Un-Settling Species Concepts through Indigenous Knowledge

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Rebekah Sinclair
{"title":"Un-Settling Species Concepts through Indigenous Knowledge","authors":"Rebekah Sinclair","doi":"10.5840/enviroethics202042431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The voices of Native American philosophers, scientists, and storytellers need to be amplified to problematize and decolonize the often taken-for-granted concept of species in environmental ethics. Especially in the context of climate change, concepts such as cross-species native,invasive, and endangered species have become cornerstones for understanding and evaluating moral obligations to other lives.Yet, even as the species concept does ethical work, it has not itself been subject to critical ethical evaluation. Instead, uncritical treatment of the species concept can naturalize Western metaphysical conceptual habits in ways that both support settler colonial organization of the world and conflict with Indigenous ontological and ethico-epistemological understandings of species. This can be especially problematic as scientists and environmentalists increasingly seek to engage Indigenous knowledge of particular species (for the purposes of conservation, for example) while assuming the sovereignty and objectivity of Western scientific taxonomies and species concepts. Yet, far from being objective and neutral with respect to culture, Western species concepts and taxonomies were first universalized and naturalized in part through the cooption and dismissal of Indigenous species knowledges.","PeriodicalId":46317,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202042431","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The voices of Native American philosophers, scientists, and storytellers need to be amplified to problematize and decolonize the often taken-for-granted concept of species in environmental ethics. Especially in the context of climate change, concepts such as cross-species native,invasive, and endangered species have become cornerstones for understanding and evaluating moral obligations to other lives.Yet, even as the species concept does ethical work, it has not itself been subject to critical ethical evaluation. Instead, uncritical treatment of the species concept can naturalize Western metaphysical conceptual habits in ways that both support settler colonial organization of the world and conflict with Indigenous ontological and ethico-epistemological understandings of species. This can be especially problematic as scientists and environmentalists increasingly seek to engage Indigenous knowledge of particular species (for the purposes of conservation, for example) while assuming the sovereignty and objectivity of Western scientific taxonomies and species concepts. Yet, far from being objective and neutral with respect to culture, Western species concepts and taxonomies were first universalized and naturalized in part through the cooption and dismissal of Indigenous species knowledges.
从本土知识看不稳定的物种概念
美国原住民哲学家、科学家和讲故事者的声音需要被放大,以使环境伦理中通常被视为理所当然的物种概念问题化和非殖民化。特别是在气候变化的背景下,跨物种的本土、入侵和濒危物种等概念已成为理解和评估对其他生命的道德义务的基石。然而,即使物种概念起到了伦理作用,它本身也没有受到批判性的伦理评估。相反,对物种概念的不加批判的处理可以使西方形而上学的概念习惯自然化,既支持定居者对世界的殖民组织,又与土著人对物种的本体论和伦理认识论理解相冲突。这可能特别成问题,因为科学家和环保主义者越来越多地寻求利用特定物种的土著知识(例如,为了保护的目的),同时承担西方科学分类法和物种概念的主权和客观性。然而,西方物种概念和分类法在文化方面远非客观和中立,而是首先普遍化和归化的,部分原因是对土著物种知识的融合和排斥。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信