Mastery

This article addresses the conditions that are necessary for non-Indigenous people to learn from Indigenous people, more specifically from women and feminists. As non-Indigenous scholars, we first explore the challenges of epistemic dialogue through the example of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). From there, through the concept of mastery, we examine the social and ontological conditions under which settler subjectivities develop. As demonstrated by Julietta Singh and Val Plumwood, the logic of mastery-which has legitimated the oppression and exploitation of Indigenous peoples-has been reproduced in academia, leaving almost no room for Indigenous knowledge and epis-temes. In the same vein, Sámi scholar Rauna Kuokkanen reclaims and suggests the logic of the gift as a means to render academia more hospitable to Indigenous peoples and epistemes. In our view, reclaim(ing) as a concept-practice is a promising way to disrupt colonial, racist, and sexist power relations. Thus, we in turn propose to reclaim vulnerability as defined by Judith Butler in order to deconstruct masterful settler subjectivities and reconstruct relational ones instead. As theorized by Erinn Gilson, we propose epistemic vulnerability to imagine the conditions of our learning from Indigenous peoples and philosophies. (Im)Possible Decolonial Dialogue In the current context, structured largely by the rhetoric of identity politics, it appears difficult to move beyond two conflicting positions when seeking to address the question of decolonization and dialogue. Indeed, it seems we are faced with only two options: assimilation or separation. We believe this context is the result of a complex dynamic of power relations where minorities have faced disheartening experiences after trusting the good faith of dominant groups and trying to engage in dialogue. In Montreal, we have seen great examples of how this dynamic manifests itself through the cultural appropriation controversy sparked by Slāv and Kanata, two shows from prominent Canadian artist Robert Lepage (see O'Toole 2018; Drimonis 2018a; 2018b). Without getting into the details of the events, suffice it to say that legitimate claims were voiced

The general aim of this chapter is to distinguish between two ways of aligning oneself in relation to unpredictability. This distinction allows us to nuance the significance of modern stances on mastery and control for how we understand the disenchantment tale.  One way represents the (“official“) stance of disenchanted moderns (religious or not), while the other appreciates the potentially empowering effects of surrendering to enchantment without thereby necessarily denying the risks involved. We will argue the following: 1) reducing life to engaging only in predictable affairs and opting for reliance over trust is impoverishing and ignores the need to attend to concerns regarding the precariousness of individuals’ capacity to trust; 2) one can engage in enchantment without denying that it may be risky; and 3) as long as enchantment is retrospectively translated into calculation (trust is retrospectively translated into reliance), the negative effects of unpredictable relational dynamics seemingly remain the effects of “letting go” (as opposed to the more complex effects of what happened afterwards, that is, the unpredictable but productive effects of compositions). We conclude by noting that another form of mastery is conceivable. It is not a mastery of “letting go”, but a mastery of engaging well with those things one co-composes, having let go (of certainty).

Keywords: control, trust, reliance, composition, guilt, blame