Ethics of response-ability - Revision history

Saskia at 14:59, 13 January 2025

2025-01-13T14:59:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 13 January 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:


	<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#TEK Workshops\|Cut 3: Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning]]</span>		<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning" data-section-id="6" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#TEK Workshops\|Cut 3: Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning]]</span>

Saskia at 14:55, 13 January 2025

2025-01-13T14:55:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 13 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices.		You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices.

	In this case such trouble refers to the ~~ontological turn in~~ western scholarship and ~~the “ethics~~ of ~~response~~-~~ability"~~.		In this case such trouble refers to the controversy around western scholarship, when it takes up ideas like intra-dependency and relational worldviews while either ignoring Indigenous literature, or appropriating them, without proper acknowledgement. There is, no ‘easy’ way out of these kinds of tensions for non-indigenous scholars. The ethics involved with drawing from such ontologies in academic work cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things. Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or 2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship - While neither option is “innocent” .

	~~This ontological turn in~~ western ~~scholarship is controversial for multiple reasons – amongst which the tendency of such~~ scholarship to either ignore Indigenous literature on similar generative ontologies, or appropriate them, without proper acknowledgement . There is, however, no ‘easy’ way out of these kinds of tensions. The ethics involved with drawing from such ontologies in academic work cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of ~~doing things. Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form~~ of ~~generative ontologies have, according to Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee , two options,~~ and ~~need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or 2.~~ not ~~engaging~~ Indigenous scholarship~~. Neither option is “innocent” . Nor is not taking a clear stance towards which kind~~ of ~~future prospects one’s research builds towards~~. ~~Not as an individual. but rather as a response-able agent that is entangled within larger apparatuses. The whole point for Rosiek~~ and ~~Adkins-Cartee is to de-centre the individualized human and make clear how the quality~~ of ~~our actions create openings (possibilities) within~~ the ~~flux of~~ the ~~larger, more-than-human, agential apparatus to which we tend~~.		In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a very selective body of western scholarship to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide and not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. This in turn allows you the possibility to do the same.

	In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.

	<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#TEK Workshops\|Cut 3: Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning]]</span>		<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#TEK Workshops\|Cut 3: Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning]]</span>

Saskia at 14:44, 13 January 2025

2025-01-13T14:44:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 13 January 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.		In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.

	<span class="return link" data-page-title="~~Wayfaring_and_the_knowledge-land-scape~~" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring ~~and~~ the ~~knowledge-land-scape~~\|~~Return to your detour~~]]</span>		<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#TEK Workshops\|Cut 3: Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning]]</span>

Saskia at 13:25, 13 January 2025

2025-01-13T13:25:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 13 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the future relations our actions make possible or foreclose (Barad, 2007 p.x; see also Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee, 2023 p.160). It’s a constant gesture to ‘stay with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016). In this case such trouble refers to the ontological turn in western scholarship and the “ethics of response-ability".		You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices.

			In this case such trouble refers to the ontological turn in western scholarship and the “ethics of response-ability".

	This ontological turn in western scholarship is controversial for multiple reasons – amongst which the tendency of such scholarship to either ignore Indigenous literature on similar generative ontologies, or appropriate them, without proper acknowledgement . There is, however, no ‘easy’ way out of these kinds of tensions. The ethics involved with drawing from such ontologies in academic work cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things. Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies have, according to Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee , two options, and need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or 2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship. Neither option is “innocent” . Nor is not taking a clear stance towards which kind of future prospects one’s research builds towards. Not as an individual. but rather as a response-able agent that is entangled within larger apparatuses. The whole point for Rosiek and Adkins-Cartee is to de-centre the individualized human and make clear how the quality of our actions create openings (possibilities) within the flux of the larger, more-than-human, agential apparatus to which we tend.		This ontological turn in western scholarship is controversial for multiple reasons – amongst which the tendency of such scholarship to either ignore Indigenous literature on similar generative ontologies, or appropriate them, without proper acknowledgement . There is, however, no ‘easy’ way out of these kinds of tensions. The ethics involved with drawing from such ontologies in academic work cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things. Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies have, according to Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee , two options, and need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or 2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship. Neither option is “innocent” . Nor is not taking a clear stance towards which kind of future prospects one’s research builds towards. Not as an individual. but rather as a response-able agent that is entangled within larger apparatuses. The whole point for Rosiek and Adkins-Cartee is to de-centre the individualized human and make clear how the quality of our actions create openings (possibilities) within the flux of the larger, more-than-human, agential apparatus to which we tend.

Saskia at 17:35, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T17:35:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 24 November 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.		In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.

	<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring_and_the_knowledge-land-scape" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring and the knowledge-land-scape\|Return to your detour]]</span>		<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring_and_the_knowledge-land-scape" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring and the knowledge-land-scape\|Return to your detour]]</span>

Saskia at 17:34, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T17:34:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 24 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the future relations our actions make possible or foreclose (Barad, 2007 p.x; see also Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee, 2023 p.160). It’s a constant gesture to ‘stay with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016). In this case such trouble refers to the “ethics of response-ability".		You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the future relations our actions make possible or foreclose (Barad, 2007 p.x; see also Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee, 2023 p.160). It’s a constant gesture to ‘stay with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016). In this case such trouble refers to the ontological turn in western scholarship and the “ethics of response-ability".

			This ontological turn in western scholarship is controversial for multiple reasons – amongst which the tendency of such scholarship to either ignore Indigenous literature on similar generative ontologies, or appropriate them, without proper acknowledgement . There is, however, no ‘easy’ way out of these kinds of tensions. The ethics involved with drawing from such ontologies in academic work cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things. Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies have, according to Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee , two options, and need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or 2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship. Neither option is “innocent” . Nor is not taking a clear stance towards which kind of future prospects one’s research builds towards. Not as an individual. but rather as a response-able agent that is entangled within larger apparatuses. The whole point for Rosiek and Adkins-Cartee is to de-centre the individualized human and make clear how the quality of our actions create openings (possibilities) within the flux of the larger, more-than-human, agential apparatus to which we tend.

			In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a selective body of such western scholarship on the ontological turn, so that I could formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide. Doing so, creates unresolved tensions around performing discovery like a modern day Columbus, instead of citing Indigenous scholars. I have nevertheless done so, as to not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms. Where appropriate and part of my process I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous sources. My own non-Indigenous positionality and the positioning of my research within a natural science-heavy research apparatus, that determine some of the conditions within which I conducted my research, have been key to such deliberations.

			<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring_and_the_knowledge-land-scape" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring and the knowledge-land-scape\|Return to your detour]]</span>

Saskia: Created page with "You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the fu..."

2024-11-24T16:35:56Z

Created page with "You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the fu..."

New page

You have encountered a “Great White Beast”- a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate. The possibilities of encountering a Great White Beast, is a reminder that there are no right decisions to be made, but that we are nevertheless to hold ourselves accountable to our own choices. When the world is ‘remade’ in each meeting, it means that there is an imperative to take responsibility for the intra-active relations we build and the future relations our actions make possible or foreclose (Barad, 2007 p.x; see also Rosiek & Adkins-Cartee, 2023 p.160). It’s a constant gesture to ‘stay with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016). In this case such trouble refers to the “ethics of response-ability".