Indigenous Thought, Relational Ontology, and the Politics of Nature; Or, If Only Nietzsche Could Meet a Yachaj
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 4-30-2014 12:00 AM Thinking Across Worlds: Indigenous Thought, Relational Ontology, and the Politics of Nature; Or, If Only Nietzsche Could Meet A Yachaj Jarrad Reddekop The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Regna Darnell The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Theory and Criticism A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Jarrad Reddekop 2014 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Other Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Reddekop, Jarrad, "Thinking Across Worlds: Indigenous Thought, Relational Ontology, and the Politics of Nature; Or, If Only Nietzsche Could Meet A Yachaj" (2014). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 2082. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2082 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thinking Across Worlds: Indigenous Thought, Relational Ontology, And The Politics Of Nature Or, If Only Nietzsche Could Meet A Yachaj A Monograph By Jarrad Reddekop Graduate Program in Theory & Criticism A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Western University London, Ontario, Canada © Jarrad Reddekop, 2014 Abstract This study undertakes a cultural critique of dominant, modern relationships to “nature” through a cross-cultural philosophical engagement with certain Indigenous American traditions of thought. This is done through a focus on questions of ontology: what kind of ontological presuppositions inform our own dominant, modern philosophical heritage? What kinds of relations do these at once enable and foreclose? And what alternate possibilities for thinking and living might be opened through different ontologies? I argue that grappling with modernity’s legacy of anthropocentrism and ecologically disastrous relationships forces us to rethink an existential terrain set by an atomistic ontology that reflects a Christian interpretation of the world. In contrast to this dominant ontology and as a way of defamiliarizing ourselves from it, this study endeavours to think with and alongside what I argue are profoundly relational ontologies and styles of thinking expressed by different Indigenous philosophies and lifeways. It also poses the question: how might relational ontologies open up different ways of understanding and experiencing ourselves, of disclosing and relating to the nonhuman, of construing the nature of our ethical horizons? As part of my exploration of this question, I bring Indigenous thought into conversation with two thinkers from the Western tradition who arrive, from their own directions, at somewhat analogously relational perspectives – namely, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. I argue that the critical arsenal these thinkers offer Western theory gives valuable insights concerning the potential that relational thinking might have as a counterdiscourse vis à vis our dominant culture – but that Indigenous thought pushes us much farther still in this direction. Accordingly, I try to explore how lessons from Indigenous thought might lead us to rethink or recuperate on different terms certain elements of Nietzsche and Heidegger’s critiques. Rethinking counterdiscursive possibilities in this way, this study seeks to contribute towards a critical theorizing that is more consciously responsive to the intertwined legacies of colonialism, modern thought, and our present ecological crises; to connected political contours, tensions, and ii possibilities within our present; and also better attuned to possible points of productive consonance, conversation, and allegiance therein. Keywords Relational Ontology; Atomistic Ontology; Human-Nonhuman Relations; Ethnoecology; Indigenous Philosophy; Nietzsche, Friedrich; Heidegger, Martin; Amazonian Quichua; Ojibwe; Tlingit; Political Ontology; Politics and Ontology; Politics of Nature; Perspectivism; Cross-Cultural Philosophy; Anthropocentrism; Modernity iii Acknowledgements This dissertation, like so much else, is not the work of an isolated atom – for example, an atom named Jarrad Reddekop. These chapters could not have come into being without an extensive network – a generous pantheon of actors – to which I remain altogether indebted. As human persons are concerned, special thanks must go to many memorable teachers at Western University and the University of Victoria. Perhaps most especially, these go to Regna Darnell, who has changed my sense of the world in dramatic and wonderful ways, and who has been exceedingly gracious as a supervisor and generous with her energies and time. I also wish to thank my examination committee – Călin Mihăilescu, Tim Blackmore, Doulass St. Christian, and Mario Blaser – for all of their helpful and thoughtful comments, questions, and feedback. Generous thanks also go to Mark Franke, Dan Mellamphy and Nandita Biswas Mellamphy, and also to my memorable teachers in Victoria: Rob Walker, Warren Magnusson, Arthur Kroker, and Bradley Bryan, to name a few. I am grateful to Emanuele Leonardi, James Depew, Jason D’aoust, Aileen House, and all the rest at Western, for the talk and the company on the lonely doctoral road; and to all the UVic crew, who continue to inspire me. The work of Sebastien Malette and Bjorn Ekeberg has been influential for my own, and I am fortunate to be able to build in my own way on what I have learned from their efforts. I also wish to thank Seth Asch, in particular, for making me think hard about relational ontology in the first place. As part of the work in producing this dissertation, I did fieldwork as a summer student at the Andes & Amazon Fieldschool in Napo Province, Ecuador. There, I took classes in the Napo Quichua language and in Ethnobotany, led by Tod Swanson. During this time, I had the opportunity to meet and learn from several Runa (i.e., Amazonian Quichua) elders, to accompany them in excursions through the forest and into the community and to ask questions that always received generous and thoughtful answers. Tod Swanson has been extraordinarily generous with his time and his responses in his own right – even since my time in Ecuador, in the form of an ongoing directed reading and discussion group on Amazonian Quichua language and culture. iv Had I not had the joy and privilege of meeting and working with all those connected with the Fieldschool – but with Tod, Delicia Dahua, and Eulodia Dahua in particular – this dissertation could not now be what it is. I only hope that I have done justice here to the things they have said. I also owe special thanks to Delicia and Eulodia for introducing me to the wonderful art of Quichua pottery-making, which has also found its way into these pages. If my writing here contains anything true about Quichua thought, then the credit is owed to the patience and indulgence of those mentioned; but if not, the fault is most assuredly mine. I have also been fortunate to have the continual inspiration and encouragement, not to mention substantive feedback, from my wife Rhéa Nadine Wilson: without her these pages would not be written. v Dedication For my friends and relations; For my teachers; And for those who still sing in the gathering night. vi Table of Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................iv Dedication.....................................................................................................................................................vi Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 0.1 Ecological Relations as an Ontological Problem...........................................................1 0.2 Relationalities..............................................................................................................................5 0.3 Some Clarification of Terms: “Modernity”, “Nature”, “Philosophy” ..................10 0.4 Chapter Overview ...................................................................................................................18 Chapter 1.....................................................................................................................................................22 1 Breaking Open the Face of the World: Rethinking Self and Nature in Light of (Onto‐)Politics..............................................................................................................................22 1.1 Sketching the Terrain: A View from the Heights.......................................................22 1.2 Ontologies?.................................................................................................................................27 1.3 Characterizing Our Dominant Relations to Nature ..................................................37