VineDeloria1
Summary
TLDRThis 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
- π The class is exploring non-Western philosophy through Vine Deloria Jr.'s article, marking a shift from the Western paradigm.
- π 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.
- ποΈ Western epistemology is characterized by an objective, value-neutral approach to constructing knowledge, which is seen as problematic by non-Western perspectives.
- π€ 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.
- π« Epistemologies of control are critiqued for excluding emotional experiences and interspecies communication, which are integral to indigenous epistemologies.
- π± Indigenous epistemologies focus on knowledge production that is responsible and beneficial to the community, including both human and non-human beings.
- πΊοΈ 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.
- π Indigenous knowledge systems are dynamic, allowing for irregularities and changes, recognizing that current patterns may be incomplete.
- π 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.
- π The importance of paradigms in Western science is highlighted, as they set the standards for what is considered true and what questions are deemedζδ»·εΌη 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
π 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.
π¬ 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.
π± 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.
π 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Epistemology
π‘Western Paradigm
π‘Indigenous Philosophy
π‘Epistemologies of Control
π‘Epistemologies of Attentiveness/Respect
π‘Paradigm
π‘Value Neutral
π‘Interspecies Communication
π‘Knowledge Construction
π‘Ethical Conundrums
π‘Functional Patterns
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 [Β __Β ]
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
Browse More Related Video
VineDeloria2
Elders' Wisdom Series: Between Two Worlds
Indigenous Communities Are on the Front Lines of Climate Change | Hot Mess π
Aliran-Aliran Filsafat Barat Modern: Rasionalisme, Empirisme, Kritisisme, dan Positivisme
Vine Deloria on Native Americans (1972)
Eps 145 | RAHASIA PEMBANGUNAN PIRAMID DAN BOROBUDUR
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)