Introduction In last week’s opening post, I briefly set out some of the reasons for the rise of new materialism in healthcare research and some of its potential flaws. One of its detractors is Jeffrey Nealon, and in his book Fates of the Performative
Thank you for your incredibly insightful and enjoyable posts, and scholarship more broadly. I am indebted to you and your colleagues for helping me find the otherwise within rehab theory and practice. I particularly enjoyed this post and its opener. However, I was surprised not to see more regarding the critique that new materialism is an appropriation of Indigenous ontologies. I realize that this may be coming in future posts - if so, great! If not, I find this paper and its references useful. Thank you again for your work!
Rosiek, J. L., Snyder, J., & Pratt, S. L. (2020). The new materialisms and Indigenous theories of non-human agency: Making the case for respectful anti-colonial engagement. Qualitative inquiry, 26(3-4), 331-346.
I think you're right to question the way that some approaches either appropriate or lean heavily into indigenous and pre-modern cosmologies and metaphysics. NM is a strong case, but certainly not the exception here. I think there is some genuine and heartfelt honouring going on in the NM community, and I think that's built around a shared sense of their mutual transcendentalism.
To my reading, many (perhaps all?) indigenous beliefs share a fundamental belief in the connection of human life to another 'realm' beyond the present - often in the form of an invisible spirit world that cannot ever be fully known or apprehended (in life, at least).
Many forms of NM emphasise a secular form of this through their respect for the enchanting power of all things.
I think it can appear sometimes like NM is coopting indigenous cosmologies, while stripping them of their spiritual particularity.
(We've seen the same thing done with other pre-modern, non-western practices before: yoga, meditation, and acupuncture, for instance, have been secularised for a less spiritual audience and time.)
I suppose the question is whether NM directly coopts and appropriates indigenous cosmologies, or whether they are just approaches running in parallel.
For my part, I'm unconvinced by *any* transcendental approach to materiality, including those found in indigenous, pre-modern, or non-Western approaches. And all of my work is now concentrating on trying to find ways of thinking and working that see the world as sufficient in itself without needing to default or defer to another reality beyond that which is immanent. How does this sit with your thoughts and position?
Thank you, Dave, for your fulsome and thoughtful response! I will preface my response (and retroactively my previous one) by saying that I am a White person who is a late comer to these and related ideas, and am continually learning and refining my understanding of them. Therefore, with caution, I will put into words my current understanding here, with hopes for further guidance from those whose lived and scholarly experiences are more firmly rooted in such knowledge systems.
Briefly, my understanding of at least some Indigenous ontologies is that they do not necessarily operate by way of a transcendental approach. Rather, they are grounded spiritualities, quite literally, whereby the land is the spring from which everything/being/becoming emerges. From that spring, everything/being/becoming is a relation, is in relation, and is sacred. In this way, I perceive at least some Indigenous spiritualities as intensely imminent. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
I can't profess to know how most indigenous cosmologies work but I have a close association with te ao Māori and know that whenua (land) and atua (gods/the spirit realm) are at the heart of everything.
I think you're right to say that land is the spring from which everything emerges for many non-Western belief systems, but I'm not aware of any indigenous belief systems that operate without also referencing gods or a realm 'beyond' the material earth.
Most indigenous creation stories, for instance, talk of mythical gods, and these are not simply cast aside in an act akin to the European Enlightenment, but play an ongoing role in everyday life.
So I also think you're right to suggest that many are based on a grounded spirituality (and that's also an interesting phrase from a Deleuzian context, because so much of Deleuze's writings are about the process of 'ungrounding'), and emphasising the importance of spirituality. But for me these are the very hallmarks of transcendentalism and so can't, at the same time, be called immanent. Perhaps intimate, but not immanent.
Thank you for your incredibly insightful and enjoyable posts, and scholarship more broadly. I am indebted to you and your colleagues for helping me find the otherwise within rehab theory and practice. I particularly enjoyed this post and its opener. However, I was surprised not to see more regarding the critique that new materialism is an appropriation of Indigenous ontologies. I realize that this may be coming in future posts - if so, great! If not, I find this paper and its references useful. Thank you again for your work!
Rosiek, J. L., Snyder, J., & Pratt, S. L. (2020). The new materialisms and Indigenous theories of non-human agency: Making the case for respectful anti-colonial engagement. Qualitative inquiry, 26(3-4), 331-346.
Thanks Sarah, this is a great comment.
I think you're right to question the way that some approaches either appropriate or lean heavily into indigenous and pre-modern cosmologies and metaphysics. NM is a strong case, but certainly not the exception here. I think there is some genuine and heartfelt honouring going on in the NM community, and I think that's built around a shared sense of their mutual transcendentalism.
To my reading, many (perhaps all?) indigenous beliefs share a fundamental belief in the connection of human life to another 'realm' beyond the present - often in the form of an invisible spirit world that cannot ever be fully known or apprehended (in life, at least).
Many forms of NM emphasise a secular form of this through their respect for the enchanting power of all things.
I think it can appear sometimes like NM is coopting indigenous cosmologies, while stripping them of their spiritual particularity.
(We've seen the same thing done with other pre-modern, non-western practices before: yoga, meditation, and acupuncture, for instance, have been secularised for a less spiritual audience and time.)
I suppose the question is whether NM directly coopts and appropriates indigenous cosmologies, or whether they are just approaches running in parallel.
For my part, I'm unconvinced by *any* transcendental approach to materiality, including those found in indigenous, pre-modern, or non-Western approaches. And all of my work is now concentrating on trying to find ways of thinking and working that see the world as sufficient in itself without needing to default or defer to another reality beyond that which is immanent. How does this sit with your thoughts and position?
Thank you, Dave, for your fulsome and thoughtful response! I will preface my response (and retroactively my previous one) by saying that I am a White person who is a late comer to these and related ideas, and am continually learning and refining my understanding of them. Therefore, with caution, I will put into words my current understanding here, with hopes for further guidance from those whose lived and scholarly experiences are more firmly rooted in such knowledge systems.
Briefly, my understanding of at least some Indigenous ontologies is that they do not necessarily operate by way of a transcendental approach. Rather, they are grounded spiritualities, quite literally, whereby the land is the spring from which everything/being/becoming emerges. From that spring, everything/being/becoming is a relation, is in relation, and is sacred. In this way, I perceive at least some Indigenous spiritualities as intensely imminent. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
HI Sarah,
I can't profess to know how most indigenous cosmologies work but I have a close association with te ao Māori and know that whenua (land) and atua (gods/the spirit realm) are at the heart of everything.
I think you're right to say that land is the spring from which everything emerges for many non-Western belief systems, but I'm not aware of any indigenous belief systems that operate without also referencing gods or a realm 'beyond' the material earth.
Most indigenous creation stories, for instance, talk of mythical gods, and these are not simply cast aside in an act akin to the European Enlightenment, but play an ongoing role in everyday life.
So I also think you're right to suggest that many are based on a grounded spirituality (and that's also an interesting phrase from a Deleuzian context, because so much of Deleuze's writings are about the process of 'ungrounding'), and emphasising the importance of spirituality. But for me these are the very hallmarks of transcendentalism and so can't, at the same time, be called immanent. Perhaps intimate, but not immanent.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
Dave
rad
I look forward to part 3!