly from the points of $iew of indi$idual national interests rather than the interest of a

wider collecti$ity. nd we ha$e failed to build any clear and enduring regional identity7








http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky )ntil recent years with the rise into prominence of historical anthropology and ethnographic history there has been a near-total domination of the scholarly reconstructions of our pasts by the 4anberra school of 'acific

historians.

9rom their works we can see that fundamental to the conceptualisationand writing of our histories is the di$ision of our past into two main periods: theprecontact and postcontact periods. The determining factor for this is the presence of @uropeans with theirtraditions of writing and recording. any years ago while $isiting a rural community in 'apua Dew Huinea I was in$aded by a particularly

$irulent kind of lice. ome people call them crab lice but these looked more like giant lobsters. I went to a nearby hospital run by a group ofmissionary sisters one of whom told me in a serious and concerned manner to be $ery careful for any slight body contact with the local

inhabitants would cause much misery. ince then I ha$e always associated the word *contact with nasty infections. s used byhistorians and other scholars the term is $ery aptC it describes accurately the firstand early encounters between +ceanians and @uropean sailors as carriers ofdangerous diseases that wiped out large proportions of our populations in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 3ithin one hundred years the indigenous population of ;awaii fore6ample was reduced by more than ninety percent. There was a real concern towards the end of the nineteenth century that we would

$anish from the face of the earth because of such rampaging diseases. Ironically a ma5or concern in the twilight years of the twentieth

century was that there were too many of us around. ar6ist sociologists who began arri$ing at ouruni$ersity in the early 1=B2s would not use the term *contact because of itscapitalist association. Instead they introduced a beautiful substitute*penetration as in *capitalist penetration of the 'acific or *get penetrated. This isalso a $ery apt term for it connotes consummation without mutual consent. 3e should get rid of these words and use better ones like

*meet *encounter and so on. The point is that for 'acific scholars the main factors for thereconstruction of our pasts are e$ents determined by @uro-mericanimperialism. +ur histories are commonly structured on the temporal di$ision ofthe past into precontact early contact colonial and postcolonial or neocolonialperiods. In this formulation +ceania has no history before imperialism only what is called *prehistory: before history. In many if not most of our history books more than nine-tenths of the period of our e6istence in +ceania is

cramped into a chapter or two on prehistory and perhaps indigenous socialorganisation. These comprise a brief prelude to the real thing: history beginning with the arri$al of @uropeans. s it is our histories are essentially narrati$es toldin the footnotes of the histories of empires. 9or those of us who want to reconstruct our remote and recentpasts in our own images7 for the purpose of attaining and maintaining cultural autonomy and resisting the continuing encroachments onand domination of our li$es by global forces aided and abetted by comprador institutions7 this kind of history is a hindrance.

lthough it is $ery useful e$en essential for the understanding of $ital aspects ofour heritage it is a hindrance in that it marginalises our peoples by relegatingthem to the roles of spectators and ob5ects for transformation into good4hristians democrats bureaucrats commercial producers cheap labourers andthe like. It does not see them as ma5or players in the shaping of their histories. Themain actors are e6plorers ear ly traders missionaries planters colonial officials and so forth.

,mperialism has "ecome a !ominant culture* ro""ing an! engul'ing

other cultures an! severing people 'rom their on historiesauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky 3hen you $iew most of a people#s past as not history you shorten $ery drastically the roots of their culture or e$en declare their e6istence doubtful. It is not surprising then

that many academics hold the $iew that the peoples and cultures of +ceania arein$entions of imperialism. This $iew has attained the status of truth only because











people ha$e been sidelined from their histories and conceptually se$ered frommost of their pasts. It has been used to frustrate our endea$ours to attainautonomy by characterising most of what we say or do as being borrowed fromthe *dominant culture7as if borrowing is unique to us. s far as I know our cultures ha$e always beenhybrid and hybridising for we ha$e always gi$en to and taken from our

neighbours and others we encounterC but the *dominant culture is undoubtedlythe most hybrid of all for it has not 5ust borrowed but looted unconscionably thetreasures of cultures the world o$er. %ike cultural constructionism the pre$ailing'acific historiography is hegemonic. 3ith only minor concessions it admits of noother than mainline historiography.

The a''irmative a!vocates 'or a reconstruction o' our pasts "y!elineating a ne history separate 'rom European in'luence*e''ectively !ecoloni.ing an! supporting grass)roots movements thattake !on the capitalist utopiaauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQ

docI<\12B>S?0.!//ky ;a$ing identified the problem we may ask: 3here do we go from hereQ 3hat should we doQ If we are to go beyond adding our $iewpointsto history as usual we ha$e to de$ise other methods using our own categories as much as possible for producing our histories our cultures.

3e could learn from the works of ethnographic historians and historical anthropologists as well as from mainline historians but we+ceanians must find ways of reconstructing our pasts that are our own. Don-+ceanians may construct and interpret our pasts or our present but those aretheir constructions and interpretations not ours. Theirs may be e6cellent and $ery instructi$e but we must rely much more on ours. The rest of this chapter suggests some ideas for getting the ball rolling. 3emay begin with delineating a new temporal dimension of history by doing away with the di$ision of the past in which most of it lies outside history. +ur historiesdid not begin with the coming of @uropeans. If we continue to rely mainly on the works of archaeologistslinguists botanists "oologists and the like for the reconstruction of our remote pasts we will still be trapped with our pasts as prehistory.

3e must resort $ery seriously to our ecologically based oral narrati$es. ost historians

nurtured on written records and other kinds of concrete documentation as their primary sources are leery of oral narrati$es which theytake to be free-floating tales disconnected from the physical world impossible of $erification and therefore outside their pur$iew. few

years ago I came across the work of an +ceanian historical anthropologist +kusitino hina who argued $ery strongly that ecologically based oral traditions are as $alid sources for *academic history as are written documents (see hina 1==0!. s I read hina#s work which is an entire history based largely on oral traditions backed where$er possible with the findings of archaeology and related disciplinesit dawned on me that here in the making was a new 'acific historiography by an +ceanian scholar. few historians may be working alongsimilar lines but it is significant that hina#s background is anthropology the discipline that has spearheaded the rethinking of 'acifichistoriography. The point at issue here is whether there are legitimate histories apart from mainline history. If there are and I belie$e that

there are then our histories are as old as our remembered pasts. ;uman e$ents occur as interactions between people in time and space. 9irst we look at people. In our reconstructionsof 'acific histories of the recent past for e6ample we must clear the stage and bring in new characters. 3e bring to the centre stage as main players our ownpeoples and institutions. 9or this purpose we lay to rest once and for all the ghost of 4aptain 4ook. This is not a suggestionto e6cise him entirely from our histories7 far from it. +thers especially in Dew Vealand and ustralia will still consider him a superstar sohe will be looming large on the hori"on. s for us we merely send 4aptain 4ook to the wings to await our summons when it is necessary to

call in the 'lague and we may recall him at the end to take a bow. s long as this particular spirit struts the centre stage our peoples andinstitutions will remain where they are now: as minor characters and spectators. +nce we sideline 4aptain 4ook it will be easier to deal with

other and lesser intruders. s long as we rely mainly on written documents and as long as@uropeans mericans and similar others are seen to dominate our pasts as mainactors or manipulators of local people to carry out their designs our histories willremain imperial histories and narrati$es of passi$e submission totransformations $ictimisations and fatal impacts. There ha$e been tragic and awful $ictimisations. Jutfrom a long-term perspecti$e which is the best kind of historical outlook what is of more importance is how people ordinary people theforgotten people of history ha$e coped and are coping with their harsh realities their resistance and struggles to be themsel$es and holdtogether. 'atricia Hrace#s brilliant no$el 4ousins (1==0! is the best record I ha$e yet read of how an ordinary +ceanian family struggles to







maintain its coherence in the face of ad$ersity. )ntil relati$ely recently 'acific histories ha$e generally been silent on resistance and thestruggles to cohere that went on mostly unnoticed through decades of domination and e6ploitation. @$en in the late 1=>2s ;awaii and

Dew Vealand were still touted as societies of multiracial harmony. In order to bring to centre stage grassrootsresistance and other unnoticed but important e$ents for our peoples we mustrefocus our historical reconstructions on them and their doings. The new knowledge andinsights we might gain from this re$ersal of historical roles could open up new and e6citing $istas. %et others do their reconstructions of ourpastsC we ha$e dialogue with them we form alliances with some. Jut we must ha$e histories7 our roots and identities7 that are our own

distincti$e creations. fter we look at the people we introduce into our historicalreconstructions the notion of ecological time which is perhaps both the egg andthe chicken to a marked emphasis in our traditional notions of past present andfuture. +ur modern conception of time stresses linear progression in which thepast is behind us receding e$er further while the future is ahead in the directionof our progression which is an e$olutionary process leading to e$er higher andmore ad$anced forms. %et it be clear that by *linear progression I include thenotion of cumulati$e de$elopment or modernisation which is equated withprogress towards the capitalist utopia the dream of the wretched of the earth.%ineality was not absent in our traditional notions. In fact it was particularly strong in 4entral and @ast +ceania 0 where it featured ingenealogies especially those of high chiefs and their deeds. ;istories obtained from genealogies ha$e a lineal emphasis and they are alsoaristocratic histories. In 3est +ceania where genealogies were relati$ely shallow lineality was e6pressed in other ways. +ceanian linealityhowe$er was neither e$olutionary nor teleological but sequentialC it had much to do with assertions of rights for succession and

inheritance not perhaps e$er with e$olutionary de$elopment as we know it. Although technology is key to promote harmony* the trans'er o'mo!ern technology has reake! havoc on human lives an! natureitsel'* !isrupting the natural cycles o' ecological relationshipsauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky +f equal importance in the consideration of the relationship between +ceanian societies and nature is the role of technology. Thedri$ing force that propelled human acti$ities was the knowledge and skillsde$eloped o$er centuries fine tuned to synchronise actions with the regularitiesin nature. s it pro$ided the $ital link between society and nature technologycannot be dissociated from either. It was a $ital and compatible component of the cycles. This made for balance and continuity in the ecological relationship. *%i$ing in harmony withnature is a more popular way of putting it . 9or a genuinely +ceanian historiography we could use thisnotion to reconstruct some of our pasts in terms of people#s endea$ours always to adapt and localise e6ternal borrowings and impositions

fitting them to their familiar cycles. In this way they acti$ely transformed themsel$es rather than 5ust being passi$ely remodelled by others. ? This has been the case since the early settlement of +ceaniaC itstill holds true for much of our region today. nthropologists especially those who worked in the 'apua Dew Huinea highlands in the 1=82sand 1=>2s ha$e in fact recorded such indigenisations among peoples who had 5ust encountered westerners for the first time. nd morerecently growing numbers of anthropologists are writing their works as historical anthropology and historians are writing theirs as

ethnographic histories. 8 Jut things ha$e not always fitted into familiar cycles whichcreates a problem that lies at the core of the study of social change and history .+ne of the cardinal tenets of modernisation a notion of linear progression thattakes little or no consideration of natural cycles is the necessity and hence the

moral imperati$e of the transfer of technology. odern technology concei$ed ofas independent of both nature and culture can therefore be transferred anywherein the world unencumbered with natural or cultural baggage. This notion has onapplication wreaked ha$oc on human li$es and nature e$erywhere. The attemptto transfer high technology as the engine for modernisation to societies that ha$efor ages accommodated themsel$es to natural cycles of ecological relationships islike leading an elephant into a china shop.







particular named spots as landing places of original ancestors or spots from which they emerged as arenas of great and decisi$e battles assites of past settlements burials shrines and temples as routes that important migratory mo$ements followed as markers of morelocalised mobility out of one#s own into other people#s territories which made much of the land throughout our islands enduringlycontested by parties deploying not only arms but also oral narrati$es including genealogies to $alidate their claims and counterclaims.

'opulations seem always to be in flu6 and so too were the dispositions of landpro$iding much of the fle6ibility and motion to the operation of +ceaniansocieties. ll of this is recorded in narrati$es inscribed on the landscape. +ur

natural landscapes then are maps of mo$ements pauses and more mo$ements.ea routes were mapped on chants. Dearly thirty years ago 9uta ;elu wrote aseries of articles on a particular dance chant the meetuupaki belie$ed to beTonga#s most ancient. The chant is in an archaic form of the language that almostno one today understands which is taken to be the indication of its antiquity.;elu#s translation re$eals that it is about a $oyage from &iribati to Tonga. The $erses of this chant pinpoint places along the route arranged precisely in theirgeographic locational sequence. > I belie$e that the chant is the chart of a longand important sea route that people used in the past. I once asked a $eryknowledgeable seaman how people of old knew sea-lanes especially betweendistant places. ;e replied that these were recorded in chants that identified

sequences of landfalls between points of departure and final destinations . <istances were measured in how long it generally took to tra$erse them. I belie$e that the ustralian borigines did roughly the same with their

songlines that connected places all across their continent from coast to coast. +ur landscapes and seascapes arethus cultural as well as physical. 3e cannot read our histories without knowinghow to read our landscapes (and seascapes! . 3hen we realise this we should be able tounderstand why our languages locate the past as ahead or in front of us. It is right there on our landscapes in front of our $ery eyes. ;owoften while tra$elling through unfamiliar surroundings ha$e we had the e6perience of someone in the company telling us of theassociations of particular spots or other features of the landscape tra$ersed with past e$ents. 3e turn our heads this way and that and rightahead in front of our eyes we see and hear the past being reproduced through running commentaries. nd when we go through our ownsurroundings as we do e$ery day familiar features of our landscapes keep reminding us that the past is ali$e. They often inspire in us a

sense of re$erence and awe not to mention fear and re$ulsion. These are reasons why it is essential not todestroy our landmarks for with their remo$al $ery important parts of ourmemories our histories will be erased. It may be significant in this regard that inse$eral ustronesian languages the word for *placenta and *womb is also the

word for *land. mong a group of people once well known to me the ekeo of 'apua Dew Huinea the dead were traditionally buried in front of their houses on the sacred ceremonial ground that ran through the centre of their rectangular landscape.

,' e !on’t act no* lan! ill "e !estroye!* sen!ing livelihoo!s*ancestries* an! i!entities into o"livion+ We are in a position to stopthis* to reconstruct our histories an! 'orm the resistance againstthese capitalist corporations an! colonialist institutionsauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky There is a $ast difference here that shows diametrically opposed perceptions ofour relationship with our world: world as property $ersus world as lasting home7 home as a heritage a shrine for those who ha$e cared for it and passed it on tous their descendants. 9or those of us who hold this $iew our relationship withour @arth is indeed spiritual. +pponents and e$en some sympathisers of resistance and so$ereignty mo$ements in+ceania and elsewhere frequently e6press utter contempt for assertions of this kind of relationship the importance of which is felt mostacutely when your ancestral homelands are gone or threatened. I recall ha$ing read a statement by a Dew Vealander who characterisedaori spirituality as so much mumbo 5umbo. This could ha$e been an e6pression born of ignorance or an unconscious tri$ialisation ofsomething that is powerfully threatening. I once met a $ery liberal-minded person in ustralia who talked of boriginal spirituality in amanner that was perfectly correct and no more. t least she was trying to come to grips with it. 3hate$er others may say we need toinclude in our philosophy of re$erence for nature a strong element of spirituality that we may borrow from our pasts or other people#s pasts

or e$en in$ent for oursel$es because our @arth is being sub5ected to intolerable pressures. To remo$e a people fromtheir ancestral natural surroundings or $ice $ersa7 or to destroy their lands with







mining deforestation bombing largescale industrial and urban de$elopmentsand the like7 is to se$er them not only from their traditional sources ofli$elihood but also and much more importantly from their ancestry theirhistory their identity and their ultimate claim for the legitimacy of theire6istence. It is the destruction of age-old rhythms of cyclical dramas that lock

together familiar time motion and space. uch acts are therefore sacrilegiousand of the same order of enormity as the complete destruction of all of a nation#slibraries archi$es museums monuments historic buildings and all its booksand other such documents. ames iller (1=B8! the ustralian boriginal educator best known for his book &oori told

me that his people the 3onnarua who once occupied the ;unter ,alley all the way downto the central coast of Dew outh 3ales ha$e a history that dates back only to the beginning of the Jritish settlement. Their lands are gone and only a handful ofthe words of their original language are still in use. They ha$e no oral narrati$esno memory whatsoe$er of their past before the in$asion and obliteration of theirancestral world. 3e who are more fortunate cannot afford to belie$e that ourhistories began only with imperialism or that as peoples and cultures we are thecreations of colonialism and 4hristianity. 3e cannot afford to ha$e no referencepoints in our ancient pasts7 to ha$e as memories or histories only those imposedon us by our erstwhile colonisers and the present international system that seems bent on globalising us completely by eradicating our cultural memory anddi$ersity our sense of community our commitment to our ancestry and progenyand indi$idualising standardising and homogenising our li$es so as to renderour world completely open for the unfettered mo$ement of capital andtechnology. 3e must therefore acti$ely reconstruct our histories rewrite ourgeography create our own realities and disseminate these through oureducational institutions and our societies at large. This is absolutely necessary if we are to strengthen our position for sur$i$ing reasonably as autonomouspeoples within the new international order. 3e who are more fortunate cannot

afford to let our own compradors continue to conspire with transnationalcorporations and others to strip and poison our lands our forests our reefs ourocean. any of the critical problems that we confront today are consequences ofacts such as large-scale land deals committed by our $ery own ancestors. 3e must be

careful not to continue repeating similar acts thus bequeathing to future generations a heritage of misery . 3e cannot talkabout our spiritual relationship with @arth while allowing oursel$es and others togut and strip it bare. 3e need to strengthen cultures of resistance within ourregion. 9or generations our peasantries ha$e resisted many if not mostintroduced *de$elopment pro5ects simply through noncooperation or through withdrawal of support as soon as they realised the harmful implications of suchpro5ects for their li$es. In more remote eras our ancestors de$ised $ery effecti$e

and at times drastic methods of political resistance. 9or instance the greatest fearof high chiefs in the past was the e$er-present threat of assassination. The headsof despots e$erywhere in +ceania were taken regularly in a literal and figurati$esense. The Tui Tonga for e6ample were so often taken care of that they created a lower paramountcy to be a buffer between them andan oppressed and enraged population. eries of assassinations of these officials compelled them to establish an e$en lower paramountcy totake the heat. nd so it went. nd so we must follow and resist the erosions the despoliations and the e6ploitations that are going on in ourregion. 3e owe this much to oursel$es and to the future. I conclude with the following reflection on past present and future.

3here$er I am at any gi$en moment there is comfort in the knowledge stored atthe back of my mind that somewhere in +ceania is a piece of earth to which I



belong. In the turbulence of life it is my anchor. Do one can take it away from me.I may ne$er return to it not e$en as mortal remains but it will always behomeland. 3e all ha$e or should ha$e homelands: family community nationalhomelands. nd to deny human beings the sense of homeland is to deny them adeep spot on @arth to anchor their roots. ost @ast +ceanians ha$e ;a$aiki a shared ancestral homeland thate6ists ha"ily in primordial memory. @$ery so often in the hills of u$a when moon and red wine play tricks on my aging mind I scan the

hori"on beyond %aucala Jay the Newa 'lain and the reefs by Dukulau Island for ,aihi ;a$aiki homeland. It is there far into the pastahead leading on to other memories other realities other homelands.

This spills over onto other communities an! regionsauJo'a 8 (@peli ;auXofa 'h< ocial nthropology ustralian Dational )ni$ersity 022B *3e re the +cean : elected 3orks

http://site.ebrary.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//doc<etail.actionQdocI<\12B>S?0.!//ky In 1==> while trying to produce a thematic concept that would *gi$e the +ceania 4entre a clear distincti$e and unifying identify I wrote

the following: *The theme for the centre and for us to pursue is the ocean and as wellthe interactions between us and the sea that ha$e shaped and are shaping somuch of our cultures. 3e begin with what we ha$e in common and drawinspiration from the di$erse patterns that ha$e emerged from the successes andfailures in our adaptation to the influences of the sea. 9rom there we can range beyond the tenth

hori"on secure in the knowledge of the home base to which we will always return for replenishment and re$ision of the purposes anddirections of our 5ourneys. 3e shall $isit our people who ha$e gone to the lands of diasporaand tell them that we ha$e built something: a new home for all of us. nd taking acue from the ocean#s e$erflowing and encircling nature we will tra$el far and wide to connect with oceanic and maritime peoples elsewhere and swap storiesof $oyages we ha$e taken and those yet to be embarked on. 3e will show them what we ha$e createdC we will learn from them different kinds of music danceart ceremonies and other forms of cultural production. 3e may e$en togethermake new sounds new rhythms new choreographies and new songs and $ersesabout how wonderful and terrible the sea is and how we cannot li$e without it. 3e will talk about the good things the oceans ha$e bestowed on us the damaging

things we ha$e done to them and how we must together try to heal their woundsand protect them fore$er. 3e still hold on to these sentiments. They belong tothe constellations that we use to guide us on our 5ourney towards an e$er creati$eand free +ceania.







4''shore Win! Da!

Win! tur"ines cause species e$tinctionam"ler 1B E 4li$e was educated at school in Jradford and as an undergraduate at t 4atherineXs 4ollege in +6ford obtaining a

J in Voology in 1=B1 (subsequently con$erted to an !. fter graduation he did se$eral international conser$ation research e6peditionsand worked for some years as a professional conser$ationist. ;e undertook nature reser$e sur$eys and management and was self-employed as an en$ironmental consultant. ;is interests in ecology and en$ironmental education led him back into academia throughresearch with colleagues in the Voology <epartment (into the impacts of woodland and grassland management! and through teaching onthe first conser$ation courses being introduced into degrees in +6ford.4li$e has been a 4ollege %ecturer at erton t nneXs 'embrokeand +riel colleges in +6ford. In 1==B he 5oined ;ertford as %ecturer in Jiological and ;uman ciences acting as the <irector of tudies for;uman ciences in the college. (4li$e ;ambler *3ind farms $s wildlife The pectator 1/8/1http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/BB2SS>1/wind-farms-$s-wildlife/!//

3ind turbines only last for half as long as pre$iously thought# according to a new study. Jut e$en in their short lifespans those

turbines can do a lot of damage. 3ind farms are de$astating populations of rare birds and bats across the world dri$ing some to the point of e6tinction. ost

en$ironmentalists 5ust don#t want to know. Jecause they#re so desperate to belie$e in renewable energy

they#re in a state of denial. Jut the e$idence suggests that this century at least renewables pose a far greaterthreat to wildlife than climate change. I#m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at +6ford uni$ersity. I trained as a"oologist I#$e worked as an en$ironmental consultant 7 conducting impact assessments on pro5ects like the 9olkestone-to-%ondon rail link

7 and I now teach ecology and conser$ation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy I#$e since seen the ha$oc wreaked on wildlife by wind power hydro power biofuels and tidal barrages. The

en$ironmentalists who support such pro5ects do so for ideological reasons. 3hat

few of them ha$e in their heads though is the consolation of science. y speciality is species e6tinction. 3hen I was a child my father used to tell me about all the animals he#d seen growing up in &ent 7 the grass snakes the lime hawk moths 7 and what shocked me

when we went looking for them was how few there were left . pecies e6tinction is a serious issue:

around the world we#re losing up to ?2 a day. Yet en$ironmentalists are urging us to adopt technologies that arehastening this process. mong the most destructi$e of these is wind power . @$ery year in

pain alone 7 according to research by the conser$ation group @+/Jirdlife 7 between > and 1B million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as appro6imately 112E2 birds per turbine per year and 022E>S2 bats per year. nd these figures may be conser$ati$e if youcompare them to statistics published in <ecember 0220 by the 4alifornia @nergy 4ommission: In a summary of a$ian impacts at windturbines by Jenner et al (1==! bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 2= in Hermany and B=8 in weden.# Jecause wind farms

tend to be built on uplands where there are good thermals they kill a disproportionate number of raptors.

In ustralia the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global e6tinction by wind farms. In north merica wind farmsare killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and merica#s national bird the bald eagle. Inpain the @gyptian $ulture is threatened as too is the Hriffon $ulture 7 ?22 of which were killed in one year at Da$arra alone. Dorwegian

wind farms kill o$er ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of mla has been se$erely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.Dor are many other a$ian species safe. In Dorth merica for e6ample proposed wind farms on theHreat %akes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the tlantic seabirds such as

the an6 hearwater are threatened. 4''shore in! 'arms are #ust as "a! as onshoreones* posing a groing threat to sea"ir!s an! migratory "ir!s* an!re!ucing ha"itat availa"ility 'or marine "ir!s (such as common scoter and eider ducks!. I#$e

heard it suggested that birds will soon adapt to a$oid turbine blades. Jut your a"ility to learn something hen you’ve "een hacke! on the hea! "y an o"#ect travelling at 6;;mph is limite!+ nd besides this comes from a complete misconception of how long it takes species to e$ol$e. Jirds ha$e

been flying unimpeded through the skies for millions of years. They#re hardly going to alter their habits in a few months. You hear similarnonsense from en$ironmentalists about so-called habitat mitigation#. There has been talk for e6ample during proposals to build a e$ern

barrage that all the waders displaced by the destruction of the mud flats can ha$e their inter-tidal habitat replaced elsewhere. It may be what de$elopers and go$ernments want to hear but recreating such habitats would take centuries not years 7 e$en if space were a$ailable.

The birds wouldn#t mo$e on somewhere else. They#d 5ust star$e to death. %oss ofhabitat is the single biggest cause of species e6tinction . 3ind farms not only reduce habitat si"e but

create population sinks# 7 "ones which attract animals and then kill them. y colleague ark <uchamp suggests birds are lured



in because they see the turbines as perching sites and also because wind towers(because of the grass $ariations underneath! seem to attract more prey . The

turbines also attract bats whose wholesale destruction poses an e$er moreserious conser$ation concern. Jats are what is known as &-selected species: theyreproduce $ery slowly li$e a long time and are easy to wipe out. ;a$ing e$ol$ed with fewpredators 7 flying at night helps 7 bats did $ery well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so hea$ily protected by

so many con$entions and regulations: the biggest threats to their sur$i$al are made by us. nd the worst threat of all right now is windturbines. recent study in Hermany by the %eibni" Institute for Voo and 3ildlife Nesearch showed that bats killed by Herman turbines mayha$e come from places 1222 or more miles away. This would suggest that Herman turbines 7 which an earlier study claims kill more than022222 bats a year 7 may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of @urope. ome studies in the ) ha$e putthe death toll as high as S2 bats per installed megawatt per year: with ?2222 3 of turbines currently installed in the ) and 4anada.

This would gi$e an annual death toll of up to three -million. 3hy is the public not moreaware of this carnageQ 9irst because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological

organisations! has gone to great trouble to co$er it up 7 to the e6tent of burying the corpses of $ictims. econd

because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that manyen$ironmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewableenergy . 3hat they clearly don#t appreciate 7 for they know ne6t to nothing about biology 7 is that most of the species they claim arethreatened by climate change# ha$e already sur$i$ed 12 to 02 ice ages and sea-le$el rises far more dramatic than any we ha$e e6perienced

in recent millennia or e6pect in the ne6t few centuries. 4limate change won#t dri$e those species toe6tinctionC well-meaning en$ironmentalists might



ocks ave @alue

ocks* hales* re!oo!s* an! all atomic structures haveintrinsic value & e are e(ual

=erchant 76 (4arol @cofeminist and ;istorian of cience Nadical @cology *Henesis of @den 1==0 acc. !

@ach indi$idual thing whether a li$ing organism or an atom has intrinsic $alue and there is acontinuity between human and nonhuman e6perience. +neXs attitude toward adog which is a compound indi$idual differs from that toward a plant which is also acompound indi$idual but has no center of en5oyment and toward a rock whichas a mere aggregate has no intrinsic $alue. ll three howe$er ha$e instrumental $alue in supporting each other in the ecosystem.W 'rocess thought is consistent with an ecological

attitude in two senses: (1! its proponents recogni"e the Winterconnections among thingsspecifically between organisms and their total en$ironmentsW and (0! it impliesWrespect or e$en re$erence for and perhaps a feeling of kinship with the other

creatures.W 4obb and Hriffin argue that process philosophy implies an ecological ethic and a policy of social 5ustice and ecologicalsustainability: The whole of nature participates in us and we in it. 3e are diminished not only by the miseryof the Indian peasant but also by the slaughter of whales and porpoises and . . .the Xhar$estingX of the giant redwoods. 3e are diminished still more when the imposition of temperate-"onetechnology onto tropical agriculture turns grasslands into deserts that will support neither human nor animal life.W 9or 4obbXs former

student 5ay c<aniel intrinsic $alue includes the entire physical world. toms as indi$idual things ha$eintrinsic $alue. Nocks e6press the energy inherent within their atoms. They tooha$e intensity and intrinsic $alue albeit less than that of li$ing organisms. +uter form

is an e6pression of inner energy. The assumption that rocks have intrinsic value howe$er

!oes not mean that rocks an! sentient "eings oul! necessarily have

e(ual ethical value but rather that they would all be treated with re$erence. This

could result in a new attitude by 4hristians toward the natural world one that in$ol$es both ob5ecti$ity and empathy.W 'hilosopher usan rmstrong-Juck also sees 3hitcheadXs philosophy as pro$iding an adequate foundation for an en$ironmental ethic because intrinsic $alueis assigned to nonhuman nature. 'rocess is the continuity of occasions or e$ents that are internally related-each present occasion is an

integration of all past occasions. +ccasions 3hitehead wrote are Wdrops of e6perience comple6 andinterdependent.W The world is itself a process of fluent energyC actual entities areself-organi"ing wholes. <ifferences e6ist in the actual occasions that constituteeach entity. Intrinsic $alue is not based on an e6tension of self-interest to the restof nature but on the significance of each occasion and its entire interdependent past history. ssigningpreferences to biosystems is based on the degree of di$ersity stability freedom of adaptation and integration of actual occasions inherentin each 2 system.



Capitalism Car!s* "ut relevant



=ethane y!rates Link

=ethane y!rate technology 'urther perpetuates !amage to ourecosystem an! 'urthers the estern system o' thinking

=orningstar 16)in$estigati$e 5ournalist en$ironmental acti$ist (4ory orningstarB/1>/10 *ethane ;ydrates H, consulting http://gregory$ickrey.com/tag/methane-hydrates/!//%

nother point of contention is your stated reliance on capitalism in the de$eloped world for $arious funding mechanisms. It should be well understood that relianceupon any functional component of industrial capitalism for mitigationadaptation and reparation for any length of time lends credence to the mechanism perpetuates it anddemands the growth of it ironically as the world condition grows more dire. akingstatements where the world utili"es the $ery economic machinery responsible for the planet being on the brink of collapse in order to

pre$ent the collapse is more than troubling. It is criminal. <o you really belie$e the patriarchal industrialnorth has the means the moti$e and the benefit of planetary reality tostem the tide through financeQ any of us in de$eloped countries know what it means to call for and succeed ingetting 122 reductions. It means the end of nearly all we know sa$e maybe the planet. Those of us who understand the demands ofother @arth in that conte6t also recogni"e more people must rise up and fight for 122 all o$er the globe. 3ill %a ,ia 4ampesina do soQ I

$ery much look forward to your responses and the ensuing dialogue. I ha$e cced my dear colleague and friend based in 4anada 4oryorningstar. 3e recei$ed no response. +n anuary 8 4ory orningstar again sought feedback from the ,ia 4ampesina representati$e. Do

response. nd now we are at the e$e of Nio^02 where most of the same players will con$ene and further

deteriorate any reasonable chance we ha$e as ci$il society to stem the tide of climate change. s e6pected the usualtroop of DH+s will attend claiming to speak for all of us while clamoring for co"y seats and sharp cocktails amongst the global elite. %a ,ia 4ampesina will be there too. 4limate 5ustice allies would like to continue to con$ince us that an inside-outside strategyis to our ad$antage. That it is tenable. Yet the historical results state otherwise. This culture ofcompromise where lesser-e$ilism pre$ails and e6cuses for maintaining the status quo flow eloquently from the lips as well as the pen must

end. 9rom the Tongass in the north to <urban in the south the mechanisms we ha$e employed

collecti$ely and indi$idually ha$e done nothing but render a trail of tears anddestruction for all peoples and all ecologies. The time for strategic charades and whimsical hopes is o$er. It starts with one entity willing to say no loudly to the nefarious players (DH+s go$ernments

and corporations! creating the Hreen 4limate 9und (H49!. 3e understand the fraudulent nature of theparticipatory process the criminal dependence upon industriali"ed capitalismand the woefully inadequate reality of yet another false solution. 3e say no. It continues withanother entity 5oining in the refusal and re5ecting the corporate tradeshow that is Nio^02. 4anadians for ction on 4limate 4hange so

declares. It is now beyond ob$ious that those who control the world#s economy arehell-bent on burning all of our planet#s remaining fossil fuels E including those that not long ago

were considered impractical to e6ploit. 4orporate-colluded states corporate-controlled media and corporate-funded scientists will be red-lining the well-oiled engine of the propaganda machine as it works o$ertime. They will try to con$ince you the methane hydrates in the

world#s oceans are deep enough that the ine$itable increased temperature will not affect them. (Think again. Take a look at the map E themethane hydrates e$en outside of the rctic are almost all located on shallow continental shel$es.! nd if that doesn#t work they will try tocon$ince you that mysterious bacteria will rapaciously de$our all methane gas. In the following paragraphs the danger that this

misinformation presents is outlined. %ayered upon the aforementioned spin at the same time they will try to con$ince you that because themethane hydrates are now destabili"ing and melting (because go$ernments ha$e done nothing for decades to halt global warming! we ha$e

no choice but to e6tract the methane and burn it E for the safety of humanity. If the misinformation contradictsitself this in itself is of little to no importance E as long as the key message is allowed to wea$e itself into

the collecti$e subconscious. The key message being: *There is no emergency. ethane risks are non-threatening. 4orporati"edstates media and scientists who ha$e pledged allegiance to protect the currenteconomic system will try to con$ince us that methane hydrates will pro$idesociety with a *clean *sustainable fossil fuel. F1?G ake no mistake E they arenot clean or sustainable. Dor are they renewable. F18G The burning of fossil fuels E including natural gas/methane E creates



4+0. ll the spin in the world will not make this fact any less true. +n 1? anuary0221 <r. Hideon 'olya e6plains that a further phony approach that is now beingimplemented on a massi$e scale around the world is a coal-to-gas transition onthe basis that natural gas is *clean. ;e states *The reality is that gas burningseriously threatens the 'lanet because (a! humanity should be urgently

decreasing and certainly not increasinggreenhouse gas (H;H! pollutionC (b! Datural Has (mainly methane

4;?! is not a clean energy greenhouse gas-wiseC and (c! pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents

agriculture and the en$ironment. The asserted *clean-er status of gas as a fossil fuel is contradicted in the recentanalysis by 'rofessor Nobert ;owarth of 4ornell )ni$ersity who has concluded that complete consideration of all emissions from usingnatural gas seems likely to make natural gas far less attracti$e than oil and not significantly better than coal in terms of the consequencesfor global warming. It is grossly negligent to spend billions of ta6 dollars on a dangerous scheme that will lock humanity into what isessentially a promissory note for the annihilation of our children grandchildren and all life. 'olya states: *Top climate scientists state that

we must urgently reduce atmospheric carbon dio6ide concentration from the current damaging =0 parts per million (ppm! to a safe andsustainable 22 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species. This is absolutely true. It is also true that only "erocarbon can achie$e any reduction in atmospheric 4+0C only "ero carbon can reduce ocean acidification.



4''shore 4il Link

4''shore 4il e$acer"ates the estern pro'it)!riven i!eology

hich seeks to oppress the environment an! loer)classughes an! 4ngerth ->->1-)@n$ironmentalist and political acti$ist (@lliot ;ughesand te$e +ngerth *towards the general strike-the earth day to may day assembly and days ofdirect action 4limateconnections http://climate-connections.org/021?/2?/2B/towards-an-ecological-general-strike-the-earth-day-to-may-day-assembly-and-days-of-direct-action/!//%

<irect actions are planned in the Jay rea between @arth <ay on pril 00 and ay 1st to raise awareness about the intersections of laborrights immigration rights and en$ironmental issues. ctions may include sit-ins tree sits guerrilla gardening pickets marches blockadesand strikes. +ur goal is to challenge the *obs $s @n$ironment myth to unite workers and en$ironmentalists against the bosses andrapidly transition unsustainable industries through direct action. The process in which we would achie$e so is through directly democratic

workers assemblies and @n$ironmental )nionist 4aucuses within our e6isting unions where we would organi"e actions to halt thedestruction of the planet. 3e seek to li$e up to our I33 'reamble which states that we must *abolish wage sla$ery and li$e in harmony

with the @arth. 3e know that the workers the community and the planet are e6ploited by the state and capitalist forces that rule o$er our li$es but now the ruling classis escalating that attack on the working class and the planet we inhabit. 3e must cometogether to fight back or our planet will be completely destroyed. Necently the concentration of 4+0 in the @arth#s atmosphere e6ceeded

?22 ppm. It greatly surpasses the 82 ppm that scientists argue is the limit to a$oid run away global warming. s the capitalistclass continues their *e6treme energy rampage including offshore oil drilling tarsands mining mountain remo$al and fracking a mass mo$ement to oppose these forms of energy is

rapidly growing and radicali"ing. Necently there has been an increased amount of oil spillspipeline ruptures oil train derailments refinery fires and chemical dumps.These disasters ha$e not only destroyed the en$ironment but they ha$e alsoin5ured and/or killed the $ery workers whom the capitalists depend on to e6tractthese *resources. The same capitalist economic system destroying the @arthdestroying the li$es of the workers. ome of their methods of class warfareinclude eroding health and safety standards downsi"ing and outsourcing the

workforce establishing a *blame the worker safety culture and creatingdangerous labor conditions all around. These conditions that endanger the workers are also directly harming the communities around them for e6ample while thecompany towns de$elop cancers and asthma from air pollution the workers often breathe in a higher density of these to6ins because they

work in close pro6imity with them. Yet the bosses through their use of propaganda are able tocon$ince many e6ploited workers that en$ironmentalists are their enemy arethreats to their 5obs. 3e must debunk this myth and come together to take direct action for health and safety and a halt to thedestruction of our world. re$olutionary ecology mo$ement must also organi"e among poor and working people. 3ith the e6ception of theto6ins mo$ement and the nati$e land rights mo$ement most ).. en$ironmentalists are white and pri$ileged. This group is too in$ested in

the system to pose it much of a threat. re$olutionary ideology in the hands of pri$ileged peoplecan indeed bring about some disruption and change in the system. Jut a re$olutionaryideology in the hands of working people can bring that system to a halt. 9or i t is the working people who ha$e their hands on the machinery.

nd only by stopping the machinery of destruction can we e$er hope to stop this

madness. <eep @cology and udi Jari#s concept of Ne$olutionary @cology can teach us that all sociopoliticalissues are intersectional. The police and borders are militari"ing we are under constant sur$eillance and newprisons are being built partially because of the ine$itability of ecological re$oltand migration. Decessities such as food clothing and shelter because of the increasing gas prices as well as drought. @nergy and natural resource companies and regulatory agencies are dismantling healthand safety standards and cutting wages because they want to ma6imi"e theirprofits before their time runs out. The economic crises is directly connected withthe ecological crises. 4olonialism and Nacism are tools of oppression originate



from the fight for land and *resources. 4orporations will most often declareindigenous communities and other communities of color as *sacrifice "ones and pollute them. ll socialmo$ements must e$entually come together because it will become more clear that these sociopolitical issues are en$ironmental issues.*tarting from the $ery reasonable but unfortunately re$olutionary concept that social practices which threaten the continuation of life on

@arth must be changed we need a theory of re$olutionary ecology that will encompasssocial and biological issues class struggle and a recognition of the role of global corporate

capitalism in the oppression of peoples and the destruction of nature.4''shore 4il !rilling perpetuates the estern pro'it)!riven ayo' thinking),t is impossi"le to solve 'or the environment in thecurrent system)D/ spill provesLotta 1; (8/18/12 *the oil spill disaster_ and a system not fit to be the planet#s caretakersre$com http://re$com.us/a/021/oilAspill-en.html!//%

This en$ironmental disaster was not an Wuna$oidable accident.W It certainly wasnXt an Wact of god.W +il well blowouts like this are not

uncommon. Jut J' has refused to spend money and effort on safety and en$ironmentalmeasures and equipment. J' has been packaging itself as a WgreenW company e$en

branding itself as WJeyond 'etroleum.W Jut this WgreenW corporation along with other ma5or oil

corporations was able to block regulations requiring installation of a de$ice called anWacoustic switchW that triggers an underwater $al$e to shut down a well in case of a blowout7finding the 822222 cost of the

de$ice too high. Jut what is the cost7to all life in this whole region and beyondincluding humans7of what the J' spill is doing to ecosystems on a $ast scaleQ J'tried to initially downplay the seriousness of the current spill7until it could no longer hide the fact that oil was gushing out at fi$e times therate J' was claiming. This corporation has been in$ol$ed in a series of en$ironmental disasters including repeated spills in laska fromcorroded oil pipes. J' has been fined millions of dollars for $iolations of the 3ater 'ollution 4ontrol ct. nd in the year before this current

spill J' aggressi$ely cut back to sa$e ? billion in operating costs. s outrageous and immoral as all this is J' isnXt a criminalacting alone7it has had the open backing of the go$ernment. The +bama administration

appro$ed J'Xs bid to drill in the Hulf in 9ebruary 022= despite J'Xs record. The ).. Interior <epartmentXs inerals anagement

er$ice (! used a loophole in the law to e6empt J' from en$ironmentalrestrictions. In fact according to the 4enter for Jiological <i$ersity W e6empts hundreds ofdangerous offshore oil drilling pro5ects in the Hulf of e6ico e$ery year.W J'Xs plan and en$ironmental

impact statement for the <eepwater ;ori"on drilling pro5ect claimed it was Wunlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill wouldoccur from the proposed acti$ities.W J' said any spill would likely not cause much damage because the oil platform was too far from shoreand that Wresponse capabilitiesW would be adequate7so Wno significant ad$erse impacts are e6pected.W ll this is now e6posed as bald-facedlies. ust a month ago +bama lifted a decades-long moratorium on offshore drilling and proposed massi$ely e6panding offshore )..drilling into new areas in laska the eastern Hulf of e6ico and the tlantic coast from aryland to 9lorida. +bama himself offered thisassurance: W+il rigs today generally donXt cause spills.W +bama and his administration are now saying J' is responsible and will be made topay for the cost of the spill and that they are rethinking the ending of the offshore drilling moratorium. This is nothing but co$er-your-ass

hypocrisy. 3 hat dollar amount can be put on the incredible harm being done to allkinds of animal and plant life7including those in peril of dying out fore$er7through this oil spillQ In a ay S press release the 4enter for Jiological <i$ersity e6posed how the appro$ed 0S newoffshore drilling pro5ects since the first day of the J' spill7W0> under the same en$ironmental re$iew e6emption used to appro$e the

disastrous J' drilling that is fouling the Hulf and its wildlife.W Two of those appro$als for drilling operations were awarded to J'. Thetruth is this monstrous en$ironmental disaster had $ery definite causes in theshort-sighted profit-dri$en acti$ity of a capitalist corporation7and official )..

go$ernment policy which encouraged and enabled such acti$ity. Jut what isactually behind the dri$e to e6pand the drilling for oil in places like the HulfQ Toget at the deeper reality we ha$e to come to grips with the fact that there is muchmore to this oil spill than the greed of a giant oil company (or e$en the whole oilindustry! and the policies7as outrageous as they are7of any one go$ernment. 3hat weXre seeing here are the workings of an economic and political system: thesystem of capitalism-imperialism. +bama and other world WleadersW are not andcannot be caretakers of the planet7because they are caretakers of a system that



is by its $ery nature behind the en$ironmental emergency confrontinghumanity. The current energy system of e6tracting oil coal and gas (known as fossil fuels! istremendously profitable. This is why this system based on fossil fuels is thedominant form of energy used in the world despite the fact that it istremendously destructi$e to the en$ironment and now fueling potentially

catastrophic global climate change. 9ossil fuel and automobile transport are

deeply embedded inthe structures of capitalist production and e6pansion. +f the 12 largest companies in the world in

022S si6 were oil companies and three were car companies. The ).. is an imperialist power thatdominates e6ploits and oppresses whole nations and peoples worldwide7and oil isintegral to the maintenance defense and e6tension of this empire. The ).. military is the single largest institutional purchaser of oil in the

world. Jecause capitalist de$elopment and e6pansion rely on this highly profitable7and en$ironmentally ha"ardous7source of energy the more accessible andcon$entional sites are becoming depleted. The systemXs response to the end of Weasy oilW has been to tap more uncon$entional sources through deep offshore oil and gas drilling around the world. Datural gas and coalcompanies are also pursuing a strategy of ma6imum e6traction7by drilling through shale rock or remo$ing mountaintops. ega-companiesare 5ousting o$er who will be the first to lay claim to these new sources to strike deals with host countries and to find the means to e6tractthis energy. nd itXs not 5ust a matter of indi$idual companies. There are huge geopolitical factors in$ol$ed. The ma5or capitalist powers7the ).. @uropean )nion countries 4hina Nussia apan and others7are all $ying with each other for strategic control o$er regions wherenew fossil fuel sources are to be found. Dot that long ago the Hulf of e6ico was thought to ha$e been Wplayed outW as a ma5or source of oilmainly because the fields known to e6ist were considered unreachable. Jut the rush to drill has been enabled by new technologicalde$elopments. In the mid 1=B2s there were se$eral do"en acti$e oil rigs in the Hulf7by 022> there were B8B. The result has been theaquatic (and mineral rights! equi$alent of a land grab in the Hulf7a process going on elsewhere as well7as $arious companies stake theirclaims to different fields recently disco$ered or recently opened up because of the technological Wad$ances.W The following is from an pril2 0212 DY Times article on the current spill re$ealingly titled WThe pill $s. Deed to <rillW: There is another reason why offshoredrilling is likely to continue. ost of the new disco$eries lie beneath the worldXs oceans including the Hulf of e6ico. 9or the oil companiesthese reser$es are worth hundreds of billions of dollars and represent the industryXs future. ince the 1=B2s the Hulf has turned into a $astlaboratory for the industry to test and showcase its most sophisticated technology. This is where oil companies found ways to drill in e$er-deeper water where they de$eloped bigger platforms to pump e$en more oil where they pioneered the use of unmanned submarines and

elaborate underwater systems straight out of a science fiction no$el. 3hatXs totally missing from this picture isany concern about en$ironmental ha"ards and impacts. nd that is not sciencefiction but a brute reality of how the capitalist system operates. In a concentrated way the Hulf oil spill is an e6pression of how this planetXs en$ironment andhuman destiny itself are being dri$en to the brink of disaster. This is happeningat a time when there e6ists wealth on a $ast scale and technology on a le$el ne$er

before imagined_wealth and technology that is in the hands of the capitalist-imperialist system. 'eople are rightly outraged by the criminal actions of the oil company and the go$ernment in the Hulf. Jut

the reality is that disasters like this and the en$ironmental crisis as a whole cannot be addressed within the framework of this system. This is a hard truth7but one people must come face-to-face with.



Environment ,mpact

Capitalist accumulation results in an unsustaina"le system hose e''ects are magni'ie! ith certain 'actors in the natural

environment* lea!ing to ne* unaccounte! impactsThorpe Q aco"son 1B (Thorpe 4. and acobson J. 'h.<. - )ni$ersity of 4alifornia ..: 'eace and usticetudies )ni$ersity of an <iego (021! %ife politics nature and the state: HiddensX sociological theory and The 'olitics of 4limate 4hange.The Jritish ournal of ociology >?: ==E100. doi: 12.1111/1?>B-???>.1022B!http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/doi/12.1111/1?>B-???>.1022B/abstract.!//ky

@n$ironmentalism#s reconsideration of the human relationship with the broaderli$ing world manifests modernity#s inability to keep e6istential dilemmas andassociated $alue-questions at bay . The contradiction basic to human e6istence of being both in nature and transcending it is no longer effecti$ely suppressed in thepursuit of economic growth and scientific-technical ad$ance and mediatedthrough the structures of the state. key dimension of highmodern refle6i$ity is that it has become apparent thatthe instrumental control of nature through science and technology produces new ha"ards and uncertainties. This occurs in a conte6t of the

wasteland of e$eryday life# with few patterned ways of mediating e6istential problems (Hiddens 1=B1: 1!. 9or this reason the

re-emergence of these suppressed dilemmas calls modern e$eryday life intoquestion presenting life-style as a $alue problem. Hiddens insists that there is nogoing back either to tradition or nature. Dature has ended in the sense that it canno longer be taken for granted. Jut this does not pro$ide grounds for suggesting that nature has ceased altogether to

be a meaningful category (<ickens 1===: 120E?!. Hiddens# recognition that capitalist accumulation F. . .G is notself-sustaining in terms of resources# and reference to en$ironmental limits interms of the earth#s resources# suggest that it is still possible to speak of naturalresources as an e6ternal condition for human economic acti$ity (1==2: 1>8C 1==?: 12!.nd hisdiscussion of problems of deciding what to preser$e# implies that it does still make sense to think of natural ecosystems as an e$ol$ed

inheritance to be conser$ed rather than a product of human acti$ity (Hiddens 1==?: 010!. 'roblems of pollution are not 5ust problems of our created en$ironment# but of how what we create interacts with features of the physical and biological world that human beings ha$e not

created and do not control.9or e6ample in the case of global warming humans transform nature by burning fossil fuels but do not create# or control the heat absorption characteristics of carbon dio6ide or the interactions between the @arth#s atmosphere andoceans. 4limate change therefore represents a comple6 interaction between nature and technologi"ed second nature#. The effects of climatechange on weather patterns (producing floods droughts and %ife politics nature and the state 11S Jritish ournal of ociology >?(1! %ondon chool of @conomics and 'olitical cience 021 storms! e6emplify how nature returns in a way in which what is natural and what isunnatural is problematic. This lack of distinctness of the boundary between the human and non-human nature is a key dimension of theontological insecurity of high modernity.



Warming ,mpact

The !rive 'or groth lea!s to the ignorance o' the e''ects o'climate change an! the human agent’s relationship to the

environmentDra!y Q /hemister 16 (Jrady @mily 'hemister 'auline 'rofessor of @n$ironment and 'hilosophyC ;ead;uman Heography Nesearch HroupC 'rogramme <irector: c @n$ironment 4ulture and ociety .. 'h.<. in 'hilosophy (@dinburgh!0210 *;uman-@n$ironment Nelations Transformati$e ,alues in Theory and 'racticehttp://www.springer.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/en$ironment/book/=SB-=?-22S-0B0?-2.!//ky

@mily Jrady Z 'auline 'hemister In the midst of this ideological and political condition of lateliberal capitalism emerges the spectre of anthropogenic climate change. ea le$el rises of02 cm are the most $isible sign of the effects of global warming but predicted sea le$el rises from polar ice melt range from 1 to S m.

4hanges in land and ocean temperatures are producing dramatic effects in termsof the mo$ement of species and the spread of deserts . In 0228 locusts were for the first time inrecorded history breeding in outhern 9rance while temperatures in the hea$ily populated state of +rissa in the Indian sub-continent nowregularly e6ceed ?24. 4limate change challenges the foundations of liberal political economy and in particular the liberal di$ision oflabour between the amoral desiring indi$idual and social institutions which embody and promote the common good because it suggests

that under conditions where indi$idual consumers and corporations ma6imise

their preferences with the minimum of moral constraint the long-term health andstability of the planet and all its inhabitants are threatened . It should not surpriseus then that traussian-infl uenced globali"ers including merican enators and'residents as well as ustralian and Jritish politicians ha$e opposedgo$ernment-led efforts to conser$e energy and ha$e for many years denied orignored the scientifi c e$idence for climate change: climate change more than any other modernphenomenon represents a radical challenge to political liberalism and to its neo-liberal recasting in the guise of the free# market

globali"ation and the minimalist state. The collecti$e pursuit of the pro5ect of economic growththrough unfettered consumption has been ad$anced on the basis of the release ofseemingly limitless quantities of energy from the earth#s crust fi rst in the form of coal to fuel the earliest steam-dri$en machines of the industrial re$olution and

latterly oil to fuel internal combustion engines electricity generators and 5etengines. These fossil fuels represent the prehistoric warmth of the sun laid downas carboniferous biomass in the earth#s crust as plants and sea creatures turnedthis energy into o6ygen and carbon in the course of geological time. )ntil thedisco$ery of anthropogenic climate change there appeared to be no biophysicallimits to the amount of stored energy that could be released into the earth#satmosphere and hence to the si"e of the energy-dri$en human economy . ;owe$er with acurrent net annual output of se$en billion tons of carbon per annum into the atmosphere the modern human economy is seriouslye6ceeding the capacity of atmosphere forests oceans and soils to absorb its energy emissions. The oceans are already replete with thee6cess carbon output of the industrial era which they ha$e taken up in the last 122 years and as they are unable to absorb 4+ 0 at the samerate fossil fuel emissions now increasingly end up in the upper atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect and dri$ing up oceanic and airtemperatures and thus fuelling more e6treme weather e$ents and ice melts of a kind ne$er before e6perienced in the 18222 year span of thepresent ;olocene era. 4limate e6tremes were common before the ;olocene era and it was precisely the new stability of 4+ 0 le$els andhence of relati$ely stable land and ocean temperatures which enabled the de$elopment of human agriculture and cities and the dramatic

e6pansion of human numbers in the present geological era (Dorthcott 022S ! . 4limate change represents achallenge not only to energy-led consumerism and unfettered capitalism and itslatest guise in the form of borderless global trade but to the epistemological andontological foundations of modern liberalism. t the heart of Nawlsian liberalism and its neoliberaloffshoots lies the assumption that indi$idual actors are seats of consciousness desire and rational decision-making who are intrinsicallyautonomous from other bodies and from the biophysical en$ironment. It is this assumption which e6plains the liberal di$ision of labour

between indi$idual agency and the body politicC political institutions embody morality in the relational world of public space but indi$iduals

are concei$ed as essentially independent of this bodily domain their actions determined by their innerdesires and rational choices rather than by their biological relations to otheragents and to the en$ironment.



AT5 /erm Warming A''sH

/erm 'ails* mitigation re(uires a ra!ical rethinking an!neoli"eral intervention !irectly opposes the limitation o' car"on

emissionsDra!y Q /hemister 16 (Jrady @mily 'hemister 'auline 'rofessor of @n$ironment and 'hilosophyC ;ead;uman Heography Nesearch HroupC 'rogramme <irector: c @n$ironment 4ulture and ociety .. 'h.<. in 'hilosophy (@dinburgh!0210 *;uman-@n$ironment Nelations Transformati$e ,alues in Theory and 'racticehttp://www.springer.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/en$ironment/book/=SB-=?-22S-0B0?-2.!//ky

ttempts to mitigate climate change ha$e so far failed to e$ince or manifest thekind of radical rethinking of the liberal pro5ect that an embodied approach toclimate change would suggest. There are many reasons for this not least the continuing infl uence of the disembodied

account of desire and indi$idual agency sustained by the ma5ority of modern 3estern philosophers. @qually important isthat climate change mitigation depends upon collecti$e action by a whole host ofactors including consumers corporations go$ernments and international agencies. 9or the beha$iours of such adi$erse range of actors to be directed towards the shared goal of reducing fossil

fuel emissions so stemming the future consequences of climate change requiresa degree of coordination and cooperation which would at fi rst hand seem hard toachie$e although the current neoliberal economic pro5ect of global borderlesstrade in goods and ser$ices does represent 5ust such a form of global cooperationand coordination. Jut this neoliberal pro5ect is in direct opposition to the goal oflimiting global carbon emissions. 3hen fricans are encouraged by the current regime of world trade to growmangoes for e6port to Dorthern @urope and while merican and @uropean farmers use go$ernment subsidies to purchase energy-intensi$e

fertilisers and farm machinery so they can e6port wheat to frica then the industrial food economy is gi$eno$er to a model of carbon consumption which is clearly a ma5or progenitor ofrising carbon emissions. Hi$en the epistemological and ecological inadequacies of the liberal and neoliberal narrati$es of (disembodied! pri$ate rational choice and(embodied! public morality it is unsurprising that institutional procedures

influenced by this narrati$e ha$e produced an international climate change treaty process which is ineffecti$e in promoting real carbon reductions. Jut the other principal rootof the problem is the idealistic character of the cost-benefi t calculations which economists apply to the problems of either adapting to ormitigating climate change. J5orn %omborg articulates a widespread bias amongst economists and industrialists when he suggests that thecosts of mitigating the future effects of climate change are so great and the nature of these effects so uncertain that it is more economically

benefi cial to plan to adapt human beha$iours and procedures to climate change when it occurs than to regulate economic acti$ity so as toreduce present carbon emissions so that these potential future costs may be reduced (%omborg 0221 ! . This argument is predicated on theeconomic practice of social discounting which compares present and future economic acti$ity and on the basis of current and predictedinterest rates E and hence the growth in $alue of money sa$ed E argues that future acti$ities cost less than present ones.



A'' /erm

/erm is key to achieve a 'orm o' alternative !evelopment that'orms a post)scarcity orl! "ut manages to continue groth

Thorpe Q aco"son 1B (Thorpe 4. and acobson J. 'h.<. - )ni$ersity of 4alifornia ..: 'eace and usticetudies )ni$ersity of an <iego (021! %ife politics nature and the state: HiddensX sociological theory and The 'olitics of 4limate 4hange.The Jritish ournal of ociology >?: ==E100. doi: 12.1111/1?>B-???>.1022B!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pro6y.lib.umich.edu/doi/12.1111/1?>B-???>.1022B/abstract.!//ky

Hiddens# theoretical work in the 1==2s drew inspiration from the ways in which life politics called modernity#s economic compulsi$enessinto question. %ife politics could be e6pressed in lifestyle decisions that limit or acti$ely go against ma6imi"ing economic returns#

(Hiddens 1==?: 120 emphasis in original!. Hiddens endorsed the need for change within e$eryday life. ;e wrote that clear partof increased ecological concern is the recognition that re$ersing the degradationof the en$ironment depends upon adopting new 12> 4harles Thorpe and Jrynna acobson %ondon

chool of @conomics and 'olitical cience 021 Jritish ournal of ociology >?(1! lifestyle patterns#. ;e suggested that

3idespread changes in lifestyle coupled with a de-emphasis on continual

economic accumulation will almost certainly be necessary if the ecological risks we now face areto be minimised# (Hiddens 1==1: 001E0!. post-scarcity# condition also demands the humanisingof technology# so as to introduce moral issues into the now largely *instrumental relation between human beings and the created

en$ironment# (Hiddens 1==2: 1S2!. gainst standard discourses of moderni"ation that assume asingle path of de$elopment targeted toward a high-production andhighconsumption economic model Hiddens ad$ocated alternati$e de$elopment#taking into account non-material $alues as sources of happiness and selfrespect (1==?: 1>EB!. The global cosmopolitanism# emerging from refle6i$e moderni"ation includes an attitude of respect towards non-humanagencies and beings# (Hiddens 1==?: 08!. 3hile Hiddens critici"ed the way in which the $alue of economic growth has been taken forgranted he held back from asserting that post-scarcity# order would mean an end to growth. Hrowth would be no longer of o$erriding

importance# (1==?: 121!. Jut a post-scarcity economy is not necessarily a no-growtheconomy# (Hiddens 1==?: 1SB!. ;e suggested that industrial production and the marketcould be depri$ed of their compulsi$e character and shaped by $alues e6pressedin life-political mo$ements (Hiddens 1==2: 1>8!. Hiddens presented his utopian realism#as shaping but not operating against structural tra5ectories of the capitalisteconomy and the global market. )topian realist# politics seeks to reali"e life-political $alues but in a way that corresponds to obser$able trends# (Hiddens 1==?: 121!. This problem ofmeshing life-political $alue-considerations with realism# concerning what are taken to be ob5ecti$e economic and social trends remains the

fundamental tension in Hiddens# Third 3ay pro5ect (9inlayson 022: 108E1!. Hiddens# Third3ay attempts toreconcile life politics both with the global market and the political structures ofthe nation-state. This attempt howe$er necessarily collides with the structural contradictions of the capitalist statecontradictions that intensify under conditions of economic globali"ation. These contradictions ha$e crucial implications for whetherecological issues can be adequately addressed within the framework of the Third3ay.0

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12008/abstract.)//ky






A'' Ansers



/ermutation

/ermutation !o "oth)the estern an! in!igenousepistemologies can ork together)pro!uces knole!ge that has

"oth local an! glo"al 'ocus=erculie'' an! o!erick 1B)@lder for ? decades of the luets of the 'ribilof Islands(Ilarion erculieff and %ibby Noderick *stop talking indigenous ways of teaching and learningand difficult dialogues in higher educationhttp://www.difficultdialoguesuaa.org/images/uploads/topAtalkingAfinal.pdf!//%*%ocal people says artine" *directly dependent on their en$ironment for subsistence li$elihoods and possessing long termen$ironmental knowledge7in other words local en$ironmental baselines with which to track change7know their places far better than thescientist whose research schedule is set by the academic calendar bound by the $agaries of boom-and-bust foundation and institutional

funding and $ulnerable to the phenomenon of shifting baselines. Jy and large indigenous communitiesappreciate the benefits of the 3estern scientific ob5ecti$e approach. Theyappreciate its technological and methodological gifts and are grateful for many ofthe ad$ances it has produced especially within the medical realm. s long as itslimitations are recogni"ed and its applications are both equitable and used topreser$e rather than destroy the web of life most indigenous people $alue what 3estern science brings to the table. They are particularly intrigued with thecreati$ity and new thinking that might emerge if 3estern scientists and Dati$ethinkers truly worked together to address some of the challenges facing humanity and the natural world at this point in time. 3hat they ob5ect to is the disrespect many (but by no means all!

practitioners of 3estern science show towards indigenous communities and traditional ways of knowing. They resent the

marginali"ation and dismissal by scientists and others who consider their knowledge and wisdom to be merely anecdotal.They ob5ect to efforts to integrate merge or incorporate indigenous ways of knowing into the dominant approach as these $erbs reinforce

the hegemony of the dominant paradigm. Instead they argue for balancing the two approaches7one with a global focus the other with a local orientation7and partnering between two complementary rather than competiti$e systems. *4ollaboration

between 3estern and Indigenous e6perts is about balancing knowledge that islocally conte6tuali"ed with generali"ed scientific knowledge not in the abstract orin literature but sitting down together as equal partners in integrated discussionscenarios and hashing things out says artine".

/erm !o "oth)science an! tra!itional ays o' knoing can co)e$ist)they can con'irm each other’s conclusions hich lea!s tothe "est knole!ge pro!uction=erculie'' an! o!erick 1B)@lder for ? decades of the luets of the 'ribilof Islands(Ilarion erculieff and %ibby Noderick *stop talking indigenous ways of teaching and learningand difficult dialogues in higher education

http://www.difficultdialoguesuaa.org/images/uploads/topAtalkingAfinal.pdf!//%The two approaches are not necessarily destined for eternal conflictC they can alsofunction in important complementary ways. growing number of scientistsargue that our understanding of any particular place or species can best be ser$ed by a blending of the data deri$ed from intimate contact with the comple6 workings of that place or species o$er thousands of years and the data deri$edfrom the more detached 3estern scientific in$estigation into aspects of the placeor species o$er shorter periods of time .=2 <ifficult <ialogues +n an laska public radio program de$oted to therelationship between traditional knowledge and 3estern scienceU 4raig Heorge enior 3ildlife Jiologist for the Dorth lope Jorough



<epartment of 3ildlife anagement spoke of the many similarities between local/traditionalknowledge and science citing as an e6ample a question about bowhead whales. +ne of the more interesting things westumbled on is this question of whether bowheads are capable of smelling in air. That came up with respect to offshore oil and gas rigs. Thelocal knowledge was clearly that whales were capable of smell but you pick up any te6tbook on cetaceans and it will say that they areincapable. 3e worked with a really good whale anatomist and got permission to take apart a whale skull and sure enough found olfactory

bulbs are present. In fact they#re fairly large. Henetic techniques showed that the olfactory genes are acti$e. It was pretty clearthat they are capable of smelling. ;e e6pressed his respect for traditionalknowledge and went on to celebrate the possibilities of partnership. Joth are thecollection of empirical data o$er time tested through time and updated. In that sensethe obser$ations made here by the whaling community are clearly science. 3e#$ereally benefited from that and we are light years ahead doing our whalepopulation abundance work by sitting on hundreds of years of local knowledge.It#s so e6hilarating when the scientific con$ergences occur when you get somedeep knowledge such as the whale#s sense of smell and you confirm it with anatomy andphysiology work. It#s really e6citing. Hi$en that a *spirituality based on intimate connection with the natural world is absent

from 3estern science and education and central to Dati$e ways of knowing there is clearly much to be gainedfrom a reciprocal relationship between the two ways of knowing. t the $ery leastscientists and educators might learn more about the Dati$e regard for all of life

and Dati$e people might see more benefits from 3estern scientific andeducational efforts. t the most who can say how this might change the way things are done to the benefit of allQ Indigenous

ways ha$e held up for millennia. aybe 5ust maybe 3estern education and science and this kind ofspirituality can co-e6ist.



Epistemology Focus Da!

Epistemology 'ocus is useless* 'ocus on pro!uctive action is

"etterellmann* 'rof of 'oli ci* 7 FHunther ;ellmann is a enior Don-Nesident 9ellow at I4H and a professor ofpolitical science at Hoethe )ni$ersity *Jeliefs as Nules for ction: 'ragmatism as a Theory of Thought and ction

International tudies Ne$iew ,olume 11 Issue 'ages >B->>0G

3hile this is not the place for an in-depth analysis of the possible causes of the resurgent interest in pragmatism a pointer

at two connected factors may be allowed. The first relates to the disturbances in internationalpolitics in the aftermaths of the collapse of the o$iet )nion and the 3arsaw 'act in

1=B=/1==2 and the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in eptember 0221. The second hasto do with an increasing appreciation in IN of an internal perspecti$e on such real world de$elopments7that is a perspecti$e which tries to understand how indi$idual and collecti$e actors make

sense of such occurrences. uch a turn to an internal (or reconstructi$e! perspecti$e7asopposed to an e6ternal (or e6planatory! perspecti$e has accompanied among others

the rise of Wconstructi$ismW and WpostmodernismW in general and the refinement of a di$erse set

of Wdiscursi$eW approaches in particular. This confluence of real world de$elopments and disciplinary shifts

pro$ided an e6tremely fertile soil for the redisco$ery of the much older tradition of pragmatism.This is due to the fact that pragmatism promises to steer a clear course between

the cylla of eternal repetition without any sensorium for no$elty (positi$ism! and the 4harybdis of aloo'criticism without a sufficiently strong grounding in e$eryday real)li'epro"lems (postmodernism!. 'ragmatismXs attracti$eness stems at least in partfrom its anti-WisticW disposition. In contrast to other WparadigmsW or Wresearch programsW in IN it does notlend itself as easily to paradigmatist treatment (cf. %apid 1=B=!. Nichard Jernstein suggested that pragmatism ought to bethought of as a tradition in the sense of a Wnarrati$e of an argumentW which is Wonly reco$ered by an argumentati$eretelling of that narrati$e which will itself be in conflict with other argumentati$e retellings.W In this $iew the history ofpragmatism has not only been a conflict of narrati$es Wbut a forteriori a conflict of metanarrati$esW (Jernstein 1==8:8?!.Thus whereas many Nealists %iberals or 4onstructi$ists are keen on building research programs most pragmatistsabstain from such endea$ors (and the paradigmatic battles that necessarily accompany fights o$er the true core! not least because most of them sympathi"e with Nichard NortyXs plea for Wliberal irony.W s Wliberal ironistsW accept the contingencyof language they are also accepting the impossibility of reaching any such things as a Wfinal $ocabularyW (Norty 1=B=:SE=8!. s this forum shows the $ery di$erse recourse to different pragmatist themes that social philosophers such asNichard Jernstein rgen ;abermas (1===:SE>?! ;ilary 'utnam (1=BS 1==8! Nichard Norty (1=B0 1==B! and DicholasNescher (1==8! note with regard to philosophical debates also shows up in the reception of pragmatism in IN.1 In thespirit of this di$ersity in reco$ering the pragmatist tradition one way to claim a distincti$e accent is to presentpragmatism as a coherent theory of thought and action (;ellmann 022=!. WTheoryW is synonymous here with WdoctrineW orWa6iomW7a belief held to be true or more pragmatically still a tool to think about thought and action which is held toenable us to cope better. The core of this theory is the primacy of practice7Wperhaps the centralW principle of thepragmatist tradition ('utnam 1==8:80C emphasis in original!. ccording to this principle the ine$itability of indi$idual as well as collecti$e action is to be thought of as the necessary starting point of any theori"ing about thought and action. ostsocial action is habituali"ed. s 3illiam ames put it our beliefs li$e Won a credit system.W They WXpassX so long as nothingchallenges themW (ames F1=2SG 1==8:B2!. Yet as we cannot flee from interacting with our en$ironment and as the worldkeeps interfering with our beliefs we ha$e to read5ust. In such Wproblematic situationsW a ($ery practical! form ofWinquiryW helps us to find appropriate new ways of coping with the respecti$e problems at hand. @6perience (that is past

thoughts and actions of oursel$es as well as others! e6pectation (that is intentions as to desired future states of the world we act in as well as predictions as to likely future states! and creati$e intelligence merge in producing a new belief (<eweyF1=BG 1==1:?1E?S 128E100 0?BE081C see also ackson in this forum!. The shorthand which many pragmatists ha$e usedto e6press this interplay is that beliefs are rules for action ('eirce F1BSBG 1==S:C ames F1=2SG 1==8:1B! This $erycondensed $ersion of the core of pragmatism has far-reaching consequences. The $iew that a belief is a habit of actionimplies among other things that all anyone can ha$e (and needs to ha$e! is his or her own point of $iew. s a matter offact this Winsistence on the agent point of $iewW is 5ust another way of e6pressing the primacy of practice and theWepistemologyW that follows from it: WIf we find that we must take a certain point of $iew use a certain Xconceptual systemX when we are engaged in practical acti$ity in the widest sense of Xpractical acti$ityX then we must not simultaneouslyad$ance the claim that it is not really Xthe way things are in themsel$esXW ('utnam 1=BS:S2! 9rom <ewey onwardspragmatists ha$e re5ected the Wspectator theory of knowledgeW which 'utnam alludes to here7that is the $iew that our beliefs do (or can! somehow WcorrespondW to some reality Wout there.W Do doubt: we ha$e to cope with reality but to do so



successfully our beliefs do not ha$e to WcorrespondW to it. 9or pragmatists beliefs are not to be thought of as Wa kind ofpicture made out of mind-stuffW which represents reality. Nather they are Wtools for handling realityW (Norty 1==1:11B!.ost importantly our beliefs are tools which depend in a fundamental way on language. Thus <ewey properly calledlanguage Wthe tool of toolsW (<ewey F1=08G 1=B1:1?! directly following on 4harles anders 'eirce the $ery first e6ponentof what later became to be known as the Wlinguistic turnW (Norty F1=>SG 1==0!. 9or pragmatists 'eirceXs famous line aboutman being thought (my language is the sum total of myselfC for a man is the thoughtC 'eirce F1B>BG 0222:>S! had in many ways foreshadowed an ob$ious solution to a philosophical debate which had dominated for centuries (and continues to doso in some quarters e$en now!. Nather than positioning themsel$es on either side in the debate on WrealismW $ersus

WantirealismW pragmatists re5ect the $ery distinction as it relies misleadingly on an understanding of truth as accuraterepresentation. Yet as <onald <a$idson con$incingly argued Wbeliefs are true or false but they represent nothing. It isgood to be rid of representations and with them the correspondence theory of truth for it is thinking there arerepresentations that engenders intimations of relati$ismW (<a$idson F1==BG 0220:?>!. The radical conclusion after ha$inggotten rid (with [uine and <a$dison! of all three Wdogmas of empiricismW then is that language is a tool for coping withthe world rather than for representing reality or for finding truth. oreo$er as is the case with any kind of tool languagesare Wmade rather than foundW (Norty 1=B=:S!. ust as the craftsperson may ha$e to adapt his or her tools in dealing withnew types of tasks so human beings in general are always dependent on coming up with new descriptions for newsituations to cope adequately. Yet neither these descriptions nor the $ocabularies on which they are based are Wout there.WNather descriptions are the result of the intelligent use of words and $ocabularies which ha$e been in$ented and adaptedin a gradual process of collecti$e habituation. s arkus &ornprobst argues in this forum the use of analogies ormetaphors is a particularly good illustration of this point. In this sense methods pro$ide the central tools for science(which <ewey defined as Wthe perfected outcome of learningW!. Two points are worth emphasi"ing in this conte6t. 9irst as<ewey put it Wne$er is method something outside of the material.W Nather good scholarship (as Wmethodi"edW inquiry! ischaracteri"ed by making intelligent connections between sub5ect matter and method. s there is always a danger ofmethods becoming Wmechani"ed and rigid mastering an agent instead of being powers at command for his own endsW thescholar has to strike a proper balance between pro$en techniques based on prior e6perience with similar problems on the

one hand and inno$ation based on the no$elty (or WproblematicnessW! of the problem at hand on the other. W4ases are likenot identical.W Therefore e6isting methods Whowe$er authori"ed they may be ha$e to be adapted to the e6igencies of

particular casesW (all quotes from <ewey F1=1>G 022BC see also il in this forum!. econd the central roleattached to methods as tools for problem-sol$ing also has implications withregard to two other key concepts usually addressed as a sort of trinity inelaborating oneXs position $is--$is science and scholarship that is ontologyand epistemology. /ragmatism in essence !ispenses ith "oth . TheWquestion of ontologyW7that is the question of Wwhat e6istsW (3endt 1===:00!7which scientific realists

among others consider to be of central importance does not arise for pragmatists simply becausean Was ifW assumption usually suffices to deal with those aspects of reality (fore6ample an Winternational systemW or a WstateW! which we cannot obser$e directly .4onsequently an Wontological groundingW of science is only worrisome if one had

reason to worry about Wthe really realW (Norty 1==1:80!. 'ragmatists see none. Thestate is e6perienced as WrealW when I pay ta6es or refuse to go to war for it . Thus

establishing intersub5ecti$e understandings as to how to deal successfully with realityis all that is needed. This is another way of describing what pragmatists $iew as

WknowledgeW: The quality of a certain description of reality (in terms of specific conceptual

distinctions and choices of $ocabularies! will show in its consequences when we act upon it. &nowledge in this sense is as 3ittgenstein has argued Win the end based on acknowledgementW (3ittgenstein 1=S8:SB!.

The Wquestion of epistemologyW similarly dissol$es as the answer to it is the same one which pragmatists gi$e to the question of action: you settle for a belief (as a rulefor action! through inquiry. Thinking and acting are two sides of the same coin.The question of how people think would become a problem only if there were a

problem with the way people think . Jut as %ouis enand has pointedly put itWpragmatists donXt belie$e there is a problem with the way people think. They belie$e there is a problem with the way people think they thinkW7that is they belie$e that

alternati$e WepistemologiesW which separate thought and action are mistaken as they createmislea!ing conceptual pu..les. In dissol$ing the question of epistemology inthe conte6t of a unified theory of thought and action pragmatism therefore WunhitchesW human beingsfrom Wa useless structure o' "a! a"stractions a"out thoughtW (enand 1==S:6i!.



/olitical Epistemology Flae!

Latour’s political epistemology is "ase! on a 'lae!

un!erstan!ing o' nature an! e$clu!es care 'or the reservoir o'the unknon/ollini 1B E )ni$ersity of Illinois at )rbana-4hampaign Heography andJeckman Institute (acques 'ollini *Jruno %atour and the +ntological<issolution of Dature in the ocial ciences: 4ritical Ne$iew @n$ironmental ,alues https://www.academia.edu/8B?1B0=/'olliniA021A- AJrunoA%atourAandAtheAontologicalAdissolutionAofAnatureAinAtheAsocialAsciencesAAcriticalAre$iew!//

;is first argument is that nature represents a threat to politics because itsob5ecti$e character is translated into supposedly undisputable claims thereby

putting an end to public debates. The fact that knowledge about nature is used toclaim undue authority is ob$iously true. Jut it is not necessary to re5ect the ideaof nature as an ob5ecti$e truth in order to open political debates. It is sufficient tore5ect any claim to ha$e certain knowledge about that truth. In other words there5ection of the dominant epistemology (positi$ism or classical empiricismaccording to which the true nature of things can be known! does not imply there5ection of the most intuiti$e ontology (the distinction be-tween a unique andob5ecti$e nature and its multiple representations!. 'opper(1=>>! whose bookThe +pen ociety and Its @nemies starts like %atour#s(1===! 'olitiques de lanature with a critique of 'lato#s myth of the ca$e(a foundational te6t of positi$istepistemologies! proposes the acceptation that all knowledge is uncertain as aremedy to hegemonies and authoritati$e knowledge. %atour#s (1===! secondargument is that en$ironmentalism deals not with nature but with hybrid nature-culture ob5ects that are the outcome of social practices. This hybridity wouldrender the concept of nature meaningless. Jefore analysing this argument aclarification is required. %atour here does not question nature denied as theob5ecti$e world out there as was the case in the first argument. ;e ratherquestions nature denied as the dimension of the world that is not the outcome ofsocial processes in contrast to culture. These two conceptions of nature areunfortunately often amalgamated another cause of confusion in the debate. 9or aclearer distinction between these two meanings of the word nature it would bemore appropriate to speak about realities and representations when dealing withthe world out there and knowl-edge about itC and to speak of nature and cultures

when dealing with the ob5ects that constitute this world. This clarification beingdone %atour#s second argument can also be dis - puted because e$en if no ob5ectsremained in the world that were purely natural(an assertion that is itselfdisputable! saying that an ob5ect is the outcome of social processes does notmean that this ob5ect does not include any nature. It does indeed and languagehas captured this fact: saying that an ob5ect is natural# is simply statingsomething about its high degree of naturalness rela-ti$e to other ob5ects. nurban dweller tra$elling in the countryside will feel surrounded by nature while a



forest dweller tra$elling in this same countryside will feel surrounded by acultural or anthropogenic landscape. ost en$iron-mentalists are concerned not with pure nature but with the natural content of hybrid ob5ects and by the e6tentto which humans can afford to reduce this 4[)@ '+%%IDI 2 @n$ironmental ,alues 00.1 content without e6posing their societies to collapse or threats. The

question they ask is as +dum (1=>=! puts it how much can we afford of a goodthing (culture! without sacri cing too much of another good thing (nature!Q +nlythe most radical branches of deep ecology which are highly criticised by manyen$ironmentalists call for a return to pure nature. &eeling (022B! shows thefallacies toward which one can be conducted by not differentiating between theabstract meaning of a concept and its practical meaning in e$eryday lan-guageand in particular conte6tual settings. ;e shows that saying that there is no wilderness in the sense that no place is de$oid of human acti$ities is as empty assaying that there is no 5ustice on the ground that there is no absolute or perfect 5ustice. %atour#s (1===! third argument re ects his attempt to depart from socialconstructionism. %atour argues that social constructionism with the e6ception ofstrong $ersions that equate nature (in the sense of an ob5ecti$e world out there! with its representation strengthens the separation between the social and thenatural worlds because it maintains the distinction between a world out therethat continues to unfold its own history and a society that constructs #a parallelhistory by creating social representations. %atour proposes to mo$e ahead of thisdualism. ;e proposes a new conception of the world in which the social insteadof an arena in which humans make statements about the nature# of a nonhuman world whose rules are de ned once for all is a collecti$e of humans andnonhumans whose properties are not 6ed and that e6pands by recruiting andsocialising an increasing number of nonhuman ob5ects. This conception actuallyre ects the way any society works. The world# that mat -ters for humans in theire$eryday li$es including in the practice of science is only a subset of the real world. It is a subset constituted of humans nonhuman-mans and hybrid thingsthat are ob5ects of knowledge and practiceC i.e. with which humans ha$e alreadyestablished cogniti$e or physical relations. This subworld# is continuouslychanging by the addition but also e6clusion of new elements followingprocesses that %atour described with rele$ance. Jut one can ask whether thiscontingent world# is actually the one that fundamentally matters. )nknownob5ects not yet recruited by %atour#s collecti$e can ha$e effects on humans andtheir societies e$en if these effects are not percei$ed. Necruited ob5ects can alsocarry unknown properties that ha$e unknown and unobser$ed effects. It can thushardly be said that the ob5ecti$e world out there# is not entirely part of thecollecti$e. ome of the ob5ects that constitute it are cogniti$ely absent but are

substantially present ne$ertheless. The e6ist-ence of an unknown (unrecruited!realm thus has to be e6plicitly postulated which might precisely be the functionof saying that a domain e6ists (which is often called nature but which I prefer tocall reality in order to a$oid the confusion between the nature/culturedistinction! that is ontologically distinct from the representations or socialconstructions produced through the interac-tion of humans with nonhumans. Ifthis conceptuali"ation were not made then JN)D+ %T+)N D< DT)N@ 1@n$ironmental ,alues 00.1 we would not be prepared to anticipate disasters



pro$oked by processes about which we are ignorant. 3e would ha$e no reason totake precautions when fac-ing the unknown because we would claim that the world that matters is simply the world we know: the one made of ob5ects that weha$e already recruited. nd we would ha$e no reason to care for nature thisreser$oir of the unknown.



Enviro /rag

Environmental pragmatism is the "est ay to solve 'orenvironmental pro"lems

Wapner M8 ('aul &e$in* ssociate 'rofessor and <irector of the Hlobal @n$ironmental 'olitics 'rogram in thechool of International er$ice at merican )ni$ersity *The Importance of 4ritical @n$ironmental tudies in the Dew@n$ironmentalism Hlobal @n$ironmental 'olitics ,ol. B Do. 1 p. >-S!

To many readers such questions probably sound familiar. @fforts to rid the world of war po$ertyhuman rights abuses and in5ustice in general are perennial challenges

that require heightened compassion and a commitment that transcends oneXs time on earth. The questions areespecially rele$ant howe$er to en$ironmentalists. They represent the kind of challenges we

constantly pose to oursel$es and to those we try to con$ince to 5oin us. @n$ironmental issues are someof the gra$est dangers facing humanity and all life on the planet. t their most immediate

en$ironmental problems undermine the quality of life for the poorest and areincreasingly eroding the quality of life of e$en the affluent. t the

e6treme en$ironmental challenges threaten to fracture the fundamental organicinfrastructure that supports life on @arth and thus imperil lifeXs $ery sur$i$al. 3hat

to doQ @n$ironmental tudies is the academic discipline charged with trying tofigure this out. %ike 9eminist and Nace tudies it emerged out of a political mo$ement andthus ne$er understood itself as $alue-neutral. 4oming on the heels of the modern en$ironmentalmo$ement of the 1=>2s en$ironmental studies has directed itself toward understanding the biophysical limits of the earth

and how humans can li$e sustainably gi$en those limits. s such it has always seen its normati$ecommitments not as biases that muddy its inquiry but as disciplining directi$esthat focus scholarship in scientifically and politically rele$ant directions. To be surethe disciplineXs natural scientists see themsel$es as ob5ecti$e obser$ers of the natural world and understand their work as

normati$e only to the degree that it is shaped by the hope of helping to sol$e en$ironmental problems. ostotherwise remain detached from the political conditions in which their work isassessed. The disciplineXs social scientists also maintain a stance of ob5ecti$ity to the degree that they respect the factsof the social world but many of them engage the political world by offering policy prescriptions and new political $isions. 3hat is it like to research and teach @n$ironmental tudies these daysQ 3here does the normati$e dimension of thediscipline fit into contemporary political affairsQ pecifically how should social thinkers within @n$ironmental tudiesunderstand the application of their normati$e commitmentsQ Nobert 4o6 once distinguished what he calls Wproblem-sol$ingW theory from Wcritical theory.W The former which aims toward social and political reform accepts pre$ailing power

relationships and institutions and implicitly uses these as a framework for inquiry and action. s a theoreticalenterprise problem-sol$ing theory works within current paradigms to addressparticular intellectual and practical challenge s. 4ritical theory in contrast questions e6istingpower dynamics and seeks not only to reform but to transform social and political conditions.1 4ritical en$ironmentaltheory has come under attack in recent years. s the discipline has matured and further cross-pollinated with other

fields some of us ha$e become enamored with continental philosophy cultural and communication studies high-

le$el anthropological and sociological theory and a host of other insightfuldisciplines that tend to step back from contemporary e$ents and paradigms ofthought and re$eal structures of power that reproduce social and political life. 3hile such engagement has refined our ability to identify and make $isibleimpediments to creating a greener world it has also isolated critical@n$ironmental tudies from the broader discipline and seemingly the actual world it is trying to transform. Indeed critical en$ironmental theory has become almost a sub-discipline to

itself. It has de$eloped a rarefied language and increasingly an insular audience. To many this has



rendered critical theory not more but less politically engaged as it scales theheights of thought only to be further distanced from practice. It increasingly seems tomany to be an impotent discourse preaching radical ideas to an already initiated choir.

Eco pragmatism is the only

irokaa ;6 F&eith ;irokawa .<. from the )ni$ersity of 4onnecticut and%%.. from the Dorthwestern chool of %aw 0220 (*ome 'ragmatic+bser$ations bout Nadical 4ritique In @n$ironmental %aw tanford@n$ironmental %aw ournal ,olume 01 une $ailable +nline to ubscribingInstitutions $ia %e6is-De6is!G

4hanges in each instance create entirely new conte6ts in which more (or less!progressi$e arguments find a hold. @$ery time a change occurs e$en if it isincremental or ostensibly seems benign the change creates a new conte6t within which an entirely new set of possibilities will arise+ n02 The pragmatisttherefore e$aluates progress by the distance a new idea causes practices to mo$e

away from past practices and paradigms+The difference between the pragmatic $ersion of progress and the &uhnian $ersion is one only of degree. In the end the results of both $ersions of progressare the same - we look back at the change and reali"e that earlier ideas do notmake sense anymore+ The effecti$eness of the pragmatic approach lies in thesimple reali"ation that in adopting an inno$ati$e approach to a legal questioncourts will find comfort in adopting what appears to be an incremental changerather than a radical paradigmatic shift. In FU0SBG contrast to radical theoriststhat deny the e6istence of progress because of a failure to immediately reach theradical goals of alternati$e paradigms the pragmatist recogni"es that a series ofincremental changes e$entually add up. @n$ironmental pragmatism enables

en$ironmentalists to seek achie$able gains by focusing on minor impro$ementsin the law that incrementally close the gap between the $alues that pre-e6istedcurrent en$ironmental law and the alternati$e paradigms of en$ironmentalprotection+



2cience True

2cienti'ic un!erstan!ings o' the orl! are e''ective an! key tosurvivalCoyne* ; E uthor and 3riter for the Times (erry . * plea for empiricism 9+%%I@ +9 T;@ 3I@<issenting essays ?28pp. @mery$ille 4: hoemaker and ;oard 1 8=S> 121 8!

upernatural forces and e$ents essential aspects of most religions play no role inscience not because we e6clude them deliberately but because they ha$e ne$er been a useful way to understand nature. cientific *truths are empiricallysupported obser$ations agreed on by different obser$ers. Neligious *truths on theother hand are personal un$erifiable and contested by those of different faiths. cience isnonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific issues do not blow each other up.

cience encourages doubtC most religions quash it. Jut religion is not completely separable from

science. ,irtually all religions make improbable claims that are in principle

empirically testable and thus within the domain of science: ary in 4atholic teaching was

bodily taken to hea$en while uhammad rode up on a white horseC and esus (born of a $irgin! came back from the dead.Done of these claims has been corroborated and while science would ne$er accept them as true without e$idence religiondoes. mind that accepts both science and religion is thus a mind in conflict. Yet scientists especially beleaguered merican e$olutionists need the support of the many faithful who respect science. It is not politically or tactically usefulto point out the fundamental and unbreachable gaps between science and theology. Indeed scientists and philosophersha$e written many books (equi$alents of %eibni"ian theodicy! desperately trying to show how these areas can happilycohabit. In his essay *<arwin goes to unday chool 4rews re$iews se$eral of these works pointing out with brio theintellectual contortions and dishonesties in$ol$ed in harmoni"ing religion and science. ssessing work by the e$olutionisttephen ay Hould the philosopher ichael Nuse the theologian ohn ;aught and others 4rews concludes *3hencoldly e6amined . . . these productions in$ariably pro$e to ha$e adulterated scientific doctrine or to ha$e emptied religiousdogma of its commonly accepted meaning. Nather than suggesting any solution (indeed there is none sa$e adopting a

form of *religion that makes no untenable empirical claims! 4rews points out the !angers to thesurvival o' our planet arising from a re5ection of <arwinism. uch re5ection promotesapathy towards o$erpopulation pollution deforestation and other en$ironmental

crimes: *o long as we regard oursel$es as creatures apart who need only repent of our personal sins to retain hea$en#s blessing we won#t take the full measure of our species-wise responsibility for these calamities. 4rews includesthree final essays on deconstruction and other misguided mo$ements in literarytheory. These also show *follies of the wise in that they in$ol$e interpretations of te6ts that are unanchored by e$idence. 9ortunately the harm inflicted by %acanand his epigones is limited to the good 5udgement of professors of literature. 9olliesof the 3ise is one of the most refreshing and edifying collections of essays in recent years. uch like 4hristopher ;itchens

in the )& 4rews ser$es a $ital function as Dational ceptic. ;e ends on a ringing note: *The human race hasproduced only one successfully $alidated epistemology characteri"ing allscrupulous inquiry into the real world from quarks to poems. It is simplyempiricism or the submitting of propositions to the arbitration of e$idence thatis acknowledged to be such by all of the contending parties. Ideas that claimimmunity from such re$iew whether because of mystical faith or pri$ileged*clinical insight or the say-so of eminent authorities are not to be countenanceduntil they can pass the same skeptical ordeal to which all other contenders aresub5ected. s science in merica becomes e$er more harried and debased by politics and religion we desperatelyneed to heed 4rews#s plea for empiricism.



2cience Goo!

2cience isn’t !ominating it allos li"eration an! 'ree!omDronner ;- (tephen 'rof. 'oli ci ` Nutgers Neclaiming the @nlightenment: Toward a 'olitics of Nadical @ngagement

p. 01-0!

@$en in scientific terms progress retained a critical dimension insofar as it implied the need to question established certainties. In

this $ein it is misleading simply to equate scientific reason with the domination of man andnature.18 ll the great figures of the scientific re$olution 7Jacon Joyle Dewton7were concerned with liberating humanity from what seemed the power of seemingly intractable forces. wamps were e$erywhereC roads were fewC forests remained to be clearedCillness was rampantC food was scarceC most people would ne$er lea$e their $illage. 3hat it implied not to understand the e6istence of bacteria or the nature of electricity 5ust to use $ery simple e6amples is today simply inconcei$able. @nlightenment figures likeJen5amin 9ranklin Wthe complete philosopheWX> became famous for a reason: they not only freed people from some of their fears but through in$entions like the sto$e and the lightning rod they also raised new possibilities for making peopleXs li$es more li$able.

4ritical theorists and postmodernists miss the point when they $iew @nlightenment intellectuals in general and

scientists in particular as simple apostles of reification. They actually constituted itsmost consistent enemy . The philosophes may not ha$e grasped the commodity form but

they empowered people by challenging superstitions and dogmas that left them muteand helpless against the whims of nature and the in5unctions of tradition.@nlightenment thinkers were 5ustified in understanding knowledge as inherentlyimpro$ing humanity. Infused with a sense of furthering the public good liberating the indi$idual fromthe clutches of the in$isible and ine6plicable the @nlightenment idea of progress required what the young

ar6 later termed Wthe ruthless critique of e$erything e6isting.W This regulati$e notion of progress was ne$erinimical to sub5ecti$ity. [uite the contrary: progress became meaningful only withreference to real li$ing indi$iduals.



2cience Goo! & Warming

Criticisms o' science prevent us 'rom taking action on climate changeDeru"e* 6;11* ichael 'aterno 9amily 'rofessor in %iterature and <irector of the Institute for the rts and;umanities at 'ennsyl$ania tate )ni$ersity where he teaches cultural studies and merican literature *The cience 3ars Nedu6 http://www.democracy5ournal.org/pdf/1=/J@N)[email protected]

Jut what of okal#s chief post-hoa6 claim that the academic left#s critiques of science were potentially damaging to the leftQ

That one alas has held up $ery well for it turns out that the critique of scientific *ob5ecti$ity andthe insistence on the ine$itable *partiality of knowledge can ser$e the purposesof climatechange deniers and young-@arth creationists quite nicely. That#s not because there was somethingfundamentally rotten at the core of philosophical antifoundationalism (whose leading merican e6ponent Nichard Nortyremained a progressi$e <emocrat all his life! but it might $ery well ha$e had something to do with the cloistered nature of the academic left. It was as if we had tacitly assumed all along that we were speaking only to one another so that whene$er we championed ean-9ranois %yotard#s defense of the *hetereogeneity of language games and spat on rgen;abermas#s ideal of a con$ersation oriented toward *consensus we assumed a strong consensus among us that anyone

on the side of heterogeneity was on the side of the angels. Jut now the climate-change deniers and the

young-@arth creationists are coming after the natural scientists 5ust as Ipredicted7and they#re using some of the $ery arguments de$eloped by anacademic left that thought it was speaking only to people of like mind. omestandard left arguments combined with the leftpopulist distrust of *e6perts and*professionals and assorted high-and-mighty muckety-mucks who think they#rethe boss of us were fashioned by the right into a powerful de$ice fordelegitimating scientific research. 9or e6ample when ndrew Noss asked intrange 3eather *;ow can metaphysical life theories and e6planations takenseriously by millions be ignored or e6cluded by a small group of powerful peoplecalled scientists#Q e$eryone was supposed to understand that he was referringto alternati$e medicine and that his critique of *scientists was meant to bring

power to the people. The countercultural account of *metaphysical life theoriesthat gi$es people a sense of dignity in the face of scientific authority sounds good7until one substitutes *astrology or *homeopathy or *creationism (all of whichare certainly taken seriously by millions! in its place. The right#s attacks onclimate science mobili"ing a public distrust of scientific e6pertise e$entually ledscience-studies theorist Jruno %atour to write in 4ritical Inquiry: F@Gntire 'h.<.programs are still running to make sure that good merican kids are learning thehard way that facts are made up that there is no such thing as naturalunmediated unbiased access to truth...while dangerous e6tremists are using the $ery same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won e$idence thatcould sa$e our li$es. 3as I wrong to participate in the in$ention of this field known as science studiesQ Is itenough to say that we did not really mean what we meantQ 3hy does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or notQ 3hy can#t I simply say that the argument is closed for goodQ 3hy indeedQ 3hy not saydefiniti$ely that anthropogenic climate change is real that $accines do not cause autism that the @arth re$ol$es aroundthe un and that dam and @$e did not ride dinosaurs to churchQ t the close of his *fterword to *Transgressing theJoundaries okal wrote: Do wonder most mericans can#t distinguish between science and pseudoscience: their scienceteachers ha$e ne$er gi$en them any rational grounds for doing so. (sk an a$erage undergraduate: Is matter composed ofatomsQ Yes. 3hy do you think soQ The reader can fill in the response.! Is it then any surprise that > percent of mericans belie$e in telepathy and that ?S percent belie$e in the creation account of HenesisQ It can#t be denied that some science-studies scholars ha$e deliberately tried to blur the distinction between science and pseudoscience. s I noted in Nhetorical+ccasions and on my personal blog Jritish philosopher of science te$e 9uller tra$eled to <o$er 'ennsyl$ania in 0228 totestify on behalf of the local school board#s fundamentalist con$iction that Intelligent <esign is a legitimate science. *Themain problem intelligent design theory suffers from at the moment 9uller argued *is a paucity of de$elopers. omehow9uller managed to miss the point7that there is no way to de$elop a research program in I<. 3hat is one to do e6amine



fossils for e$idence of Hod#s fingerprintsQ o these days when I talk to my scientist friends I offer them a deal. I say: I#lladmit that you were right about the potential for science studies to go horribly wrong and gi$e fuel to deeply ignorantand/or reactionary people. nd in return you#ll admit that I was right about the culture wars and right that the naturalsciences would not be held harmless from the right-wing noise machine. nd if you#ll go further and acknowledge thatsome circumspect well-informed critiques of actually e6isting science ha$e merit (such as the criticism that the postwarmedicali"ation of pregnancy and childbirth had some ill effects! I#ll go further too and acknowledge that manyhumanists# critiques of science and reason are neither circumspect nor well-informed. Then perhaps we can get down tothe business of how to de$elop safe sustainable energy and other social practices that will keep the planet habitable.

9ifteen years ago it seemed to me that the okal ;oa6 was making that kind of deal impossible deepening the *twocultures di$ide and further estranging humanists from scientists. Dow I think it may ha$e helped set the terms for an

e$entual rapprochement leading both humanists and scientists to reali"e that the shared enemies of theirenterprises are the religious fundamentalists who re5ect all knowledge thatchallenges their faith and the free-market fundamentalists whose policies willsurely scorch the earth. +n my side perhaps humanists are beginning to reali"ethat there is a pro5ect e$en more $ital than that of the relentless critique ofe$erything e6isting a pro5ect to which they can contribute as much as anyscientist7the pro5ect of making the world a more humane and li$able place. Is itstill possibleQ I don#t know and I#m not sanguine. ome scientific questions nowseem to be a matter of tribal identity: $ast ma5ority of elected Nepublicans ha$ee6pressed doubts about the science behind anthropogenic climate change and as

someone once remarked it is $ery difficult to get a man to understand something when his tribal identity depends on his not understanding it. Jut there are fewtasks so urgent. bout that e$en ;eisenberg himself would be certain.



Criti(ue o' ,n!igenous 2tu!ies

2top 'etishi.ing the European)/aci'ic encounters as the 0'irst &

it as happening "e'ore us* cultural hiteashing as not* an!is not* a purely estern venture & the kritik oversimpli'ies an!makes it impossi"le to a!!ress things that come "e'ore itolly et al+ ’;7 E J (;ons! 'h< (ydney! 9 'rofessor/ N4 %aureate9ellow chool of 4ulture ;istory and %anguage 4ollege of sia and the 'acificerge Tcherke"off is a researcher in 'acific anthropology and ethno-history. Inaddition of being the principal specialist of amoan society in @urope he is oneof the two specialists in @urope of ethno-historical approaches to the encounters between 'olynesians and @uropeans in the 1Bth century <arrell Tryon is alinguist at the Nesearch chool of 'acific and sian tudies at the ustralianDational )ni$ersity 4anberra. ;e is the author of a number of publications on

'olynesian languages including 4on$ersational Tahitian. (argaret *+ceanic@ncounters: @6change <esire ,iolence ustralian Dational )ni$ersity www.oapen.org/downloadQtype\documentZdocid\?8==S!//Noetlin9irstly the i!ea o' 0'irst contact privileges the meeting of /aci'ic people an!Europeans* "y perceiving these as unprece!ente!* as 0'irst. This risksocclu!ing all previous cross)cultural encounters between 'acific peoples suchas those "eteen /apuan) an! Austronesian)speaking peoples or "eteenFi#ians an! Tongans. s Tryon (this $olume! stresses the past an! presentpatterning o' /aci'ic languages suggests a long history o' intensive contact intra!e an! e$change "eteen /aci'ic peoples an! through the comple$processes o' in!igenous migration an! settlement. uch enduring contactso$er many millennia brought pacific peoples speaking $ery different languages

into con$ersation. Especially nota"le here was the contact "eteen thespeakers o' /apuan an! Austronesian languages. s Tryon (this $olume!obser$es /apuan languages are thought to "e ancient5 archaeological e$idenceof 'apuan-speaking peoples is dated to be 82222 J' in the interior or 'apuaDew Huinea ('DH!C 2222 in Dew IrelandC and 02222 in Jougain$ille.

Austronesian)speaking peoples "y contrast migrate! 'rom Taian orsouthern China only a"out *;;; years ago were in Ne Dritain an! Ne,relan! a"out -*;;; years ago an! su"se(uently !isperse! across theislan!s o' =elanesia* /olynesia an! =icronesia (see priggs 1==S!. lthoughclearly two distinct language families Tyron stresses the pi$otal importance ofencounters between people speaking these separate languages and in that

process their mutual in'luence an! trans'ormation* in "oth voca"ulary an!grammar. ;e cites a good instance of this 'rom the 2anta Cru. archipelago o'the 2olomon ,slan!s* here three /apuan an! eight Austronesian languagesstill coe$ist an! here language contact has in!uce! some strikingsym"ioses in grammar+ o the languages Nen!R an! Sioo retaine! atypically /apuan ver" morphology "ut a!opte! the 'our possessive nounclasses hich characterise Austronesian languages in Island elanesia.imilar patterns are clear in the way in which 'olynesian +utlier languages in the



olomons and ,anuatu ha$e mutually influenced pro6imate elanesianlanguages. uch e$amples o' in!igenous linguistic encounters raise a keyconceptual theme 'or all cross)cultural encounters5 they can generate not

#ust super'icial e$changes o' meanings manifest in loan words "ut !eeptrans'ormations in the grammar o' un!erstan!ing the orl!. o Tryon (this $olume! ad5udges that it is har! to con'i!ently classi'y Sioo an! Nen!R aseither /apuan or Austronesian. Thus the mutual influence and imbrication born of encounter can be so profound that it is impossi"le to !isentangle thepre)e$isting elements as in!u"ita"ly one or the other. This linguistic processmirrors broader processes of cross-cultural encounter and e6change describedthrough concepts such as creolisation syncretism and hybridi"ation. ,n theprocess o' such in!igenous linguistic an! cultural encounters* as in latercolonial encounters* poer as crucial. This is graphically illustrated inanother e6ample alluded to by Tryon: the encounter "eteen Fi#ians an!Tongans in the course o' tra!e* cultural e$change an! colonisation. Heraghty (1=B! has discerned a simpli'ie! register o' Fi#ian* 0'oreigner)talk use! totra!e ith Tongan neigh"ours to the east. These trade contacts combined with

increasing cultural e6change and patterns of marital alliance. Jut these Tongantra!ers>neigh"ours ere also colonists+ Tongan chie's* like =a’a'u*e$ten!e! the range o' their in'luence to the eastern islan!s of the 9i5i group(purway 0221! and in the process* trans'orme! the in!igenous chie'lyhierarchy* "eing later recognise! "y the Dritish as having legitimatesovereignty in this region. uch earlier encounters "eteen the in!igenouspeoples o' the /aci'ic in the conte6t of trade e6change and settlement ere perhaps 'ormative in ho later strangers or 'oreigners ere perceive! asliving humans* !ivine "eings* !emonic ancestral spirits or simultaneously

ll h ( J ll d F G J f k 4 ll d d B

Western Epistemology K - Michigan7 2014

Documents

Transcript of Western Epistemology K - Michigan7 2014