Indigeneity and ‘nature’: Michael T. Schmitt, Scott D. Neufeld, Stephanie A. Fryberg, Glenn Adams, Jodi L. Viljoen, Lyana Patrick, Clifford Gordon Atleo, Sheri Fabian, ‘”Indigenous” Nature Connection? A Response to Kurth, Narvaez, Kohn, and Bae (2020)’, Ecopsychology, 2021 | settler colonial studies blog

Indigeneity and ‘nature’: Michael T. Schmitt, Scott D. Neufeld, Stephanie A. Fryberg, Glenn Adams, Jodi L. Viljoen, Lyana Patrick, Clifford Gordon Atleo, Sheri Fabian, ‘”Indigenous” Nature Connection? A Response to Kurth, Narvaez, Kohn, and Bae (2020)’, Ecopsychology, 2021

02Mar21

Excerpt: We also strongly believe that scholarly applications of Indigenous ways of knowing must proceed with care, or they risk reinforcing a Colonial/Western mindset and doing harm to Indigenous Peoples. This harm can occur even when the scholars’ own intentions are to honor Indigenous ways of knowing. An example that prompted our commentary is an article in the aforementioned special issue, entitled ‘‘Indigenous Nature Connection: A 3-Week Intervention Increased Ecological Attachment’’ (Kurth, Narvaez, Kohn, & Bae, 2020). We appreciate the intention of the authors to demonstrate the value of ways of connecting to nature that are more reflective of Indigenous cultures than Western industrialized culture. Their article presents Indigenous ways of connecting to nature in a positive light, as something that humanity in general can learn from, and that might be necessary for global survival. However, the article also represents Indigenous Peoples and traditions in problematic ways that deviate from best practice for research about Indigenous Peoples. The concerns we raise are emblematic of a larger social problem that we
contend has broader implications for how non-Indigenous researchers engage with and represent Indigenous Peoples in their work.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Closed