Differing Worldviews
Aboriginal cultures have been developing on Turtle Island 8 for thousands of years. Thus, it is only natural that Aboriginal worldviews have something to offer, both to Aboriginal people and all people in Canada. The challenge to overcome is the manner in which Canadian history has been written, taught and understood. Until recently, much of this history has oppressed and devalued Indigenous worldviews. Nevertheless, there are Aboriginal ways of doing things that are extremely relevant today, especially because they are rooted in ancient relations to the world.
In discussing worldviews, it is first important to recognize and acknowledge the differences and, secondly, to understand and accept them. 9 According to Chartrand (2004:vii), while acknowledging that conflict between competing interests is inevitable, we need to ask "how are such competing interests to be reconciled and disputes resolved? Who decides and how" (vii)? He suggests that concerns such as these represent a shift from the idea of "colonial systems doing things to Aboriginal peoples, to doing things for Aboriginal peoples, and finally, to the imperative of doing things with Aboriginal peoples" (vii). By understanding and respecting worldview differences, the barrier between doing things to and doing things with Aboriginal peoples can be overcome.
"Two Worlds Colliding"?
No matter how dominant a worldview is, there are always other ways of interpreting the world. Different ways of interpreting the world are manifest through different cultures, which are often in opposition to one another. One of the problems with colonialism is that it tries to maintain a singular social order by means of force and law, suppressing the diversity of human worldviews. The underlying differences between Aboriginal and Eurocentric worldviews make this a tenuous proposition at best. Typically, this proposition creates oppression and discrimination (Leroy Little Bear (Kainai) 2000:77).
Perhaps one of the most deleterious effects of colonization is the manner in which Indigenous cultures and worldviews have been misunderstood and oppressed. As noted by Special Rapporteur Martinez: Indigenous societies were studied according to "one-dimensional Euro-centric approximations which held consumer societies, the market economy and the "alleged intrinsic goodness of "modern" (Western) social organization" as superior (1992:7). Therefore, any culture not in line with the Western Judeo-Christian paradigm was deemed to be "backward," "obsolete," inferior and "if at all, of negligible value" (1992:7).
While xenophobia, racism and intolerance are still evident in today’s world (Martinez, 1992:7), there is some movement in addressing these issues. Martinez suggests that in order to examine and understand the "motivations, constructions and aspirations of indigenous peoples with respect to juridical manifestations…must be done in the light of what has been termed as ‘contemporary epistemological awareness’ which favors a decentred view on culture, society, law and history" (1992:7). The ability to decentre the Western worldview in order to understand Aboriginal ones is important to the ADR movement and the proper resolution of inter- or intra- cultural conflict.
There is also a growing proliferation of literature, including Intercultural Disputes in Aboriginal Contexts in support of a "contemporary epistemological awareness"(Martinez, 1992) and a need to "decolonize methodologies" (Smith, 1999). All disciplines, especially those that rely on multidisciplinary-generated data, theories and knowledge such as ADR, benefit from an analysis that at the very least decenters the Western worldview. This would allow for a proper reflection and understanding of other equally important ways in which Aboriginal people have come to understand and make sense of the world in which we live.
Such discourse may call into question the cultural transferability of Western-derived epistemologies and values. Many Western values are often held to be universal but find no resonance in Indigenous cultures. Their imposition may instead generate ethnocentric biases within Aboriginal communities (Martinez, 1992:9; see also Henderson, 2000:63). Thus, it is important to recognize different epistemologies allowing for alternative dispute resolution processes to be a part of the solution as opposed to furthering "the project of colonization" (Bell, 2004:242).
These issues are especially important in relation to Aboriginal disputes and the ADR movement. There is still direct and indirect resistance to Aboriginal people taking full responsibility for their own lives and according to their own unique ways of being in this world. This resistance is often grounded in eurocentric notions of the world. As noted by former National Chief George Erasmus:
All across North America today First Nations share a common perception of what was then agreed: we would allow Europeans to stay among us and use a certain amount of our land, while in our own lands we would continue to exercise our own laws and maintain our own institutions and systems of government. We all believe that this vision is still very possible today, that as First Nations we should have our own governments with jurisdiction over our own lands and people (as cited in Turner, 2004:61).
This Aboriginal understanding of the world is often in stark contrast to that of newcomers. Dispute resolution is enhanced when the parties to the dispute can agree to some common understanding of the world. Martinez provides two worldview commonalities that can ground the forthcoming analysis of differing discourses between Indigenous Peoples and Western societies. The two universals are (1) that all societies have a system of law (whatever it consists of) and (2) that all societies are rational (however this rationality is defined) (1992:13). With these two universals in mind an analysis of the differences in relation to Aboriginal worldviews and Western worldviews in relation to ADR processes may be grounded.
Worldview Differences
Martinez’s identifies seven important dimensions upon which Indigenous and Western state-based societies differ. These dimensions are repeatedly reflected throughout Bell and Kahane. They include (1) the concept of individuality; (2) life as an indivisible whole; (3) concept of time; (4) modes of societal organization, especially in relation to kinship ties; (5) concept of land guardianship/ownership; (6) leadership; and (7) principle of reciprocity 10 (Martinez, 1992). Each of these dimensions will have a direct influence on ADR processes in Aboriginal contexts.
Many of these differences are apparent in the chapter written by Elmer Ghostkeeper (Métis) titled "Weche Teachings: Aboriginal Wisdom and Dispute Resolution." Ghostkeeper speaks of "Aboriginal wisdom" as an epistemology to be respected and viewed at the very least, in equal stature and necessity as Western knowledge: "Aboriginal wisdom must be accepted in partnership, fellowship, and equity with other knowledge systems. In particular, it must be treated with respect and be given equally serious consideration as Western scientific knowledge" (2004:163). According to Ghostkeeper, Aboriginal wisdom encapsulates the Aboriginal worldview and reifies many of its philosophical beliefs.
"Aboriginal Wisdom" and Western Scientific Knowledge
Ghostkeeper outlines notions of "relationships," "time," "epistemologies," "reality," "concepts of land and culture" and "spirit" between Aboriginal wisdom and Western scientific knowledge bases. Aboriginal wisdom incorporates oral history and story telling as important forms of Aboriginal epistemology and is inherently holistic and cyclical; whereas Western knowledge is fragmented, pragmatic, and grounded in scientific evidence that can be quantified and empirically studied (see Figure 10.3 in text, pg 166). While both ways of understanding the world have very different foundations for truth and ways in which to ascertain this truth, both are equally valid (Ghostkeeper, 2004:165). The problem is in purporting one epistemology as being the only epistemology:
Science is fragmented because it represses emotion and spirit…People grounded in this knowledge system sometimes have difficulty understanding the relevance of what we need to communicate as Aboriginal people about our relationship to the land. They listen to a story and try to discern a scientific fact, rather than personal, spiritual or emotional connection, or they ask us to reduce our teachings to what we can prove by Western scientific methods. There is little room at many negotiation tables for spirituality, emotion, or experience that is not also supported by scientific fact (165-66).
Understanding these differences goes a long way in ensuring the development and use of equally beneficial ADR processes in Aboriginal contexts. Ghostkeeper explains what Martinez described as "life as an indivisible whole:"
Everything is one as created by the Great Spirit. Consequently, every living thing on earth has the same four aspects of self that we do. This understanding of ourselves and our connection to nature is what we call a holistic worldview. Everything, even objects Western culture may view as inanimate, has a soul; in our worldview, this means all life is sacred (2004:163).
As many Aboriginal cultures share this concept of "life as an indivisible whole," relationships and their preservation is often one of the main guiding principles to dispute resolution. Since all life is connected and inter-related, ensuring "balance" and "harmony" is paramount. Ghostkeeper notes that these relationships include not only human relations, but also relations with the land and all other aspects of the natural environment. Ghostkeeper speaks for many Aboriginal people when he says: " We must be true to these beliefs in all our communications about our lands and our life on those lands to remain balanced as individuals and as a people" (165).
In relation to the concept of land guardianship/ownership, Ghostkeeper explains that this sacred relationship can only be described within his own language, that there are no adequate words in English to describe this relationship and connection to the earth: "So when we discussed land, we always spoke in Cree. It was in this language we were best able to express our relationship to the land and its importance to us as the people" (2004:167). Many Indigenous cultures share this sacred tie and relation to the land. The fact that there are no words to describe this relationship adequately in present-day English simply speaks to the differences in worldviews on this matter. Given there is no common language and such tremendous difference in how land is perceived by each party, how should disputes involving land be resolved?
Ghostkeeper suggests that the answer for the Métis was through Weche teachings. Weche is a word that comes from the Woodland Cree expression Wechewehtowin, which means "partnershipping" (161). Weche teachings describe a "partnership" that was developed and used in relation to the Métis land settlement legislation in Alberta. Through Weche teachings both Aboriginal wisdom and Western knowledge bases were upheld and respected.
Ghostkeeper explains that he tried to ensure fundamental principles, which he calls "Métism" were kept in place during the land settlement legislation development (169). Métism is the "Métis way of doing things" and "Métis Wisdom." According to Ghostkeeper:
This concept of land, our relationship to it, and its relationship to our spiritual and physical health was difficult for the government people to understand. To this day I am not sure that they understand completely, but they did come to understand that land was integral to our mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being as a people and as individuals (168).
Relationship Building in "Indian" Time
Understanding worldview differences are especially important when designing and implementing either Western or Indigenous dispute resolution processes. Differing concepts of time, individualism, epistemologies, modes of speaking and communicating will have a direct impact upon both real and perceived successes of the process. For example, within many Aboriginal communities "work" takes a back seat to the "relationship-building" portion of any interaction. Many meetings and interactions begin with an extended period of time devoted to the informalities of simply sitting together, talking and laughing about everything but the issue at hand. To many, this segment of the get-together may appear frustrating, especially if the meeting ends with "let’s get together again tomorrow to pick up where we have left off" when in fact, the meeting had not even yet started.
The end result may very well be that four days spent "relationship-building" means the dispute itself is finally settled within an hour and all are happy with the outcome. This approach is compared to two days of intensive, stressful negotiation with little or no time spent on relationship-building, which may result in misunderstanding and stalemate.
The former process also makes use of the concept of "Indian time." Indian time is often a misunderstood concept and has fallen prey to the eurocentric notion that it means one is always late. On the contrary, Indian time means "the right time" and is hardly ever linear. It is cyclical and understands life to be always in motion and in constant flux (Little Bear, 2000:78).
The Idea of Universality at Work in ADR Processes
Berhendt’s chapter demonstrates how the idea of universality can work against ADR processes. The importance of "neutral third parties" and "impartiality" are upheld as universal ‘must-haves’ in relation to dispute settlement in Western models; however, within Aboriginal worldviews these traits contradict several important traditional teachings. As noted by Kahane: "Avruch reminds us of the cultural presuppositions involved in the belief (dominant in Western contexts) that the best mediator will be an outsider, impartial and unbiased. He suggests that ‘the ethnographic record in general does not support the existence of the uninvolved third party as either the norm or the ideal’" (2004:47). This, coupled with a neutral third party, "presupposes an authoritative system of law and rule under which parties to dispute are jointly situated" (31); it calls into question the validity and suitability for such "alternative" processes.
In this aspect and others, Behrendt suggests that mediation, which is meant to be an "alternative" response to court deficiencies and biases is actually a repetition of these same deficiencies. She provides suggestions and concerns, stating that while training Aboriginal people as mediators is a better option and takes care of the problem of trying to teach non-Aboriginal people important cultural teachings and perspectives, there are still flaws (125). Brehrendt suggests that simply training Aboriginal people as mediators may not be sufficient to counter the problems of "cultural bias" and the problem of "neutral and impartial" third parties as there are many distinct differences between Aboriginal groups and communities.
A trained Aboriginal mediator who is knowledgeable in Aboriginal culture would probably fare better than a non-Aboriginal mediator in the ability to use the "elicitive" approach. An "elicitive" approach requires the mediator to take the lead from the parties involved and recognize the process as both a functional and political one (Kahane, 2004:47). It does not impose a formula or process upon the disputing parties; rather it takes the lead from them in terms of timing, place, communication styles, and who is to be involved in the resolution process (LeBaron, 2004:20). An Aboriginal mediator knowledgeable in Aboriginal culture would also be better suited to ensure that such qualities as creativity, authenticity, empathy, respect for one another and leadership (LeBaron, 2004:17-19) are present throughout the dispute resolution process.
Distinguishing between Western mediator "must-haves" such as "neutrality," "impartiality " and "objectivity" and Indigenous ones of "personal involvement," "first hand knowledge," "tied to community and culture" are important for two reasons. First, simply imposing Western values upon an Aboriginal dispute will bias both process and outcome. Second, claiming Western norms and values as universal undermines the potential and realization of other equally important ways of understanding the world. Traits important to an Indigenous process reflect important tenets of their worldview such as life as an indivisible whole and the importance of oral tradition (just as there are rules for written histories, there are also rules for oral histories and traditions). Both issues would be resolved in large measure if the mediator, or mediators, came directly from the community, which is engaged in a dispute. This is also in keeping with oral tradition within Indigenous communities that often dictates who can and cannot speak on a subject. Those who are considered impartial and neutral are also disconnected and lack personal involvement; they are therefore not authorized to speak (see Brehrendt, 125).
Yazzie’s chapter on Hozhooji Naat’aanii (Navajo Peacemaking) demonstrates ways in which Aboriginal culture, traditions and "must haves" are being met and are experiencing a great deal of success precisely because of its grounding in traditional Navajo thinking. The naat’aanii (Peacekeepers) are leaders from the Navajo community who command respect during disputes because of their reputation for wisdom and knowledge of traditional teachings (108). The process is successful precisely because of its foundation in traditional Navajo concepts of "solidarity, mutuality, and reciprocal obligations" (108). In many different ways, the Navajo are assisting other Aboriginal communities who increasingly insist upon doing "justice" according to their own Aboriginal customs and legal traditions. As Yazzie succinctly states, "we are reviving our traditional law to survive" (107).
8.Turtle Island refers to the Western hemisphere, or the Americas.
9. Some argue that part of colonial history was to create the “strategy of differences” whereby certain European norms were ascribed positive traits while Indigenous norms were ascribed negative traits resulting in increased xenophobia (Youngblood Henderson, 2000).
10.According to Thurnwald, “reciprocity is an essential principle of law” (as cited in Martinez, 1992:15).