The Digital Geographies of Inuit, the Arctic, and Environmental Management Jason C Young A disser

317 Pages·2017·2.09 MB·English

Encounters Across Difference:
The Digital Geographies of Inuit, the Arctic, and Environmental Management

Jason C Young

A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Washington
2017

Reading Committee:
Sarah Elwood-Faustino, Chair
Matthew Sparke
Luke Bergmann

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
Geography
© Copyright 2017
Jason C Young
University of Washington

Abstract
Encounters Across Difference: The Digital Geographies of Inuit, the Arctic, and Environmental
Management

Jason C Young

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:
Professor Sarah Elwood-Faustino
Geography

There is broad consensus amongst scholars across a wide range of disciplines that digital
technologies are having profound effects on micro- and macropolitical processes across the
world. However, research into digital geographies has not rigorously examined the role of the
Internet in bridging epistemological difference. Rather, most of this research has focused on the
digital practices of a narrow group of elite users, situated in the Global North and largely lacking
epistemological diversity from one another. Those few studies that do shift their focus to the
Global South either take an anthropological view of a single society, or focus on unidirectional
impositions of the Global North on the Global South. In doing so, these studies similarly ignore
any bidirectional dialogue, or interepistemological encounters, between digital users situated in
very different regions from one another.
To overcome that gap, this project focuses on a dispersed and highly international set of
digital practices. Specifically, I analyze the emergence of digital, interepistemological encounters
related to environmental thinking and climate change politics related to the Canadian Arctic.
Issues surrounding the Arctic environment are ideal for this study because they have attracted a
global and diverse audience. Debates around Arctic environment often produce debates between
two different groups – Western scientists and Canadian Inuit – that hold very different
epistemological perspectives from one another. Inuit are increasingly using the Internet to
broadcast their voices to broader audiences, and there is some evidence that digital technologies
are successfully allowing them to overcome the spatial distance between their Arctic
communities and geopolitical centers of power. However, it remains unclear how effective these
tools have been for overcoming differences in epistemology between Inuit and other digital
users.
I begin by drawing on diverse strands of postcolonial and Deleuzian theory to develop a
theoretical framework capable of identifying how knowledge hierarchies are reproduced and
disrupted across digital spaces. Using this framework and an innovative set of computational and
qualitative methods, I identify three sets of digital processes that extend knowledge hierarchies
into digital spaces. First, I find that the material infrastructure of the Web within the Arctic has
intersected with colonial conditions to erode social practices that support the transmission of
Inuit knowledge. Second, I find that Inuit have comparatively less access to the digital tools and
spaces that might help them to transmit their knowledge to large audiences. Third, I identify a
range of transformative, digital practices that flatten Inuit knowledge to a set of empirical
observations, rather than as rooted in a comprehensive knowledge system, so that these
observations can be integrated into Western scientific frameworks. Each of these sets of
processes decreases the likelihood of transformative and pluralistic discussions between Inuit
and Western scientific epistemological systems. However, I also find that Inuit are actively
developing mediating concepts and practices to work against these knowledge hierarchies and
open space for more epistemologically pluralistic digital engagement. This research thereby
offers a comprehensive and empirically-grounded examination of how indigenous engagement
with digital technologies produce new forms of epistemological politics. In doing so it extends
geographic research on digital inequalities, digital participation, and knowledge production. It
also offers a novel postcolonial framework for analyzing digital knowledge politics, and extends
research into the role that digital technologies play in shaping international discussions about
climate change.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
2. The Arctic as Analog: Disconnects in Environmentalism ........................................................ 17
2.1 Introduction: Ethics in the Anthropocene ........................................................................... 17
2.2 The Arctic Environment: Southern Scientific Narratives ................................................... 23
2.4 Analog Encounters: Co-Management of the Arctic............................................................ 35
2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 44
3. The Potential for Digital Connection ........................................................................................ 47
3.1 Introduction: Theorizing Digital Connections .................................................................... 47
3.2 A Digital Arctic? ................................................................................................................. 51
3.3 Democratic Digital Encounters ........................................................................................... 55
3.4 Domination-Oriented Digital Encounters ........................................................................... 65
3.5 Resistance-Oriented Digital Encounters ............................................................................. 73
3.6 Positive Encounters: A Minor Framework of Digitality..................................................... 80
3.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 92
4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 94
4.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 94
4.2 Overview of Study Sites, Data, and Methods ..................................................................... 96
4.3 Digital Data and Analysis ................................................................................................... 99
4.3.1 Topic Modeling .......................................................................................................... 106
4.3.2 Qualitative Content Analysis ..................................................................................... 112
4.3.3 Critical Discourse Analysis........................................................................................ 113
4.4 Fieldwork-based Data and Analysis ................................................................................. 116
4.4.1 Participant Observation .............................................................................................. 117
4.4.2 Archival Research ...................................................................................................... 118
4.4.3 Semi-structured Interviews ........................................................................................ 119
4.4.4 Content Analysis ........................................................................................................ 121
4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 122
5. The Digital Arctic: Erosion of the Social Fabric of Inuit Qaujimaningit ............................... 126
5.1 Introduction: Digitality and the Social Transmission of IQ.............................................. 126
5.2 The Infrastructural Context of the Digital Arctic ............................................................. 127
5.3 Staying at Home, and its Impact on Inuit Sociality .......................................................... 136
5.4 Staying in the Community, and its Effects on Knowing the Environment ....................... 144
5.5 Bringing Technology on the Land, or the Digital Training of the Body .......................... 147
5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 154
6. The Digital Arctic: Differential Access to Digital Spaces and Audiences ............................. 156
6.1 Introduction: Differential Access to Digital Spaces ......................................................... 156
6.2 The High Costs of Digital Engagement, and Its Effect on Digital Form and Practice ..... 157
6.3 Norms of Digital Engagement .......................................................................................... 174
6.4 Digital Stratifications, or the Confinement of IQ to Less Visible Spaces ........................ 182
6.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 198
7. The Digital Arctic: The Flattening of Digital IQ .................................................................... 200
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 200
7.2 Transformations of the Arctic Environment ..................................................................... 201
7.3 Normalization of Science through Linking and Citation Patterns .................................... 206
7.4 The Flattening of IQ.......................................................................................................... 214
7.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 225
8. The Digital Arctic: Common Notions..................................................................................... 227
8.1 The Production of Digital Common Notions .................................................................... 227
8.2 Consultation and Collaboration ........................................................................................ 231
8.3 Adaptation and Resiliency ................................................................................................ 240
8.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 250
9. Conclusions: What Potentials for Digital Encounters? ........................................................... 252
10. Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 267
Appendix I: Coding Schema ....................................................................................................... 304
Appendix II: CDA Form ............................................................................................................. 307
Appendix III: CDA Form for Related Social Media .................................................................. 308
Appendix IV: CDA Summary Form ........................................................................................... 309
Appendix V: Basic Interview Script ........................................................................................... 310
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Representation of methods Pg. 98
Figure 4.2 Interview Participants Pg. 120
Figure 5.1 Xplornet satellite Pg. 133
Figure 5.2 Metal wire and iPod Pg. 149
Figure 6.1 Sites that emphasize environmental issues Pg. 185
Figure 6.2 Sites that emphasize consumption Pg. 187
Figure 6.3 Sites that emphasize indigenous issues Pg. 188
Figure 6.4 Prevalence of IQ and Western science across sites Pg. 191

1
Acknowledgements
I think that dissertations often have the strong connotation of being a measure of
individual accomplishment – an indication that a scholar is individually brilliant or authoritative
or hard working. I suspect, though, that most individuals that hold a PhD know that the opposite
is true – that a dissertation is necessarily a product of collective effort and achievement. This is
certainly the case for me, as this dissertation would never have been possible without the
support, encouragement, knowledge, brilliance, and effort of an incredible number of people in
my life. Here I hope to offer a small measure of thanks to some of you that have made this
document possible.
Bethie – this dissertation belongs as much to you as it did to me. Thank you taking off on
an adventure to Seattle with me, on what has turned out to be an incredible adventure. Thank you
for your love, support, and guidance. I wouldn't have made it through these six years without our
many dinners out, or our time spent vegging out on the couch, or our long-distance conversations
during my fieldwork. So, thank you for all of that and more. And, thank you for your time spent
memorizing obscure philosophers and corresponding keywords, so that you could dazzle
geographers with your connections between Foucault and biopower or Nigel Thrift and non-
representational theory. Perhaps this sense of humor was the most critical factor in helping me to
get through this process. Thank you.
I would also like to thank my other family and friends for their critical roles in my
education and work. To my parents and my brother – thank you for instilling in me a sense of
curiosity and wonder about the world. Thank you for always supporting me, for encouraging me
to pursue education to the highest levels, and for instilling in me good values and a drive to
always do my best. If this dissertation research does any good for this world, then it is only
2
because you raised me to strive to do good. Thank you to all of my friends here in Seattle, who
supported me, listened to me, laughed with me, and much more. A special thanks to the Society –
Marshall, Ariana, Julia, Joe, Itay, Lian, Mike P., Nisha, Skye, Mike B., and Greg – for providing
me with a place to come every week for great food and even better company. Again, this
dissertation would not have been possible without all of you.
Thank you, so very much, to the many faculty that have supported me throughout my
academic career. Most importantly, I would like to thank my committee for their support and the
intellectual energy that they put into this project. My deepest thanks go to Sarah - I truly cannot
imagine a better advisor. I am constantly impressed by your ability to tailor your support to each
of your advisees, by your ability and willingness to give (great!) advice on everything, by your
enthusiastic dedication to students and learning, and so much more. I so appreciate everything
that you have done for me over the past six years. I would also like to thank Luke and Matt for
their incredible contributions as committee members and mentors. I am so very appreciative of
the intellectual energy and creative ideas that you have brought forward to discuss my ideas and
work. I am also very grateful to have gotten to learn from each of you in your courses, and also
to have benefited from experiences teaching with you. I would also like to thank Lance Bennett
for his support throughout my Generals process, and to thank Jim Thatcher for serving as my
Graduate Student Representative. A range of other faculty and staff were also vital to my
graduate success. They include Mark Ellis, Kim England, Lucy Jarosz, Katharyne Mitchell, Rick
Roth, James Baginski, Sharon Frucci, Parwati Martin, Marci Melvin, Robyn Davis, Monick Keo,
and many more.
Just as important were the many graduate students with whom I shared offices, classes,
and ideas. There just isn't enough space to name all of you, so I will just thank some of the
3