What boundary? What whale? Whose responsibility? - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 169

Although the concept of the social construction of nature is well established in
the academy (and posthumanist thinking increasingly so), Luna's case highlights
the lack of carry-over into the daily practice of environmental management. As
Castree (2004) notes, “the dichotomy of society-nature continues to inform lay
and expert discourse”, which remains true a decade after its original claim. That
is, much work needs to occur to destabilize these fixed categories and treat the
relationship between animals and humans as both hybrid and reflexive.
Complicating the decision-making process is the multiplicity of positions from
which the decisions are made. As this case shows, Luna holds many meanings.
Luna is seen both as an animal that needs to be managed and as a chief incarnate
that has returned home. The latter version holds particular challenges for
contemporary environmental managers. As Wolch (1998, p. 121) reflects:
In many parts of the world beliefs in transmogrification or transmigration
of souls provide a basis for beliefs in human-animal continuity (or even
coincidence). But in the Western world animals have for many centuries been
defined as fundamentally different and ontologically separate from humans,
and although explicit criteria for establishing human difference have changed
over time, all criteria routinely use humans as the standard for judgment.
The varying definitions, interpretations, and worldviews, undoubtedly, have impacts
on how people determine what is “right” for a particular being in question, and
ultimately how they interact through their governance decisions. Similarly, literature
related to animals in zoos, for example, has argued for a new species of animal to
be designated (Anderson, 1995; Wolch, 1998; Philo and Wilbert, 2000; Calarco,
2008; Chrulew, 2011). Increasingly, questions related to the impacts and ethics of
observation are also being applied to “over-observed” animals in nature as well
(Collard, 2012).
Because the multiple constructions are so pronounced, Luna's story provides
opportunities to explore the complex intermingling of worldviews, politics, and
power, in the governance and management policies of living things.
(De)constructing Luna (seeing Luna/knowing Luna)
A fundamental challenge in governing living beings is that the established set of
policies and practices reflect and reify a dominant worldview. Starting with the
position that the animal is its own being (with its own agency) is rarely the starting
point for governance frameworks. Rather, it is the interpretations of people's
perceptions of the animal that frame the interaction, although the reflexive nature
of the relationship continues to shape the interaction.
Luna meant many things to many people. In many ways, Luna functioned as a
mirror reflecting variant perceptions of nature. To the marine scientists, Luna was
L98, a stray orca whale that exhibited “atypical” behavior. To the Mowachaht/
Muchalaht First Nation, Tsu-xiit was the incarnation of their chief. To the casual
boater, Luna was a friendly animal that rubbed against their boat. To the commercial