Shadow waters: Making Australian water cultures visible

Abstract

Connections between people and water have received considerable attention within geographic research. This paper draws on cultural and historical geographies, political ecology and the environmental humanities to extend understandings of the hydrosocial cycle by focusing on the cultural dimensions of society–water relations through the concept of shadow waters. Shadow waters centres attention on the cultures that privilege certain waters while rendering other waters invisible and marginalised. Inspired by Val Plumwood's notion of “shadow places,” shadow waters brings to light the way power intersects with cultural practices. We bring this concept of shadow waters into conversation with Indigenous water knowledges. Shadow waters can be conceptualised vertically, with surface water receiving more policy and research attention than ground water, and also horizontally, as some sub‐catchments, uses and values have been ignored or undervalued in macro‐catchment processes. Temporally, in considering the past, complex and contested histories of human–environment relations are often overlooked in favour of simple historical narratives that ultimately reinforce dominant management structures and trajectories. Shadow waters are thus historically created as particular power structures and narratives are reinforced and “normalised” over time. This paper examines shadow waters in southeastern Australia, elucidating the way two rivers are interwoven and co‐determined in cultures of water use in this context. We show how the rethinking of dominant water cultures, made possible by cross‐cultural engagement, generates new possibilities for reconnection, restoration and protection; a different water ethics based on care and responsibility that addresses power relations and injustices.

Rehabilitating Ranger uranium mine:scientific uncertainty, deep futures and the production of ignorance

“…regarding ground preparation, plant species etc) it is unclear if, and how, Mirarr aspirations and concerns around groundwater contamination have been managed or responded to. It seems these groundwaters on the 'resource frontier' constitute particular kinds of 'shadow waters': invisible, seemingly disconnected from surface waters, and with little or no regard for Indigenous epistemologies (McLean et al 2018).…”

Rethinking life-in-common in the Australian landscape

“…Differential belonging has to go beyond just inclusion to recognise complicity and in this way try to unlearn colonial assumptions of who or what can belong. Indigenous Australian ontologies of co-becoming (Bawaka Country et al, 2013;McLean et al, 2018;Moreton-Robinson, 2011) can help us to understand how the imaginary of the Australian landscape was never one of emptiness but one of differential belongings and a life-in-common made up of communities of human and more-than-human agents, including animals, places and emotions (Wright, 2015: 391-392). The idea of belonging in a form of co-becoming is not straightforward for white settler Australians, but it does point to tentative possibilities for white Australia to remake themselves and their lifeworlds: '[t]o practise belonging, to reimagine it, to co-become with other people, things and places, is an expression of hope in the present' (Wright, 2015: 403).…”

“…In the dialogues and debates around Caring for Country, a sense of differential belonging is emerging in alliances across difference working towards ecological justice (Dunstone, 2008;Pickerill, 2009) that aim to acknowledge if not transcend colonial violence and erasure. In a collaborative research relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers on Indigenous water values associated with the Cudgegong and Goulburn rivers, McLean et al (2018) in a collaborative research relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers on the Cudgegong and Goulburn rivers show the 'resilience of Indigenous water cultures in an entrenched settler colonial landscape'. Their work 'challenges and seek to decolonise existing epistemologies and methodologies through the co-production of water-related knowledges' (McLean et al, 2018: 618).…”

Qualitative methods II: On the presentation of ‘geographical ethnography’

“…Hall (2016) describes how she became ‘a familiar face’ though various strategies and, if respondents invite you to stay over, you can benefit from accepting the offer (Basnet et al, 2018). Drawing on shared worries might also break down perceived social barriers (Schoenberger and Beban, 2018), and walking together with people can create a productive interactional dynamic (McLean et al, 2018). Perhaps unsurprisingly, ‘geographical ethnographers’ also suggest we should pay particular attention to how patterns of talk vary according to context – how children speak of sexuality differently depending on where they are at school (Hall, 2018); how certain forms of self-presentation are found in the workplace (Cockayne, 2018); and how the specificity of the sales pitch can convey a particular affective vision for cities (Ernwein and Matthey, 2018).…”