Tuesday, November 20, 2018

As Black Friday Approaches




Tanya Talaga delivered this year's CBC Massey Lectures. Ms. Talaga is an Anishinaabe Canadian journalist and the author of Seven Fallen Feathers. That book is available from House of Anansi Press as are the Massey Lectures, which are entitled All Our Relations: Finding the Path Forward. As a white, male of a certain age, there is a tendency to lump me into a category of 'identity' not of my own choosing that seeks to place me at a great distance from a person such as Ms. Talaga, who, on the broadest criteria - First Nations female person - is nothing like me. However obviously true this may be, one balks at attempt to draw any meaningful conclusions from this regarding values, interests, and so on. Indeed, my argument here is that such categorizations (and the ill-informed conclusions drawn from them) are particularly unhelpful at a time when what we in this world need more than anything is, as she says, a way forward together. The world is madly spinning off in all directions, and by 'world', I mean the world that is comprised of sovereign states. This sovereign notion, around for about 370 years, since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, allows for limited collective identity and maximum inter-collective competition. That's a very long story to tell, but the quick take away is that we humans are not very good at seeing beyond the visible difference toward the shared values. Indeed, we too often impute different values based on what we see. In terms of Western and 'white', the contrast with indigenous and 'red' has been hammered into stone like some sort of Ten Commandments. Holding the chisel have been state-makers (Sir John A. Macdonald and Thomas Jefferson come to mind), capitalists of every sort, particularly those most interested in land and resources, the Christian churches, and those in command of the printed word and the moving image. And where there are state makers and capitalists, there are also lawyers, the rule of law, legislation and all manner of formalized mechanisms to codify difference and justify exploitation and marginalization. State making is boundary making in a system where the legal basis for the boundary derives from the demonstrated capacity to uphold the rules you have written. Put simply: might makes right. The construction of Canada, Mexico and the United States would not have been possible without the appropriation of all of the best lands from those who were here first.



As Tanya Talaga tells us, despite the most concerted deliberate (from annihilation to assimilation) and accidental (small pox) attempts to eliminate the 'Indian problem', First Nations peoples are still here and plan to stay here. Formal (meaning Canadian state-directed) processes are underway to explore the ways and means of reconciliation. Spurred on by the reprehensible practice of residential schools, Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission seems to me to be on an honorable, important and admirable mission. The rise of identity politics has provided space for social movements such as Idle No More and civil society organizations such as Reconciliation Canada to press for fundamental changes in the way First Nations are treated vis a vis what we might call 'the rest of Canada'. What is most interesting and important about these indigenous peoples' led groups and organizations is the framing of the mission. Whereas identity politics tends to divide and sub-divide, First Nations social movements set their mission within the broader context of 'Mother Earth' and of 'all peoples', so being integrative rather than disintegrative, aligning group interests with primary planetary concerns of social justice and environmental sustainability.


In my view, this offers us an opening toward not merely reconciliation but toward a different way of seeing self in relation to other. What I mean is, indigenous peoples' everywhere offer us insights into sustainable, adaptable, resilient and multivariate ways of being in the world. 'Modern' 'Western' society has demonized and derided as 'backward' not only these ways of thinking and acting but also those aspects of our own cultures and histories that smell of 'pre-modernity'. This binary not only undermines those not like us by saying we moderns are better, but, more importantly, it places our modern ways beyond scrutiny, beyond level-headed critique. As we rush from one sexy concept (e.g. innovation) to another (e.g. the gig economy), we would do well to remember that we cannot 'technologize' our way out of the disastrous and unsustainable corner into which we have painted ourselves. We cannot solve our most pressing problems (e.g. climate change) with the same tools, methods and ways of thinking that have created the problems in the first place. Just as 'more guns' will not put an end to 'gun violence', so too 'more technology' will not put an end to high mass consumption, inequitable distribution, over-production, ecosystem destruction, social dislocation, etc etc. So, what is to be done? Dare to be different.



In daring to be different, I am saying that, first of all, we must abandon the destructive binaries -- traditional/modern, backward/forward, superstitious/scientific, savage/civilized -- that not only divide us but paralyze us, inhibiting our ability to see, think and act differently. We moderns are wedded to the notion that 'development' equates to the transformation of the Earth in line with our dreams, whatever they may be. It means living apart from Nature, not within it. So when indigenous groups argue in support of 'Mother Earth', too many of us 'moderns' hear something that sounds traditional, backward, superstitious and savage. If that's how you interpret what you hear when an Indigenous group or person invokes the value of respecting Mother Earth, then it means that you aren't really listening. In daring to be different we must learn to listen and dare to question often very firmly held beliefs.



Let's be clear: there is no 'going back'. In fact, there is no such thing as 'going back', just as there is no such thing as 'going forward'. As we stand at the precipice of calamitous anthropogenic change, as we survey the disastrous social, economic, environmental and political realities of the modern world, who in their right mind would call this 'progress'? To be sure, today is different than it was yesterday and yesterday different from the day before. Millions live long and well; and millions more do not. Many of us have seen the Hans Rosling Ted Talk on global development. Without out doubt, it is compelling and full of hope. But aggregate data conceals as much as it reveals. If we juxtapose Rosling's take on development with Al Gore's data on climate or look at data tables regarding biodiversity loss or deforestation over time, or the decline of the middle class, the rise of the one percent and incidences of heart disease, obesity and diabetes in 'wealthy' countries, then we get a better sense of not only the benefits but of the (short term and long term) costs. Modernity as currently conceptualized is testing Earth system limits. Can we shift the cost:benefit ratio in favour of benefits? Can we do so by challenging the tropes of development, especially continuous growth and consumption? I think we can. Today is different than yesterday. It may be better by some measures and worse by others, but it is certainly not 'progress'. In daring to be different, we must dare to challenge conventional wisdom. As Timothy Leary once said, 'think for yourself and question authority'.



Mi'kmaw Elder Albert Marshall has developed the idea of two-eyed seeing as a viable way of reconciling indigenous 'traditional' knowledge with Western 'scientific' knowledge. I put great value in these insights. Western science is overwhelmingly about understanding first principles in order to bend systems to human needs and interests (think: Man over Nature). Such an approach acknowledges no limits. Indigenous knowledge is overwhelmingly about understanding the dynamics of earth systems in order to live in balance with them (think: humans as part of the ecosystem). Such an approach acknowledges and respects limits. Neither approach exists in perfect form, as there is a great deal of cross fertilization. Is this perhaps a way forward together? Toward not just reconciliation but respect? Western approaches to development are leading toward uniformity: of diets, of human settlement design, of socio-cultural practices. In contrast, Earth systems are simultaneously dynamic and stable -- constant change in highly predictable patterns -- where stability depends on diversity: change will bend but not break the system. As we hurtle toward Earth system tipping points due to our own hubris, is it not time to ask some simple questions: Why should everyone everywhere get their starch from only wheat and rice? Is incessant consumption the meaning of life? Rather than force indigenous peoples everywhere into pre-modern or underdevelopment narrative boxes, I think it is time we seek their advice for living within the limits set by the system; and to approach them as Elders who have much to teach us arrogant youths. In daring to be different, I think we must dare to think that if there must be binary ways of understanding, then quite possibly we've got the binaries the wrong way round.



Progress is a myth. There is then and there is now. There are challenges that we face every day that we wish to overcome. We must embrace the challenge but set it within a different narrative, a narrative of sustainability divorced from the unhelpful binary of developed and developing. The former suggests an end point; the latter a process. Together they suggest separation - one is finished with their project; the other's project is ongoing - and hierarchy, where the former will help the latter, each the author of her/his own fortune. But we are connected at every point and our life courses are mutually constituted. The challenges faced by First Nations peoples in Canada are not of their own making. They are an outcome of an historical process founded on the myth of 'progress' served up in support of narrowly conceived social and political ends. Those founding myths are part of the larger problem of modernity's dead end. It is therefore natural, in my view, that First Nations and Indigenous Peoples social movements align their interests around concern for local ecosystems sustainability and planetary tipping points. In daring to be different, we must dare to abandon the persistent myths of modernity and progress and embrace the ideas of system stability, resilience, and limits to growth. This would mean a broad shift in values, seeing 'less' as 'more', and 'more' as rightly questionable. As Black Friday approaches, let's dare to be different. Pointless consumption will be the death of us all.

No comments: