Ethics of Response-Ability: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
''1. | ''1. Engaging Indigenous scholarship.'' Or, | ||
''2. | ''2. Not engaging Indigenous scholarship.'' | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 27 February 2025

You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate.
The ethics involved when it comes to drawing from research paradigms that consider the world as indeterminate, intra-dependent and ontologically generative, 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.
Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".
I do this to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divides, while not appropriating Indigenous paradigms.
"Return" to cut 3 to start tracing the Bearwatch project.