This multilingual essay, written by Professor Daniel Chartier, Université du Québec à Montréal, is translated into seven languages, many of which are related to the North—Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Russian, and Northern Sami—in addition to English and French. However, I cannot help but wonder why a version of the text is not presented in an Inuit language.
Historically, the North has been viewed as a “no-man’s land” used by colonial governments to claim ownership of territories commonly owned by indigenous communities. It has been described as an uninhabitable region, where human life could not exist. In more recent times, the era of militarization and globalization redefined the cultural and spatial organization of many indigenous cultures. Following a period of increased occupation, the focus on economy, natural resource exploitation, and Arctic policy has never been sharper, and never have the hopes and threats toward the North been bigger.
Climate change is particularly pronounced in the Arctic and tourists flock to the North to experience the “last frontier” and capture a glimpse of a melting glacier. In this essay, Professor Chartier discusses the contemporary perception of the imagined North. For thousands of years, Western cultures have imagined and portrayed the North with little knowledge of the subject. Professor Chartier argues that to fully be able to study the North and truly take into account the diversity of the region, we must ask ourselves (1) How can we define the “North” through imaginations? and (2) Which ethical principles should serve as a basis for our views on the Northern cultures to obtain a comprehensive understanding of these cultures?
The author describes how the lack of knowledge of the northern regions among Western cultures has led to a shallow perception, with little actual understanding of the North. Westerners have traditionally viewed this area as one unit; as a deserted place. However, the harsh nature of the North and its extensive history have shaped diverse cultural traditions deeply connected to the landscape and the environment in which they live. Thus, he argues, if the North is viewed as a circumpolar area instead of a multicultural area, one neglects the diverse cultures, politics, and languages. Professor Chartier concludes that all Arctic research must evoke both the cultures and the human natures to embrace the complexity of the North.
The essay is difficult to read, but it is nevertheless a timely aide-mémoire to all working on the Northern regions to embrace the diversity and to hear and include indigenous voices, as these have been ignored for too long. Although I find the objective of the essay clear, I am not sure of the intended audience. That being said, I would claim that people within the fields of anthropology, philosophy, and social science would find the essay interesting and relevant to their fields.