Hello and welcome to this week's Monday Methods post! Apologies on the delay for this installment.
Today, we will be discussing the different meanings of concepts among cultures. In particular, we will consider the Western and Indigenous views of technology, science, and history, and how cultural values and understandings impact the interpretation of these things.
(“Traditional Technology” is the title of the chapter from the book Power and Place (Deloria and Wildcat) that I will be pulling my information from.)
When we hear the word “technology,” we often think of what I believe most people would: cell phones, satellites, computers, animatronics, and so forth. And those things are technology, that being the result of the application of scientific knowledge. However, Deloria highlights traditional technology—a phrase that might seem like an oxymoron at first. The word “traditional” implies a feeling of what is considered conventional, old, or “in the past,” though traditional is not exclusive to that feeling. The use of traditional in conjunction with technology is an immediate shake up to those who might not be familiar with the line of thought that Deloria is explaining here, one that is meant to essentially redefine the way the majority of people see as technology. What can be considered traditional technology? Well, if we think of technology as the result of the application of scientific knowledge, then we can say that such things as controlled burns are a form of technology, for one is applying an understanding of ecology and the environment. The use of nets or spears, the weaving of cedar into baskets, or even the guiding of paths by the stars could all be considered technology.
The notion that the concept of technology is only manifested in the above listed things such as cell phones or satellites stems from the fact that many people have a certain perspective regarding science and even history, such as in the way we interpret and record histories, and this view is heavily influenced by the position of the Western world on this subject. Much of academia has become dominated by a lens of secularism and objectivity. As Deloria notes, “this perspective implies, of course, that the natural world and its inhabitants are completely materialistic, and that even the most profound sentiments can be understood as electrical impulses in the brain or as certain kinds of chemical reactions” (57). He identifies this thinking as being framed in the application of the methodology known as “reductionism,” which is a tendency to divide and categorize observations and learnings so they can be broken down (or reduced) in order to be understood.
The role that technology plays when it comes to influencing and implementing this method becomes quite apparent if technology is only considered to be what is more or less defined as “modern technology” (57), such as the items listed in the beginning. The technology that has developed is the result of the application of the culture, theories, and methods of the dominant Western world. And the use of this technology has often followed other unsavory Western values such as secularism, capitalism, reductionism, and materialism, values that at times led to the destruction of the environment and marginalization of other cultures.
An example of the latter is found in how Indigenous knowledge is treated in the Western world, something that Deloria comments on. He mentions that the knowledge and technology of tribal peoples “does not really appear in the modern scientific scheme, unless it is to be found within the minor articulations of the concept of cultural evolution,” as well as stating that when Western society does acknowledge Indigenous technology or ideas, they reaffirm that “they could not have possibly understood its significance” (58). I find that this is very much the case in our world today still, even outside the field of science or history. A demonstration of this from my experience would be in politics. Tribal governments are still largely viewed, from what I can tell, as being “domestic dependent nations” rather than possessing true sovereignty and self-determination. Even when tribes are noted as having existed as sovereign governments, they were not “real” governments because they lacked apparent structure. This identifies the struggle that Indigenous people have in contemporary society, that of making a name for ourselves to show that we were and are capable people just like everyone else, whether that be with science, politics, governance, or anything. A (re)consideration of traditional technology is a place to have that discussion. Yet, that is not without its own challenges.
Deloria discusses these challenges when speaking about Indian students who come from traditional homes on the reservation and who come from more urban areas of the country. Deloria explains that there is obviously a resistance and difficulty for Indian students who come from the reservations to assimilate into the dominant society because it runs counter to the practices and beliefs they learned as children. However, he states that urban Indians, who have had less contact with traditional values that can be found on a reservation, have an even harder time assimilating. This is because they attempt to hold tighter to any Indigenous knowledge they learned through their limited experiences and want to “recapture as much knowledge of their own tribal past and practices as possible” (59). This is very true in my case, for while I grew up on a reservation, it was in a very urban area. My circumstances in life also led to a negative impact on my cultural ties and I certainly do feel a great sense of obligation to hold onto the Indigenous learning I have been taught so far. This situation, though, encapsulates what Deloria is identifying: Indian students would benefit greatly from having a more traditional approach to science and technology because of the unique challenges they face. In order to have that kind of approach, a rethinking of these fields is necessary.
Deloria thus begins highlighting how what Indigenous knowledge consists of and how it is provided. This knowledge is often contained within the family, whose older members pass on the information to the younger generations. Nature, for instance, is an important part of Indigenous knowledge and lifestyles. Within an Indian family, nature is taught to be seen as part of that family. This allows people at a young age to start forming a relationship with nature and gain a deep understanding of it and how they work with it, rather than attempt to harness and use it, such as is the case with Western cultures (60). This way of thinking causes Indians to see themselves as part of nature as opposed to being separate from nature. If we observe this clear distinction in Indigenous and Western though, we begin to see why, as stated in the beginning, Western values push the notions of secularism and objectivity. Western values is learned through observation and experimentation. But they often have no sense of community extending beyond community formed with other humans. They typically no relationship to the rest of nature. This is the result of them placing themselves outside the sphere of what is considered nature. Since this is the case, they often see nature as a commodity or resource, something to be extracted from the earth and used, for nature is seen as an object. Once nature has been objectified, it can be quantified with an absolute value. Once an absolute value has been established, Western science has gone a long way to create the idea of (more or less) pure objectivity. An absolute value leaves little room for interpretation or outside perspectives (61).
Objectivity is not necessarily a bad thing. What is unfortunate, though, is that Westerns values, being the dominating force it is in the world, uses the idea of objectivity to dismiss any ideas that oppose what has been defined as “objectively” true. This ignores the existence of other paradigms that might suggest otherwise. Depending on how this aversion is applied, it can even lead to the result of the dehumanization of other people when their ideas and values are regarded as inferior and worthy of derision, which is the sad reality for many Indigenous peoples.
A final point of interest comes from the point Deloria makes regarding colleges and universities of today. He says that we attend these institutions “in order to learn the principles of how things work and how to use instruments properly” (62). Yet, tribal people did not always learn this way, even if some do now. Tribal people attended religious ceremonies and received knowledge from visions, dreams, or life events. The resulting technology occurred under a holistic paradigm in this case. This would have been the case for the whole community, though, not just a few select members who could afford it, as is the case with places of higher learning. A stereotype has consequently developed in our society now—that of the professional. A contemporary concept such as technology has been categorized into a profession and “it is only the professional who sees the imbalance, and the general society comes to believe that the [specialist] can create the technology needed to bring balance back again” (63). And since many of the academic professions are dominated by Western peoples, the creation of technology still follows the mechanical pattern of industrial societies. With a lack of Indigenous know and people in the field of science, history, politics, or whatever, this harmful practice of industrial technological development could continue for a lot longer than any of us intend. Therefore, I believe this is a need to not only get more Indigenous ideas and people into academia, but to realize that are all practicing the methods of specialists to a degree and that this stereotype of a professional person is actually a limiting factor in our societies.
When it comes to our understanding of history, it is necessary to realize other groups of people do not always see things from the same perspective. To better understand others and to communicate in a healthy way with other people, it is important to see these distinctions, even among contemporary concepts. When we study history, keeping things things in mind will help us to better contextualize and interpret what we are reading and writing.
Edit: Typo.
References
Deloria, Vine, and Daniel Wildcat. Power and place: Indian education in America. Fulcrum Publishing, 2001.
I wouldn't have thought of technology as only "the application of scientific knowledge". Is that a common definition?
It's interesting how you discussed the problem of conventional Western narratives of "nature" being something that exists in dependently of humanity. Interesting not because you are incorrect, but because it puts in perspective the amount of time and effort that ecologists spend harping on the principle that the shallow ditch in your yard is equally a part of nature as Yellowstone.
In regard to your last point about the conflation of technology with professionals, the argument can be made that there has been a conflation of scientific knowledge with scientific methodology. Someone like Richard Nelson might argue that scientific knowledge - however you want to define that, maybe as "rationally accumulated knowledge" or "empirically derived knowledge about the natural world" - can be obtained through a variety of channels. Modern scientific methodology (the domains of professionals, the scientist) is just a systematized way of gathering that type of knowledge. Traditional societies can both generate scientific knowledge through other methods and also transmit that knowledge through other methods. If you decouple scientific knowledge from scientific methodology, you can understand how scientific knowledge is treated as a communal good rather than as the domain of the specialist.
Despite the many, many faults in his work on Magic, Science, and Religion (he was writing in the 1930s and 1940s after all), I do find a kernel of this thinking in Malinowski's work very worthwhile (emphasis mine):
There are no peoples however primitive without religion and magic. Nor are there, it must be added at once, any savage races lacking in the scientific attitude or in science, though this lack has been frequently attributed to them... (pg. 1)
For example, they [Melanesians] understand perfectly well that the wider the span of the outrigger the greater the stability yet the smaller resistance against strain... They have in fact, a whole system of principles of sailing, embodied in a complex and rich terminology, traditionally handed on and obeyed as rationally and consistently as is modern science by modern sailors... (pg. 13)
This brings us to the second question: Can we regard primitive knowledge, which, as we found, is both empirical and rational, as a rudimentary stage of science, or is it not at all related to it? If by science be understood a body of rules and conceptions, based on experience and derived from it by logical inference, embodied in material achievements and in a fixed form of tradition and carried on by some sort of social organization—then there is no doubt that even the lowest savage communities have the beginnings of science, however rudimentary.
Most epistemologists would not, however, be satisfied with such a "minimum definition" of science, for it might apply to the rules of an art or craft as well. They would maintain that the rules of science must be laid down explicitly, open to control by experiment and critique by reason. They must not only be rules of practical behavior, but theoretical laws of knowledge. Even accepting this stricture, however, there is hardly any doubt that many of the principles of savage knowledge are scientific in this sense. The native shipwright knows not only practically of buoyancy, leverage, equilibrium, he has to obey these laws not only on water, but while making the canoe he must have the principles in his mind. He instructs his helpers in them. He gives them the traditional rules, and in a crude and simple manner, using his hands, pieces of wood, and a limited technical vocabulary, he explains some general laws of hydrodynamics and equilibrium. Science is not detached from the craft, that is certainly true, it is only a means to an end, it is crude, rudimentary, and inchoate, but with all that it is the matrix from which the higher developments must have sprung.
If we applied another criterion yet, that of the really scientific attitude, the disinterested search for knowledge and for the understanding of causes and reasons, the answer would certainly not be in a direct negative. There is, of course, no widespread thirst for knowledge in a savage community, new things such as European topics bore them frankly and their whole interest is largely encompassed by the traditional world of their culture. But within this there is both the antiquarian mind passionately interested in myths, stories, details of customs, pedigrees, and ancient happenings, and there is also to be found the naturalist, patient and painstaking in his observations, capable of generalization and of connecting long chains of events in the life of animals, and in the marine world or in the jungle. It is enough to realize how much European naturalists have often learned from their savage colleagues to appreciate this interest found in the native for nature... (pp. 17-18)
Now, obviously Malinowski uses a lot of problematic terminology and generally dismisses indigenous knowledge as lesser or primitive. However, I find him useful in the sense that he approaches Native knowledge about the natural world from the same perspective as European knowledge about the natural world. What he identifies as the distinction is the social system in which that knowledge is embedded - traditional community structures contrasted with scientific methodology and scientists. The social context in this case is what results in differing perspectives on that knowledge and why incorporating indigenous perspectives on science is both necessary and worthwhile for modern archaeologists, historians, and scientists.
Edit: Typos
There's probably also a point to be made here that technologies of indigenous origin are not viewed that way because they have been so thoroughly assimilated into mainstream Euro-American culture. Snowshoes and kayaks are a good examples of this, and there are probably others that I haven't thought of.
And the use of this technology has often followed other unsavory Western values such as secularism, capitalism, reductionism, and materialism, values that at times led to the destruction of the environment and marginalization of other cultures.
I was actually surprised at the audacity of such a statement, especially on a featured post. Since when is secularism unsavory? I'm sure had the topic of discussion been revolved around Abrahamic belief systems, few would take issue with the idea that secularism is necessary and encouraged.
As well, to qualify such values as exclusively 'Western' doesn't sit well with me. Even the idea that modern technology is a Western phenomenon rings borderline bigoted to me, albeit in this context for radically different reasons. I'm sure the plethora of scientific advancements hailing from China or India was not considered.
As well, at what point are we able to point to a value-system and insist it is exclusive to a singular culture group. China today could be described as materialist, secular, and capitalist; would you say that these are Western importations exclusively? I'm sure many people within China would resent that.
The notion that the concept of technology is only manifested in the above listed things such as cell phones or satellites stems
Is this really true in academic studies? I'm no academic, but 20+ years ago I was playing an early version of Civilization, and it made quite clear that technology and science started from basics - not quite the discovery of fire, but certainly not cell phones!
(Apologies for the wikipedia link, but this is an example of what I'm talking about: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Freeciv-2.1.8_technology_tree.png )
So while casual usage of phrase like "high tech" might refer to computers and iPhones and the like, is there really any evidence that modern historians don't take into account the fact that technology is a far more extensive concept?
The notion that the concept of technology is only manifested in the above listed things such as cell phones or satellites stems from the fact that many people have a certain perspective regarding science and even history, such as in the way we interpret and record histories, and this view is heavily influenced by the position of the Western world on this subject.
One thing I've noticed is that people are dismissive of technological achievements with "primitive" materials. There is a belief that certain materials are inherently better, so any developments in the use of lesser materials by other cultures, even if it is a new development, is not worth much. I've seen this in regards to tools, where Steel > Iron > Bronze > Stone, or building materials where Concrete > Stone > Wood > Dirt.
The role that technology plays when it comes to influencing and implementing this method becomes quite apparent if technology is only considered to be what is more or less defined as “modern technology” (57), such as the items listed in the beginning. The technology that has developed is the result of the application of the culture, theories, and methods of the dominant Western world... in how Indigenous knowledge is treated in the Western world, something that Deloria comments on. He mentions that the knowledge and technology of tribal peoples “does not really appear in the modern scientific scheme..."
This could also be said to apply to knowledge from non-Indigenous and non-Western knowledge, such as traditional Chinese medicine, which is dismissed by Western medical thought.
Western values... often have no sense of community extending beyond community formed with other humans. They typically no relationship to the rest of nature. This is the result of them placing themselves outside the sphere of what is considered nature. Since this is the case, they often see nature as a commodity or resource, something to be extracted from the earth and used, for nature is seen as an object.
The idea of humans being outside the sphere of nature is also present in the opposite direction. Something I've noticed in environmentalists, particularly Western environmentalists, is the idea that humanity has to "protect nature". In this kind of thought, humanity is still placed outside the realm of nature, but instead of thinking of nature as something to exploit, it sees nature as something to protect, in a paternalistic sort of way. Maybe this goes back to the bible verse about man being given dominion over nature?
When I was a child, there were two shows I watched, Ultraman Gaia and Ultraman Cosmos, that took two different approaches with how they treated nature. Both were set in a modern world where Godzilla-esque giant monsters existed (and also where some humans can transform into giant silver space aliens, but lets ignore that). In Ultraman Gaia, monsters were seen as natural hazards not unlike tsunamis and earthquakes. In Ultraman Cosmos, monsters were seen like animals, something that needed humanity's help and was the target of conservation efforts. During the series finale for both shows, when all life on earth was being threatened by extraterrestrial invaders, the monsters in Ultraman Gaia fought against the invaders independently of humanity's efforts, whereas the monsters in Ultraman Cosmos fought in coordination with humans. "Nature" in Ultraman Gaia was something beyond the control of humans, in Ultraman Cosmos it very much was.
A similar difference is seen in the disastrous 1998 Hollywood adaptation of Godzilla, where Godzilla was portrayed as "just simply an animal trying to survive" and is easily damaged by conventional human weaponry like missiles. Whereas in Japan it was typically impervious to conventional weapons. By portraying the creature as just an animal, the American adaptation "took the God out of Godzilla". The 2014 version's portrayal of Godzilla was much better received.
"The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around."
Once nature has been objectified, it can be quantified with an absolute value
Can you provide a citation of this happening? Because my training is in economics and economists are very clear that all value is subjective.
(Consider for example a diabetic who needs insulin injections to survive. One injection can be life-saving, a second, given a few seconds later, life-threatening. And of course, for a non-diabetic, even the first injection is of radically different value.)
I don't doubt you of course that this does happen, I'm just curious as to the circumstances and any arguments the believers in absolute values might have for their position.
Can you give some more context for some of Deloria's statements? I'm puzzling at what he means by them.
E.g. he says:
What is unfortunate, though, is that Western svalues, being the dominating force it is in the world, uses the idea of objectivity to dismiss any ideas that oppose what has been defined as “objectively” true.
What do you think Deloria means by this? I've a Western education and I don't recall anyone ever defining anything as objectively true. Even in maths, you have to make an actual argument that something is true, not just 'define' it as true, for it to be accepted as true.
And I'm pretty confident that anyone who came onto this subreddit making assertions about historical events and then, when queried, dismissing any questions using the 'idea of objectivity' would get the moderators down on then like a ton of bricks for breaching the rules.
Note: I'm not saying that Deloria is wrong, I'd just like to know more about the context in which Deloria's assertion makes sense.
Also Deloria seems to really object to "secularism, capitalism, reductionism, and materialism," as harming the environment and marginalizing indigenous peoples. This seems odd to me as the European powers that colonised throughout the world and did so much harm, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, France and Britain, were avowedly Christian and thus not materialist nor secular nor reductionist. Why does Deloria object to these values so much?
Tribal people...received knowledge from visions, dreams, or life events.
What 'knowledge' would this be, exactly?
