The only related criticism I could accept from your words would be about my using a pan-Indian approach that focuses on the common elements most Indigenous cultures, nations, tribes, and individuals within them have in contrast with the common precepts shared by most "non-Indigenous" cultures. I would then argue that I go to great lengths to protect individual cultural identity and diversity because this is an inherent "belief" in Indigenous worldview (singular). The only risk I know that relates to pan-Indianism is the risk of assimilation into the dominant culture via loss of individuality of tribal sovereignty.
For clarification, although it requires reading all of Redfield's last publications and some of his contradictory language, he is clear about claiming two essential worldviews. (By the way, the word "worldview" is what I choose to use but favors European sensibilities not Indigenous for whom "seeing" is but one small facet of understanding). For example the title of his book is The Primitive Worldview so the perspectives of the other cultures each with their own cultural beliefs and unique origin stories, stem from that which is a great encompassing worldview (The Primitive Worldview) that contrasts significantly (and Redfield says tragically) with the one that transformed the world. But as much as I admire Redfield, quoting dead white men is not needed to offer and argue in behalf of the theory that there are two historically observable and currently foundational worldviews operating today. What other two worldviews are contrasted? Do we refer to competing theories of education or medical treatment protocols or political ideologies and "worldview comparison?" Not if we want to go deeper into the foundational reasons that under the dominant worldview (1 % of human history), we have managed to bring all life systems to a tipping point. Is it the different cultures and theories we should start to evaluate for new results or something so obviously full of radically different orientations at the deepest level that will at long last yield results.
I sense that concerns about romanticizing the Indigenous "worldview", or giving it "chosen people" status or ignoring the importance of complementarity is what is behind the many challenges get when I speak of the two worldviews. For example, some paragraphs from other work:
"Since it is obvious that these other-than-humans are very different from you, such reflections about how you rethink who they are in relationship to yourself opens the door to what is most amazing about Nature- its sense of complementarity.
"In her 2008 publication, "Thoughts about the Philosophical Underpinnings of Aboriginal Worldviews," Aboriginal scholar and Kombu-merri person, Mary Graham writes that there are two major axioms in Aboriginal worldview. One is that the land is the law and the other is that you are not alone in the world. She believes these axioms offers a universal truth and quotes a Kakadu man named Bill Neidjie as saying that Aboriginal Law never changes and is valid for all people.
"Aboriginal Law is grounded in the perception of a psychic level of natural behaviour, the behaviour of natural entities. Aboriginal people maintain that humans are not alone. They are connected and made by way of relationships with a wide range of beings, and it is thus of prime importance to maintain and strengthen these relationships" The land, and how we treat it, is what determines our human-ness. Because land is sacred and must be looked after, the relation between people and land becomes the template for society and social relations (107).
"Graham strongly emphasizes that this is not about promoting an ideal system of expression and lifestyle, inferring that cultural manifestations beyond this basic "truth" about living on this planet are and will always be multiple and subject to an eventual balancing of opposites. In the same way there Hopi prophesize the white and red brother some day joining forces, the seeking of complementarity among apparent opposites is essential to Indigenous worldview.
Writing a book in which I emphasize strong contrasts and preferences between two worldviews may seem to be a contradiction with the Indigenous principle of complementarity, but if worldview is the water in which we swim and not the style of the swimming, then we can no longer afford to swim in polluted water. Also, seeking complementarity in all apparent opposites also calls realizing that not all opposites are ready for such symbiosis. The Quechua speaking peoples of the Andean mountains in Peru agree. In a research project described in her publication, "The Splendid and the Savage: The Dance of the Opposites in Indigenous Andean Thought," Hillary S. Webb offers a comprehensive analysis of the meaning of three of their words, yanantin, masintin and chuya (69--93). "Yanantin" describes the idea of universal oneness that includes an understanding of a sort of pairing of opposites. "Masintin" is "the active process by which the yanantin pair becomes "paired" and thus moves from a state of antagonism and separateness to one of complementarity and interdependence""(74). The word "chuya" refers to an entity that may be missing its potential complementary other or is still viewed as being unequal somehow. Even with regards to the oneness of yanantin, she learned that the Natives say that not all apparent opposites are suitable for pairing. Harrison, another researcher of yanantin concurs: "Quechua speakers persistently distinguish objects which are not well matched or 'equal'" (149).
Some further thoughts from Four Arrows:
"Worldview" Reflection: I put this word in quotes because I am borrowing from Western culture and language an idea that is not sufficiently accurate to describe our original instructions but is the most user- friendly one available in English. This point is made by one of the chapters in my book, Unlearning the Language of Conquest, entitled "On the Very Idea of 'a worldview' and of "alternative worldviews' by Bruce Wilshire:
"The first thing to be pointed out is the "worldview" is a European idea"So we must recognize initially that in speaking of an Indigenous worldview we may have already generated an egregiously distorted account, determined in advance by a European bias that gives priority to seeing and vision (261).
Other complications exist with this term as relates to the concern that a pan-Indian generalization about common assumptions held by diverse Indigenous nations can diminish the importance of such diversity and of tribal identity and its importance. After all "Indigenous" what it means to be Indigenous is all about living in accordance with the diverse understandings gleaned from local landscape and the life it contains. Nonetheless, I believe there is a need to expose and understand the pitfalls of and options to a worldview that does not recognize the importance of such diversity. The common features of the many Indigenous nations are significant and especially so as relates to how they contrast with those that exist in the diverse cultures that operate in most societies today. It is past time to reflect on these and start implementing the "authentic" ways of being part of Nature.
Finally, a concern about the use of "worldview" that David Abram has shared with me in private communications is that giving "worldview" status to how modern civilizations are living in the world elevates it inappropriately, especially if understood as an option to what I am calling the Indigenous worldview. David sees the "dominant worldview" as a misdirected diversion that branched off from our original relationships with Earth. I love his perspective and agree that it would seem there could be nothing else but a way of understanding the world that honors the realities of living in it (like keeping the water clean, etc). How can we be other than "indigenous" to the planet (small "i")? My response is that the impact of what we are doing has unfortunately risen to the level of a worldview. As a result too many people now have unconscious belief systems (worldviews) that have a powerful influence in and on the world, enough to create an unnecessary mass extinction.
From Point of Departure: Returning to Our Authentic "Wordview" for Education and Survival by Four Arrows (IAP, Aug 2016).
David Abram: Dear Four Arrows and not-yet-met friends,
With huge apologies to you, and with a promise to never do this again in an email, I think I'd better clarify my comment earlier this week, which seems even to have prompted Four Arrows to shift his new book's subtitle (I don't think he should), and which Darcia has threatened to address in her Psychology Today blog (which would be cool). After what Four Arrows last sent out in an email, which I didn't entirely understand (my own fault, not his), I realized that I'd better try to explain myself a little better. It's about something that bears on what we're all engaged in. But I don't for a moment think that my angle is the only angle, or the best angle on this matter -- not at all. it's just my angle. Anyway, I feel sheepish that I even wrote in as I did, since after all I've been mostly silent and have missed most of the missives that have been sent back and forth regarding this wonderful conference (being hopelessly over my head in email correspondence. And so after this one email, I promise to cease and desist and never to send out a missive longer than a paragraph or two. I promise. Meanwhile, feel free to ignore this, or put it aside for a moment when you have time to read it through.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
