can indigenous cultures survive the future?

Futures 35 (2003) 907–915www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Introduction

Can indigenous cultures survive the future?

In his paper ‘The future of indigenous values: Cultural relativism in the face ofeconomic development’, David Groenfeldt suggests ways in which we might helpindigenous values survive well into the future by creating a world that has room forother ways seeing, thinking and valuing. He believes that the preservation of indigen-ous values depends also on the survival of the cultural system within which suchvalues are maintained. However, Groenfeldt believes that current trends tend to pre-clude the viability of truly different cultural systems being able to persist in a glo-balizing and increasingly economically oriented world. Thus, although Groenfeldtsees the ‘outlook for the persistence of indigenous cultural values [as] dim, basedon historical trends … recent revitalization efforts point to a more complicated futurethan a steady decline of diversity’. He ponders whether some essence of the culturalcore will survive into the future, or whether the future will bring only a superficialcultural diversity through its products, ceremonies and performances, whose meaningwill be diluted through secular decontexted performances. But Groenfeldt sees twopromising trends among native peoples; first that ‘indigenous self-identity is, withmany exceptions, being revitalized and empowered from within’, and, second, that‘the concept of cultural diversity is gaining new acceptance from mainstream societ-ies’.

Undoubtedly, the most powerful obstacle to the survival of traditional values isthe proliferation of ‘Western-style economic development initiatives that seldomacknowledge the legitimacy of values outside the materialist-rational paradigm’. Afuture in which indigenous values can survive will depend on pro-active effortsamong indigenous groups to define their own development futures reflecting theirown cultural values. Clearly, a future inclusive of diverse cultural value systemswould ‘enrich both indigenous and mainstream society’, but the path towards self-determination must be appropriate to their cultural values and expectations[9]. Thisdepends on developing visions of desired futures[10].

Part of defining one’s future depends on one’s expectations and visions of tomor-row. We all ponder what might come in the near and far future, and we all dreamabout what we would like the future to bring to us,—and on particularly starrynights—to the whole world. In the past and continuing today, as Ziauddin Sardarhas noted[11] the West has not only defined the rest, but has imposed its own visionof the future on others—usually in their own political and economic interests (pp.9–18). I concur with Sardar—when Westerners speak of anticipation, and dreaming,

0016-3287/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00048-X

908 Introduction / Futures 35 (2003) 907–915

and planning towards the deliberate realization of something they call the ‘ future’ ,they risk speaking from a Western frame of reference. Ideas about the meaning of‘ the future’ , and the possibilities for shaping the future, are far from globally shared.Different histories, different experiences, and different worldviews potentially pro-duce varying perceptions of the present, and for most (some languages carry no wordfor the future), a variety of possible futures [12].

With growing independence, indigenous peoples are increasingly envisaging andplanning their own futures, in their own terms, developing for themselves scenariosof possible or desired futures (I call this process of visioning from the native oremic point of view ‘ethnovisioning’.) Marieke Heemskerk, in her paper ‘Scenariosin anthropology: Reflections on possible futures of the Suriname Maroons’ , arguesthat scenario planning (which embodies the visioning process) allows ethnographicdata to be used for thinking about the future. Using a case study from Suriname—the Maroons—she demonstrates how qualitative data from anthropological fieldworkcan be used to reveal peoples perspectives on the future. In particular, to identifythe driving forces that might influence their future and to speculate about the differentdirections these might take. Presenting her method and results through two scenarios,Heemskerk reflects also on the contribution that anthropology can make to develop-ment policies that envision and plan for alternative, surprising futures. The scenariosderived in the research process are rich and fascinating and make the process ofbuilding multi-vocal interactive scenario building, transparent and informative [13].When people want the change, and when the new structures proposed fit well withtheir lifestyles, worldview, and traditions, then their adoption of the changes designedto bring about their desired future will be more successful [14].

While indigenous rights are being widely discussed, and cultures of indigenouspeoples are becoming better known to the world, the current situation of the indigen-ous Ainu people and their culture in contemporary Japanese society, have not yetbeen fully researched. In his study on the Ainu, ‘Ainu culture in transition’ SidneyCheung discusses some of the problems associated with the survival of small culturalgroups in metropolitan countries. There are only about 23, 767 Ainu people livingin Hokkaido, and about 5000 in the Kanto area; but few of these speak any Ainulanguage or live a traditional lifestyle. Cheung uses the issue of identity to discussthe relationship between the autochthonous Ainu and the more numerous mainstreamethnic Japanese. For the Ainu and the Japanese, a present concern is the questionof who most legitimately represents (to the outside world) what it means to be anative Japanese. This conflict is played out in different spheres of life, but in parti-cular, it is articulated around the issue of ‘authenticity’ and the ‘ real’ or ‘original’meaning of ceremonies as symbols indigeneity. One example of this is found throughthe antagonistic discourse concerning the symbolism of a touristic heritage site atLake Akan.

In seeking the meaning of Ainu history, values, and traditions to the Ainu them-selves, Cheung conducts ethnographic interviews with a number of subjects. Theresults show an ambiguity between the Ainu and their relationship with the past,present, and future of their culture. Through an exploration of history, present cir-cumstances, and institutional and legislative support that is attempting to support

909Introduction / Futures 35 (2003) 907–915

and revitalize Ainu culture, Cheung suggests some conditions which might affectthe future of Ainu culture, which unfortunately appears gloomy at best.

One of the most important markers of cultural identity for all peoples is theirlanguage. Unquestionably, the loss of one’s language accelerates the loss of one’sunique identity. Language is a means of transmitting knowledge about myths, history,cultural traditions, and ideas about nature and the cosmos. Indigenous languages arerarely given legal recognition, and in many cases, are banned in schools. Accordingto Burger [15], in New Zealand, less than 5% of Maori school children now speaktheir own language. In Canada, Cree Indian children, who in the past were forbiddenfrom speaking their own language at school, subsequently developed psychologicaland learning problems. And the concomitant past policy of separating young native—American children from their parents accelerated the destructive process of assimi-lation. Recognizing the effectiveness of this outmoded policy, the Indonesia govern-ment has declared it will remove tribal children from their homes ‘ to keep themfrom settling into their parents’ lifestyle’ (pp. 122–124).

Addressing the fate of endangered languages, Lindsay Whaley presents a thought-ful paper that contributes to our understanding of the problems of forecasting andpolicy in the social sciences. In ‘The future of native languages’ , Whaley notes that‘even a quick survey of writing on endangered languages, both in the popular pressand in scholarly publications, reveals a ubiquitous statistic about language vitality:50–90% of languages could die in the next 200 years’ . She doubts whether thesefigures are accurate citing problems with the classification system in past research.Whaley stresses that the task for understanding how indigenous languages will farein the future is to identify the important variables that are buttressing or sapping thestrength of a language and to predict whether and how these variables will change.Unfortunately, very little attention has been given to the question of what globaliz-ation might mean for endangered languages. As an intensification of world-widesocial relations which link distant localities, globalization—which functions mainlyin the interests of the more powerful—is likely to have a profound effect on smallcommunities. Certainly, the pressure to assimilate economically could, and probablywould, extend to linguistic and cultural assimilation, which would lead eventuallyto language loss.

In her conclusion, Whaley concurs with current predictions that there will be acontinued loss of language diversity, ‘no one seriously doubts that a significant por-tion of current languages will die or become moribund (no longer being learned bychildren as their mother-tongue) in the next century, research on endangered langu-ages has properly made other areas of investigation a priority such as understandingthe causes of language loss and identifying ways to slow or stop language shift’ .However, despite the real decline in indigenous languages, on a more positive note,a recent global phenomenon is the appearance of programs designed to preservethreatened languages. They are diverse in their design and aims: some are geared atdeveloping immersion education, others at expanding the social domains in whicha particular language is spoken, and still others are actively developing the vocabu-lary of a language to provide standard terms for new technologies. Some of these


programs are proactive, attempting to stay language decline before it begins, whileothers are trying to recoup the losses in numbers of speakers that have occurred.

The development of coherent and workable strategies for maintaining control overthe future is increasing among indigenous peoples. Bodley [16] states that ‘since the1970s tribal peoples, who experienced overwhelming external pressures against theirtraditional cultures, began forging new political structures that would help promotea viable accommodation with the national states surrounding them. Ideally, such anaccommodation would be characterized by self-determination that would safeguardtribal ways of life from outside interference. As native people define it, self-determi-nation would mean a return to full local political, economic, and cultural autonomy.This need not mean isolation from the metropolitan world, but rather that tribalpeoples would be allowed to control affairs on their own terms within their ownterritories ... [However] regaining control of their destinies while retaining the vitalelements of tribal culture is a difficult struggle, but it is being fought with surprisingvigor by a newly emerging indigenous peoples movement’ . An increasing awarenessby indigenous people of their need for some degree of social, political, and economicautonomy is reflected in the growing number of grass-roots organizations. Todaythere are ‘many thousands of such organizations throughout the world, ranging fromsmall village councils to fully-fledged governments such as that the Karen of Myan-mar with its own education, tax systems, and army. Since 1975 the World Council ofIndigenous Peoples (WCIP) has tried to unite indigenous peoples worldwide around acommon program. It has not achieved that objective but enjoys the support ofindigenous peoples’ organizations in more that 20 countries’ (pp. 178–79). CulturalSurvival—one of the most prominent pro-indigenous peoples organizations in theUnited States, founded and directed by Harvard anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis—seeks to inform the public about the problems of indigenous peoples and toinfluence policy makers to undertake actions favorable to indigenous peoples. … Ithas supported many special assistance projects, often designed by indigenous peoplesthemselves, to improve their prospects for survival. The primary objective of suchorganizations is to help indigenous peoples gain self-determination and internationalrecognition of their human rights’ . Their role is also ‘ to focus international attentionon the contemporary situation of indigenous peoples; to pressure governments torespect the internationally recognized rights of indigenous peoples; and to providefinancial assistance to indigenous peoples in support of their self-determination strug-gle’ [17].

In ‘Mobilizing grassroots’ technological innovations and traditional knowledge,values and institutions: Articulating social and ethical capital’ Anil Gupta et al. assertthat the healthy growth of democracy depends upon the emergence of decentralized,dispersed, polycentric spurs of social, ecological and economic entrepreneurship.Networking among these seemingly disparate cross currents sometimes gives enoughmomentum to societal initiatives to transform the social and cultural values of thesociety. There is always networking taking place among stronger economic and cul-tural forces; but this transformation also takes place through subtle networkingamong the grassroots indigenous groups, deviants, innovators, and other marginalbut creative forces in society. Gupta et al. cite the case of the Honey Bee Network,


based in India. The Network exists to articulate ethical capital (investments andinstitutional arrangements that may be governed by ethical norms of accountability,transparency, reciprocity and fairness to both human and nonhuman sentient entities)guided by the spirit of innovation, sharing and networking for generating eco-com-patible technological and institutional solutions for natural resource managementproblems. It provides the base for the convergence of ‘creative but uncoordinatedindividuals’ to utilize their knowledge, innovations and sustainable practices as valu-able shared resources for their own economic development and cultural well-being.

According to Clarkson et al. [18] the common characteristic of indigenous com-munities is their respect for the earth and all creation. This shapes their relationshipwith the land that is central to their cultural system. With such a strong sense ofplace, indigenous people possess a comprehensive understanding of the attributes ofthe land that sustains them—the wildlife, the plants, the fertility of the soil, andwater sources. They are committed to protect and preserve these life-giving resourcesfor future generations. Because of this ethos, they have much to offer in the identifi-cation of sustainable development strategies. By supporting and working withindigenous people and their lands, these individuals and institutions are working tosecure our future too. Despite the reality that, in some instances, this is largely apristine myth, there is no doubt that autochthonous peoples are a precious resource—they do possess a rich body of local knowledge about the natural environment: howto live in sustainable harmony with it; what the forests contain in terms of medicinalplants; and about insects and animals we have never seen, yet alone studied. Unfortu-nately, some of this knowledge has already been appropriated and marketed by otherswith little or no economic gain to these indigenous communities. For example, the1985 world market for medicines derived from medicinal plants discovered byindigenous peoples was a staggering US $43 billion, but less that one-hundredth ofone percent of the profits has ever been returned to the communities (pp. 63–65).

William Thomas in his paper ‘One last chance: Tapping indigenous knowledgeto produce sustainable conservation policies’ , finds that combining conservation withdevelopment has not been particularly successful, and that the alleged ability(discussed above) of indigenous cultures to conserve their homelands are not encour-aging. In fact, he continues, ‘science still knows very little about the relationshipbetween indigenous people and the resources they exploit… Although politicallycorrect, the notion that tribal societies can balance their needs with those of thecountless other organisms in their environment seems to be an updated version ofthe “noble savage” stereotype’ . He continues, ‘ traditional resource use strategies areoften described as not only benign and sustainable, but as an appropriate foundationupon which to develop a modern conservation strategy. However, this new approachto conservation is based largely on the untested assertion that indigenous people,because of their long association with the land, have developed lifestyles or adap-tations that allow them to live in “balance” with their environment…. References to“stability” and “balance” are not only vague, but also based on outdated conceptsborrowed from ecology’ .

Thomas argues that more productive conservation policies will emerge whenindigenous activities are viewed as ‘disturbances’ and not as vehicles for establishing


equilibrium with the environment. Drawing on sixteen months of fieldwork with oneof Papua New Guinea’s most remote societies, the Hewa, he challenges some holygrails of futures studies and environmentalism by demonstrating that although theindigenous Hewa play a significant role in shaping the environment, their traditionsare not always compatible with biodiversity conservation. The Hewa do not have a‘magic recipe’ for tropical forest conservation, in fact ‘ rather than portraying them-selves as capable of balancing their needs with the needs of other organisms in theirenvironment, the Hewa describe themselves as a source of disturbance [and only]coincidently a source of biological diversity’ . In fact, even though the method ofland utilization practiced by the Hewa appears counterintuitive to the concept ofsustainability, by cutting small plots of forest and allowing them to lie fallow forover 20 years, the Hewa transform the landscape into a patchwork of differentiatedecosystems. They have unintentionally created a greater diversity of plant speciesand environments than the original landscape contained. In this case, biologicaldiversity is the by-product of gardening by a small, scattered human population.Historically, the aim of these gardeners has been to eke a living out of an inhospitableforest, not to encourage biodiversity.

Thomas concludes his paper by offering some policy recommendations based onindigenous knowledge research, and which he hopes will ultimately connect indigen-ous people to the global economy in a sustainable fashion, allowing the benefits ofmarket participation to flow in both directions. He describes in detail how such asystem might work, but reminds us that time is running out and we must ‘act quicklyto seize this last chance to save the earth’s remaining cultural and biological diver-sity.’

Addressing these crises requires an understanding of the affecting political sys-tems. According to Werbner [19] ‘ the politics of recognition is closely tied to thepolitics of political representation, that is, the question of ‘who represents and speaksfor whom’ , and in particular, ‘how far minorities are entitled to be represented bythemselves’ . He states that recognition and representation go hand in hand; claimsand struggles over one carry forward with those of the other; and both affect andare affected, in turn, by the most familiar politics of all, ‘ the redistributive politicsof who gets what benefits and resources from whom’ (p. 119). Throughout the eraof colonization, it was military force that brought government control and establishedthe formal process of native administration. These administrations were formulatedto continue to exploit the indigenous peoples through ‘ legal’ means. Often with trick-ery and coercion, ‘agreements were made and treaties signed with the natives thatsurrendered full and final authority for their lives to the governments, and madethem submissive wards of the state, whether or not they understood what this meant’[20]. However, there was considerable variation in the way that these colonial polit-ical and legal powers were delegated to, or withheld from, the native populations.In the system of direct rule, outsiders held all authority. A more inclusive systemcreated a political bureaucracy that incorporated tribal individuals, extending downto the village level. Other systems of indirect rule lay between these two extremes.But, whatever political integration strategy was adopted, the result was always the‘profound transformation’ of the indigenous traditional socio-political structures [21].


Even today, many native peoples continue to be disadvantaged, dispossessed, ormarginalized from the lasting effects of these (often not so) historic oppressive sys-tems of alien governance.

In ‘A kingdom inside: The Future of Hawaiian political identity’ , Anne KealaKelly discusses the political and legal reality of the ongoing US military occupationof Hawaii. She takes a critical look at some of the contemporary political eventsunfolding in Hawaii at the end of 2002, and examines Hawaiian representation inthe media, politics and in history. By calling into question the legitimacy of Hawaiias the 50th state, Kelly unravels some of the confusing issues around Hawaiianpolitical identity and considers potential economic consequences to the United Statesthat could lead to a negotiated withdrawal from Hawaii. Kelly relates how, by theend of the 19th century, indigenous Hawaiian culture was on the brink of extinction.Hers was a seafaring society, already thousands of years old when the Euro-Amer-icans arrived. Foreign diseases decimated the Hawaiians; they lost their land, naturalresources, and cultural and economic autonomy. On January 17 1893, their ancientdemocratic monarchy was overthrown: ‘with her palace surrounded by the US Mar-ines, Queen Lili’uokalani was forcibly deposed’ . By 1898, Hawaii had been illegallyannexed to the United States, and within a few generations, the native Hawaiianshad become a dispossessed people.

Looking at the political future of Hawaii, Kelly considers the likely continuationof a dependent relationship, and the less probable future of Hawaiian independence.She asserts that ‘ the psychological and spiritual challenges Hawaiians face are over-whelming. The contradictions they endure with regard to how they as a people copewith being cannibalized by the American system of law and government … [areleading] to litigious and costly court battles. And [these] battles have done nothingto repair the damage of occupation, [but] have resulted in a diminished autonomythat ultimately divides Hawaiians as a people’ . Today, independence activists areworking for the recognition of Hawaii as an nation state with its own sovereignrights. But the realization of independence will never come about without the USwithdrawing from Hawaii. As matters stand today, the American government willnever admit that she illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands well over a centuryago—despite documented evidence to the contrary. Kelly concludes her paper bylooking at some of the sticky political, social, economic, and legal issues that theIslands would face if they (could even) achieve independence at this juncture of theircomplex history. Perhaps too much water has gone under the historic bridge?

Together, these papers add new information and insights to the expanding bodyof literature on the complex problems of survival, assimilation, and culture changefor the world’s indigenous peoples. Living as they do betwixt and between traditionand modernity, and assailed by contradictory worldviews and life ways, the needfor status recognition and legal rights are as fundamental to the survival of nativepeoples as are the basic needs of land, water, food, and shelter. The fate of manyfirst peoples has already been decided—for the rest, there is little time.

This special issue of Futures addresses some of the problems, ambiguities, andcontradictions of human lives lived between tradition and modernity, and from withinthese frames suggest some possible and probable futures for the worlds indigenous


peoples. Indigenous peoples are also called ‘fi rst peoples’ . Their ancestors were theoriginal inhabitants of their lands, before the often-brutal incursion of outsiders [1].The term indigenous is used by first peoples to refer to themselves and has nowbeen adopted by the United Nations. ‘ Indigenous’ (from the Latin indigena) meansnative—‘having originated in and living in a particular region or environment.’ ‘ Nati-ve’ similarly means ‘belonging to a particular place by birth; constituting the originalsubstance; found in an unadulterated form’ . And finally, first peoples are also charac-terized as ‘autochthonous’ [2]—a less used word, but one that also means indigenous,‘ formed in or originating in the place where found’ (Webster’s Dictionary). Clearly,all these terms are interchangeable in terms of meaning and are used variously inthis issue.

In 1977, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) passed a resolutiondeclaring that only indigenous peoples can define who is, and who is not, indigenous.The official definition used by the WCIP states that ‘ indigenous people shall bepeople living in countries which have populations composed of different ethnic orracial groups who are descendants of the earliest population which survive in thearea, and who do not, as a group, control the national government of the countrieswithin which they live’ [3]. However, the only definition of indigeneity that is legallybinding to ratifying states, is the one included in the Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesConvention 169 that was adopted in 1989 by the International Labor Organization(ILO). The Convention Articles state that indigenous people are, first, ‘ tribal peoplesin independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguishthem from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulatedwholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regu-lations’ . ‘And second, that they are people in independent countries who are regardedas indigenous on account of their descent from populations which inhabited the coun-try, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquestor colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespectiveof their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural andpolitical institutions’ . The Articles also state that ‘ the 1989 Convention recognizesthe aspirations of indigenous peoples to exercise control over their own institutions,ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities,languages, and religions, within the frameworks of the States in which they live’ [4].

According to Burger [5], there are 250 million indigenous peoples worldwide—4 percent of the global population—living in over 70 countries (p.18). Most of thesegroups have an enduring sense of their own unique identity. Many have retainedtheir own languages and culture, and still live on their own communal lands, althoughall of these are being lost at an alarming rate. However, no peoples have lived shel-tered from change for long. Moreover, cultural systems themselves change overtimethrough an internal process of adaptation to their immediate natural and socialenvironments. Thus the continuing interplay between these societies and changingexternal conditions forces peoples to continually re-make and re-shape their lives[6]. First peoples are aware of the pressures of ‘progress’ , and do attempt to takesome control over them—each group laying down distinct and strategic paths to thefuture [7].


While many first peoples seek to retain as much as they can of a traditional wayof life, others—by choice or necessity—now live outside their ancestral lands as partof the mainstream culture and economy. Some live in cities, and earn their livingthrough the professions, while others eke out their lives as unskilled and semi-skilledworkers. In addition to being ‘united in their desire to maintain their identity andyet be able to adapt and survive’ , many first peoples seek to retain their relationshipwith nature through a sustainable and co-operative way of life [8].

References

[1] J. Burger, Gaia Atlas of First Peoples: A Future for the Indigenous World, Doubleday, New York,1990 p. 16.

[2] Y. Dion-Buffalo, J.C. Mohawk, Thoughts from an autochonous center, Akwe:kon Journal 4 (9)(1992) 16–21.

[3] J.H. Bodley, Victims of Progress, Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA, 1990 p. 153.[4] D.L. Hodgson, Comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights movement in Africa and the Amer-

icas, American Anthropologist 4 (104) (2002) 1037–1049.[5] op cit reference 1.[6] J. Comaroff, J. Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, Westview Press, Boulder,

1992.[7] V. Razak, From the canvas to the field: Envisioning the future of culture, Futures 28 (6/7) (1996)

645–649.[8] op cit reference 1, p.17[9] E. Masini, Rescuing all our futures: the future of futures studies, Praeger, Westport, Conn, 1999

p. 45.[10] C. Bezold, The visioning method, in: R.A. Slaughter (Ed.), The Knowlge Base of Futures Studies,

Futures Study Center, Kew Victoria, Australia, 1996.[11] Z. Sardar (Ed.), Rescuing all our Futures: The Future of Futures Studies, Praeger, Westport,

Conn, 1999.[12] V. Razak, Essays in anticipatory anthropology, Futures 32 (2000) 717–727.[13] For a discussion of cross-over methods between anthropology and futures studies, see R. Reed,

Doing futures research anthropologically, Futures June 1987.[14] R.B. Textor, The ethnographic futures research method: an application to Thailand, Futures 27 (4)

(1995) 461–471.[15] op cit reference 1.[16] op cit reference 3.[17] op cit reference 3, pp. 204–205.[18] L. Clarkson, M. Vern, G. Regallet, Our Responsibility to the Seventh Generation: Indigenous Peoples

and Sustainable Development, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Can-ada, 1992.

[19] Werbner, quoted in: D.L. Hodgson, Comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights movementin Africa and the Americas. American Anthropologist 104(4) (2002) 1037–1049.

[20] op cit reference 19.[21] op cit reference 3, pp. 57–70.

V.M. RazakState University of New York, Department of Anthropology, Buffalo, NY, USA

E-mail address: [email protected]

can indigenous cultures survive the future?

Documents