Ethics of Response-Ability: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out". | Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out". | ||
<div class="next_choice"> | <div class="next_choice">In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a very selective body of western scholarship. | ||
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 | |||
I draw from this scholarship to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divides, while not appropriating Indigenous paradigms. | |||
Where appropriate, I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous scholarship. | Where appropriate, I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous scholarship. |
Revision as of 10:10, 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 draw from this scholarship to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divides, while not appropriating Indigenous paradigms.
Where appropriate, I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous scholarship.
"Return" to cut 3 to start tracing the Bearwatch project.