Symbols and Meaning
Inseparable Ways of Knowing
Despite the complications of asserting cultural ownership, Aboriginal peoples may find it necessary to protect their many forms of knowledge from misappropriation and abuse (Shand, 2000). What constitutes such abuse is not a matter of opinion, but of Aboriginal customary law, as we shall see below.
Battiste and Youngblood Henderson point out that a disconnect in worldviews often causes non-Indigenous people to overlook the powerful meaning of exacting purpose:
"In contrast to the colonial tradition, most Indigenous scholars choose to view every way of life from two different but complementary perspectives: first as a manifestation of human knowledge, heritage, and consciousness, and second as a mode of ecological order" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 35).
This difference springs from the inseparability of knowledge (a "thing") and knowing (an "action"):
" . . . Indigenous knowledge is so much a part of the clan, band, or community, or even the individual, that it cannot be separated from the bearer to be codified into a definition" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 36).
Tied inextricably to its social and ecological contexts, Indigenous knowledge is imparted for specific uses, at specific times, and to specific people (Young-Ing, 2006, p. 32). As a result, "misuse of knowledge can be catastrophic, not only for the individual abuser, but for the people, the territory, and (potentially) the world" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 67).
Bits and Bytes
Western societies tend to categorize knowledge according to subject area, which is a view incompatible with that of most Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000). Taking this into consideration, Indigenous knowledge is particularly vulnerable in digital contexts, where information can easily be broken down into atomistic fragments and rebuilt into something entirely different. Combined with "the destabilizing influence of the copy", which makes information instantly and profusely available, the Internet seems to "threaten existing lines of social control" (Brown, 2003, p. 92).
Despite the complications of asserting cultural ownership, Aboriginal peoples may find it necessary to protect their many forms of knowledge from misappropriation and abuse (Shand, 2000). What constitutes such abuse is not a matter of opinion, but of Aboriginal customary law, as we shall see below.
Battiste and Youngblood Henderson point out that a disconnect in worldviews often causes non-Indigenous people to overlook the powerful meaning of exacting purpose:
"In contrast to the colonial tradition, most Indigenous scholars choose to view every way of life from two different but complementary perspectives: first as a manifestation of human knowledge, heritage, and consciousness, and second as a mode of ecological order" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 35).
This difference springs from the inseparability of knowledge (a "thing") and knowing (an "action"):
" . . . Indigenous knowledge is so much a part of the clan, band, or community, or even the individual, that it cannot be separated from the bearer to be codified into a definition" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 36).
Tied inextricably to its social and ecological contexts, Indigenous knowledge is imparted for specific uses, at specific times, and to specific people (Young-Ing, 2006, p. 32). As a result, "misuse of knowledge can be catastrophic, not only for the individual abuser, but for the people, the territory, and (potentially) the world" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 67).
Bits and Bytes
Western societies tend to categorize knowledge according to subject area, which is a view incompatible with that of most Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000). Taking this into consideration, Indigenous knowledge is particularly vulnerable in digital contexts, where information can easily be broken down into atomistic fragments and rebuilt into something entirely different. Combined with "the destabilizing influence of the copy", which makes information instantly and profusely available, the Internet seems to "threaten existing lines of social control" (Brown, 2003, p. 92).