What’s in a Name?: Mutanchi Clan Narratives and Indigenous Ecospirituality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very valuable contribution to the study of Mutanchi notions of a sacred geography, based on oral clan narratives in Dzongu/Sikkim. It raises important questions about human-nonhuman relationship, indigenous notions of personhood and the mythical landscape.

Though there is a general introduction on methodological issues (Indigenous epistemologies, postcolonial/decolonial approach,  etc.), the ethnographic part is relatively short, rich but very dense, and can be improved by providing further context. For example, one would like to know more about the Mutanchi clan system (putsoh) and its social implications (territorial rights, traditional leadership, gender relations). It would be interesting to get more information about the content of the narratives (why not recount some in full detail?). There is only a very short summary of one story (Thing-Gokmu and Gnue Kyong-Mu). 

Moreover, there is little engagement with the ethnographic literature. There are very few references to publications in Lepcha studies, and even if there are still many gaps, at least a critical evaluation of previous work would be welcome.

There is a fairly rich literature on the issues under discussion with reference to neighbouring cultures in the central Himalayas, which also deal with such important phenomena as ritual landscapes, mountain divinities, ritual journeys, sacred lakes or external souls. Since the significance of names and ritual knowledge is highlighted, the role of ritual texts would deserve more discussions. Are the oral texts, which apparently tend to be forgotten, not written down?

Toward the end of the chapter the concept of nature is used repeatedly. Here it would be worthwhile to refer to the anthropological discussions which have been critical of the Western bagagge of the term.

The argument of the paper is altogether very convincing and makes an important, previously neglected point, so some further elaborations will only strengthen it.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general the English is clear but still it would be advisable to have copy-editor check the language.

There are a few unfinished sentences, unclear or somewhat clumsy formulations.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and for pointing out the areas of improvement. I have reworked the paper extensively, addressing the areas mentioned by the reviewer: 

1. authoethnography in the Narrative method section.
2. The recounting of the narratives is primarily an oral transmission and ritual practice, substantiated by the comments of the community members.
3. The overall ecosophical engagement

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this article hoping for some interesting discussions that will contribute to the ongoing conversations around indigenous knowledge and climate change. Regrettably, I must admit that I am not convinced that this article does a good job of doing that. As someone who is interested in this conversation, my interest in this article was sparked immediately. Just as quickly, however, reading the introduction dampened my enthusiasm, as it was not clear what the problem is. It is further difficult to say whether the author successfully makes their case even after the conclusion.

It seems part of the author’s aim is to contribute to ecosophical study and yet most of the article is an overview of materials already recorded in the secondary literature. The central argument of the paper is not entirely clear. I have concerns about its arguments and the overall materials presented to support them. The article, as it stands, requires significant revision in order for the Journal to consider it publishable; it needs to be restructured and then systematically flesh out what is at stake to become viable.  

I encourage the author to persist with such a revision and below I provide some more detailed queries that I hope they take in the spirit of collegiality they are intended and might find useful as they improve their article. 

One approach might be to emphasise their argument that: “The Mutanchi people's belief in the sanctity of nature and everything that is held within, prompted by the guardianship of/over doh, chyu, lhep is far more than a mere treating of it as a cultural artifact”.  

Another way is to focus on the argument that “our belief systems form a resistance to the commodification of nature and …”, which I find it more interesting. This should be unsupported by the new materials; but unfortunately, it was not the case in this version of paper. In either case, the argument should be clear in the introduction, rather than letting readers make conjectures throughout the paper.

Framing is also problematic so is the methodology: “What’s in the name” at the end of the introduction is late in the game and drawn out; but also it is uninteresting and, more importantly, unproblematic. I understand that this article is a part of a special issue, yet it should be read as a standalone paper, while placing its argument within the larger context of the issue.

Then, it seems that a type of clan and their religious practices, which seem to be primarily oral, are central to the arguments; however, they did not receive the attention/analysis that they deserve. The author needs to briefly explain this clan; and how it differs or aligns with those clans and social organisations found in the nearby regions/states. This should be followed by an overview of religious practices that are specific to this clan: how is this clan different or similar to other clans? Crucially, what is so special about this clan and why does it require the author’s attention at this point in time? What new knowledge do we learn in relation to climate resistance, etc.?

Next is to focus on the claim that “these belief systems offer valuable insights into sustainable, holistic approaches to nature”, which requires further unpacking. Currently, the paper, as it stands, doesn’t engage in the discussion/analysis of this subject, in that how the clan’s beliefs offer valuable insights; what are they; what are these “holistic approaches”, as claimed in the statement? The author needs to demonstrate the evidence of the “valuable insights” into sustainable environment, embedded in the cultural practices of these peoples.  How do these insights inform a sustainable environment? Is it through specific policies, specific actions or practices, or any other forms of cultural practices? This will form the conclusion of the article and will require the author’s personal analysis which the paper is currently devoid of. Methodologically, the author needs to explain how this research was conducted. How is their conceptions influenced by their positionality as a native person?

There are many unsupported claims such as oral narratives as “relics of the community”, which require further unpacking. What does being a relic of the community entail?

There is inconsistency in the use of English spellings; some are British, but others are written in American English. E.g. Aetiological/etiological, problematise, materialize, etc., demonstrating hastiness.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the intriguing comments and observations. It allowed me to understand that there is plenty of scope for the intended direction of scholarship that the article now hopefully addresses.

I have reworked the paper, but I would like to sincerely point out that the article, although submitted to an academic journal, intentionally defies the straitjacketing, as any self-reflexive indigenous scholar would argue.

The point of the article is to foreground the bane of extractive research and trivialising Indigenous lived experiences and worldviews as mere 'data'. These are sacred narratives and observations that are shared willingly by community members, and the tendency of most scholars, including institutionalized indigenous scholars, is to view them as nothing more than an area of interest.

I have tried to work on the constructive comments that the reviewer was kind enough to point out, and hopefully, the integration of ideas is satisfactory.