The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

How to Practice Posthumanism in Environmental Learning: Experienceswith North American and South Asian Indigenous Communities

Ranjan Datta

52

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Abstract
This paper explores how to practice posthumanism in everyday life. This idea has increasingly
come under scrutiny by posthumanist theorists, who are addressing fundamental ontologicaland epistemological questions in regard to defining an essential ‘human,' as well as the elastic
boundary work between the human and nonhuman subject. Posthumanism is essential for
considering today’s environmental problems and environmental science education. This paper
then has three goals: developing posthumanist ontology, exploring methodology, andinvestigating whether environmental science education and practices can help students,
teachers, and community in learning, teaching, and practicing processes. I demonstrate thecomplementary contributions from two Indigenous communities’ field studies that can be madewhen a researcher moves beyond an exclusive focus on western interests and considers
participants as co-researchers. This paper concludes with a discussion of implications for thisfield.
Keywords: human; posthumanism; ontology; methodology; practices; Indigenous
	
  

	
  

53

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Introduction
It is a fact that posthumanism has gained a strong foothold within human geography andenvironmental sustainability (Castree, Nash, Badmington, Braun, Murdoch, & Whatmore,
2004; Castree & Nash, 2006; Murdoch, 2004; Simonsen, 2013). At the same time, what is often
neglected in analysis of practice is the suggestion of how to practice posthumanism (Whatmore,
2013a). This paper aims to explore how a posthumanist ontology and methodology can be
developed. The focus is given not only on philosophical discussion, but also on connections
between theory and practice.
Humanism as a philosophical approach has long been problematic in environmental andscience education. It claims that the figure of ‘human’ naturally stands at the center of things;
is entirely distinct from animals, machines, and other nonhuman entities; is absolutely known
and knowledgeable to himself, is the origin of meaning and history, and shares with all otherhuman beings a universal essence (Whatmore, 2013a). Whatmore (2013b) further argued thatit “is a mistake to posit humanity (culture) as somehow existing apart from the world of things(nature); rather, the human comes into being with this world” (p. 6). Haraway (2004) also
criticized humanist projected knowledge processes and asked how, when, and why did we
become human? Haraway (2004) strongly criticized artificial projected knowledge and argued
that scientific projected knowledge has created Homo sapiens as pioneers, opportunists, andsurvivors. Likewise, Latour (2001) also rejected the assumption that human actors have a
special status; instead, the activities of things and humans should be taken into account in thesame way when examining social reality. Thus, Latour (2004) and Canadian Indigenous
scholar Little-bear (2009) suggest that we need to redefine all social actors, both human andnon-human from everyday practices.	
  The term everyday indicates a way of thinking about theplaces in which we live; maintain relationships, and the spaces we move through on a daily
basis (Herbert, 2000).
Posthumanism, Whatmore (2013a) and Haraway (2004) identified, is a crux in understanding
relationships between people and the material world. The term material explains ourrelationships with our physical, mental, and spiritual environment (Castree, 1995). Practices inposthumanism have emerged in feminist and poststructural thought and include many different
relational approaches. In a recent and cogent reflection, Castree and Nash (2006, p. 501)
identified that posthumanist practices can be seen as disturbances on humanity, for example,
new biotechnology, or as an idealized definition of the posthuman subject as separated andliberated from human. Fukuyama (2003) also asserts that new biotechnology threatens both thevery definition of a human being and the existing social fabric. Posthumanist practice can be
explained either as more-than-human thinking and doing or as a fracturing of the human subject(Latour, 2004; Simonsen, 2012).
My intention, however, is not to promote posthumanism as the largest term or name newtheoretical directions or rename established themes. This paper’s main target is to explore how
to practice posthumanism in everyday practices. For this, I first discuss how to develop
posthumanist ontology. Second, I explore methodology. I then point to how to practice
posthumanism in everyday practice through two empirical experiences with Indigenous
communities (Datta, Khyang, Khyang, Kheyang, Khyang, & Chapola, 2014; Ginn, 2008).
Finally, I discuss my everyday environmental learning experience with two field studies: The
Laitu Indigenous community in Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh and the Dene First Nation
community, Fund Du Lac, Saskatchewan, Canada. I learned from both studies how practicebased learning can have diverse impacts in our research and education such as (a) it can disturb
the western notion of only human-oriented learning; (b) it can claim to reframe research and
	
  

54

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

education to focus on how we are always already related to animals, plants, and machines, andthings within everyday practice; and (c) it can enable us to begin exploring new posthumanist
directions in research, policy development, curriculum design, and pedagogy practices.
Posthumanist Ontology
Envisioning the future of both posthumanism and everyday practices, it is clear to thoseworking in political ecology and others in human sciences that posthumanist ontologicalunderstandings of the world are the key to a process of practice that values and enacts
environmental education. Ontology corresponds to multiple relational realities; “there is no one
definite reality but rather different sets of relationships” (Wilson, 2008, p.7). Drawing from
Whatmore (2013a), Haraway (2004), Latour (2004), and others (e.g. Escobar, 2008; Little
Bear, 2009), I proceed by articulating a basis for engaging “practices,” not as static, but assimultaneously shaping and being shaped by more-than-human relationships.
According to Whatmore (2013b) a posthumanist or more-than-human theoretical approach issignificant for understanding everyday relationships (i.e., both human and nonhuman). She
suggests, “Living/ness is a relational condition that reconnects the intimate fabric ofcorporeality, including that of human becoming, to the seemingly indifferent stuff of the worldthat makes living possible” (p. 4). Whatmore suggests that posthumanist ontology is able tochallenge human prioritized ontology. Whatmore argues that humanist ontology (i.e., ways ofknowing relationships) is constructed and structured. Whatmore (2013a, 2006) states that
posthumanist ontology centers on questions such as how the world makes itself known, thepowers and forces that make our everyday life, political structures, economic arrangements,and so on. Her idea of posthumanist ontology helps us to understand what human andnonhuman relationships are in practice.
The posthumanist ontology deeply relies on the concept of heterogeneity (Murdoch, 2006).
The term heterogeneity denotes the condition of being composed of different elements; the usesof the term are neither uniform nor are the differences or similarities of the related terms
obvious. It is rather a complex assembly of relationships (Merkel & Weiffen, 2012). The
poststructural geographer Jon Murdoch (2006) posits that heterogeneity in environment (i.e.,
geography or environmental sustainability) helps us to understand the complexities of humanand nature relationships where nature and society are outcomes rather than causes. In
heterogeneity both humans and nonhumans construct each other. He further explains thatheterogeneity is significant in practice as it answers a number of questions such as: What is left
out in humanism? Why is it important to know the diversity? How the social life of humans
did construct us as being?
Post-humanistic ontology is interconnected thinking; it is neither singular nor a different
discipline (Simonsen, 2013). Posthumanism in practice considers everything as mixed, forexample, environmental management is relational and includes spiritual practices among
human, animals, plants, birds, land, forest (Ingold, 2011; Little-bear, 2009). Whatmore’s(2013a) also points out that posthumanist ontology considers relationships a significant concept
which is able to open our mind, bodies, diversities, and possibilities. Relationships suggest asignificant move from human family (i.e., singular western thought) to the existential family(i.e., diverse but interconnected thoughts) from human rights to existential rights. She further
explains that relationships are considered a political conception which can connect us witheverything, and shapes others as us. In developing posthumanist ontology, Whatmore andothers (Agamben, 2004; Derrida, 2003) suggested three kinds of views.

	
  

55

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

The first view challenges human historical conditions through biotechnology and genetic
science (Fukuyama, 2002). Fukuyama (2002) and Whatmore (2013a) suggest thatbiotechnology created a kind of crisis on humanity; a crisis of ‘human’ thinking. Fukuyama(2002) gave examples from genetic science engineering, which can modify us and our known
ideas. Haraway (2004) similarly explains through posthumanist ideas (e.g., genetic science)that we can reshape ourselves from our everyday practices. Thus, Whatmore (2013a) thinksthat posthumanism is fundamental to environmental history in challenging the western idea of
human.
Second, deconstructing the figure of ‘human’ (western sense) (Agamben, 2004; Derrida, 2002).
Agamben (2004) and Derrida (2002) argued that the concept of ‘human’ needs deconstruction.
Both Agamben and Derrida asked why and how the ‘human’ idea deploys through the politics
of power. For example Escobar’s works (2011, 2010) explained how the ‘human’ idea became
prioritized in modern humanist politics over the traditional every practice.
Third, (re)making the human/body/ecology through choreography concerned with relational
practices or networks (Whatmore, 2013b). According to Haraway (1991) choreography means
remaking ideas from a material sense, not a linguistic or figurative sense. In this theoreticalthought, the boundaries (e.g., body/human/ecology) are highly fluid. The boundaries are
explained as constructed in historical processes. The main focus is on diverse and alternative
ways of understanding the concept of human as more-than-human.
In sum, posthumanist ontology can be seen as various relationships that connect us in complex
networks (Latour, 2004). Mudoch (2006), Latour (2004), and Whatmore (2013 a & b) advocate
for alternative ontology that rejects western dualisms such as fact and value, human andnonhuman, along with nature and culture, and rather looks to emphasize relations between
entities. Thus, like Murdoch (2006), I also see posthumanist ontology in practical life as how“the mingling of various entities in complex assemblages, networks and/or systems, might now
comprise geography’s main intellectual concern” (p. 196). Therefore, in posthumanist ontology
there is a need to put the idea of relational politics into our everyday practice
Methodology in Posthumanism
Posthumanist methodology relies on Haraway’s (2004) and Whatmore’s (2013a, 2009)
concepts of interdisciplinary and knowledge controversies. For explaining these two concepts
in a posthumanist methodological framework, Whatmore (2013a) identifies three significant
concepts: amplifying inter-corporeality, mapping into knowledge, and redistributing expertise.
Such concepts answer a number of methodological questions: how do we study the humanenvironment and why do we study the human environment differently with posthumanism.
Both of these concepts (interdisciplinary and knowledge controversies), as Haraway andWhatmore explain, are able to breakdown the boundaries among human and non-humans.
The first aspect is amplifying which means interconnectedness or fluidity in posthumanism
methodology (Whatmore, 2013a). Whatmore defines interconnectedness as different ways ofthinking, as all bodies (not only human bodies rather all kinds of bodies within earth), as awhole body. According to her, our body is not only controlled by our cognition, but also our
cognition also can be controlled by our body. For example, if our finger touches anything, it
has effects on our entire body and/or our cognition. So the idea is that our finger has the ability
to control our cognition, instead of our brain having complete control of our body. New bodily
approaches need to evolve from amplifying in posthumanist methodology. Haraway (2004)
	
  

56

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

also makes a similar point, that our knowledge interferes by a set of factors, and each setting
has relational influences on the others. Similar arguments are made by Indigenous scholars
Smith (2005) and Wilson (2013) that all action is relational. Such relational actions help us tounderstand how we come to know, and how we can achieve our goals.
The second aspect is mapping into knowledge. Whatmore’s (2013a) mapping is the idea thatthrough training we can control our bodies and capacities to move in the world and to sense
the world and how other kinds influence us. Drawing from Latour (2004) and Haraway (2008)
Whatmore (2013a) explains that mapping into knowledge is an idea that we need to learn andpractice to understand these kinds of effects on us. Mapping into knowledge is the ability to
influence the way the world wants to speak to us.
The third aspect is redistributing expertise. According to Whatmore (2013a) our knowledge
needs to redistribute in collaborative ways, for example working with science and collaboration
between science and public policies by the source of knowledge that we want to build
ourselves. Redistributing expertise is a deconstruction of our material understanding of theways of understanding, the way in which we relate, and the ways in which we act with ourmaterial world (Haraway, 2004).
The three points previously discussed are helpful for understandings the concepts ofinterdisciplinary and knowledge controversies (Whatmore, 2013a; 2009). The interdisciplinary
notion is significant posthumanism methodology (Haraway, 2004). Whatmore (2013a)
explains the concept of interdisciplinary through the term of ‘disciplinary in-between’. Insteadof multidisciplinary (i.e., collection of disciplines), the disciplinary in-between term lead us
toward disciplinary coherence. The disciplinary in-between has many similarities withinterdisciplinary understandings and practices. Whatmore (2013a; 2013b) pointed to acollaborative methodological framework and gave examples that both (human geography andenvironmental sustainability) have shifted from disciplinary to collaborative disciplinary inbetween (such as: science and technology studies (STS), performance arts, and animal studies).
Thus, the interdisciplinary concept is a significant concept for posthumanism methodology inbridging science, technology, natural and social sciences as whole.
In addition to the interdisciplinary concept as a significant turning point in post-humanmethodology, the knowledge controversies are also a vital concept to create political
ideological urgencies (Whatmore, 2013a; 2009). Whatmore (2009) explains three different
political implications for redistributing expertise including: first, knowledge controversy aims
for enabling interested citizens to trace the ‘partisanship’ of scientific knowledge claims; thesecond is accounting for the political force of techno scientific controversies by mapping theintense entanglements of scientific knowledge claims with legal, moral, economic and social
concerns on the web; and the third is meshing the borders of animal/machine, social/material,
flash/information, cultural/natural.
In sum, Whatmore and Haraway’s contributions are helpful in order to develop a posthumanist
methodological framework. Such a methodological framework is able to question humanists
along the lines of: What are the underlying assumptions of post-human practice? To whom are
we giving voice and agency, and at whose expense? And, which forms of science knowledge
and practice are privileged and which forms are relegated to the margins? Therefore, I think a
posthumanist methodological framework provides not only new representations, but also
includes new forms of practices and other ways of living that result in humans and non-humans
together.

	
  

57

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Posthumanism in Practice
Example A: Experience with Laitu Khyeng Indigenous Community, Chittagong Hill
Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. Exploring an Indigenous perspective on meanings of land,
management, and sustainability were at the heart of this research, we tried to demonstrate how
research can be used to involve empowered participants that challenges different agencies’(i.e., government and non-governmental) anti-community land and forest management
policies, and also to explore the linkage between traditional cultivation practices andsustainability. As such, our research engaged participants of community Elders, knowledgeholders, leaders, and youths in research processes such as conducting research, data analyzing,and identifying research themes that encouraged critical thinking, taking responsibility, andbuilding community-based sustainability. This was a collaborative and participatory research
journey that included an academic non-Indigenous researcher, Indigenous participant
community co-researchers, Elders, leaders, and knowledge-holders who collaboratively owned
research results (Datta et. al., 2015).
Research participants were engaged throughout our research by collectively identifying
research questions and collecting and analyzing research data. As part of our posthumanist
methodological framework we acquired consent during each research method process such as:
traditional collective story sharing circle, individual story sharing, photo voice, and participant
observation. We shared our community co-researcher translated transcripts with eachparticipant and requested them to add and/or change anything our participants wanted.
Throughout our research we followed Laitu Indigenous research protocols.
This posthumanist research focus was concerned with building a space in which participants
felt enabled to share their stories, as well as explore possibilities and actions in sustainability.
As a result, throughout the field study, the participants steered their traditional cultivation
culture and took an active stand against different agencies’ anti-community land management
policies, in order to achieve their own sustainability goals.
We chose to use a posthumanist methodological framework of relational participatory action
research (PAR) methodology in order to include and engage participants in meaningful
participations. As one of the Elder participants shared:
This PAR is different from other research approaches as this PAR not only created aknowledge sharing space for writing our own oppressions and suffering stories, but also
put our voice, our needs, and our abilities at its center (Datta et al, 2015).
To support posthumanist methodology as a relational PAR we drew a number of methods andtechniques to engage participants in conducting field research, analyzing, and identifying
themes that were important to them.
Drawing from posthumanist ontology, one of the main concerns was to explore meanings ofland from community perspectives. According to the community’s perceptions their land isinterconnected. For example, both Elders and knowledge-holders participants described thatthe meanings of land and water are interconnected with both human and non-human. In
addition, both are considered to be available for everyone. For example the Elder Kosomo Pure
Khyeng explained:
Land and water are everything for us, including: our cultivated land, uncultivated land,
food production, water, birds, animals, hills, the sky, winds, insects, plants, trees andfeelings as well as spirituality, sounds, father-mother, brother and sister, and many

	
  

58

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

others. Land and water are for both visible and invisible things such as: visible things
are human, animals, birds, crops, lands, insects, mountains, rocks, moon, sun, water,and so on; and invisible things are our feelings, winds, smells, sounds, spirituality, andso on.
It is revealed by our participants’ stories that the community does not see a difference between
human and nonhuman. These two concepts (i.e., human and nonhuman) are indistinguishable.
For instance, Elder Okko Khyeng explicitly stated that “We do not differentiate ourselves,animals, plants, water, and land. For us, we are collective.”
Both Elders and knowledge-holders describe the meanings of land and water as relational
practices. For example Nyojy U Khyang gives an example in his commonplace book, stating,“When we climb up to a big tree for food, we pray and ask permission from the plant by saying,‘Do you allow me to take your creation (fruit) for us?’” He wrote that, “The community
believes that if they ask permission to the trees, indicating the community may not overuse
their resources, the trees may continue blessing the community.”
In relational practice, the community acknowledges (mainly Elders and knowledge-holders
during first sharing circle) the plants and trees by praying, “We will not hurt you and will nottake more than we need,” explains Nyojy U Khyang.
In contrast, it is clear from our participants’ discussions that the current government and nongovernment agencies’ definitions and meanings of land differ from the community’sunderstandings and management practice. Participants explained that the outsider, nonIndigenous agencies’ land and forest management policies (i.e., mainly projects) have focusedon projected knowledge and economic profit instead of traditional relational practices that havenever been intended to benefit the community. According to Elder Basa Khyeng, the different
agencies’ anti-community management policies (i.e., prioritized profit for outsiders) rendered
the community essentially unsustainable.
It became obvious during the study that participants challenged the current government’s profit
oriented idea of land and management. The knowledge-holders Ching Cho Khyeng expressedthat different agencies’ profit oriented definitions of land and management have created serious
challenges for the community’s traditional management practices. According to him, outsiders’definitions promote suffering, exploitation, and displacement. The community’s everyday
relational and spiritual practices of Mother-land, forestland, and water bodies (i.e., lakes fromhills’ waterfalls) were transformed as a source of profit in the different agencies’ (government
and non-government) projects.
In order to understand traditional meanings of land and water, it is evident that participants—
particularly Elders and knowledge-holders—position their understanding of land and water intheir everyday relational knowledge and practice. Like posthumanist ontology, thecommunity’s attitude towards land and water is also based on relational practices, and they are
obligated to care for, honor, and learn relational practices in their everyday practices.
Example B: Experience with Dene First Nation Community, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan,
Canada. Posthumanist learning from traditional cultivation culture and spirituality stories havethe power, perhaps, to recreate posthumanism in science if we, as researchers and educators,
are willing to consider a relational theoretical framework and place-based approach (Datta etal., 2014; Escobar, 2011, 2008, Massey, 2004; Willson, 2008). This informs the approach we
took with a group of students in an attempt to lead them to a state or center of their traditional
knowledge whereby they would challenges current hierarchical science and environmental
	
  

59

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

education. The Dene First Nation community is situated on the east side of Lake Athabasca(Treaty 8). According to Fond-du-Lac School Principal, Fond-du-Lac is one of the oldest
settlements (colonized) in Canada. I was part of the science and environment scienceambassador program in spring 2014 from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan,
Canada. One of the Elders argued that the classroom settings (i.e., particular ways of knowing)teaching science does not include proper connections with their traditional practices andlearning.
Like posthumanist ontology, the Dene First Nation community does not consider human as aseparate entity from their environmental entities (e.g., plants, animals, sun, moon, forest). For
example, one of the nine students expressed that “We are not human [according to scientificsense], we are First Nation”. I invited him to elaborate on his comments. He further explained,“We are everything, and our science education is also about everything, such as: our Caribou,
our birds and our lakes, the plants and the sun along with the moon, our stones, and our land”(see figure 1).

Figure 1. Relational meanings of human beings. One of the grade nine students (from DeneFirst Nation community) drew this art work to explain their relational and scientific education.
A similar story was explained by an Elder, that everything in the environment has purpose andscientific meanings. The Elder commented about more than human views of environmental
science in their practices, “if our traditional stories can bring successes for present and future,
why should we not consider our traditional stories as scientific knowledge. Our scientificeducation is defined by our relational practices, care for our environment, and natural laws.”
He further explained that science “comes from land and goes back to the land.” He also
believes, “if we are able to learn science from our relational and spiritual practices, we neither
need to create artificial science or our science will get lost.” He further comments that
relationships with both human and non-human are scientific ceremonies; each action hasscientific meaning and purpose to him and to the community.
Posthumanist ontology in practice is considered as relational responsibilities in the community(see figure 2). For example, one of the Knowledge-holders explained that every relationship isconsidered a significant responsibility to the community, and it begins with me. Every

	
  

60

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016individual is responsible for maintaining their relationships with their animals, birds, plants,
and fish. He used the word me to explain that responsibility starts with me; everything isdependent on my responsibilities. He said our relational responsibilities have scientificmeanings that “we will respect, honor, and care for everything, for instance: our land, animals,
plants, fish, lakes, and so on.” One of the Elders considers this practice as human and nonhuman’s relational responsibilities, and through these responsibilities Dene communities areconnected with everything. For example, the animals (such as the bear and caribou) havespiritual and relational meanings to the Dene First Nation. The animals have deterring powerin hunting, producing and distributing food, and predicting weather. The wing refers to birds(e.g., Eagle, Crow). Each bird has a different purpose to the community, such as the Eagle isadmired as a living symbol of power, freedom, and transcendence. The plants are used formany purposes (e.g., medicine, healing). The fish are used to signify water and the flow of life.
Thus, one Knowledge-holder thinks their traditional knowledge has scientific value to them.
Their practice-based science teaches them how they need to think together, see together, andact together. He said, “my learned science is from my everyday practices, including stories,
arts, dance, and songs. Through our practices, we have been protecting our environment fromgeneration to generation.” Therefore, he said, “science education is to me collective practices,which make us responsible in developing strong eyes and strong ears, to survive no matter
where I go.” Therefore, Indigenous scholar Shawn Wilson (2008) argued that practice-basedlearning makes us accountable towards our relationships.

Figure 2. Relational responsibilities figure. Dene First Nation Knowledge-holder drew thisfigure during his collaborate talk in Fond du Lac school. This figure illustrates relational
responsibilities in environmental science education from everyday practices.
Including posthumanism in modern science education is not easy; however, it is necessary if
we (as a researchers, educators, and community members) wish to uphold traditional
community-based science knowledge and everyday practices in our education systems. In
relation to this argument I have asked a number of students their views on current
environmental science study and their traditional everyday practices (i.e., hunting, fishing,clothing, and relations with ecology). Most students in grade eight and nine answered that they
were more interested to learn different things from their practices. For example, the Elderexplained that the traditional practices have given direction on how to think, how to look, andhow to act when it came to conquering difficulties (see figure 2).
Grade eight and nine students explained that there were many differences between Indigenousand scientific ways of practicing and understanding science. For instance, one of grade nine
students expressed that “we cannot share our science knowledge [classroom science

	
  

61

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

educations] with our parents or community members.” He explained further that “classroom
science education doesn’t have similarities with our traditional knowledge and practices. In
most cases, we need to memorize. If we are not able to memorize and we will not able to write
during our exam.” On the same point, a grade eight student expressed that “our science classes
are not fun.” One of the science teachers also expressed that she had been facing difficultyacquiring science students in her class. She gave an example that “grade 6-12 classes havemore than 100 students and she had less than 10 students. We also discovered similardifficulties during science ambassador experiments (such as DNA, optics, magnet, fossil
findings, and other experiments) though I did not agree with their teaching techniques (i.e.,
particular ways of knowing, settings, and designs). One of the students also explained why she
did not in particular like the ways of comprehending during environmental science education.
For example she said, “We are not opposing science education. In fact, we need scienceeducation; however, we do not like memorizing science.”
It was a learning experience for me that many modern techno scientific (i.e., humanism) study
curriculums do not consider traditional knowledge as a sustainable learning structure (Littlebear, 2009, 2000). For instance, during my science and environmental science experience I
wanted to obtain students in a cultural camp. Cultural camp is an annual traditional knowledge
sharing and activity camp. It is organized by the First Nation community particularly forcommunity children. My co-science ambassador wanted to caution that “I should not change
our classroom science and environmental teaching techniques for a less significant teaching
technique [cultural camp].” He further argued that, “according to scientific study traditional
knowledge does not carry significant scientific value, at least not according to my experienceduring my four years of core science study.”
Although I was seriously shocked by my co-science ambassador’s comment, I knew that
individual personal opinions were not the issue, rather his own scientific education (Haraway,2004). Moreover, one of the science teachers and my co-science ambassador commented that,“science has been created for particular skills and if students do not have particular skills they
will not be able to understand.” Yet, one of the students commented that, “during scienceclasses I feel bored since a large portion of class is having to memorize. Memorizing is not fun
to me.”
Interestingly, student learning and views about science have changed greatly since inviting
community knowledge-holders to our science class. We requested knowledge-holders to sharepractice-based science knowledge when following students during outdoor science activities
and a school principal helped me in contacting community knowledge-holders for science classtalks. From grade 6-10, classes of almost 50-60 students participated in knowledge-holder talks
and outdoor activities. Students were divided into six groups and took several pictures withschool provided iPads. During the outdoor activities, students took pictures of rocks, plants,
trees, the lake and fish. They wrote many relational stories such as poems and storytelling, andcreated art to explain their relationships with their ecology and scientific understandings.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore posthumanism in everyday practices. The two empiricalexamples presented above demonstrate ways in which research can engage and cultivate
communities. Indeed, it seems clear that practices in posthumanism are central (Whatmore,
2013a). Both of the studies’ results revealed that posthumanist knowledge is able to protect
local people, their knowledge, and interest (Escobar, 2008; Berkes, 2012, 2003). Further, wehave seen that post-humanist practices consider relational and spiritual knowledge as

	
  

62

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

significant sources of science. On the contrary, both studies’ findings indicate that westernhuman (i.e., profit) oriented definitions of science education and management have perhaps
been too simplistic, too projected, and too far from local practice (Escobar, 2008; Haraway,2004). Environmental science education and environmental resource management, both inWestern science, are regarded as a concern of elites who are insensitive to local Indigenous
people and their livelihood and needs (Bekers, 2003). Thus, Haraway (2004) and Franklin(2008) and others elsewhere argue that the more-than-human practices in management andenvironmental science education remains weak.
One important finding of the study in example A suggests that the current profit-oriented
environmental resource management practices are artificial and projected. Experience from
Laitu Indigenous community, CHT, Bangladesh shows that the expulsion of Indigenous
communities’ knowledge from the current government and non-government environmental
management practice may result in their (local people) displacement and poverty by powerfuloutside economic groups. In current outsiders’ profit oriented management policies, small
Indigenous farmers, fishers, and forest users may not fit well with outsider definitions ofmanagement (Anderson, 2003, 2001).
The concept of posthumanist ontology has been one of the most powerful means of reexamining and reconfiguring everyday practices in a way that values diversity and honors
interconnectedness among multiple actors. In the Laitu Khyeng context, posthumanist
understandings of environment (i.e., land, water, and management) are significant for thecommunity’s land rights and identity. Such a correlation seeks to advance the discussion of
Whatmore’s concept of posthumanism as a means of understanding the transformative anddynamic interplay of cultural land practice. For example, as Elder Kosomo Prue Khyengexplained, “For us, both land and water are our parents, culture, and our identity.”
I also learned from the Laitu Khyeng Indigenous community that posthumanist meanings ofenvironment are connected to their strength (Escobar, 2008). For example, knowledge-holder
Ching Cho Khyeng characterized traditional land and water practices as sustainable
management practice.” The knowledge-holder further stated that “our natural crisis [which is
not imposed] is also our strength as our crisis also teaches us how to face challenging
situations.” Consequently, notions of more than human approaches are conveyed discursively
through community operations in order to establish this strength.
In Example B, Dene First Nation Community, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan, Canada, land-basedlearning was able to break the boundaries between humans and nonhumans. For example, agrade nine student’s comments on human science broke the boundaries between human andnonhuman. This student explained that current science education in school “only benefits tohumans and denies community’s plants, animals, and other non-human rights. Such limitedscience education creates danger for community’s traditional education of environment.” A
similar point was raised by Heimans (2012) that, “the bodies, human and other, which areproduced through everyday practice… Practice is always both discursive and material; reimpose the messiness of bodies into accounts of practice” (p. 318). Similarly Latour (2004)
argued that ‘‘without the nonhuman, the humans would not last for a minute” (p. 91). He further
explained the importance of practice:
What is human, what is material and how they are related are what comes to--matter?
Here then we can call on the material to become accountable…The argument here is that“objects as things” cannot and do not speak for themselves. They can be most articulately

	
  

63

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

heard when placed within the purview of practice. Practice can articulate objects; makethem articulate (p. 318).
Similarly Elders of this study explained that western scientific knowledge has not only shiftedfrom reality, but is also limited by its specific dimensions. This study’s findings have
similarities with Little-bears (2009) arguments that science is about new knowledge and reality(i.e., practices). The aims of scientific knowledge, as Einstein (cited in Little-bear, 2009)
explains, is to seek something new or unknown from reality. In this view, environmental
science education and knowledge definitions are not from outside of reality or limited byparticular settings. Similarly Chalmers (2004) says science is derived from reality. “Science is
to be based on what we can see, hear, and touch rather than on personal opinions [structured
knowledge] or speculative imaginings” (p. 1). Dene First Nation students and their Elders
suggest that science is always engaged with spiritual and relational practices, but the current
western notion of science in education is from reality. Thus, Dene First Nation and other studies(Franklin, 2008; Heimlich & Andoin, 2008) suggest that both (researcher and research) needto diversify practice oriented learning and sharing processes on the basis of people who speak
for both human and non-human and build constituencies for sustainability.
In this study, Dene First Nation students and Elders emphasized collaborative (human andnonhuman) practice oriented science education. To explain collaborative science education
they focus on a community’s relational and spiritual practices. Both Elders and Knowledgeholders explained that the language of spirituality and relationships were the window of reality.
According to them, spiritual and relational practices can produce bridges among scientificnotions and can create new knowledge. Such practice-based knowledge, according to DeneFirst Nation students is easy to learn, teach, and appreciate; class room oriented scienceeducation is much more difficult to teach and practice.
In summary, both study examples investigated how Indigenous environmental practice isneeded as forms of knowledge, policies, and rituals in order to promote environmental
sustainability. Both studies make a significant contribution to the existing literature in general,
as well as contribute to the future of environment-related educational practices. The studies’
findings reveal that “science education and practices are spiritual and relational celebrations.”
Their stewardship, learning, teaching, and practicing ethics may not fit well with westernscience education and management practice. Elders of this study explained that the practicebased complex learning systems are not only able to create collaborative learning and teachingprocesses, but are also able to break down the artificial boundaries among human/non-human,nature/culture, theory/practice, and body/mind.
In addition to the studies’ findings, there were some limitations in both studies. First, in bothstudies the academic researcher’s identity was non-Indigenous; however, in both studies
Indigenous participants were considered as co-researchers and Indigenous people and theirneeds were a first priority. Second, both studies were conducted in non-Native language (i.e.,
English); but Indigenous participants were engaged throughout the research processes such ascollecting data and analysis processes. Finally, as a posthumanist researcher I would like tomake two arguments through both of the study experiences. First, it is useful to consider the
local community and their needs. Their interests are a main and significant source of researchknowledge and practice. Second, we need to shift our vision and develop empathy and respect(i.e., practice-oriented posthumanist ontology and methodology) for the needs, practices andvoices of our participants.

	
  

64

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to both communities (i.e., the Laitu Khyeng Indigenous community, Chittagong
Hill Tracts, Bangladesh and the Dene First Nation Community, Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan,
Canada) Elders, Knowledge-holders, leaders, youths, students, and school teachers for sharing
their stories, cooperation, hospitality, and friendships. I appreciate Dr. Marcia McKenzie forher great supervision, continuous support, and inspiration. For helpful comments andsuggestion, I thank Dr. Andrew Bieler. Thanks also to Dr. Sandra Bonny for the Science
Ambassador’s opportunity and support.

	
  

65

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

References
Adnan, S. (2004). Migration land alienation and ethnic conflict: Causes of poverty in the
Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Research & Advisory
Services.
Agamben, G. (2004). The open: Man and animal. (K. Attel, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Anderson, K. (2001). The nature of race. In N. Castree and B. Braun (Eds.), Social nature (64–83). Oxford: Blackwell.
Anderson, K. (2003). White natures: Sydney's Royal Agricultural Society Show in posthumanist perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28, 422–
441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2003.00102.x
Berkes, F. (2003). Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from small-scale
fisheries. Environments 31, 5-19.
Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-based management: Evolution or revolution? Fishand Fisheries, 13, 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00452.x
Castree, N., Nash, C., Badmington, N., Braun, B., Murdoch, J., & Whatmore, S. (2004).
Mapping posthumanism: An exchange. Environment and Planning A 36 (8), 13411363. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37127
Castree, N., & Nash, C. (2006). Editorial: Posthuman geographies. Social & Cultural
Geography, 7, 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360600825620
Chalmers, A. F. (2004). What is this thing called science? NY: Open University Press.
Datta, R. (2015). A relational theoretical framework and meanings of land, nature, andsustainability for research with Indigenous communities. Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(1),102-114
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.818957
Datta, R., Khyang. U. N., Khyang. H. K. P., Kheyang. H. A. P., Khyang. M. C., & Chapola, J.
(2014). Participatory action research and researcher’s responsibilities: An experience
with Indigenous community. International Journal of Social Research Methodology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.927492
Derrida, J. (2002). The animal that therefore I am (more to follow). Critical Inquiry, 28, 369–
418. https://doi.org/10.1086/449046
Derrida, J. (2003). And say the animal responded? In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Zoontologies: The
question of the animal, (121-146). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, movements, life, redes. London: Duke
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389439
Escobar, A. (2010). Latin America at a crossroads. Cultural Studies, 24(1),1-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380903424208
Escobar, A. (2011). Sustainability: Design for the pluriverse. Development, 54(2), 137-140.
https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.28
Fukuyama, F. (2002) Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Picador.
66

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Haraway, D. (2004). The Haraway reader. New York & London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ of thesocial science. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1),107-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/000713100358453
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. (C. Porter
Trans.). London: Harvard University Press.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews collide. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous
voice and vision (77-85). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Little Bear, L. (2009, May 9). Native science and western science: Possibilities for a powerfulcollaboration.
Retrievedon
January
05,
2015
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycQtQZ9y3lc
Massey, D. (2004). Geographies of responsibility. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human
Geography, 86(B), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00150.x
Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structural geography. London: Sage.
Simonsen, K. (2013). In quest of a new humanism: Embodiment, experience andphenomenology as critical geography. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1),10-26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512467573
Smith, L. T. (2006). Choosing the margins: The role of research in indigenous struggles forsocial justice. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and theconservative challenge (151-174). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Stengers, I. (2010) Including nonhumans in political theory: Opening Pandora’s box? In B.
Braun & S. Whatmore (Eds.), Political Matter (3-34). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. London: Sage.
Whatmore, S. (2006). Materialist returns: Practising culture geography in and for a more-thanhuman world. Cultural geographies, 13, 600-609.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474006cgj377oa
Whatmore, S. (2008). Materialist returns: Practising cultural geography in and for a morethan-human world. In, Johnson, N.C. (Ed.), Culture and society: Critical essays inhuman geography (481-490). Aldershot, UK and Burlington, USA: Ashgate.
Whatmore, S. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: environmental science, democracy
and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587-599.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339841
Whatmore, S. (2013a Jan 15). Practicing more-than-Human Geographies: Thinking with/through materials. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVxfHV4Vl6Y
Whatmore, S. (2013b). Earthly powers and affective environments: An ontological politics offlood risk. Theory, Culture & Society, 30, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413480949
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg, MB:
Fernwood.
Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

67