151 research outputs found
Women perspective in the future of Sami reindeer husbandry (In Norwegian with Summary in English)
No full textWomen's traditional tasks are invisible in the official image of reindeer husbandry. The reindeer husbandry nowadays is represented as a meat producer, and the official documents are focused on the work with the reindeer herd. Traditionally, work with the herd and slaughtering belonged to men. In focusing only on certain tasks in the total industry, a lot of other important and necessary work will remain invisibly. A myth that reindeer husbandry is only for men arises easily, too. Bureaucrats, researchers and others who participate in the official debates on reindeer husbandry strengthen this myth. Since women and their tasks are not much visible in the official view of reindeer husbandry, they are indirectly defined outside the reindeer keeping and its activities. However, reindeer husbandry is more manifold than the official documents are presenting. Women's invisibility in the official image of reindeer husbandry strengthens further since only 17% of the production units are registered on women. Though the Reindeer-Management Act of 1996 was changed in the way that spouses together can be owners of a production unit, most men are still registered as leaders of the units. As a main rule, unmarried women and women who are married with men without production units have their herd under their father's or brother's unit. Thus, most women are formally under the leadership of men. Women's legal position is therefore weak since the rights of reindeer husbandry today are connected closely to the production unit. In leaving out important tasks and to describe reindeer husbandry as a work for only men can give a wrong image of reindeer husbandry and this false impression is strengthened when often repeated
Etniid doaibma árbevirolaš oahpaheamis boazodoalus
No full textGirji guorahallá mo mánát ohppet árbevirolaš máhtuid boazodoalus. Ovddeš lunddolaš máhttoevrrideapmi mii dahkkui go mánát bajásšaddelahka siidadoalu lea nohkan. Dattetge leat árbevirolaš máhtutdehálaccat maiddái odne go ovddeš johtolagat, organiserenmálle jabarggut bisuhuvvojit. Gažaldat lea mo mánát ohppet otná dilis, jamakkár hástalusat cuožžilit. Etniin boazodoalus lea dehálaš doaibmamáhttoevrrideami oktavuoas go sii leat eanaš áigge mánáin ovttasbáikedoaluin. Boazodoalu oahpaheamis leat iešvuoat mat gáibiditahte oahppi lea doppe gos barggut caahuvvojit ja dat ii buot áiggiidsoaba oktii gáibádusain otná servodagas. Árbevirolaš oahpaheamiiešvuohta lea maiddái máhttit coavdit cuolmmaid oa dilálašvuoain. Sámi servodagas leat danne hástalusat dasa mo láhcit dilálašvuoadainna lágiin ahte mánát ain besset leat mielde oahppamin joihitárbevirolaš ealáhusaid. Eatnit leat dehalaccat boazodoalu máhtuidevrrideamis, go sii leat eanas áigge mánáin ovttas báikedoaluin. Guorahallan lea dahkkon Guovdageainnus. Dán girjjis leat maiddáidieut eará boazodoaloguovlluin.Girji guorahallá mo mánát odne ohppet árbevirolaš máhtuid boazodoalus go eai jođe šat siidda mielde seamma ollu go sullii 40 jagi áigi dahje go 9-jagi skuvla álggahuvvui. Guorahallan lea dahkkon Guovdageainnus, ja dasa lassin leat maiddái dieđut eará boazodoalloguovlluin. Boazodoalu nissonolbmot leat odne guovddážis bajásgeassimin mánáid boazo¬dollui go mánát leat eanaš áigge etniid luhtte skuvlaváccedettiin. Albmát leat dat geat dávjjimusat leat siidadoalus. Ovddeš árbevirolaš siiddastallan mas olles bearaš jođii ovttas, lea nohkan, muhto boazodoalu iežas siskkáldas organiseren lea dattetge bisuhuvvon mealgat muddui rievddakeahttá nugo siidadoalut ja báike¬doalut. Seammás go organiserenmálle bisuhuvvo, de doaimmahuvvojit maiddái seamma barggut nugo guođoheapmi, gárddástallamat, bohccoávdnasiid dikšun ja dasa lassin duddjon. Organiserema ja bargguid mielde čuvvot máhtut, ja nu leage dárbbašlaš daid fievrridit ođđa buolvvaide. Boazodoalu heiveheamit leat leamaš iešguđetlágánat iešguđetge guovlluin. Nuorta-Finnmárkkus omd. leat nissonolbmot leamaš smávvadálolaččat lassin boazodollui juo 1900-logu álgogeahčen. Guovdageainnus ja báikkuid Kárášjogas lea leamaš nomádaeallin mas olles bearaš lea johtán siidda mielde, gitta 1900-logu gaskkamuddui. 1960-logus huksegohte boazosámit dáluid čoahkkebáikkiide Guovdageainnus ja 9-jagi skuvla álggahuvvui. Mánát šadde eanaš áigge leat skuvllas, ja eatnit maiddái ássagohte čoahkkebáikkiide. Mánáid lunddolaš oahppan beaivválaš bargguid bokte unnui.Mánát ohppet dávjá bargguid bokte daid guovlluin gos boazodoallu doaimmahuvvo. Eatnit boazodoalus leat guovddážis máhttofievrrideamis go mánát leat eanaš áigge sin luhtte báikedoaluin. Dávjá leat maiddái eatnit lágideamen mánáid siidadollui. Boazodoalu siskkobealde leat iešguđetlágán máhtut go dilálašvuođat leat máŋggalágánat. Suolohasain lea mearra maid rasttildit ja mii dagaha ahte sii dárbbašit earálágán máhtuid go omd. nannánorohagat. Boazo¬doallomáhttu lea máhttu maid dávjá ferte oahppat doppe gos doaibma lea, go dilálašvuođat gáibidit iešguđetlágán čovdosiid. Olmmoš vásihage dilálaš¬vuođaid mat eai leat ovttaláganat, ja nu eai gávdnoge čavga njuolggadusat álo dasa mo čoavdit čuolmmaid. Oahpaheapmi láhččojuvvo nu ahte mánná beassá ieš vásihit dilálašvuođaid ja oahppat oaidnima bokte gávdnat čovdosiid. Boazodoalus leage dehálaš oahppat oaidnit, dovdat ja dádjadit. Seamma láhkái go muitalusat ja diiddat eai leat njuolggosánálaččat, de maiddái oahppan dávjá dáhpáhuvvá geažideami bokte. Muitalusat ja diiddat doibmet morálalaš neavvun mánáide, ja muitalusaid bokte ealáskahttojuvvojit guovllut, ja olbmot geat leat mielde muitalusain muittašuvvojit. Boazodoalu giella lea mávssolaš go omd. okta sátni sáhttá sisttisdoallat oalle dárkilis čilgehusa. Mánná oahppá buoremusat go lea doppe gos barggut doaimmahuvvojit. Sámegielas leatge ollu sánit mat gusket duovdagiidda ja main leat dárkilis čilgehusat nugo omd. bohcco ealiheamis ja johtolagas. Giella doaibmá maid gulahallamis, jus dan ii hálddaš de geanohuhttá dat gulahallama eará boazobargiiguin.Boazodoallomáhttu lea árbevirolaš máhttu, ja dan dovdomearka lea ee. ahte máŋggalágan máhtut sáhttet oahpahuvvot oktanaga. Vuoiŋŋalaš máhttu omd. sáhttá oahpahuvvot geavatlaš bargguid olis. Nubbi dovdomearka lea ahte máhttu fievrriduvvo doppe gos barggut doaimmahuvvojit. Dát bealit dagahit ahte lea veadjemeahttun fievrridit boazodoalu ollislaš oahpaheami skuvlii. Boazo¬doallo¬máhtut leat dattetge dehálaččat doallevašvuođa geažil, ja servodat berrešii danne ságastallat mo máhtu seailluhit boahtteáiggis. ************************************************************************************************* The book examines how children, at present, learn the traditional skills needed in reindeer herding, as they no longer follow the herd and the herders – the siida – in the same way as about forty years ago when the 9-year-long school – the compre¬hensive school – was launched. This research has been done in Guovda¬geaidnu (Kautokeino), but it also contains information from other reindeer-herding areas.The women who are involved in reindeer husbandry play at present a central role in training children for reindeer herding, since the children mainly stay with their mothers when going to school. Men are the ones who mostly work with the reindeer. The former, traditional way of herding reindeer in which the whole family moved together is no longer practised, but the inner organization of reindeer husbandry, the system of siidadoallu and báikedoallu – is, to a great extent, unchanged. With an unchanged organization, the tasks, such as tending the reindeer, round-ups, taking care of all the material that the reindeer yields and making handicraft, also stay the same. The herding skills are learnt through organization and the performing of tasks, and they need to be passed down to new generations.In different areas, there have been local variations of reindeer herding. In Eastern Finnmark, for example, women were, to some extent, engaged in farming in addition to reindeer herding as early as the beginning of the 1900s. In Guovdageaidnu and in some parts of Kárášjohka (Karasjok), reindeer herding was nomadic in nature and the whole family migrated with the herd until the mid-1900s. In the 1960s, reindeer-herding Sámi began building houses into the villages in Guovdageaidnu and the 9-year-long comprehensive school was launched. Children ended up in being most of the year at school, and mothers also began to settle in the population centres. Children no longer learnt as much in a natural way, by performing every-day tasks.In reindeer-herding areas, it is typical for children to learn by doing. The mothers who are active in reindeer herding play an important role in passing down the skills to their children, as the children mostly live with them in the population centres. Often, the mothers also do all the preparations so that the children can go to the siida and engage in reindeer work.Because of differences in herding conditions, the skills of the herders vary from place to place. Some herders cross parts of the sea when migrating with their herds to islands, and, therefore, they need different kinds of skills than the herders who stay on the mainland. The reindeer-herding knowledge consists of skills that one often needs to learn on the spot where the activities take place, as the conditions determine how to proceed. Indeed, conditions vary, and, therefore, it is not possible to decide in advance how to solve problems. Learning happens so that children are themselves involved in the different situations; thus, they learn, through experience, to find solutions. Indeed, it is important in reindeer herding to learn to see, know, cope and find one’s way. In the same way as narratives and beliefs tell nothing explicitly, learning also happens often through tips and hints. Stories and beliefs function as moral guidance for children, and, through narration, places become alive and people who are part of the stories are remembered. The language used in reindeer herding is important, as one word can, for example, contain an explanation that is rich in detail. A child learns best by being around when activities take place. The Sámi language abounds in words that are connected with and explain in detail the landscape and, for example, the care and routes of the reindeer. Language is also a means of communicating: not knowing it makes it harder to communicate with other herders.Reindeer-herding knowledge is traditional knowledge, and one of its characteristics is that a variety of skills can be taught simultaneously. For example, spiritual knowledge can be taught in connection with practical work. Another characteristic is that skills are passed down through doing. Therefore, it is impossible to train people for reindeer herding just at school. Still, in terms of sustainable development, reindeer-herding knowledge is important, and, thus, we should discuss how to maintain this knowledge in future
"Laksen trenger ro". Tilnærming til tradisjonelle kunnskaper gjennom praksiser, begreper og fortellinger fra Sirbmá-området.
No full textTradisjonell kunnskap har fått anerkjennelse i internasjonale konvensjoner og i Naturmangfoldloven i forvaltningen av naturressurser. Spesielt gjelder denne anerkjennelsen i samiske og andre urfolksområder, som begrunnes med at samer og andre urfolk har lange tradisjoner i høstingen av naturressurser. Til tross for at samisk tradisjonell kunnskap er anerkjent som kunnskapsgrunnlag i offentlige beslutninger, er den lite synlig i forvaltningen. Det er også etablert en lokalforvaltning av laksefiske i Deatnu/Tanaelva, men fremdeles er det bare de naturvitenskapelige kunnskapspraksisene som gjelder i forvaltningen.
Jeg har stilt spørsmål om hva tradisjonell kunnskap er, hvordan den kommer til uttrykk i praksiser, fortellinger og begreper, og hvordan kunnskapen kan implementeres i forvaltningen. Tilgangen på tradisjonell kunnskap har jeg fått ved å delta i tradisjonelle praksiser i Sirbmá-området, og gjennom intervjuer med lokalbefolkningen. Sirbmá-området ligger i Deanuleahki/Tanadalen. Der er det fremdeles kontinuitet i flere av de tradisjonelle praksisene. Kontinuiteten av praksiser kommer spesielt godt fram i laksefiske i Deatnu. Fiskemetoder slik som golgadeapmi/drivgarnsfiske, buođđun/stengselsfiske og oaggun/stangfiske er praksiser som har lang tradisjon blant lokalbefolkningen i Deanuleahki/Tanadalen.
I vitenskapen har det lenge vært et skille mellom natur og kultur, som ikke alltid har samsvart med folks egne praksiser. Denne atskillelsen kan ha lagt grunnlaget for at naturvitenskapelig kunnskap har hatt en offentlig autoritet til å frembringe fakta om naturen over lang tid. Jeg vil i stedet argumentere for at det finnes flere fakta. Disse kommer best til uttrykk gjennom praksisene til folk, og som frembringer variable ontologier. Jeg har tatt utgangspunkt i postkoloniale teorier som ikke skiller mellom natur og kultur, slik som STS (Science og Technology studies) og ANT (aktør-nettverk-teorier). Jeg har argumentert for at landskaper er i en kontinuerlig prosess. De er formet av mennesker samtidig som de former mennesker. Laksen i Deatnu er således blitt til gjennom de praksiser som foregår i elva
Luossa and Laks
No full textWhen technoscience and state policy interact with indigenous knowledges and practices they usually do so asymmetrically. Within relations of domination indigenous knowledges are treated as ‘beliefs’ or ‘culture’ whereas technoscience qualifies as ‘knowledge’ or truth. This paper explores one such interaction: a controversy in north Norway and Finland between biological modellers and policymakers on the one hand, and Sámi fisherpeople on the other. The scientists and the policymakers argue that salmon numbers are falling in the Deatnu (Tana) river as a result of overfishing, and seek to limit fishing. Local fishermen partially agree, but argue that other factors (and especially the protection of predators) are also crucial. They also resist restrictions being imposed on local (and often Sámi) driftnet fishing practices. The paper treats this controversy as epistemological, political and metaphysical, with a particular focus on the last of these. The metaphysical assumptions enacted by technoscience –and in particular its commitments to nature-culture dualism and a singular ‘one-world’ ontology– are explored. These commitments are shown to be absent in Sámi practices. It is argued, following other work in postcolonial anthropology, that those embedded assumptions prevent technoscience and policy practices from recognising metaphysical difference, and so allow policymakers and scientists to refuse the possibility that there might be multiple and different worlds. The paper concludes by arguing that if less dominatory relations between science and policy on the one hand, and Sámi practices and knowledges on the other, are to be achieved it will be important to attend: (a) to the down-to-earth material practices of knowledge production; and (b) to the significance of metaphysical difference within and between those practices. It will also be important: (c) to create ways of knowing that recognise and enact differences rather than hoping to seek consensus
Sámi salmon, state salmon: TEK, technoscience and care
No full textHow to think about salmon in the Deatnu River in northern Norway? Sámi local ecological experts and biological modellers respond to this question in quite different ways. Local people are embedded in complex and situated webs of relations which include people, salmon, different kinds of fishing, forms of salmon unknown to biology, the state of the river and its flow, and the activities of tourists. For the biologists salmon are known as populations, spawning escapements, stock-specific spawning targets and production potentials. The biologists argue that salmon populations are in decline, and seek fishing restrictions. Since they are close to state regulatory authorities their recommendations lead to policies which reduce fishing and seriously erode Sámi practices and ways of living. This article explores this difference and the controversies to which it leads by situating these historically in the long-term extension of colonial state power and the subordination of Sámi people. Then this difference is explored in terms of care. Arguably both scientists and local ecological experts care for salmon, but how they care and what they care for are also very different. So the biologists divide nature from culture as they care for salmon populations. Despite the fact that they are required to relate to traditional ecological knowledge, in practice population biology does not care for local people in ways recognisable to Sámi. In contrast, Sámi modes of caring simultaneously respond to salmon, to the river and to Sámi economic and cultural practices, but not to population projections. The study uses the STS focus on practice and Helen Verran’s attention to ‘going on well together in difference’ to explore how this power-saturated intersection between these two realities might be rendered more productive. It is argued that scientific ways of thinking need to be ‘softened’ while Sámi ways of knowing might be ‘hardened’ and made more transportable
Luossa y Laks
No full textLas interacciones de la tecnociencia y la política de estado con los conocimientos y practicas indígenas tienden a ser asimétricas. En las relaciones de dominación, los conocimientos indígenas son tratados como «creencias» o «cultura», mientras que la tecnociencia está calificada como «conocimiento» o verdad. Este artículo explora una de estas interacciones: una controversia en el norte de Noruega y Finlandia entre los modeladores biológicos y los responsables políticos, por un lado, y los pescadores Saami, por el otro. Los científicos y los políticos sostienen que el número de salmón está disminuyendo en el río Deatnu (Tana) como resultado de la sobrepesca, por lo que buscan limitarla. Los pescadores locales están parcialmente de acuerdo, pero sostienen que otros factores (y especialmente la protección de los depredadores) también son cruciales. También se oponen a las restricciones que se imponen a las prácticas locales (y a menudo Saami) de pesca con redes de enmalle de deriva. El artículo trata esta controversia como epistemológica, política y metafísica, haciendo un enfoque particular en este último. Se exploran las suposiciones metafísicas promulgadas por la tecnociencia y, en particular, sus compromisos con el dualismo de la naturaleza y la cultura y en la ontología particular del «mundo único». Se demuestra que estos compromisos no existen en las prácticas Saami. Apoyándose en trabajos antropológicos del poscolonialismo, este articulo propone que las hipótesis subyacentes en la tecnociencia, impiden que esta y las practicas políticas asociadas a ella, reconozcan las diferencias metafísicas, y por ende, generan que los políticos y científicos rechacen la posibilidad de que existan mundos múltiples y diferentes. El articulo sugiere que para construir relaciones que no sean basadas en el poder dominante entre la ciencia y la política de un lado, y las practicas y saberes ancestrales Saami por el otro, seria importante tener en cuenta: (a) las practicas materiales cotidianas de producción del conocimiento; (b) el significado de la diferencia metafísica dentro y entre esas prácticas. También será importante: (c) crear formas de conocimiento que reconozcan y promulguen diferencias en lugar de esperar el consenso
- …
