Keywords

Introduction

The emergence of creativity as a master discourse holds numerous implications for those who have much to benefit, those who have much to lose, and those who will continue to neither benefit nor lose, namely Aboriginal peoples. These master discourses are not new but are core to imperialism and colonisation, serving as mechanisms of domination, exclusion and erasure (Tuhiwai Smith 1999). Such discourses have historical patterns in the invasion, colonisation and control of Aboriginal lands and lives and are made manifest in economic policy, research, social policy and education. It is the intention of this response to outline how this emergence of creativity as a discourse, whilst new as a project of colonialism, is not new in its aims and outcomes for Aboriginal peoples. As a discourse, it can either perpetuate existing paradigms and knowledge regimes, or it can create spaces for conceptual, physical, economic, political, educational and social transformation. These transformative spaces are therefore not emergent but transitional, and seek to facilitate the participation of Aboriginal peoples, not by necessity or conformity or regulated freedom, but through negotiated engagement.

Colonialism by Any Other Name (or Project) Is Still Colonialism

Colonialism is domination through expansion and its subsequent projects of invasion, conquest, extermination, exploitation and subjugation (Moreton-Robinson 2001; Tuhiwai Smith 1999). These are far from new experiences for Aboriginal, First Nations, Indigenous peoples throughout the world. Colonialism is amongst the first forms of globalisation achieved through the use of technologies, informed by knowledge regarded as creative for its time. This knowledge and its technologies are derived from the same ontology that elevated and separated ‘man’ from ‘nature’ and ‘human’ from ‘humanity’. These historical contingencies show the entrenched, self-serving and self-perpetuating obsessions inherent in all forms of colonialism and how these persist across space and time. For example, where present debates and dialogues turn to creativity and the creative subject regarding knowledge, in a previous debate it was innovations regarding ecological development, sustainable biodiversity and Aboriginal knowledge (Hill and Smyth 1999).

In the decade of 1990–2000, the awareness of the depletion of natural resources and the preservation of pristine environments saw the emergence of the discourse of biodiversity, through somewhat contradictory projects of ecological management and sustainable development. This protection of the economy and preservation of the ecology was imagined through a reconceptualisation of the problem of natural resource management wherein governments and nation states declared commitment to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Thus, Aboriginal knowledge systems were identified as an untapped and under-utilised repository of knowledge to provide potential solutions to the world’s environmental problems (Posey and Dutfield 1996). The argument was that to protect and preserve the former, it was necessary to protect and preserve the latter. This necessitated a shift in the thinking about research, intellectual property rights, cultural rights and freedoms (Davis 2005). After centuries of erasing and silencing Aboriginal people and exploiting their lands, Aboriginal knowledges were seen as a means by which to solve environmental problems of some nations, and perhaps of the world. Until this time, value was only given to artefacts of Aboriginal knowledges such as dance, technology and particularly visual art, being viewed as an economic resource for non-Aboriginal commercial and tourism ventures, further adding to Aboriginal exploitation (Chalmers 2007).

Hence Aboriginal epistemology was not valued in its own right, but only for solving issues caused by non-Aboriginal consumption and abuse of land, waterways and other natural resources, otherwise called economic development (Escobar 1996; Smith 2000). What appeared then to be a shift in the discourse of development turned out to be the reconversion of nature as biodiversity, still controllable and consumable. It was at this precarious juncture, Aboriginal knowledges risked further exploitation, subjugation or erasure. Aboriginal people risked, yet again, the separation from, distortion and commodification of their worlds for the benefit of coloniser nation states, and again with no real economic, political or social gain. This became evident in the dichotomous relationship of power determined by Western knowledge systems towards Aboriginal knowledge systems in which the former dominated and maintained control of the numerous debates and discussions.

The discord between Aboriginal and Eurocentric worldviews is dramatic. It is a conflict between natural and artificial contexts. Aboriginal worldviews are not reductionistic. They always stress similarities rather then differences … The worldview is a unified vision rather than an individual idea.

(Youngblood Henderson 2002, pp. 261–262)

In some debates ontology was erased as though knowledge systems are value free, culture free, and objective. In all debates, Aboriginal knowledge systems were scrutinised, essentialised, locked in time and place and over-simplified to the self-serving and self-perpetuating nature of these discourses. The recognition of Aboriginal knowledges as a means to solve non-Aboriginal environmental problems turned out to be a project of capitalism (Escobar 1996; Peet and Watts 1996) because, in order to protect Aboriginal knowledges, these had to be recorded, codified and appraised.

The production of knowledge, new knowledge and transformed ‘old’ knowledge, ideas about nature of knowledge and the validity of specific forms of knowledge, became as much commodities of colonial exploitation as other natural resources

(Tuhiwai Smith 1999, p. 59).

Aboriginal knowledge is a way of life derived from an ontology that has sustained Aboriginal peoples for eons. Our Ways of Knowing (Martin 2008) are more than information or facts and are taught and learned in certain contexts, in certain ways. They are purposeful only to the extent to which they can be used. For instance, watching or observing is not a passive activity but the strength is in knowing what to observe and when to apply the knowledge gained from such activity. Our Ways of Knowing are embedded in our worldview and are an equal part, not artefact. In this system, not one person knows all, but people have and share sets of knowledges for their particular roles. This has personal, totemic and ancestral components that signify gender, life stage and role responsibilities and rites. There are various types of knowledges, which have different levels that have to be operational for the group to be functional. Our Ways of Knowing are consolidated through people exercising their connections to country. Every time we fish, gather, camp, talk about or walk on country we engage our Ways of Knowing which shape for us our identities and particularly relationships to country, people and other Entities. They are socially refined and affirmed, giving definition and meaning to our world. Without ‘knowing’ we are unable to ‘be’ (Martin 2008).

The following terms of reference provide further clarification to this discussion:

  • our worldviews, our knowledges and our realities are distinctive and vital to our existence and survival;

  • Aboriginal social mores are essential processes by which we live, learn and situate ourselves as Aboriginal people;

  • social, historical and political contexts shape our experiences and lives of past, present and future;

  • processes for neutralising or decolonising the impacts of imperialism and colonialism are core to these contexts;

  • the voices, experiences and lives of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal lands must be centered (Rigney 2001; Martin 2008).

Colonialism and Created Tensions

In terms of the projects of ecological development and sustainability, Aboriginal people gave but the actual benefits, or the costs, have never been analysed (Bama Wabu 1996). Western legal definitions offer Aboriginal knowledges no protection from exploitation, undisciplined consumerism or theft. Legal instruments pertaining to copyright, patent or trademark have served to protect ownership rights and not the intellectual property rights, cultural and moral rights of Aboriginal peoples:

knowledge is commodified to the extent that it is considered a “good” that can be traded or purchased… Commodification is about compartmentalisation. It is positivistic and technological.

(Hingangaroa Smith 2002, p. 217)

A critique of the discourses of sustainability reveals the relationships referred to are about the dominance of people over nature. There may be a level of concern, but there is no accountability of past actions to present and future relationships as these are locked into time and space, but not across time and space. In this way, the inter-connection of ontology, epistemology and axiology has been deliberately erased from colonising minds or it is so deeply embedded that it is an assumptions that is barely recognised and never questioned. Other assumptions exist in that:

  • knowledge is an individual entity and the pursuit of an individual, therefore creativity is an individual entity and the pursuit of an individual,

  • knowledge is reducible and therefore creativity is removed from an ontology, epistemology and axiology, it is separable from and generalisable to any context,

  • thus one’s knowledge, or in this discussion, one’s creativity, its representations and applications are controllable, because they are consumable.

Thus the promise of ‘global citizenship’ has never been fulfilled by Aboriginal peoples because it has never been enacted by nation states, globally, locally or regionally:

The globalisation of knowledge and Western culture constantly reaffirms the West’s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilised’ knowledge. This form of global knowledge is generally referred to as ‘universal’ knowledge, available to all and not really ‘owned’ by anyone, that is, until non-Western scholars make claims to it.

(Tuhiwai Smith 1999, p. 62)

The discourse of creativity signals no change to this situation in that the creative subject relinquishes his/her intellectual property to be commercialised and consumed. There is nothing inclusive, transformative or morally sound in this latest promise. There has been no interrogation of the assumptions of the ontological, epistemological and axiological tenets underpinning the push for creativity and the creative subject. Such an interrogation would serve to reveal there is no such thing as ‘new’ knowledge, nor is it value free. It would reveal there are no natural or neutral spaces because knowledge is framework dependent. Therefore, there is no single or legitimate way to experience, view and represent the world (Ladson-Billings 2000). These tensions are of power and how it is used to dominate and privilege those individuals already benefiting from this relationship, otherwise referred to as ‘success’. The creative project must be thus: creative. It must be reflexive to these tensions and the inherent plural nature of ontology and epistemology (Agrawal 1995; Hosking and Ramsay 2000; Gergen 2002). This in itself is a creative turn.

Creative Tensions

As part of the restoration of Indigenous knowledge and heritage, Indigenous scholars must confront the assumption of the state of nature. The theories and the choices behind this assumption require analysis by those Indigenous peoples who have survived colonialism and are seeking to transform it. They require a critique from the vantage point of Indigenous thought (Youngblood Henderson 2002, p. 32).

By the very plural nature of the world and of humans, we reside in contradictory spaces. Subjectivities in these spaces are engaged by Aboriginal peoples through series of ongoing micro negotiations to neutralise, as much as this is possible, the tensions and impacts of colonialism, its social and economic discourses. Our survival is inextricably entwined with our sovereignty, our intellectual traditions as represented by our cultural traditions that have evolved over time to consume colonial knowledge forms and traditions. The issue of recognition of Aboriginal knowledges is marginally less important then how we maintain control of its representations and its use (Tuhiwai Smith 1999). The commodification of Aboriginal knowledge is fraught with tensions that are multiple, dynamic and ongoing.

The navigation of such terrains is demanding work for Aboriginal people and Aboriginal scholars in particular. It is a complex and difficult navigation that shortens our lives, reduces our quality of life and endangers our worlds as we know these. The crossing of these terrains is not just spatial. It is temporal, cultural, intellectual and physical. Under these circumstances, the goal is not the reduction and replacement of our ontology, epistemology and axiology, but the expansion and evolvement that incorporates colonial thought, practice and ethics. The goal is to make explicit the ways power remains in these latest discursive turns and how they’ve been kept alive from earlier times.

Coming to know the past has been part of the critical pedagogy of decolonization. To hold alternative histories is to hold alternative knowledges. The pedagogical implication of this access to alternative knowledges is that they can form the basis of alternative ways of doing things.

(Tuhiwai Smith 1999, p. 34)

Thus, critique becomes a project that must tell us what is wrong and what is to be avoided if we are seeking relatedness, agency and sovereignty in research. The project of critique tells us how the Stories are related and thus how to create spaces, in particular the conceptual spaces, to draw forth elements from our own ontologies and epistemologies.

Again, at this crucial juncture, change rests on who determines how creativity is defined which determines the forms of creativity that are valued. This equally determines who and what will be excluded and how. Creativity is dynamic, fluid and organic set of engagements, responses and evolvements to an experience and a context that are its ‘boundaries’ that determine what is real and what is good. These are dire warnings for the current debates and discourses of creativity and the creative subject in perpetuating the very same relationships of domination, control, exclusion and erasure as those enacted in the previous ecological development and sustainability discourses of the 1990s.

If the challenge is to ‘unknow the everyday, taken-for-granted categories’ this in itself is a creative enterprise requiring more than a cute idea. It requires ongoing interrogation of privilege, power and relationships. But even with these prior experiences and prior knowledge, is remains a matter of necessity, not choice; of inversion not conversion; of repetition not innovation and of stagnation not creativity. The more things have changed creatively…the more they have creatively stayed the same.