An official website of the United States government
Boreda Indigenous knowledge prescribed that humans respect all entities with whom they co-inhabit, including stone. Humans, stone, and water’s reciprocal relationships prompted their participation in each other becoming fetuses, infants, children, youth, married adults, mature adults, elders, and ancestors. Life was a co-production between humans and non-humans, such that stone and water could inflict harm or bring well-being to humans. Non-human beings, such as flaked stone tools, were evidence of engaging in correct interaction ‘practice’ (time, place, and actor) with other beings – a process of mutual respect and responsibility and one in which there was no end or final “product”.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 14, 2025
Decentering humans in sustainability: a framework for Earth-centered kinship and practice
Contemporary Earth crises are challenging ideologies that enthrone humans at the center of existence and separate from nature, problematizing common notions of sustainability. Further inquiry, particularly sustainability of what and for whom, requires decentering the human experience toward other-than-human beings (e.g., plants and animals). In this article, we, as the Kinship Circle book club, share reflections from our monthly dialogue with the five-part book series Kinship: Belonging in a World of Relations, built on a foundation of partnership experiences with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake Superior Band of Ojibwa. Together, we discuss three major departures from our previous modes of thought at the individual, community, and global levels. First, as students, mentors, and relatives to many, we aim for (research) practices that affirm relationships to place, an approach we understand as remembering what it means to be human. Second, to rebuild shared responsibilities across communities of many kinds, we move beyond an anthropomorphization debate toward “animism," recognizing the sentience and autonomy of other-than-human beings on Earth. Third, in support of a transformative and collective human ethic, we hope to contribute to restoring relationships with the many that gift us life, using connections between migration, justice, and introduced species. Finally, we present a practical Kinship Circle framework for applying these concepts in educational settings. Our conclusion provides central kinship lessons for decentering humans in the sustainability sciences, rooted in humility, responsibility, and an Earth-centered ethics.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2009258
- PAR ID:
- 10565040
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Socio-Ecological Practice Research
- ISSN:
- 2524-5279
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Abstract History at one time drew unproblematically on records produced by human societies about themselves and their doings. Advances in biology and the earth sciences introduced new narrative resources that repositioned the human story in relation to the evolution of all else on the planet, thereby decentering earlier conceptions of time, life, and human agency. This essay reflects on what it means for our understanding of the human that the history of our species has become so intimately entangled with the material processes that make up the biosphere, while concurrently the temporal horizon of our imagination has been stretched forward and back, underscoring the brevity of human existence in relation to earthly time. I suggest that, despite significant changes in the resources with which we can rethink the human condition, drawing upon the sciences, history’s fundamental purposes have not been rendered irrelevant. These center, as before, on the normative project of connecting past and future in ways that make sense of human experience and give meaning to it. In particular, the question of how humans should imagine the stewardship of the Earth in the Anthropocene remains an ethical project for history and not primarily the domain of the natural sciences.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community developed an informal environmental health and sustainability (EHS) curriculum based on Swinomish beliefs and practices. EHS programs developed and implemented by Indigenous communities are extremely scarce. The mainstream view of EHS does not do justice to how many Indigenous peoples define EHS as reciprocal relationships between people, nonhuman beings, homelands, air, and waters. The curriculum provides an alternative informal educational platform for teaching science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) using identification, harvest, and preparation activities of First Foods and medicines that are important to community members in order to increase awareness and understanding of local EHS issues. The curriculum, called 13 Moons, is founded on a set of guiding principles which may be useful for other Indigenous communities seeking to develop their own curricula.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Scholars bridging the fields of science and technology studies (STS) and energy research in social sciences (ERSS) offer a rich and integrated conceptualization of how energy systems are imbued in social systems, including cultures, social structures, institutions, and social relations of power. Yet as fields of study, STS and ERSS are dominated by approaches to understanding nature, culture, and relationships among them with origins in western European Enlightenment thinking. In this article, we argue that the language of “imaginaries” provides an understanding of culturally organized normative commitments but may obscure attention to what are actually diverse and sometimes incommensurable yet legitimate plural ontologies. Tribal Nations, Indigenous communities, and other non-Western worldviews are not simply imagined; they offer different teachings regarding the relational and embedded realities governing relations among human and more-than-human beings across time and space. The field of STS has a rich history of exploring ontological controversies and provides insight into understanding diverse and competing perspectives in science and technology, yet without articulating the connection between this conceptual terrain and the lived realities of socio-technological system entrenchment or change. ERSS recognizes participation, energy system democratization, and even co-production as components of a just energy transition, while most typically thinking about participation as a methodology or research approach rather than as requiring consideration and even wholesale reconceptualization of ontological foundations. To advance convergent, transdisciplinary social science research in socio technological transitions requires grappling with plural ontologies regarding the reality of relations in the world. Here, we explore diverse ontologies shaping the realities of energy systems through the lens of Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region in the United States. Ontologies that recognize reciprocal relationships among human and more-than-human beings as well as the sovereignty of these beings and their collective kinships suggest fundamentally different priorities for energy systems transitions. Moving beyond the language of imagination to recognize that cultures can involve diverse and sometimes incommensurable pluralistic ontologies is essential for developing inclusive and just frameworks for socio-technological system transitions.more » « less
-
Great claims have been made about the benefits of dematerialization in a digital service economy. However, digitalization has historically increased environmental impacts at local and planetary scales, affecting labor markets, resource use, governance, and power relationships. Here we study the past, present, and future of digitalization through the lens of three interdependent elements of the Anthropocene: ( a) planetary boundaries and stability, ( b) equity within and between countries, and ( c) human agency and governance, mediated via ( i) increasing resource efficiency, ( ii) accelerating consumption and scale effects, ( iii) expanding political and economic control, and ( iv) deteriorating social cohesion. While direct environmental impacts matter, the indirect and systemic effects of digitalization are more profoundly reshaping the relationship between humans, technosphere and planet. We develop three scenarios: planetary instability, green but inhumane, and deliberate for the good. We conclude with identifying leverage points that shift human–digital–Earth interactions toward sustainability.more » « less
