Naming, Knowing, and Listening: Deepening Our Understanding of Personhood in Place and Space

In many Indigenous cultures, the natural world is not simply a resource or a backdrop to human existence—it is a network of living relations. Mountains, rivers, lakes, and forests are Ancestors, Teachers, and Knowledge Holders. They are conscious, interconnected beings with roles, responsibilities, and ways of knowing. They exist with agency, autonomy, and spirit.

In recent years, we have seen essential movements led by Indigenous Peoples to protect these living relations through the legal concept of personhood. While this concept reflects strategic and visionary leadership, it also invites us to reflect on how legal systems can evolve to honour natural law and relational responsibilities fully.

Personhood as Protection: Reclaiming Relationship in Law

Indigenous Nations have led efforts to grant legal personhood to places and spaces to reassert relationships with lands and waters through recognition, stewardship, and care.

Here are three well-known examples:

1. The Whanganui River, Aotearoa (New Zealand). In 2017, the river was granted legal personhood through the Te Awa Tupua Act, affirming its identity as a living and indivisible being. Whanganui iwi (tribes) had long maintained the relationship expressed in the phrase “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au”—I am the river, and the river is me.
2. The Magpie River (Muteshekau-shipu), Quebec, Canada. In 2021, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and the Municipality of Minganie recognized the Magpie River as a legal person, granting it the right to flow freely and maintain its biodiversity. This step blended Innu relational values with legal innovation.
3. Te Urewera, Aotearoa (New Zealand). Once a national park, Te Urewera is now recognized as its own legal entity. No longer owned by the Crown, it is governed by a board rooted in Tūhoe knowledge and law. The act marked a return to Indigenous stewardship based on belonging, not ownership.

These examples show how personhood can shift power, reassert Indigenous relationships to land, and reframe governance. They are not about control—they are about honouring the relational nature of land.

Expanding the Conversation: Are There Other Ways to Relate?

 

While personhood is a valuable and strategic legal tool, some Indigenous thinkers and Knowledge Holders are asking more profound questions: Is personhood the only or best way to express the agency and autonomy of land, water, and ecosystems? Or is it simply one way—among many—that humans are trying to re-learn how to live in a relationship with the natural world?

Legal personhood is rooted in human systems of law. It translates nature’s being into a framework designed for humans to understand and work with. In doing so, it can unintentionally reinforce anthropocentric norms—even as it tries to disrupt them. It can create situations where humans still speak for the land, even when the intent is to honour it.

So perhaps the question isn’t whether personhood is “right” or “wrong,” but how we continue to evolve our systems from recognition to relationship, from ownership to responsibility, and from control to care.

Listening to the Land: Mother Earth as the Decision-Maker

 

In Indigenous philosophies, Mother Earth is not passive. She is the ultimate knowledge holder and discretionary decision-maker. Her movements—through storms, regeneration, and seasonal shifts—demonstrate her agency. She knows how to maintain balance. Sometimes, that balance comes with fire, drought, or flood.

We risk forgetting this truth when humanity positions itself as the sole decision-maker. We must remember that we are not the stewards of nature; we are part of nature. Good stewardship is not about imposing control—it’s about listening, learning, and following the laws already in place.

Relational Governance: Beyond Legal Recognition

The future of protecting land and water may lie in legal personhood and the resurgence of relational governance—governance guided by natural law and responsibilities, not just rights.

This means:

• Protocols of consent and relationship-building with land, not just legal agreements.
• Ceremonial and cultural practices that connect us to place and teach humility.
• Indigenous place names that encode ecological knowledge and spirit.
• Community economies that work within the capacity of the land are not in opposition to it.

These frameworks honour the land as a relation—not as an entity to be interpreted through legal terms alone.

Speaking With, Not For

 

Indigenous-led personhood efforts are potent steps in reclaiming the relationship between land and law. But we must also remain mindful that speaking for land—even with good intentions—can sometimes reproduce colonial habits of thought.

Let us instead learn to speak with the land, remembering that the land has always spoken—our role is to listen, support, and respond kindly. When we move from human-centred protection to land-centred relationships, we begin to embody what it truly means to live in good relations.

Mother Earth is not ours to define. She is our relation to honour.

 

By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

(Image Credit: James Shook, “Whanganui River,” Wikimedia Commons)