Traditions, Traps and Trends: Transfer of Knowledge in Arctic Regions

286 Pages·2018·3.6 MB·English

by  Jarich Oosten

Published by
The University of Alberta Press Ring House 2
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E1
www.uap.ualberta.ca
Copyright © 2018 The University of Alberta Press LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA
CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION
Traditions, traps, and trends : transfer of knowledge in Arctic regions / Jarich Oosten and Barbara Helen
Miller, editors.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Issued in print and electronic formats.
ISBN 978–1–77212–372–2 (softcover). — ISBN 978–1–77212–402–6 (PDF). — ISBN 978–1–77212–
403–3 (EPUB). — ISBN 978–1–77212–404–0 (Kindle) 1. Knowledge, Theory of—Cross-cultural studies.
2. Traditional ecological knowledge. 3. Oral tradition. 4. Inuit—Canada. 5. Inuit—Greenland. 6. Sami
(European people)—Scandinavia. I. Oosten, J.G., 1945–, editor II. Miller, Barbara Helen, 1949–, editor
GN451.T73 2018 306.4’2 C2018–901066–5
C2018–901067–3
First edition, first printing, 2018.
First electronic edition, 2018.
Digital conversion by Transforma Pvt. Ltd.
Copyediting and proofreading by Brian Mlazgar.
Indexing by Stephen Ullstrom.
Book design by Alan Brownoff.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise)
without prior written consent. Contact the University of Alberta Press for further details.
The University of Alberta Press supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices,
promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book
and for complying with the copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any
form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing the University of Alberta Press to
continue to publish books for every reader.
The University of Alberta Press gratefully acknowledges the support received for its publishing program
from the Government of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Government of Alberta through
the Alberta Media Fund.
IN MEMORY OF JARICH GERLOF OOSTEN (1945–2016) This
book is dedicated to the memory of Jarich Gerlof Oosten, who died
suddenly on May 15, 2016, when the publication of this book had
reached its final phase. Jarich was a co-founder of the Research Group
Circumpolar Cultures, and played a pivotal role in the group’s
projects, acting as its inspiration, motivator, chairman, secretary,
spokesman and its internal critic, depending on the circumstances. As
a man of original insights, a revealer of invisible connections in social
(Inuit) life, as a man of true knowledge and wisdom who demanded
the highest scientific standards of himself and others, and who never
accepted a premature or unfounded interpretation, his inspiring
presence is, and will be, greatly missed. But we are very grateful to
have known him, and to have had him in our midst, for so many
fruitful years.
Willem C.E. Rasing Research Group Circumpolar Cultures
Contents
Introduction
JARICH OOSTEN and BARBARA HELEN MILLER
1 | The Transformation and Transfer of Inuit Knowledge
Notes on isumaqsajuq, ilisaijuq, and qaujimajatuqangit WILLEM C.E. RASING
2 | Language and Literacy Exchange between the Moravians and
the Inuit
A Transfer of Knowledge in the 18th Century
THEA OLSTHOORN
3 | Traditions, Traps and Tricks
Social Aspects of the Transfer of Inuit qaujimajatuqangit FRÉDÉRIC LAUGRAND and
JARICH OOSTEN
4 | Finding New Places to Transfer Inuit Knowledge in Nunavut
KIM VAN DAM
5 | Living Objects
The Transfer of Knowledge through East Greenlandic Material Culture
CUNERA BUIJS
6 | Transfer of Healing Knowledge
A Case Study of the Coastal Sámi
BARBARA HELEN MILLER
7 | Two Traditional Sámi Love Songs and the Transfer of
Knowledge
NELLEJET ZORGDRAGER
8 | Sámi Storytelling and the Transfer of Knowledge
The Kautokeino Rebellion and Its Aftermath
NELLEJET ZORGDRAGER
Contributors
Index
Introduction
JARICH OOSTEN and BARBARA HELEN MILLER
Discourses in Anthropology
One of the preconditions to making a place in scientific discourse for
contributions from Indigenous authorities is the diversification of the categories
and formulations that Western scientists have decided qualify as “science.” We
can all too easily fall into scholarship on traditional knowledge employing
“simplistic dichotomies regarding our ways of thinking (i.e., that of Western
scientific investigation) vs. their way of thinking (i.e., that of Indigenous elders
or authorities of other kinds)” (DuBois 2011: 543). Such dichotomies actually
work to exclude Indigenous thought and make it exotic, even while showcasing
it as insightful or intriguing. Watson-Verran commented on this:
By and large, past cross-cultural work has taken Western “rationality” and “scientificity” as the
benchmark criteria by which other cultures’ knowledge should be evaluated. So-called traditional
knowledge systems of indigenous peoples have frequently been portrayed as closed, pragmatic,
utilitarian, value-laden, indexical, context-dependent, and so on, implying that they cannot have the
same authority and credibility as science because their localness restricts them to the social and
cultural circumstances of their production. (Watson-Verran and Turnbull 1995: 115–16)
We must not reinstate the definition and employment of science that
repudiates the personal point of view, nor “construct theories quite careless of
their bearing on human anxieties and fates” (discussed in James 1902: para.
491). What the diversification in formulations of Western science means for
anthropology is the need to go beyond the Cartesian paradigm that mind and
body are essentially separate entities (see Mehta 2011), and to discard the
evolutionary component of Lévy-Bruhl’s “participation mystic,” while
acknowledging that “participation” is a key aspect of meaning-construction in all
cultures that is also called “embodiment” (see Shore 1996: 183). Another
proposed requirement in the study of traditional knowledge is the replacement of
binary logic (more/less; true/false) with dialectical logic (the dialogue with),
which allows for more holistic interpretations, and for more attention to process
(see Mills 2000; Clifford 1997; Sahlins 1999), which can include the
withholding of denotative meaning (Briggs 1996: 220). Clearly, then, knowledge
of—and knowledge generated by—performance is included.
In Arctic communities, Western and non-Western values and knowledge are
visibly in conflict, but in today’s Arctic, these are also often combined. We hope
in this book to shed light on various types of knowledge, how these circulate and
can be combined, and how they are applied and used at various levels in Arctic
communities. Examining a variety of transfers of knowledge practices, the
contributions in this volume show the significant relationships Arctic peoples
maintained in the past and continue to maintain. We proceed from the data that
emerges in the course of research, to ensure that we remain in the field. In the
field there are ideas about tradition, there are bodies of knowledge, and an
understanding of what occurs during the transfer of knowledge, which, we
endeavour to show, can be both creative of, and facilitative for, knowledge.
Diversifying the formulations of Western science in order to open up the
discourse is pertinent to objections voiced by Arctic peoples concerning transfer
of knowledge practices. The consistent objection voiced by local Arctic
communities to the practice at residential schools is that the prioritized values
employed by the school are not those held by the community. The knowledge
that is considered by the local community as being important to transfer includes
an attitude that encourages perceptual rather than judgemental forms of
knowing, which lead to a life oriented towards service to community (see Vieten
and Scammell 2015). Successfully transferring an attitude is of course not a
mechanical act, nor is it achieved by instruction. Rather, it is more similar to
Ingold’s view on growing (discussed in Ingold 2011: 11), wherein an attitude is
nurtured and developed. In addition to the importance assigned to transferring
the knowledge of values by Arctic communities, is their attentiveness to “more
of the same quality” (James 1902: para. 510), which one needs to come into a
harmonious working relation. “More of the same quality” is William James’s apt
description of a greater part of oneself that is conterminous and continuous with
a “more of the same quality” in the lived world, operating both beyond and
within each person. For Arctic communities there are numerous experiences
of/with a “more of the same quality” that require attentiveness: there is a
meeting in prayer, in connection to a guardian spirit, at a location, through a
name. These significant relationships, for the most part, are transferred through
the sharing of stories, and include experiences that took place out on the land.
Hence, transfer of knowledge can have the character of an initiation, of being
brought “into the story.”
Another large body of knowledge considered important to transfer pertains to
skills (Ingold 2011: 289): the skills to navigate, hunt, fish, sew, weave, build,
dwell, and nurture. These skills are primarily transferred through imitation and
participation, rather than in the form of direct instruction, and the channel of
transfer can be a relative, but also direct interaction with the dynamic
land/sea/sky/weather, as well as the challenging material being worked, are
avenues for learning. Skills are developed via engagement and experience,
whether that engagement is out on the land or in the home. The community
priorities mentioned here give an indication of the local communities’
assessment of traditional knowledge, which is that a practice needs to be useful,
rather than simply historical, to be important enough to transfer. As well, the
traditional knowledge being considered can very well encompass an attitude that
is innovative.
The Danish explorer Knud Rasmussen exposed the richness and complexity of
Inuit culture in terms of the perspectives of the participants themselves. In his
introduction to his study of the Iglulik Eskimos, he states, “[I]t has always been
one of my main objects, in the portrayal of primitive culture, to get the natives’
own views of life and its problems, their own ideas expressed in their own
fashion. This was often quite as important to me as eliciting new elements in
their religious and spiritual life” (1929: 11). In his valorization of the views of
the participants, Rasmussen was exceptional, and his approach contributed
significantly to his success as an ethnographer. We must reject, however, the
designation “primitive” used to signify the culture under discussion; prejudiced
concepts do not help to advance knowledge and understanding.
In some circles of anthropological debate the designation “traditional
knowledge” has been exchanged for “Indigenous knowledge” (see Berkes 2008:
4), due to a perceived contradiction between tradition and change. However,
others do not define tradition as an inflexible adherence to the past. Rather, some
scholars accept the description of traditional knowledge enunciated at a 1995
conference by Inuit participants: “practical common sense; teachings and
experience passed through generations; knowing the country; being rooted in
spiritual health; a way of life; an authority system of rules for resource use;
respect; obligation to share; wisdom in using knowledge; using heart and head
together” (Emery 1997: 3, in Berkes 2008: 4). In any case, whether it is called
“traditional knowledge” or “Indigenous knowledge,” the concept has been on the
political agenda in Greenland and in Nunavut for decades, and it plays a key role
in identity politics. Similar notions such as the concept of Inuit
qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit knowledge that is still useful) (see Laugrand/Oosten
2010: 393), has its most profound articulation in a bilingual and bicultural
context.
Anthropologists have become aware that there is no single direction, no
straightforward process for the assimilation of Native peoples into Western
culture. Alongside assimilation processes initiated by southern political
institutions, there are also Native strategies. Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins
(1993), for example, emphasizes the importance of Native strategies employed
in dealing with Western culture. For Sahlins, Indigenous societies do not adapt
themselves to colonial regimes; instead, they adapt colonial regimes to their own