VineDeloria1

Summary

This lecture explores the contrast between Western and indigenous epistemologies through Vine Deloria Jr.'s article. It discusses 'epistemologies of control' characteristic of Western thought, which seeks objective, value-neutral knowledge, often excluding ethical considerations. In contrast, 'epistemologies of attentiveness' from indigenous North American philosophies prioritize knowledge that is responsible and beneficial to the community, including both human and non-human entities. The lecture critiques Western science's paradigms for excluding experiences and information, advocating for a more inclusive, community-oriented approach to knowledge production.

Takeaways

• 🌟 The class is exploring non-Western philosophy through Vine Deloria Jr.'s article, marking a shift from the Western paradigm.
• 🔍 The lecture introduces a key distinction between 'epistemologies of control', prevalent in the West, and 'epistemologies of attentiveness or respect', found in indigenous North American philosophies.
• 🏛️ Western epistemology is characterized by an objective, value-neutral approach to constructing knowledge, which is seen as problematic by non-Western perspectives.
• 🤔 The issue with Western knowledge construction is that it can lead to ethical dilemmas, as it often excludes certain experiences and information deemed not value-neutral or objective.
• 🚫 Epistemologies of control are critiqued for excluding emotional experiences and interspecies communication, which are integral to indigenous epistemologies.
• 🌱 Indigenous epistemologies focus on knowledge production that is responsible and beneficial to the community, including both human and non-human beings.
• 🗺️ The 'map and territory' analogy is used to illustrate the difference: Western paradigms aim for an accurate map of the territory, while indigenous views see the map as a guide for the best action in the present moment.
• 🔄 Indigenous knowledge systems are dynamic, allowing for irregularities and changes, recognizing that current patterns may be incomplete.
• 🌐 The lecture emphasizes that the critique is not about the validity of Western science but about its limitations and the need to consider a broader range of experiences and perspectives.
• 🔑 The importance of paradigms in Western science is highlighted, as they set the standards for what is considered true and what questions are deemed有价值的 to pursue.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the discussion in the provided transcript?

The main focus is on the exploration of epistemological differences between Western and indigenous (non-Western) philosophies, specifically contrasting epistemologies of control with epistemologies of attentiveness or respect.

What does the term 'epistemology' refer to?

Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge, including what can be known, how we know what we know, and how knowledge is constructed or produced.

What are 'epistemologies of control'?

Epistemologies of control are Western approaches that aim for an objective, value-neutral construction of truth, often leading to ethical conundrums and the exclusion of certain experiences and information.

How does the concept of 'epistemologies of attentiveness or respect' differ from 'epistemologies of control'?

Epistemologies of attentiveness or respect, found in indigenous philosophies, focus on producing knowledge that is responsibly true and beneficial for the community, including both human and non-human beings, rather than for knowledge's sake.

What ethical issues arise from the Western approach to knowledge construction as described in the transcript?

The ethical issues include the source of ethics when knowledge is claimed to be value-neutral and objective, and the conflicts that arise when ethical theories do not align with the dominant epistemology.

What is the significance of the term 'paradigm' in the context of Western science?

In Western science, a paradigm sets the standards and parameters for what claims can be made and what data is considered valid, thus controlling what is accepted as true and what is not.

According to the transcript, how does Western science limit the scope of knowledge?

Western science limits knowledge by insisting that all data must fit within the reigning interpretive paradigm, excluding experiences and information that do not meet its standards, such as emotional experiences and interspecies communication.

What is the role of Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in the discussion?

Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms is used to explain how scientific communities classify data and verify its acceptability, as well as how paradigms determine which problems are considered scientific and which are rejected.

How does the indigenous view of knowledge differ when it comes to the relationship between a map and territory?

In the indigenous view, the map (knowledge) does not claim to provide a true image of the territory (reality), but rather it guides the best course of action in relation to the territory, considering the broader community and its needs.

What is the primary purpose of knowledge production in indigenous epistemologies as per the transcript?

The primary purpose of knowledge production in indigenous epistemologies is to determine the best course of action that is good for the individual, the community, and the broader network of relations, including non-human beings.

How does the transcript suggest that Western science could be improved?

The transcript suggests that Western science could be improved by acknowledging its limitations and inadequacies, and by considering alternative epistemologies that embrace a broader range of experiences and information, such as those found in indigenous philosophies.

Outlines

00:00

🌟 Introduction to Non-Western Philosophy

The video script begins with an introduction to Vine Deloria Jr.'s article, marking the class's first exploration into non-Western philosophy. The instructor emphasizes the shift from Western paradigms to indigenous thinking from North America. A key distinction is made between 'epistemologies of control' prevalent in Western thought and 'epistemologies of attentiveness or respect' found in indigenous philosophies. The Western approach is criticized for its purported objectivity and value neutrality, which can lead to ethical dilemmas. The critique is not about the validity of Western knowledge but rather its limitations and the exclusion of certain types of knowledge, such as emotional experiences and interspecies communication.

05:02

🔬 Critique of Western Scientific Paradigms

The second paragraph delves into the critique of Western scientific paradigms, which are seen as inadequate due to their exclusionary nature. The instructor discusses how Western science operates within paradigms that set standards for what is considered true and valid. This approach leads to the rejection of data or experiences that do not fit the current paradigm, such as emotional experiences or knowledge derived from dreams and visions. The instructor also mentions Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms, which dictate the problems that are considered scientific and the methods for solving them. The critique highlights the limitations of Western science in its current form and the need for a more inclusive approach.

10:03

🌱 Indigenous Epistemologies of Awareness

Paragraph three contrasts Western epistemologies of control with indigenous epistemologies of awareness or respect. These indigenous epistemologies focus on producing knowledge that is not only true but also responsible and beneficial for the community, including both human and non-human beings. The knowledge is aimed at identifying the best course of action for the broader community. The instructor uses the analogy of a map and territory to illustrate the difference: while Western paradigms claim the map (knowledge) accurately represents the territory (reality), indigenous epistemologies see the map as a guide for action based on the current understanding of the territory. This approach embraces irregularities and acknowledges the potential incompleteness of the knowledge system, allowing for flexibility and change.

15:05

🌐 Epistemological Distinction Between Western and Indigenous Approaches

The final paragraph summarizes the epistemological distinction between Western and indigenous approaches to knowledge. It reiterates that Western knowledge construction excludes much experience and information, focusing on control and exclusion, while indigenous philosophies emphasize awareness, respect, and the inclusion of a broader community. The indigenous approach seeks to understand the best course of action in relation to the interconnected web of relations that make up the community, including non-human entities. This distinction highlights the different relationships each approach has with the real world and the implications for ethical considerations and the understanding of truth.

Keywords

💡Epistemology

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge, specifically addressing what can be known, how we know it, and how knowledge is constructed or produced. In the video, it is contrasted between Western and indigenous perspectives, with the Western approach focusing on 'epistemologies of control' and the indigenous approach on 'epistemologies of attentiveness or respect'. The script discusses how epistemology shapes our understanding of truth and reality, with Western epistemology aiming for objective and value-neutral knowledge construction, while indigenous epistemology emphasizes knowledge that is responsible and beneficial to the community and the environment.

💡Western Paradigm

The Western Paradigm is a term used in the script to describe the dominant philosophical and scientific worldview that has emerged from Western societies. It is characterized by a focus on objectivity, rationality, and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. The video critiques this paradigm for potentially excluding certain types of knowledge, such as emotional experiences or interspecies communication, which do not fit within its value-neutral and objective framework.

💡Indigenous Philosophy

Indigenous Philosophy, as mentioned in the script, refers to the philosophical traditions and ways of knowing that originate from indigenous cultures, particularly those of North America. It is contrasted with the Western Paradigm by emphasizing a holistic and relational approach to knowledge, where knowledge is produced with the intent of benefiting the community, both human and non-human. The script highlights how indigenous epistemologies value attentiveness and respect for all forms of life and their interconnections.

💡Epistemologies of Control

Epistemologies of Control are discussed in the video as the Western approach to knowledge construction, which aims to create objective and value-neutral truths. This approach is criticized for potentially leading to ethical conundrums, as it excludes certain types of experiences and information from being considered as valid knowledge. The script points out that this exclusion can result in a limited understanding of reality and a disregard for the ethical implications of knowledge production.

💡Epistemologies of Attentiveness/Respect

Epistemologies of Attentiveness or Respect are presented as an alternative to the Western approach, emphasizing knowledge production that is responsible and beneficial to the community and the environment. This indigenous perspective values the inclusion of all experiences and information, recognizing that knowledge systems may be incomplete and subject to change. The script uses the analogy of a map and territory to illustrate how this approach aims to guide the best course of action in relation to the broader community.

💡Paradigm

A Paradigm, in the context of the video, refers to a framework or set of assumptions within which scientific and philosophical inquiries are conducted. The script discusses how paradigms set the standards for what is considered valid knowledge and how they can limit the scope of inquiry by excluding certain questions or types of experience. It also mentions Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms, highlighting how they shape the scientific community's approach to problem-solving and data interpretation.

💡Value Neutral

Value Neutral is a concept discussed in the video in relation to the Western approach to knowledge construction, which claims to be objective and free from personal or cultural biases. However, the script questions the possibility of true value neutrality, suggesting that the exclusion of certain types of knowledge, such as emotional experiences, implies a value judgment that prioritizes certain forms of understanding over others.

💡Interspecies Communication

Interspecies Communication is mentioned in the script as a concept that is often rejected by Western science but is embraced within indigenous epistemologies. It refers to the idea that humans can communicate with or receive messages from non-human beings, such as animals, plants, or other phenomena. The video suggests that this form of knowledge is excluded by Western paradigms but is valued within indigenous traditions for its potential to enrich our understanding of the world and our place within it.

💡Knowledge Construction

Knowledge Construction is a central theme in the video, referring to the process by which societies create and validate knowledge. The script contrasts the Western approach, which seeks to construct knowledge in a value-neutral and objective manner, with indigenous approaches that construct knowledge with the intention of benefiting the community and maintaining respectful relationships with the natural world.

💡Ethical Conundrums

Ethical Conundrums are highlighted in the script as challenges that arise when knowledge is constructed in a value-neutral manner, as in the Western Paradigm. The video suggests that if knowledge production is disconnected from ethical considerations, it becomes difficult to integrate ethics into the resulting worldview. This can lead to conflicts between the dominant epistemology and ethical theories that may be necessary to address the limitations of that epistemology.

💡Functional Patterns

Functional Patterns are discussed in the context of indigenous epistemologies, referring to the knowledge systems that are designed to be useful and effective within a given community and environment. The script contrasts this with the Western approach, which may prioritize a true and complete representation of reality over practical applicability. Indigenous knowledge production seeks patterns that can guide the best course of action, taking into account the well-being of both human and non-human communities.

Highlights

Introduction to Vine Deloria Jr's article as a non-western philosophy text.

Discussion on the concept of epistemology and its significance in philosophy.

Distinction between epistemologies of control and epistemologies of attentiveness/respect.

Critique of western epistemologies for constructing knowledge for its own sake.

Ethical conundrums arising from value-neutral and objective claims in western epistemology.

The inadequacy of western science and epistemology according to Vine Deloria Jr.

The limitations of western paradigms in constructing truth and knowledge.

The role of paradigms in setting standards for what is considered true in western science.

Exclusion of emotional experiences and other forms of knowledge from scientific enterprise.

The paradigmatic problem and its impact on the scientific community's approach to problems.

Rejection of interspecies communication and knowledge from dreams and visions by modern science.

Vine Deloria Jr's critique of western science for leaving out significant aspects of reality.

The concept of epistemologies of control and their impact on what is considered true and existent.

Introduction to tribal epistemological traditions and epistemologies of awareness/respect.

Knowledge production aimed at what is responsibly true and beneficial for the community.

Inclusion of irregularities and the recognition of potential incompleteness in indigenous epistemologies.

The map analogy to explain the relationship between knowledge (map) and reality (territory) in different epistemologies.

The main difference between an epistemology of control and an epistemology of attentiveness.

Transcripts

foreign

so now we're going to talk a little bit

about this Vine deloria Jr article

um this is our first real foray in this

class

um or if the order stays the same into

non-western philosophy so this is the

first

um

first text that we're reading that is

without a doubt fully

um not coming from a western perspective

so it's the first chance we have to do

some comparative philosophy some

comparative thinking between the types

of things that we've been working with

so far mostly are or all more or less in

the western Paradigm or the Western

World View and now we have uh some

non-western philosophy in the form of

um indigenous thinking from North

America

um

and I want to begin by making a

distinction

um of epistemology so epistemology you

know it means or it refers to

what can we know how do we know what we

know

um

how do we construct or produce knowledge

uh and what we're looking at here is a

distinction between epistemologies of

control these are the epistemologies of

the West and epistemologies of

attentiveness or respect these uh this

is uh the one way of referring to the

type of epistemology

um that we get in the thought that we're

looking at here

um with the indigenous philosophy so

with epistemologies of control what we

have is a purportedly objective

purportedly value neutral project for

constructing the truth and it's

important to to

um

give some Credence to the word

constructing here because we've

discussed how this sort of

the metaphysical projects of people like

Plato and Descartes make claims about

the world as it really is and we saw

that from

modern late modern Western philosophy

onwards this is no longer really the

case we we no longer believe that we can

really know the world as it really is

um

and so we're constructing models to make

sense of it now that's one way of

looking at it so

Vine deloria and other people coming

from non-western perspectives have

um problems with this

um

one is that we're constructing knowledge

for knowledge's sake and when we

construct knowledge for knowledge's sake

and we say that this is value neutral

and it's objective this gives rise to

ethical conundrums

first of all

where do our ethics come from if our

ethics don't come directly from the

knowledge that we produce how do we then

subsequently I guess insert ethics in

and

one way to put this is that uh a problem

the problem that would arise here is

that our world building is conditioned

by these epistemologies of control in

which the the truth is constructed as

value neutral and within the worlds that

we construct on the basis of these

epistemologies we end up needing to pose

ethical theories

and ethical projects which in some sense

or another

come into conflict with the dominant

epistemology

and the short way of saying why that is

is that things get left out

um

things are on the basis of the model

there are certain things which are more

true or less true or not true at all or

more being or less being or not being at

all not existing at all and so on and so

forth and so we have some limitations of

the western Paradigm that are discussed

by Vine sort of early on in this text

and it's important to note that um

the critique here is not that uh Western

knowledge Western science the

epistemological approach of Western

philosophy in science is wrong I think

Vine is very clear if not here in other

places

that a lot of good things or a lot of

things at the very least whether or not

they're good I suppose is another story

have come from these models and uh

it would be a lie to say that they're

not productive they're very productive

um and contemporary science is a

speaks for itself in that regard

technology and so on and so forth

um

but he says that they're inadequate and

he poses this question it's somewhere

right on the first page he says uh what

does it mean to have knowledge that is

applicable to the world and arrange it

in a systematic manner

um and and this is supposed to you know

especially in the context of

um this knowledge being purportedly

objective in value neutral so Western

science Works in paradigms one Paradigm

Falls another Falls another and

paradigms set standards right they set

the parameters for the types of claims

we can make when we're producing

knowledge

um we set up a system within which all

data or information must fit in order to

be considered true and I think the best

section on um how this is problematic or

why this is problematic for Vine comes

on the PDF you have it's bottom page 67

to page 68. I'm just going to read from

this so you know exactly what I'm

talking about

now middle of the bottom paragraph he

says Western science holds that ideas

Concepts and experience must be clearly

stated

and be capable of replication

in an experimental setting by an

objective Observer

any bit of data or any body of knowledge

that does not meet this standard is

suspect or rejected out of hand

thus most emotional experiences of human

beings are discarded as unsuitable for

scientific Enterprise or are pushed to

the periphery of respectability and

grudgingly given a bit of status

science further limits itself and now

we're here in the paradigmatic problem

the problem of paradigms science further

limits Itself by insisting that all data

Falls within or fall within the reigning

interpretive Paradigm of this time

according to Thomas Kuhn and Thomas [ __ ]

is a really responsible for the way that

we think about science

um

as working paradigmatically working

through and with paradigms according to

Thomas Kuhn a paradigm primarily enables

scientists to classify data

and verify whether or not it falls

within the acceptable mode of

interpretation

one of the things that scientific

Community acquires with the Paradigm

Kuhn explains is a Criterion for

choosing problems that while the

Paradigm is taken for granted can be

assumed to have Solutions

to a great extent these are the only

problems that the community will admit

as scientific or encourage its members

to undertake

other problems including many that had

previously been standard are rejected as

metaphysical as the concern of another

discipline or sometimes as just too

problematic to be worth time

so what we see is the exclusion of

experience of information the

Restriction of knowledge in several

different ways with the quote that I

just read we see that in a new let's say

in a new scientific Paradigm

previous questions that were maybe left

unanswered are no longer considered

proper questions the Paradigm itself

says the parameters of what is a valid

question and what isn't it also shows

that questions can be rejected now

because we've reached a different stage

or the Paradigm says this so that

question is now let's say

um

it's metaphysical it's superstitious in

one way or another so

um and then before that we had the

mention of

emotional experiences uh being excluded

from scientific knowledge another thing

that you know would be in the backdrop

here is uh the idea of interspecies

communication right so the idea that

medicine men could speak with uh

non-human beings or receive messages

from non-human beings whether these be

plants or animals

or other non-human phenomena

that would be rejected by modern science

I assume that that's not difficult for

most of you to imagine

um

other ideas like knowledge coming from

dreams

knowledge coming from Visions these

things would also be rejected they would

they would say that these belong to a

past or more primitive model of

understanding and Vine delore is is in a

sense quite rightly critical of this

right um our paradigms in Western

science leave too much out and they

limit us which is why we say here

that um the Western uh epistemological

paradigm is inadequate and not false and

so

um in the west we construct knowledge in

such a way as to exclude a great deal of

experience and information

um we refer to the epistemologies Behind

These paradigms as epistemologies of

control

because they control

um what is and isn't true what does and

doesn't count as knowledge

um and uh

in an ontological sense we would have

what does and doesn't exist so uh

or varying stratas of what exists so if

you remember the Audrey Lord text we

have a sort of social hierarchy that she

sets up and this is directly related to

epistemologies of control and what I

said earlier is that within

epistemologies of control we have these

conflicts that have to come to challenge

them so a lot of Western history

um

is made up of these sorts of ethical

conflicts and I'm going to pause this

really quick to get my notes together

before we move on to uh another type of

epistemological standpoint

okay

um so with the tribal epistemological

Traditions

um we have what could be referred to as

epistemologies of awareness or respect

and what this means is that the

production of knowledge is aimed at

something which is uh responsibly true

knowledge production is aimed at what is

responsibly true what is good for me or

for you and the community here so this

isn't knowledge for its own sake all

knowledge is produced with a particular

purpose and this purpose here is

figuring out what is the best course of

action to take with regards to the

broader Community within which you exist

and that could be construed in uh

whatever way you would like for these

purposes a community here it's important

to note is both human and non-human so

Community here includes uh non-human

beings to do what's best for the whole

Community all of the things which stand

in relation to one another and so the

production of knowledge seeks functional

patterns

patterns that work in both explanatory

power so they could explain my

experiences in some sense and in letting

us know what the best course of action

is

Native American epistemologies

um

instead of excluding things they make

room

um for and embrace

irregularities which is to say that um

these epistemologies uh the way that

knowledge is produced it's produced in

such a way is to recognize that the

system of patterns that they're using at

any given point may be incomplete may be

subject to change and so a good analogy

here is the map analogy

um

uh the relationship between map and

territory map is our knowledge and

territory is uh what there really is and

the claim here would be that in

epistemologies of control in the western

Paradigm there's a claim that the map

tells us exactly what the territory

looks like

um whereas in the Indigenous view the

epistemologies of attentiveness and

awareness the map doesn't give a true

image of the territory but rather it

Maps the territory in terms of what the

best course of action is in this moment

so the territory is real

but what's important is not that our map

corresponds

um in some true way to it in fact this

idea of a of a true correspondence isn't

at stake at all here but rather the map

we build is based on the territory and

it's based on the territory in such a

way that it guides us for the best

course of action in this moment so the

map is the map we need to deal with the

problems that we have now

um

and so that is the main difference I

guess between an epistemology of control

and epistemology of attentiveness

one seeks to control what is and isn't

true what doesn't doesn't exist and so

on and so forth and that's that's the

relationship it has to the real world

the other one the relationship that it

has to the real world is to figure out

um how we can make it best with the real

world as it was and not just for

ourselves but for a broader network of

of relations that we exist in and that

we depend on and that other things

depend on us and so on and so forth

um

so that's the epistemological

distinction between the Western approach

and in this case a non-western approach

which we're taking from the indigenous

philosophies of North America