Second call for abstracts for the session below at this year’s IAG meeting. Please do get in touch if you have any questions. Otherwise, looking forward to seeing everyone in Brisbane.
Institute of Australian Geographers annual conference, Brisbane, 11-14 July 2017
Session title: The politics of translation: knowledge, language, and dialogue across worlds
Session theme: Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge and Rights
Organizers: Julian S. Yates (Monash University) and Andrea Nightingale (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)
We propose to explore how language functions as a spatially variable representation of knowledge and existence, and how a politics of translation mediates across worlds. We invite participants to engage with the spatial and temporal dynamics of a politics of translation across knowledge, language, and ontology. How can the embedded meanings carried in languages such as Quechua be translated into Germanic or Roman languages (Nuckolls, 2010)? How might environmental governance approaches articulate a relational more-than-human ethic (such as that of Māori iwi tribes with the Hurunui River) (Thomas, 2015)? How can the historical knowledge of Indigenous ecologies-in-practice inform policy and governance frameworks without being instrumentalised? How is linguistic translation tied to situated knowledges and ontologies? We are interested in contributions that address these or related questions about how governance approaches are affected by a spatially-conditioned politics of translation.
Other topics of interest may include, but are not limited to:
- What are the political consequences of publishing and devising policies largely in Roman and Germanic languages (often English)?
- What is lost and gained in the process of translation, and what is the uneven politics behind this process?
- How do place and space matter to the production and translation of knowledge?
- What processes exist for pluralising knowledge and its translation, rather than locking “alternative” knowledges into Western scientific paradigms?
- How might we articulate different ontologies, and what might a “dialogues among ontologies” (Yates, Harris, & Wilson, Forthcoming) entail?
- Why are some onto-epistemic formations deemed legible and others not; why must we make marginalized "onto-epistemic formations” (de la Cadena, 2015) legible to dominant or hegemonic approaches? I.e. why are the languages of alternative worldviews subordinate?
de la Cadena, M. (2015). Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nuckolls, J. B. (2010). Lessons From a Quechua Strongwoman: Ideophony, Dialogue, and Perspective. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Thomas, A. C. (2015). Indigenous more-than-humanisms: relational ethics with the Hurunui River in Aotearoa New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(8), 974-990. doi:10.1080/14649365.2015.1042399
Yates, J. S., Harris, L., & Wilson, N. J. (Forthcoming). Multiple ontologies of water: politics, conflict, and implications for governance. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space.