, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp 721–736 | Cite as

Transgressions of the man on the moon: climate change, Indigenous expertise, and the posthumanist ethics of place and space



Indigenous peoples have been enrolled in climate change research for decades, participating in data-gathering, as writing collaborators, and serving as the symbolic “canary in the coal mine” for public outreach and policy-making. They have indeed experienced some of the most rapid environmental changes, but rather than emphasize their vulnerabilities, we argue their expertise is narrowly understood in formulating knowledge; the research on climate change has a limited understanding of what it might mean to be inter- or trans-disciplinary because research is formulated exclusively through the assumptions of Enlightenment thought, without sufficiently engaging non-Western subjectivities. Qualitative social sciences and “Indigenous methodologies” can be used to better achieve trans-disciplinarity; in this article we re-tell a story told by Native elders from tribes across Alaska about the “man on the moon.” While literally referring to the US moon landing, elders invoke this story when addressing climate change: it teaches the ethics of the human-nature relationship, developed from a “more-than-human” (or “posthuman”) philosophy. Our data comes from participant-observation and oral history; we draw upon poststructuralist theory, and frame our analysis through the literatures of critical geography, science studies, and American Indian studies. To ensure that Indigenous peoples are not used as props in Western policy agendas, researchers must engage with non-Enlightenment intellectual traditions. More than being a source of data or a symbol of humanity’s ruin, Indigenous wisdom can productively inform sustainable policy agendas to adapt to climate change. What can be learned, for example, is a more-than-human ethics of place and space.


Indigenous knowledges Qualitative methods Posthumanism Arctic 


  1. Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3), 413–439.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, L. H. (1885). An expedition to the copper, Tanana, and Koyukuk Rivers in 1885. Alaska: Alaska Northwest Books.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., & Nutall, M. (Eds.). (2004). Cultivating arctic landscapes: Knowing and managing animals in the circumpolar north. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  4. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge: Arctic Council, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Armitage, D., et al. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995–1104.Google Scholar
  6. Attla, C. (1989). Bakk’aatūgh Ts’uūniy: Stories We Live By, Traditional Koyukon Athabascan Stories. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Google Scholar
  7. Attla, C. (1990). K’etetaalkkaanee: The one who paddled among the people and animals, the story of an ancient traveler. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Google Scholar
  8. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates, P. (2007). Inuit and scientific philosophies about planning, prediction, and uncertainty. Arctic Anthropology, 44(2), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Berkes, F., & Berkes, M. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures, 41(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun, B. (2004a). Editorial: Querying posthumanisms. Geoforum, 35(3), 269–273.Google Scholar
  15. Braun, B. (2004b). Modalities of posthumanism. Environment and Planning A, 36(8), 1352–1355.Google Scholar
  16. Braun, B., & Whatmore, S. (2010). Political matter: Technoscience, democracy, and public life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  17. Bravo, M., & Sörlin, S. (Eds.). (2002). Narrating the Arctic: a cultural history of Nordic scientific practice. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Brook, R. K., & McLachlan, S. M. (2005). On using expert-based science to “test” local ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society, 10(2), r3.
  19. Castree, N. (2003). Environmental issues: Relational ontologies and hybrid politics. Progress in Human Geography, 27(2), 203–211.Google Scholar
  20. Chapin, F. S., Trainor, S. F., Huntington, O. H., Lovecraft, A., Zavaleta, E., Natcher, D., et al. (2008). Increasing wildfire in Alaska’s boreal forest: Pathways to potential solutions of a wicked problem. BioScience, 58(6), 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cochran, P., et al. (2013). Indigenous Frameworks for Observing and Responding to Climate Change. Climatic Change, 117(4). (online).Google Scholar
  22. Coombes, B., et al. (2011). The challenges of and from Indigenous geographies. In V. DelCasino (Ed.), A companion to social geography (pp. 472–489). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cruikshank, J. (1990). Life lived like a story: Life stories of three yukon native elders by Julie Cruikshank in Collaboration with Angela Sidney, Kitty Smith, and Annie Ned. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cruikshank, J. (2005). Do glaciers listen? Local knowledge, colonial encounters, and social imagination. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dall, W. H. (1870). Alaska and its resources. Boston: Lee and Shepard.Google Scholar
  26. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1998). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Deloria, V., Jr, & Wildcat, D. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.Google Scholar
  28. Farish, M. (2006). Frontier Engineering: From the globe to the body in the Cold War Arctic. The Canadian Geographer, 50(2), 177–196.Google Scholar
  29. Figueroa, R., & Harding, S. (Eds.). (2003). Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Galison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gilchrist, G., & Mallory, M. L. (2007). Comparing expert-based science with local ecological knowledge: what are we afraid of? Ecology and Society, 12(1), r1.
  32. Gilchrist, H. G., Mallory M. L., & Merkel, F. (2005). Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 20.
  33. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Henry, C. (1982). Henry Yūgh Noholnigee: The stories Chief Henry Told, Bakk’oyoodaałdleeda’ (His arrow does not miss), transcribed and edited by Eliza Jones Neełtiloyineełno. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, UAF.Google Scholar
  36. Hensel, C. (1996). Telling our selves: Ethnicity and discourse in Southwestern Alaska. New York: University of Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34.
  38. Huntington, H. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huntington, H. P., Trainor, S. F., Natcher, D. C., Huntington, O. H., DeWilde, L., & Chapin, F. S. (2006). The significance of context in community-based research: understanding discussions about wildfire in Huslia, Alaska. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 40.
  40. Huntington, O. H., & Watson, A. (2012). Interdisciplinarity, native resilience, and how the riddles can teach wildlife law in an era of rapid climate change. Wicazo Sa Review, 27(2), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge, and description. UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, J., Cant, G., Howitt, R., & Peters, E. (2007). Guest editorial: Creating anti-colonial geographies: Embracing Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and rights. Geographical Research, 45(2), 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Lee, L. (2010). Haida Marine planning: First nations as a partner in marine conservation. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 12.
  44. Keskitalo, E. C. (2004). Negotiating the Arctic: The construction of an international region. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kirsch, S., & Mitchell, D. (1998). Earth moving as the “Measure of Man:” Edward Teller, geographical engineering, and the matter of progress. Social Text, 54, 16(1), 101–134.Google Scholar
  46. Kollin, S. (2001). Nature’s state: Imagining Alaska as the last frontier. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  48. Krupnik, I., & Jolly, D. (2002). The earth is faster now: Indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change. Washington, DC: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States/Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Laurie, N., Andolina, R., & Radcliffe, S. (2005). Ethnodevelopment: Social movements, creating experts, and professionalising Indigenous knowledge in ecuador. Antipode, 37(3), 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Légaré, A. (2002). Nunavut: The construction of a regional collective identity in the Canadian Arctic. Wicazo Sa Review Fall, 17(2), 65–89.Google Scholar
  52. Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting science in its place; Geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Louis, R. (2007). Can you hear us now? Voices from the Margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Research, 45(2), 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martello, M. L. (2008). Arctic Indigenous Peoples as representations and representatives of climate change. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McNeeley, S., & Schultzski, M. (2011). Anatomy of a closing window: Vulnerability to changing seasonality in interior Alaska. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 464–473.Google Scholar
  56. Miraglia, R. (1998). Traditional ecological knowledge handbook: A training manual and reference guide for designing, conducting and participating in research projects using traditional ecological knowledge. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.Google Scholar
  57. Morrow, P., & Schneider, W. (Eds.). (1995). When our words return: Writing, hearing, and remembering oral traditions of Alaska and the Yukon. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Nabokov, P. (2002). A forest of time: American Indian ways of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the “Integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1–2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  60. Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  61. Natcher, D., et al. (2007). Notions of time and sentience: Methodological considerations for Arctic climate change research. Arctic Anthropology, 44(2), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2012). Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic.Office of Polar Programs, Accessed October 2012.
  63. Nelson, R. (1983). Make prayers to the raven: A koyukon view of the northern forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Panelli, R. (2008). Social geographies: Encounters with Indigenous and more-than-White/Anglo geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 32(6), 801–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Panelli, R. (2010). More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and Other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinkerton, E., Heaslip, R., Silver, J. J., & Furman, K. (2008). Finding “Space” for comanagement of forests within the neoliberal paradigm: Rights, strategies, and tools for asserting a local agenda. Human Ecology, 36(3), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Powell, R. (2007a). “The rigours of an arctic experiment”: The precarious authority of field practices in the Canadian High Arctic, 1958–1970. Environment and Planning A, 39(8), 1794–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Powell, R. (2007b). Geographies of science: Histories, localities, practices, and futures. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rodon, T. (1998). Co-management and self-determination in nunavut. Polar Geography, 22(2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schneider, W. (2002). So they understand: Cultural issues in oral history. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sillitoe, P., & Marzano, M. (2009). Future of Indigenous knowledge research in development. Futures, 41(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  72. Thomas, H. W. (2010). Finding common ground: Birds, biodiversity, and the implications for collaboration with traditional landowners in New Guinea. Environmental Management, 45(1), 82–92.Google Scholar
  73. Tole, L. (2010). Reforms from the ground up: A review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environmental Management, 45(6), 1312–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York: Zed Books. Google Scholar
  75. Turnbull, D. (2009). Futures for Indigenous knowledges. Futures, 41, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. UN General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295. Accessed April 29, 2013.
  77. Watson, A. (2013). Misunderstanding the “Nature” of co-management. Environmental Management, 52(5), 1085–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watson, A., & Huntington, O. H. (2008). They’re Here, I Can Feel them: The epistemic spaces of Indigenous and western knowledges. Social and Cultural Geography, 9(3), 257–281.Google Scholar
  79. Watson, A., & Till, K. (2009). Ethnography and participant-observation. In D. DeLyser (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research in geography (pp. 121–137). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Weatherhead, E., Gearheard, S., & Barry R. G. (2010). Changes in weather persistence: insight from Inuit knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(3): 523–528.Google Scholar
  81. Whatmore, S. (2001). Hybrid geographies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Whatmore, S. (2004). Humanism’s excess: Some thoughts on the ‘posthuman/ist’ agenda. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1360–1363.Google Scholar
  83. Whatmore, S. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wohling, M. (2009). The Problem of Scale in Indigenous Knowledge: A Perspective From Northern Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 1.
  85. Wright, J. K. (1953). The open polar sea. Geographical Review, 43, 338–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, et al. (Eds.), Risk, environment, modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife and ParksTanana Chiefs ConferenceFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations