Mobilizing theory - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 32

(2011) stresses that these systems are both interconnected and inseparable (see also
Nadasdy, 1999, 2006; Menzies and Butler, 2006).
Literature within Native Science identifies that one of the fundamental differ-
ences between Western and non-Western views of nature is the placement of
humans within or outside nature. As Cajete (2000, pp. 26-27) explains, “Western
science and society perpetuate the illusion of 'objective' detachment and psycho-
logical disassociation” whereas Indigenous Knowledge or “Native Science
continually relates to and speaks of the world as full of active entities with which
people engage”. Thus, the Western tradition of Science often places humans outside
of the “natural” system looking down; conversely, in many Indigenous traditions,
nature and culture are not separate entities, rather relationships are both reflexive
and collapsible - where human and animal forms are easily interchanged.
These sometimes conflicting worldviews of nature-human relationships are
complicated under the task of environmental management. Nadasdy (2004)
expertly describes the complications related to co-management in the Yukon
Territory in his book, Hunters and bureaucrats. In this study, Nadasdy (2004) shows
how embedded belief systems frame the relationship between land and people -
and people tasked to “co-manage” are asked to operate in a foreign framework.
Practices such as enumeration of resources have built-in power dynamics, which
the burgeoning politics of calculation literature links directly to colonial forces
(Mitchell, 1991; Elden, 2007).
Thus, when the differences between the foundational belief systems go
unrecognized or unarticulated, complications occur. For example as Reo (2011)
articulates:
Many initiatives that engage tribes and their TEK holders only seek tribal input,
such as biological data, that is most easily integrated into existing management
structures. Increasing attention on tribal belief systems would provide a more
holistic understanding that could benefit TEK-related initiatives. Such a shift
could reduce misunderstandings about tribal natural resource perspectives and
lead to insights valuable for society at large.
The Case of Luna/ Tsu-xiit explored in Chapter 9 exemplifies the issues of
miscommunication related to science and governance that Nadasdy (2004)
articulates so well. The lack of basic understanding of the fundamental belief systems
of Indigenous peoples is at the root of the majority of the governance failures
between environmental managers and Indigenous peoples (Awuah-Nyamekye and
Sarfo-Mensah, 2011; Reo, 2011; Sarma and Barpujari, 2011). This is seen the world
over: Awuah-Nyamekye and Sarfo-Mensah (2011) show how the dichotomy of
policy versus Indigenous spirituality has had grave impacts on contemporary
distribution of land in Ghana. Sarma and Barpujari (2011) examine how, in India,
culture, particularly the cosmologies and religious beliefs of Indigenous
communities, have implications for the conservation of natural resources.
A foundational difference between TEK and other models of knowing is the
importance of place in the creation of developing frameworks - where the humans