307
Arctic Yearbook 2013
What Does the Arctic Teach Us?
particularly the case of geology, oil, gas and other minerals research, as well as scientific and
technological developments in the areas of drilling, transport and shipping.
All in all, the Arctic nicely reveals the role science (and technology) plays as industrial civilization
evolves: from being a means of naturalistic exploration, it transforms, in the hands of the state, into
a tool for military conquest and war. Furthermore, it becomes a means to illustrate the global
changes that are going on under our eyes, without however addressing these changes. And finally it
turns into a powerful tool of the accelerated pursuit of industrial development, notably for
exploiting the resources industrial civilization badly needs. At no moment is science (and
technology) a means to counter the destructive trends of industrial development, at least in the case
of the Arctic, and probably not elsewhere either. As for the social sciences, their role has been
largely uncritical in the Arctic, if not overtly promotional of Arctic (industrial) development
(Einarsson et al., 2004). Very rarely do social scientist problematize the profound changes the Arctic
is currently undergoing. Finally, cultural anthropology, which is part of the humanities and as such
not directly involved in the promotion and pursuit of industrial development, often documents these
changes, especially as they affect indigenous peoples. At best, it proposes adaptive measures at local
levels.
How About Indigenous Peoples?
And how about the peoples of the Arctic? After all, development should be about the peoples, their
quality of life, and their emancipation, both in the Arctic and elsewhere. As a matter of fact, the
inhabitants of the Arctic appeared as a significant actor only at the end of the Cold War era. At that
time, when the Arctic was freed from the Cold War but had not yet become the theater of the global
race for resources, peoples, especially indigenous peoples, slowly acquired a voice of their own
(Finger-Stich & Finger, 2012). Furthermore, they started to politically organize themselves (e.g.,
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Sami Council) and even obtained Permanent Participant status in the
Arctic Council. If before they were considered from a southern perspective rather exotic or idealized
or did not count at all, they are now acquiring certain political clout. In the case of Greenland,
whose majority population are indigenous peoples, and a political force, there is even hope for
national independence. Nevertheless, things may well change again for the Arctic indigenous
peoples, as the rush for resources, along with climate change, will result in local environmental
destruction, and as their caution regarding resource exploitation may well marginalize them again. In
this regard, what happens to the indigenous peoples in the Arctic may simply be typical of what
happens to indigenous peoples all over the world (e.g., Africa, Amazonia, Philippines, Indonesia)
(Sawyer & Gomez, 2012).
What Can the Arctic Teach Us?
In this chapter, I have taken an epistemological perspective on what happens in the Arctic. I have
shown that there are two major types of actors – nation-states and TNCs – which have determined
in the past and are currently determining the fate of the Arctic, and thus the planet‘s anthropogenic
habitability. I have also shown how their relationship has evolved over time to end up today in a