Weaving the Spirit of Indigenous Feminism

Response to Reviewer 2´s Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: This article broaches, through practice-based artistic research from a feminist perspective, an important socio-cultural topic crucial to social cohesion, namely that of decolonizing Swedish Sámi spirituality in hopes of establishing the conditions for the difficult and painful work of reconciliation. This alone is merit enough for publication. More scholarly work needs to engage with lived experience in expanding our sense of the 'knowledge economy' beyond merely the logical and empirical. 

To demonstrate this thesis, the author begins with the methodological and theoretical basis of practice-based artistic research that notes the technique of 'reflective writing' developed by the author 'from within the body one self and the art work, while critical writing constructs the contextual framework, accompanying and strengthening this voice'. This technique is important to the epistemological contributions of the article as 'first-person' knowledge is so-often neglected in conversations with respect to what 'counts' as knowledge. This practice is crucial to the burgeoning field of 'art research' and is important to see how such practice contributes to the knowledge economy.

At the heart of the article is Section 3 mistitled as 'Results', which circumscribes what the author means by decolonizing Sámi spirituality. The title of this section is confusing as results typically come towards the end of a study, detailing one's findings or outcomes of one's research. What is even more perplexing is the subsequent Section 4 is also entitled 'Results', making it difficult to follow. I suggest the author change Section 3 to something like the following: 'Decolonizing Sámi Spirituality through Practice-based Artistic Research: A Feminist Approach'. This, in my estimation, properly captures what this section is about.

If Section 3 is retitled as suggested, I think it would be important to move the actual account of the artistic process (sub-sections 3.9 and 3.10) to the beginning with a brief introductory paragraph so the reader knows what to expect since, as the author argues, 'the artistic process is the core, and research methodology and theoretical perspectives are built around it, functioning as a supporting framework'. By moving the account of the artistic process forward it makes the artistic practice central to the research, allowing for the theoretical and historical explanation to follow. I'm not even sure if Section 2 is necessary in that it could be part of an introduction to what is now Section 3 or perhaps even captured after the account of the artistic process as explanation.

With respect to what is now Section 4, 'Results,' this section could be combined with 'Section 5: Discussion' but needs more focus in that the outcomes from the research need to be tied back more specifically to the research question/problem. In doing so, the author will be able to demonstrate more clearly just how practice-based artistic research contributes to knowledge. The author is successful in doing this in the two paragraphs with the sub-heading of 'Weaving'. More specifically, the second paragraph is crucial to the overall argument where the 'fourth-weave' actually becomes the site where reconciliation may in fact occur. Such a brilliant observation!

That said, the entire article needs to be reviewed for generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. For example, the claim that Christianity is 'a patriarchal power institution' based on the church's conception of the Trinity as excluding 'the feminine divine' is unsubstantiated and a sweeping generalization. To be sure, various historical expressions of Christianity in different cultural contexts, which very well may be the case in Scandinavia, have exhibited patriarchal power structures. And yet, the Christian tradition conceives of God as genderless because God is Spirit and is often characterized by feminine characteristics (e.g., the book of Proverbs refers to divine wisdom as Lady Wisdom and the prophet Isaiah and Jesus describe God in maternal terms). That said, the language of Father and Son, while masculine, are relational designations. Jesus Christ is indeed male but his masculinity is only because of Mary's femaleness. Hence, his humanness as male is not possible without the female. These points, of course, have been brought into the foreground by developments in feminist theology that not only have reexamined the Scriptures but have also reclaimed parts of the Christian tradition.

All that to say, it's not that the author isn't justified in noting the importance of bringing the feminine into divinity and the abusive patriarchal power structures of various expressions of Christianity. The author unfortunately does so in broad sweeping terms. This is but one example. There are other places where these kinds of generalizations need source citations, clarification, or might simply need to be removed altogether because they don't further the author's argument.

Similarly, the author writes in such a way where there are lengths of descriptive content that doesn't seem to explain the importance of the content. For example, the paragraph on page 9 at line 397 that begins with the sentence 'Duodji is the traditional Sámi craft, in which weaving is included' is merely descriptive. While interesting, the reader is left to wonder how or why this paragraph is important to the author's argument. Several of these kinds of descriptions appear throughout the article. The author would do well to revise these kinds of descriptions by turning them into explanations for why the content supports the main point. If not, the content should be cut.

On the whole, I think the author makes an important contribution to the burgeoning field of art research but more importantly demonstrates how said research can be the site for social cohesion and in this instance possible reconciliation through decolonization. To make this point more cogent, the author would do well to revise the article's structure, making clear what the research problem/question is and how artistic making, in this case weaving, speaks to the question/problem, which is then accompanied by the methodological/theoretical discussion. This revision would also help to eliminate the aforementioned generalizations as well as portions that are mere descriptions rather than explanations.

AUTHOR`S RESPONSE: Thank you for extensive and thorough review with constructive critique of my manuscript. I am most grateful! I agree with almost everything said. The original manuscript was submitted under severe stress which can explain some of the most obvious flaws, but that is of course not the reason for everything. I apologize for submitting the text in that state, and that you had to read it like that. I am truly sorry for that.

I have listened to the suggestion of reorganizing the manuscript so the artistic process comes first. I agree that this makes it so much better and strengthens the whole article. The doubling of headlines – Results – are now gone. The reason for having this headline at all was a misinformation that the publisher required it. I was happy to skip it altogether.

I have tried to avoid the generalizations, such as the Trinity-discussion. Now it is milder and I hope, better substantiated. I have deepened the section around Sámi/indigenous spirituality with more references to current Sámi theology.  I totally agree that I am in need of English proofreading by a native English speaker. I am searching for one with bort indigenous and academic skills, which is not easy to find for me. The North Sàmi poems are currently proofread by a North Sámi person. I wait for her response any day.

I added some more photos, which adds to the content. I would have liked some more imges from the process, such as detailed ones, but maybe this will make the article too long.

Again, I am most grateful for this review.

Response to Reviewer 2´s Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS:   There is a need for proofreading the spelling, in English, but most urgently in Northern Sámi, as the content is often misleading. For example, Vuolleaibmi is not a known spelling. Áibmi is a cutting needle, áibmu is air/sphere and ilbmi is the world. Choose one of the latter. On page 12, 3.8 the term gulahallat means to communicate, to understand each other, and goes both ways, and Gulahallat eatnamiin thus translates to speak with – not to – the earth. This concerns the core of the article's theme, that there is a two-way bond between people and land.

References need to be checked, for example hooks 2009 is not in the reference list. The use of ( and ) in the text seems a bit random.

The text should be thoroughly proofread, both in English and Northern Sami, as the spelling is random, and the use of Sámi words is sometimes misleading compared to the English text. For example, on page 14 it says “that embody space” in Sámi “Dat čuojahit ruovdemáđiija čađa” – which translates to “Playing through the railway”. This does not seem intentional. I am not familiar with the usual expectations of Arts as to which works should be included in the presentation and discussion, but it seems a bit neglectful of other recent Sámi artworks that could have put this project into perspective, for example by Hilde Skancke Pedersen or Maret Anne Sara.

AUTHOR`S RESPONSE: Thank you for reviewing my manuscript. I am most grateful. The original manuscript was submitted under severe stress which can explain some of the most obvious flaws, but that is of course not the reason for everything. I apologize for submitting the text in that state, and that you had to read it like that. I am truly sorry for that.

I totally agree that I am in need of English proofreading by a native English speaker. I am searching for one with bort indigenous and academic skills, which is not easy to find for me. The North Sàmi poems are currently proofread by a North Sámi person. I wait for her response any day. My family language is Umesámi, which is only spoken by a handful, as I am sure you know. That is why I chose Northsámi for the poems, so more people could understand them. Unfortunately, they were not proofread before submitting. Again: sorry!

I have now reorganized the whole manuscript so that the artistic process comes first. I have deepened the section around Sámi/indigenous spirituality with more references to current Sámi theology. I also added some more photos, which adds to the content. I would have liked some more images from the process, such as detailed ones, but maybe this will make the article too long.

Thank you for the artistic references of Hilde Skancke Pedersen and Maret Anne Sara. I will certainly add them to the discussion on symbolic rematriation by art.

Again, I am most grateful for this review.