“Whiteness” and natural resource management: let's talk about race baby, let's talk about sovereignty!

Abstract

Issues of race and sovereignty are embedded in every cross‐cultural collaboration in natural resource management (NRM). This article aims to bring these issues to the forefront by incorporating the term whiteness. Whiteness enables a critique of the privileging of Western sovereignty and the so‐called objective and universal value of Western science. By reversing the gaze away from the colonised Other and onto systems descended from colonial authority and its inheritors, whiteness identifies how race privilege works. A critical whiteness lens provides an analytical and practical tool for decolonising NRM. We provide a case study of the South Australian Department of Environment and Water to consider how NRM professionals reproduce and deconstruct whiteness in nuanced ways, where (a) participants are defeated by Western sovereignty when whiteness is seen as normal or as the only way; (b) the privilege of Western sovereignty begins to be unsettled; and (c) the gaze is reversed. Thus,Western sovereignty is problematized, and solutions to persistent problems are found in collaboration. We argue that reversing the gaze is a process that opens spaces to co‐develop context specific solutions with Indigenous nations that decolonise cross‐cultural engagement in NRM and respect Indigenous sovereignty.

Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management

“…Indigenous nations that challenge the expertocracy are sometimes charged with talking out of place. Environmental management and Western science “experts” often assume their work to be culture‐neutral and can be blind to the power structures that privilege their worldviews (Searle & Muller, this issue). It is often assumed that Indigenous worldviews are irrelevant to the focused scientific work at hand (Muller, ).…”

Power in resilience and resilience's power in climate change scholarship

“…Such invigorating entry points provide the foundation from which we offer three overarching recommendations for advancing the conceptualization of power in resilience scholarship. First, we suggest that more earnest confrontations with the various points of privilege and marginalization of the diverse players involved, specifically researchers and participants, are crucial to avoid perpetuating power inequities and to bolster the capacities of disadvantaged individuals and societies as agents of change (Owens et al, 2018; Searle & Muller, 2019). Second, unidirectional framings of power should be replaced with more nuanced understandings that demonstrate power hierarchies are not set in stone, but can be challenged, with people and communities “pushing back” to reclaim meanings of resilience and recalibrate pervasive subjectivities (Cobarrubias, 2020; Kythreotis et al, 2020).…”

Djaara cultural authority drives inclusion of their knowledge and culture in a Joint Management Plan for parks

“…For some Traditional Owners, negotiated agreements Benefits such as improved biodiversity protection and strengthened livelihoods and culture; and risks including marginalisation of Indigenous values, derive from joint management arrangements (Ross, et al 2009;Tran et al 2020;Everingham et al 2021). Joint-managed protected areas frequently lack equity with ongoing dominance of governments' focus on biophysical and tourism values at the expense of Indigenous cultural and spiritual values (Muller et al 2019;Searle & Muller 2019). At the joint-managed Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, for example, Anangu Traditional Owner's preference for visitors not to climb the rock was subservient to their partners preferences for many years (Everingham, et al 2021).…”

“…Joint‐managed protected areas frequently lack equity with ongoing dominance of governments’ focus on biophysical and tourism values at the expense of Indigenous cultural and spiritual values (Muller et al . 2019; Searle & Muller 2019). At the joint‐managed Uluru‐Kata Tjuta National Park, for example, Anangu Traditional Owner’s preference for visitors not to climb the rock was subservient to their partners preferences for many years (Everingham, et al .…”