When reading “Decolonizing Methodologies” by Tuhiwai Smith (2012), it provides a great starting point in acknowledging the contrast between so called western science and Indigenous ways of knowing. One of her critiques of western science is the “position that applies views about how the natural world can be examined and understood to the social world of human beings and human societies” (p. 44). This view is shared by Appiah (2019) as he states in the 1800’s “scholars began to think of human beings as part of nature in a way that meant we could be classified, like other animals and plants, by genus and species” (p. 112). My interpretation is of a researcher observing the behavior of an animal species and then taking a similar approach to people of a particular identity in society. Consequently, this observed behavior can then be applied to those who all share this identity. So, what is my concern? Well, despite raising awareness of decolonization efforts, such generalizations and classifications appear to persist. To illustrate, depending on one’s interpretation, references to western science or western society can group a whole assortment of people together into one category whether based on geographic location, or on race. For instance, in critiquing this classification, Appiah (2016) states how this “lumps a whole lot of extremely different societies together, while delicately carving around Australians and New Zealanders and white South Africans, so that “western” here can look simply like a euphemism for white.” And this point could be levelled at references to Indigenous people too as according to Amnesty International (n.d.) “there are 476 million Indigenous people around the world and spread across more than 90 countries.” So, to classify a population spread around the world on the experiences of one Indigenous author would sound very colonial, wouldn’t it? Now of course I’m not leveling this point at Tuwihai Smith, she is most aware of “Indigenous peoples as an international group” (p. 20), it is more the risk I see in practitioners oversimplifying the classification of large groups of people. Specifically, this idea that a one size fits all approach works when engaging with anyone of a certain group, which of course would not work. So, while I found Tuhiwai Smith (2012) educational and thought provoking, how does one define complex systems of knowing without colonial forms of classification?
References
Appiah, K. A. (November 9, 2016). There is no such thing as western civilisation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/09/western-civilisation-appiah-reith-lecture
Appiah, A. (2019). The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity. Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Bloomsbury Academic & Professional. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/royalroads-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1426837
I’ve also been contemplating the question you pose: “How does one define complex systems of knowing without colonial forms of classification?”
I’ve recently come across the writings of an Indigenous scholar of mixed heritage, Tyson Yunkaporta, who has lived and studied at the intersection of the settler and the Indigenous in Australia. In his book, Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World, he is critical of science and classification systems and counters this with the power of story, the power of narrative.
A key message I’m taking away from his book is that the counter to this scientific method of classification is through story. That “ we have to compare our story to the stories of others to come to greater understanding about our reality” .. that his Indigenous ancestors extended their knowledge through sand talk, and that false narratives are exposed through this process of comparison of story. This brought more understanding to me in terms of the difference between Indigenous risk assessments (descriptive, qualitative) and Western (quantitative) approaches.
I found his writing particularly entertaining in the contemplation of how one day everyone in Australia might be able to claim some Indigenous heritage through inter-racial marriages and then the whole classification of us vs them falls apart. Classifications are no more permanent than lines in the sand. As someone in a mixed-race marriage, I appreciated his contemplations on mixed race heritage. He uses examples of how scientific classifications are continually changing, using pertinent examples.
His story is resonating with me so I thought you might be interested in checking out his work. His ideas are much bigger than what I could hope to reflect on here.