A Letter from Oni the Wind

My beloved human beings, it is I, the ancient one who was before you were, listen to me for I speak truths. I have observed that some of you are angry with me because you have experienced a disruption to your lives. You have called this disruption a storm, a hurricane. Your notions though, are simply a very limiting stereotypical concept of me, Oni, the Wind. I reach out to you today because I see that you are in pain.

Know that I have not come to destroy you. I love you all. I come to you according to my original instructions. In the beginning we ancient ones worked together to create a place of wonder, beauty, and abundance of life. It is my work to continue in this sacred task.

And so, I move, seeking the waters and moving them toward the shores. I seek the rocks and stones of the mountains, plains, and deserts, too. As I push on these other ancient ones we, together, create what becomes the foundation for, not just dirt – but earth, the living soil that brings forth new life. I look for human beings, birds and all other animals, as well as the plants, too. I seek all of these beings in order to provide them with the life-giving, life-sustaining components that I carry: Water, gaseous elements, and a refreshing cool breeze on a hot day.

However, many of you human beings are not always aware of me. You do not notice me, the one who is always with you, unless you are in distress: Out of breath, too hot, or in the midst of a storm.

Know this truth, too, I do not move or work on my own volition. My movements are directed by our ancient relatives, e.g. the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the waters, and the trees, according to the heat and cooling that they provide. We, therefore, do not exist independent from another, but rather we exist because of one another. However, the human animals have increased their knowledge and while doing so, they have forgotten the truth: My manifestation, whether gentle or fierce, is in accordance to the actions and qualities of all other beings.

Sadly, many of the human animals, in quest of comfort and increased wellbeing, have pursued knowledge and technological development while disregarding the ancient truth. That is, some humans, working with imperfect knowledge while discarding truth, have altered our shared world in ways that are reshaping what you call climate and weather patterns.

Thus, you human beings, with your imperfect knowledge, have dug into our earth, extracting and burning what you have found, and by this have altered the elements in the atmosphere, increasing its temperature. You human beings, with your imperfect knowledge, have cut down our relatives the trees and the cooling forests are now so few. You human beings, with your imperfect knowledge, have attacked our relatives the mountains by removing their tops to use as fuel, altering the movement of our relative the water clouds in the process. You human beings, in your imperfect knowledge, have removed our relatives the trees, and now the protective mangrove forests that buffered the shorelines from strong winds are so few. You human beings, in your imperfect knowledge, if you find me fierce, remember, I am because we are.

My dear human beings, I want you to know that it is true, I am because we are. However, it is also true that you are because I am. So, if you hear it said that some human cultures are faulty in that they personify non-humans, do not believe it. Your personhood exists because I am: Therefore, I, Oni the Wind, personify you. Your personhood exists because water is: Therefore, Water personifies you. Your personhood exists because rocks are: Therefore, Rocks personify you. Human beings are persons because all other beings are, and each being has a right to be. I want you to understand this important truth so I will say it again: In the natural law, each being has a right to be, and this right is the basis of personhood and it belongs to all beings, not just human beings.

Therefore, because I love you, dear human beings, I am asking you to return to your original instructions. Recognize that your knowledge is imperfect. We ancient ones carry the wisdom of the ages and we will share that with you if you stop to listen. Your instructions are simply this: Be thankful. Be thankful for all that surrounds you and act accordingly: Work together in cooperative and reciprocal relationships with all other beings in order to maintain a gentle balance.

I am the one who surrounds you always, the one who breathes life into you, and the one who loves you always,

Oni, the Wind.

~ Nancy Babbitt ~ a “make character” project that extends from Linda Hogan’s book titled “Power: A Novel” for a class I took at SUNY Empire State College in the summer of 2015 titled Mythology and Modern Life that was developed by Dr. Menoukha Case and taught by Dr. Batya Weinbaum.

Advertisements

What Racism Is, How it Began

A shameful 2017 Inauguration Day Prayer was delivered by Christian televangelist and pastor Paula White-Cain. It is shameful because it affirms the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Manifest Destiny – the foundations of White Domination (i.e. enforcing and normalizing Eurocentric ideology and life ways in non-European lands and onto non-European people), which is otherwise known as White Supremacy, which is often called Racism.

 

Art as an Agent of Social Change

 

 

16143514_10154197908890544_8300077684422338586_oThe Scream
2017
84″ x 132″
Acrylic on canvas
Shame and Prejudice: A Story of Resilience opens Thursday January 26th at Art Museum at the University of Toronto

The Scream is a portrait of the silenced history of Indian Boarding Schools. Indian Boarding Schools were created when both Canada and the U.S. enlisted clergy to abduct First Nations/Native American children and place them in institutions many of which were run in a military fashion. There, the children were forbidden to speak their languages and practice their customs. Far too many children were traumatized by emotional, physical, and sexual abuse perpetrated on them by their captors. Some did not get to see their families again until they were adults. When they did return home they could not communicate with family members because they did not know their language. When they went into the world as adults and had children they found that they had no parenting skills because they were not taught any. Males were taught to farm (which had been the occupation of Native American women) but in the European style. Females were taught submission to male authority and domination and how to clean the church sanctuaries (when traditionally many Native Nations were women-centered gynocracies that were rather egalitarian and democratically run by women leaders who saw to it that each member of their community was well cared for). In other words, those children were taught in a manner that would hold them in bondage and in submission to a Eurocentric ideology based on domination and control. Many children died in these institutions – murdered – and even their bodies were not returned to their families. The U.S., in particular, has a shameful history of settler colonialism, genocide, cultural genocide, as well as chattel slavery, and that needs to be publically acknowledged en masse before racial healing can truly take place.

 

The Power of Storytelling: Cosmologies

People across cultures develop ways to describe how life came to be. Specifically, there are culture-specific cosmologies that explain how a particular people (culture) and their environment came into existence. Cosmologies are stories that are passed on from generation to generation as a sort of ritual or custom that offer explanations for how the universe came to be. Cosmologies are creation stories, and because they are shared from one generation to the next by means of storytelling, they are a form of transmitted culture. The term culture, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary (n.d.), comes from the Latin term cultura meaning to cultivate or tend (the land). In other words, a particular culture is closely related to the land and environment in which it originally developed, and many cosmologies describe this connection while also shaping the worldview of the people who embrace the story.

The custom of storytelling about origins then, is a cultural universal and the individual creation stories are culture-specific, where the people and their environment shape each story. Thus, people’s creation of cosmologies is a cultural universal or cultural etic, and the individual stories are examples of cultural specifics, or cultural emics; these stories are shaped by and in turn influence a peoples’ worldview.

Below, Global Spirit TV presents Kay Olan (Mohawk) discussing (telling a story) about the Haudenosaunee Creation Story, which shapes a non-Western worldview.

 

In The Hadeshanownee [sic] Creation Story with Kay Olan (Global Spirit, n.d.), then, Kay Olan gives a brief overview of the Skywoman cosmology. In this origin story, Skywoman falls to the watery earth, and she along with various other Earth Beings shape the continent that we commonly refer to as North America as well as all the other Beings that inhabit it. According to Stephanie A. Sellars (Shawnee), scholar of Native American Women’s Studies, the Haudenosaunee as well as other Native American Peoples who share the Skywoman cosmology, are traditionally matrilineal societies, who trace descent through the mother’s line, as well as gynocratic nations (2008, p. 44). A gynocratic nation is a woman-centered social order that is shaped by a woman-centered cosmology and it is a social order where a gender-balanced worldview exists; in this worldview, gender is not perceived as binary opposites, but rather the notion of gender is related to complementary beings who co-create and maintain reciprocal and power balanced relationships in a rather egalitarian social order (Sellers, 2008, p. 51-53). Kay Olan, in her discussion, also tells of the importance of co-creation, reciprocity, and power-balance in the Haudenosaunee worldview. A worldview in which people value power balanced relationships is quite distinct and it stands in contrast to  mainstream U.S. culture’s Western worldview.

The Western worldview, on the other hand, is hierarchical and individualistic, in nature. Native American authors help me to understand how Western cosmologies shape the Western worldview. Thus, Christianity’s Adam and Eve story as well as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution dominate as origin stories in Western societies. Barbara Alice Mann (Seneca of Ohio) refers to the Euro-Western “metanarratives” of monotheism, sexism, and conflict” when discussing the Western worldview (2011, pp. 61-62).  In this narrative, Christianity’s Genesis story posits a single male creator who ordained man (Adam) to label and classify the world, subdue the earth and its creatures, and rule over women (because Eve sinned by disobeying God’s authority).  The Adam and Eve, God versus Satan narrative imposes ideas concerning a good versus evil dichotomy along with the notion of opposing sexes and this sets the stage for thinking about separateness and hierarchy. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, likewise, is an origin story, and it posits what Stephanie A. Sellers names a “hierarchy of existence” where at the bottom of the ranking scale and of least importance are the rocks and minerals, next in value are the plants, and then the animals reside at the top and this is where man sits at the very apex (2008, pp. 19-21.).  These stories, together, shape the overriding philosophy of the Western worldview, and they introduce notions of separateness (individualism) as well as the idea of hierarchy that often serves to exclude and oppress based on in-group/out-group categories.

The terms worldview and culture are related, yet they have distinct meanings. Kathryn A. Johnson, Eric D. Hill, and Adam B. Cohen of the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University explain the relationship between the terms culture and worldview. Thus, “[c]ulture, broadly defined, refers to a shared system of knowledge, language, social norms, values, and behaviors” whereas “[a] worldview involves how an individual knows and thinks about what is in the world” and “how he or she relates to the persons and things in the environment (Johnson et al., 2011.).”  There is some conceptual overlap with these terms, however, worldview refers to individual or collective “psychological, cognitive, and affective determinants of behavior and not the artifacts, technologies, or institutions that may be included when discussing [the collective nature of] culture (Chiu & Hong, 2006 as cited by Johnson et al., 2011.).” Thus, worldview better describes a person’s psychology or the study of mind and human behavior; and the traditional Haudenosaunee psych, if you will, is more egalitarian and collectivistic than it is hierarchal and individualistic, which describes the Western worldview.

Culture, or the shared language, knowledge systems, values, social norms, and behaviors, then, shapes worldview. Johnson et al. (2011) confirm this assertion when they cite Snibbe and Markus (2005) referring to the process of worldview formation as

sets of assumptions that are widely (though not universally) shared by a group of people, existing both in individual minds and in public artifacts, institutions, and practices. At the individual level, these cultural models provide implicit blueprints of how to think, feel, and act (p. 704).

Furthermore, according to what we commonly refer to as the Whorf hypothesis, language or a particular way of using words, shapes one’s worldview and thus one’s perceptions concerning reality.  That is to say, there is evidence that “people’s language predisposes them to focus on some things rather than others (Spradley & McCurdy, 2012, p. 49.).”  We can conclude, then, that the sharing of cosmologies (which can be thought of as blueprints for cultural schemata) simultaneously shape and express particular worldviews while passing theories on the origin of the universe from one generation to the next.  Cosmologies, therefore, are a source of legitimate knowledge in that they inform us of the foundations of a particular society’s worldview – the ways in which they understand reality. Thus, cosmologies are artifacts of culture, and when expressed through the practice of storytelling, they provide blueprints for shaping how people think and feel, as well as how people ought to relate to others.

Native American academics, such as Stephanie A. Sellers, tend to think that the woman-centered, gendered balanced, power-balancing Skywoman cosmology is an important factor in shaping the (traditionally) egalitarian social order of the Nations of the Haudenosaunee Peace Confederacy. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence that proves this.  Johnson et al.( 2011) report that although there is research concerning worldview, “interactions between religion and national cultures as transactions of different worldviews” is under-emphasized in the literature. Interestingly, cosmologies, in the context of ‘great religions’ are given status as components of “religions”, whereas cosmologies in Native American belief systems are often given a lower classification as being “quasi-religious” or simply labeled as folk or children’s stories. Some researchers, such as Bagele Chilisa (2012) and Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) assert the classification system that places indigenous knowledge-keeping systems and traditional ways of life lower on a hierarchical scale (i.e. primitive) characteristic of the power dynamics involved in colonization practices and they call for decolonizing research methodologies as a way to correct the power imbalance. Johnson et al. (2011) call for expansion of psychological research in the realm of religion as a factor is shaping human behavior. This proposed research should include folk tales that are components of “quasi-religions,” as well. Perhaps with time, empirical research will find a way to “scientifically” confirm what Native Americans assert about the power of story to shape people’s attitudes and behavior.

References:

Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE.

Johnson, K. A., Hill, E. D., & Cohen, A. B. (2011). Integrating the Study of Culture and Religion: Toward a Psychology of Worldview. Social & Personality Psychology Compass5(3), 137-152. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00339.x

Mann, B. A.  (2011).  Iroquoian women:  The Gantowisas.  Peter Lang.

Online Etymology Dictionary-Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0

Sellers, S.  (2008).  Native American women’s studies.  New York:  Peter Lang.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.

Spradley, J., McCurdy, D. (2011).  Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology.  Pearson.

The Hadeshanownee Creation Story with Kay Olan. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjylR_8EWl4

Book Review – Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas

Iroquoian Women

Barbara Alice Mann discusses the roles of the Gantowisas (women) in Iroquoian culture, past and present. On the surface, it appears that the text focuses on the social, economic, political, and spiritual roles of the Gantowisas among the confederacy of Iroquois Nations whose ancestral territories covered not only New York State, but also portions of Canada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio; and now because of European colonization also expands into Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and beyond. However, this book is also a critique of other experts of Iroquoian history and culture. Thus, Mann compared primary source materials such as missionary tales, ethnographic research, and other early historical accounts to one another, but more importantly she compared them to the oral Keepings of voices that were often overlooked in the accounts recorded by male researchers – those of the Gantowisas. Mann found that much of the early research was incomplete, inaccurate, misinterpreted, and misrepresented by those who held or were influenced by a male-dominated society and who held a Western worldview. She named the results of such biased research “Euro-formed”.

The purpose of Mann’s work is to fill in the gap and to straighten out distorted perceptions; something that she explains is often referred to in Iroquoian cultures as untangling someone’s hair, and untangle she does. Mann made clear that although often missing from historical accounts, as Mother of the Nations, the Gantowisas were the leaders in their societies, acting with official capacity as mediators, counselors, and judges. Furthermore, they were the fire-keepers, faith-keepers, peacekeepers, and shamans or medicine women. Mann walked her readers through the Iroquoian historical record known as the Epochs of Time, showing that women have always been leaders in their society. In short, Mann revealed that the Gantowisas are and have always been the highly respected foundation of the Iroquoian world.

Another important element in Mann’s account of Iroquoian culture was that the society that the Gantowisas created was rather egalitarian. Specifically, the Iroquoian concept of a gendered world referred to complementary ‘twin’ forces that interact with one another as balanced pairs in order to maintain a cosmic balance. This served to shape a worldview where individuals, living in community, maintained cooperative and reciprocal relationships and where power was balanced. This is quite different from notions of opposing genders that shape a worldview centered on competition and conflict, and a good/evil dichotomy, and a hierarchical social order, which is the norm in Western thought and theory. This is one of the primary tenets of the text: Euro-formed interpretations and analysis often did not reflect the important distinctions between worldviews, and therefore researchers applied a Euro-Western twist, which Mann straightened out. Barbara Alice Mann is performing in the leadership role of Gantowisas today, as is demonstrated by her Iroquoian Woman shaping a more accurate and balanced record of Iroquoian culture and history.

Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas Foreword by Paula Gunn Allen Third Printing by Barbara A. Mann

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

View all my reviews

© Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog, 2013-2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

U.S. Stealing Land from Indians and Giving it to Foreign Corporate Interests

The U.S. is still attempting to grab land from the Indians, this time to give it away to foreign corporate interests. Please honor our treaty agreements by signing the attached petition, and then share the story and petition widely.

From a Dec 3 Huffington Post story,

WASHINGTON — When Terry Rambler, the chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, woke up Wednesday in Washington, D.C., it was to learn that Congress was deciding to give away a large part of his ancestral homeland to a foreign mining company.

Rambler came to the nation’s capital for the White House Tribal Nations Conference, an event described in a press announcement as an opportunity to engage the president, cabinet officials and the White House Council on Native American Affairs “on key issues facing tribes including respecting tribal sovereignty and upholding treaty and trust responsibilities,” among other things.

Continue reading here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ndaa-land-deals_n_6264362.html

And sign the petition here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-apache-land-grab/rnMfH0WL

Understanding Worldviews: Scientism Versus Other Ways of Knowing

What stands out the most to me is the contrast between indigenous ways of knowing and the ways of knowing that are prevalent in the dominant mainstream U.S. culture. For example, a general way to describe these different ways of knowing is to discuss them in terms of what Geert Hofstede described as the cultural dimensions of individualism versus collectivism. Sometimes, these ways of knowing are referred to as one’s worldview.

The notion of individualism means that members of western cultures tend to think of themselves as being independent. Competition, achievement, and personal goals are valued. Success is understood as being the result of individual effort, which implies that an individual is solely responsible for what one has accomplished and gained, even though others may have assisted them in achieving their success. In contrast, Indigenous Peoples describe a very different understanding their world. Often, they embrace a collectivistic culture that emphasizes interdependence. These different ways of knowing are at seemingly opposite ends of the spectrum, so to speak, and therefore I will discuss them in terms of indigenous ways of knowing versus mainstream (western) ways of knowing.

One of the most notable differences between indigenous thought and western thought concerns the notion of proper land use. More specifically, the western worldview has been shaped by a history that embraces the belief in a God-given edict for man to subdue the earth. This idea led to the notion that the land and all that is on it are natural resources. Land is to be held by private ownership, and used for the purpose of resource exploitation and capitalistic gain.

In contrast to western notions of private land ownership, Indigenous Peoples describe a very different relationship with the land. Terms such as Mother Earth, and Grandfather Rock, for example, describe a kinship relationship with the land. Whitt, Roberts, Norman and Grieves (2001) describe the relationship between people and the land as humans “belonging to the land”, not the other way around. In this indigenous worldview, Whitt et al. (2001) explain, humans are indebted to the earth and its many interrelated (interconnected and interdependent) systems, and therefore they have an important role to play. That is, humans have the important responsibility to act in a manner that promotes the continuance of interdependent relationships that will, in turn, provide for the humans and their progeny’s continued well being and existence.

Therefore, one of the most important indigenous values is respect for all beings, living and non-living. The complex knowledge-keeping systems that Indigenous Peoples have created present knowledge in a way that shapes a view of the world as being a web of interconnected and interdependent relationships. Those with an indigenous worldview are aware of and respect the Earth’s interconnected and interdependent systems, whereas the those with a western worldview are only recently beginning to understand this very complex reality.

This awareness of interrelatedness shapes ideas about the nature of reality for Indigenous Peoples in ways that are, perhaps, very difficult for others to understand. An example of such is the notion of humans being in a kin-type relationship with animals, plants and even rocks, and these beings have not only life, but also a spirit. Yet, this is exactly what Tinker (2004) explained in The Stones Shall Cry Out when he wrote that “Indians have a notion of interrelationship” and a respect “for all life forms” . . . “including rocks and trees”. Tinker took this idea one step further as he discussed how privilege (unearned advantage) was constructed when western society imagined, with their scientific reasoning, notions of evolution,

Rather than elevate human beings to the apex of an evolutionary ascendency (i.e., Darwin’s common descent), the lack of human privileging over these other life forms means that Indians understand that all life shares equal status and that value, personhood, and intelligence must be recognized in all life (Tinker, 2004).

This sentiment reveals the indigenous value of equality as being quite distinct from the sort of distorted notions of equality that allow for a competitive and hierarchical social order (where ideas shape systems that privilege some while disadvantaging others), as is the case with the western worldview.

Thus, we can see that the western individualistic worldview is deficient. The belief in individualism, perhaps, clouds people’s ability to see that humans are dependent on (and interdependent with others) and these relationships are important for their own well-being and survival. Therefore, people need to act with respect and responsibility toward all of their relations – including animals, plants, water, air, and yes, even rocks. This information about interdependence, respect, human responsibility, and true equality are present in indigenous knowledge systems, and indigenous ways of knowing shape a more egalitarian collectivistic worldview for the people who understand this complex reality.

References:

Tinker, G. E. (2004). The stones shall cry out: consciousness, rocks, and Indians. Wicazo Sa Review, 19(2), 105-125.

Whitt, L. A., Roberts, M., Norman, W., & Grieves, V. (2001). Belonging to land: Indigenous knowledge systems and the natural world. Okla. City UL Rev., 26, 701.

© Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog, 2013-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

An Example of Scientism ‘Columbusing’ Indigenous Knowledge

Today, I read an article published at the Smithsonian website concerning Australian Aboriginal myths and legends about fire-devils (meteorites) leading to ‘fresh scientific discoveries’. It is an example of Western science ‘Columbusing’ Indigenous Knowledge (IK). The holders of the IK were not properly cited or credited but instead were only mentioned as ‘aboriginal guides’ and not by name, or ‘tribe’ in the article, whereas the Western scientists have been named and credited with this ‘discovery’. 

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Scientism is the Western scientific method, which commonly discredits other ways of knowing, often naming it myths and legends, while it simultaneously capitalizes on the knowledge produced and preserved for generations, even hundreds or thousand of years, by Indigenous Peoples. Situating knowledge systems in this way is an exclusionary tactic that privileges some cultures and some people over others in a hierarchical system based on power and control.

The Smithsonian article is linked above and below.

To Find Meteorites, Listen to the Legends of Australian Aborigines

© Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog, 2013-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Situating Knowledge Systems – A Summary

Western thought, knowledge, and education systems differ from Indigenous ways of knowing. What this means is that there are certain assumptions that originate from Western European society’s culture, history, and ideology that are quite different from the knowledge systems that are based on the traditions, history, and philosophies of non-Western cultures. Western rationalizations have largely excluded the knowledge systems of the colonized ‘other’ in their discourse, and by this, they produce conditions of social injustice. Dr. Bagele Chilisa has intimate knowledge concerning both the dominant knowledge systems and that of the colonized ‘other’. This is because Dr. Chilisa was born and raised in Botswana, Africa (a former British colony), and educated in a Western academy at Pittsburg University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and is currently a social science research expert at the University of Botswana. Therefore, with a firm foundation in each worldview, and as an informed response to the prevalence of Euro-Western intellectual domination and the suffering that results, Dr. Chilisa has authored a text, Indigenous Research Methodologies (2012), in which she has placed the philosophies of these two worldviews in conversation with one another in order to form a new framework that she describes as a postcolonial indigenous research paradigm.

Situating Knowledge Systems, the title of chapter one of Indigenous Research Methodologies, provides a framework for understanding the differences between Western and non-Western philosophies and worldviews. In this chapter, Chilisa discussed the need for the decolonization of Western research methodologies, and then she examined various cultural assumptions concerning ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge and truth), and axiology (cultural values). To do this, she compared and contrasted three research paradigms: the positivist, interpretative, and transformative, within the context of a non-Western worldview. Then, Chilisa suggested the integration of relational indigenous ways of knowing with aspects of Euro-Western research paradigms for the dual purposes of decolonizing social science research and legitimizing indigenous knowledge and value systems by constructing an indigenous research paradigm. Thus, situating knowledge systems, concerns the need to examine the cultural assumptions that shape various social science methodologies, and appropriately make changes that will decolonize the hegemonic Western approach by shaping an alternative postcolonial indigenous integrative and relational research paradigm and methodology.

The decolonization of Western research methodologies is necessary in order to give voice to historically silenced perspectives. Western research methodologies move toward decolonization when the research paradigm becomes inclusive of the relational indigenous perspective. Thus, decolonized research methodologies value relationships, and therefore, they recognize and embrace the notion of interconnectedness. They are formulated and framed within indigenous ways of knowing and they are simultaneously respectful of the Indigenous ownership of indigenous knowledge. They open discourse space to topics that have been historically invalidated or silenced. The dismissal of what might be labeled sorcery, or the avoidance of the discussion of colonization, are examples of such silencing. They also adhere to “ethical standards such as the informed consent of the researched” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 3, 4.). Thus, research approaches have a postcolonial indigenous paradigm and method when they are participatory in that they create a ‘third space’ in which to consider the history, experience, perspective, values, needs, and rights of the researched; and when they shift power in such a way as to direct it toward social justice by meeting indigenous goals including the recognition of a relational reality and the right to Indigenous self-determination.

In order to meet the goals of an indigenous research paradigm and methodology, it is necessary to establish a context for understanding how such compares and contrasts with predominant and hegemonic Western research approach. For this reason, Chilisa documented cultural assumptions concerning the nature of social reality (ontology), ways of knowing (epistemology), and ethics and value systems (axiology) within three Euro-Western research paradigms: the positivist, interpretative, and transformative. She discussed them and their associated cultural assumptions in detail by scrutinizing each paradigm’s philosophical underpinnings, their ontological assumptions, where each places cultural values in the research process, their assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge and the meaning of ‘truth’, the methodology each employs, and the techniques each uses for gathering data. Each of these cultural values are relevant, yet especially important to consider, though, is the purpose for which each research paradigm has been designed, because the purpose (and the world view that informs it) shapes what is and is not included in the other cultural assumptions. With this context, Chilisa also suggested an alternative framework for an indigenous research paradigm and she listed the cultural assumptions from which it was developed.

Thus, the positivist/postpositivist approach to social science research has been designed in order to discover natural laws that are generalizable and which are universally applicable. Chilisa (2012) described this approach as the scientific method, which is informed by the philosophies of realism, idealism, and critical realism, which in turn, state that there is one objective reality that is (because of human imperfection) only knowable and expressed in terms of probability. The scientific method, because of its universal applicability, is free from cultural values, except when choosing a research topic. Knowledge, in this way is objectively determined where the truth is based on observation and measurements that are verifiable. Positivist/postpositivist research designs use quantitative, correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental, causal comparative, and survey methods. Scientists gather data, primarily through questionnaires, observations, tests, and experiments (pp. 40-41, paraphrased.). A shortcoming of this approach is that this sort of research is designed to meet the needs and goals of the researchers, and it may not necessarily address “questions of relevancy” or issues of ethics and morality, but instead further reinforce the dominant group and their particular paradigm (Chilisa, 2012, p. 31.)

On the other hand, the interpretive approach to social science research has been designed in order to understand and describe human nature. Chilisa (2012) described this approach as informed by the philosophies of hermeneutics and phenomenology, which state that reality is socially and multiply constructed where each social group determines its own value system. Knowledge, in this way, is subjective and idiographic where the truth is dependent on context. Interpretive research designs use qualitative, phenomenology, ethnographic, symbolic interaction, and naturalistic methods. Researchers gather data, primarily by the use of interviews, participant observation, pictures, photographs, diaries, and documents (pp. 40-41, paraphrased.). A shortcoming of this approach is that this sort of research has a history of unequal power relations, where the researcher has also been the colonizer, and where the result is that indigenous knowledge is likely to be suppressed in favor of Euro-Western paradigms, thus the worldview and practices of former colonized societies might become excluded from the dominant system of knowledge production with the interpretative research paradigm (Chilisa, 2012, pp. 34-35.).

In addition, the transformative approach to social science research has been designed in order to destroy myths and to empower people to change society radically. Chilisa (2012) described this approach as informed by the philosophies of critical theory, postcolonial discourses, feminist theories, race-specific theories, and neo-Marxist theories, which state that multiple realities exist, which in turn, are shaped by human rights values, democratic and social justice values, and political, cultural, economic, race, ethnic, gender, and disability values. Knowledge, in this way, is dialectical in understanding, which is aimed at critical praxis and is informed by a theory that unveils illusions. Transformative research designs use a combination of quantitative and qualitative action research, and participatory research. Researchers gather data by using culturally responsive techniques of data collection (pp. 40-41, paraphrased.). The transformative approach to social science research has addressed shortcomings of the positivist/postpositivist and the interpretative methods, yet is still not indigenous because it is not culturally situated in Indigenous ways of knowing.

On the other hand, the indigenous approach to social science research has been designed with a very different purpose that is shaped by a very different worldview. The indigenous approach is designed to “challenge deficit thinking and pathological descriptions of the formerly colonized and reconstruct a body of knowledge that carries hope and promotes transformation and social change among the historically oppressed” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 40.). What this means is that the indigenous approach is much the same as the transformative research paradigm in that it is informed by the empowering philosophies of “critical theory, postcolonial discourses, feminist theories, critical race-specific theories, and neo-Marxist theories” but it is distinct in that it is also informed by indigenous knowledge systems (Chilisa, 2012, p. 40.). Therefore, an indigenous paradigm and methodology integrates what is useful in Euro-Western paradigms with indigenous ways of knowing in order to create a new paradigm and methodology that is uniquely designed to meet the needs of Indigenous people.

Additionally, the indigenous paradigm is similar to the interpretive and transformative research paradigms in that it assumes multiple realities, yet it holds the further distinction that communicates the indigenous worldview. Thus, indigenous assumptions about reality hold that there are “[s]ocially constructed multiple realities” that are “shaped by the set of multiple connections that human beings have with the environment, the cosmos, the living, and the nonliving” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 40.). Knowledge, in this way, holds that “all research must be guided by a relational accountability that promotes respectful representation, reciprocity, and rights of the researched” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 40.). Therefore, an indigenous paradigm and methodology recognizes interconnectedness, human rights/animal rights/environmental rights ethics as integral to the nature of ‘reality’ and ‘truth’, and this shapes the approach.

Thus, indigenous research designs are unique. They use “participatory, liberatory, and transformative research approaches and methodologies that draw from indigenous knowledge systems” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 42.). Unlike western methods, researchers using an indigenous paradigm and methodology gather data using “techniques based on philosophic sagacity, ethnophilosophy, language frameworks, indigenous knowledge systems, talk stories, and talk circles” and they use these in conjunction with techniques adapted from Western paradigms (Chilisa, 2012, p. 42.). In this way, indigenous methodology situates first, the indigenous worldview and ways of knowing and integrates this with what is useful from the Western academy when conducting social science research with indigenous and otherwise marginalized populations.

Thus, Dr. Bagele Chilisa has, in order to decolonize social science research paradigms and methodologies, put forth a postcolonial framework for indigenous research. This framework is inclusive of the Western worldview and methodologies, but it is critical in that it examines the purpose of each of three Western paradigms, understanding that each has its unique notions concerning what it values, and what is real and true. For this reason, the positivist/postpositivist, the interpretative, and the transformative paradigms are not truly effectual for Indigenous social science research, because indigenous ways of knowing are distinct. Thus, in order to give voice to traditionally silenced ways of understanding what is real, true, and valued; Chilisa has shaped a postcolonial indigenous research paradigm and methodology. This paradigm creates a space to conduct research that is not only about Indigenous (otherized) people, but instead is inclusive of Indigenous life experience, worldviews, and ways of knowing. In this way, Chilisa has situated Indigenous ways of knowing at the front, yet along with Western knowledge systems, blending the past and the present across multiple ways of knowing, in order to shape a new future where social science research methods legitimize the experience, perspective and wisdom of historically oppressed Peoples within and without the Western academy. An indigenous social science research framework fosters hope and creativity in order to shape strategies designed to meet Indigenous goals and needs.

References:

Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications.

© Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog, 2013-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Stereotypically Objective Paradigm

To be objective is to hold assumptions about reality and the nature of truth without considering context. This is the scientific method, and it is imperfect in that it is generally understood that because of human error, truth can only be known and expressed in terms of probability when discussing human behavior. The scientific method eliminates what the researchers find to be false in order to ‘bring knowledge closer to ‘the’ truth,’ rather than proving something true. This is the reason for expressing scientific knowledge about human behavior in terms of probabilities. Furthermore, when context is taken into consideration, the generalizations that the scientific method produces may no longer hold true in individual cases. What, then, is produced by scientific objectivity in the social sciences?

Objectivity produces a mind that thinks in terms of generalizations. Classifying the world in this way also results in what social science research expert, Dr. Bagele Chilisa (2012) described as a “paradigm that becomes essentialized, compelling thought along binary opposites of either/or,” and that way of thinking underlies notions of ‘us and them’ when thinking about people (p. 25.). What this means is that when we generalize about people, thinking in terms of either/or, we are very likely to ‘otherise’ people. Otherizing takes place when we think in terms of generalizations about individuals (others), who we perceive (and maybe incorrectly so) to belong to certain groups, who we then perceive (and maybe incorrectly so) to hold certain characteristics, and this way of thinking can block the way of truly getting to know and understand individual particularity. Objectivity, then, we can reason, produces a mind that is likely perceive and classify individuals in general terms concerning characteristics that we have attached to certain groups; in other words, obective thinking likely leads to the stereotyping of individuals.

Chilisa, B. (2011). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications.

© Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog, 2013-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nancy Babbitt and Just Desserts Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.