Johnnie Moore had an interesting thought this morning:
Jeff Jarvis talks about the Gutenberg Parenthesis. Those who bemoan the supposed short attention spans of the networked generation, typically measure this by the capacity or willingness to read a book cover-to-cover. This assumes that reading books is normal; but what about the vast span of human history before books? Perhaps we’re seeing a reversion to ways of knowing that were diminished by the printed word… to a more oral culture in which remixing is natural.
This reminds me of the book, The Alphabet and the Goddess which also suggests that reading had a powerful and not always positive effect on how we think and behave.
I left him my own thoughts…and I say this as a guy that loves books.
I think the issue is not attention spans so much as it is a breadth of attention. Before there was text humans needed to be incredibly aware of context, of everything that surrounded them of how things worked and what initial conditions led to certain kinds of results. This is important in agrarian societies, hunting societies, transoceanic travelling cultures and other kinds of indigenous land based ways of being.
What we have lost during the Gutenberg parenthesis I think is the ability to think systemically. Book reading has taught us to be linear and to expect a beginning a middle and an end. That is not the way the world works and I think we ignore it at our peril.
This is a little bit I think of what we will taste in our module at the ALIA Summer Institute this year.
Share:
I’ve recently been introduced to the work of Al Nygard, a Native consultant working out of South Dakota primarily in Tribal communities. Al’s approach and values are very similar to my own, and it’s cool to see familiar ideas in another person’s hands. Al works with traditionally based models of leadership and calls his community development work “community empowerment.”
My colleague Jerry Nagel sent me a link to a video of Al answering the question of why it is so hard to get things done in Tribal communities. Essentially he identifies seven factors that make community empowerment unique. These seven factors bear out my own experience too. He calls these The Art of the Native View. If you understand this view, the work you do will take. If not, and if your work is built on mental models that don’t take these into consideration, you’re in trouble. In my own success and failures working in communities I can relate to how important it is to build your work on appropriate mental models, appropriate views. Even though Al identifies these seven factors as basically universal, each community has unique circumstances, cultures and histories that also inform the work of community empowerment. This stuff is interesting to me as I am about to embark on a project to work on community engagement and empowerment with my mates in the Berkananetwork, tailoring some of our resources to work in Tribal communities in North America
Starting around 5 minutes into the video, Al gets to the nub of his approach in building empowerment in Native communities. It centres around seven things that all Native communities share which make the work of empowerment unique. I’m summarizing and editorializing a little on his words here.
Trust. This is about building relationships of mutual reliance. It’s about building trust between people, between families and between people and institutions.
Communication systems. The default communication system in Indian country is the moccasin telegraph. Works fast but not always reliable. So we need a variety of ways to communicate – audio, visual, kinesthetic. Reliable commonly shared information is important and doing it in a multi-modal way is important.
Leadership systems. Who are the leaders in the community? Elected leaders, heads of entities and institutions yes, but what about moms, students, Elders, veterans? Leadership is everywhere. The system that develops and directs leadership in all these ways is important. Elections are clear but how are we developing leaders in other areas and how do we get information to leaders so they can act? Leadership in Native communities comes from invitation: you are asked to be a leader. Also, there is an end time. When it’s over, it’s over. In Anglo cultures we seek out leadership and then we hang on to it as long as possible. To me this is one of the reasons why Open Space is such an interesting fit for traditional leadership forums, as these are the same dynamics that underlie that process.
Governance. What are the rules that tell us what we can depend on? Not the same as government. Do your rules help you or hold you back? That is the essence of governance
Lateral oppression. Sometimes called the Indian crab syndrome (in a bucket of crabs, when one tries to escape the others will pull it back down). Lateral oppression is the way that power shows up in shadow in a community. When you are working with empowerment, the shadow work of paying attention to lateral oppression is very important.
Racism and Inequality. A common experience of all Native people living in community is the disparity of experience on the rez vs. off the rez. Over time, experiences of oppression, racism and inequality eat away at self-esteem and colour how we relate to the outside world. Just this evening in a cafe I was running this dynamic showed up as a difference between how a First Nations forest company and non-First Nations forest companies dealt with the stress of uncertainty about the future.
Hurt and Balance. The lingering effects of trauma from issues like residential school abuse, language and culture decline, and the subsequent multi-generational issues create a myriad complex of dynamics that often confuse and confound outsiders.
Al’s framework is a useful lens to view work in Tribal communities. Mental models and world views matter.
Share:
In the middle of a four day gathering of indigenous child and family services organizations here in British Columbia. I’m back in my room even though it’s after lunch and our meeting was supposed to have restarted because history just got made.
To understand what this means, you have to have an appreciation of how the state has related to indigenous communities in this country since colonization began. The essence is that tools of law and legislation have been used repeatedly to deny the jurisdiction, rights and responsibilities of First Nations from nearly the moment European governments set eyes on this continent. Nowhere has that become more of a hot point than with the issue of children.
For more than 100 years the stated policy of the federal governments was to place First Nations children into the care of the state and the churches by sending them to residential school. The residential school system was designed originally to educate the “Indian out of the child” and to assimilate people by breaking up communities, punishing kids for speaking their language and subjecting them to slavery, by forcing them to work to keep the schools running. This one policy alone has left a legacy of unhealthy family structures, weakened cultures and multiple generations of vulnerable children. When the provincial government stepped into to take responsibility for children in the 1960s the infamous “sixties scoop” happened whereby kids were removed from their families to be raised by non-native familes. By the 1980s the sixties scoop had ended and the residential school system was shut down. From that time onwards, Aboriginal kids were at the mercy of the non-Aboriginal child welfare system. In BC alone, the percentage of kids in care who were Aboriginal skyrocketed to today where it is now more than 50%.
In the last 20 years, First Nations have become more proactive in creating their own child and family services agencies and taking back responsibility and later control over the system. Starting at a historic meeting in 2002 in Tsawassen, BC, the provincial government began the process of recognizing the authority of First Nations communities to look after their kids. A process that began in 2002 (which I was involved in primarily on Vancouver Island) saw the creation of regional authorities around the province to oversee the establishment of First Nations child welfare systems. These authorities, had they been passed into law, would have taken all responsibility short of law making authority and placed it in the hand of communities through regional authorities.
The problem with the regional authority model was that it didn’t work well with the inherenet jurisdiction of the First Nations governments in BC. Problems began to appear in 2007 between the provincial political leadership and the leaders of the regional authorities. At the last minute, literally as the enabling legislation was to hit to the floor of the Provincial legislature, the provincial political leadership – against the wishes of many First nations cheifs – shut the process down. For a couple of years we were back to the status quo, and things looked grim.
But behind the scenes, the provincial ministry of child and family development was working to transform the child and family services syste. Led by a deputy minister, Leslie Du Toit, the ministry worked to help nations develop their own systems and did it from a position of recognizing the authority and jurisdiction of First Nations to care for their kids. As a result the 15 and more projects that are gathered here got off the ground, reestablishing a child and familiy services system that is deeply ingrained in the cultural, spiritual and political power of the Nations themselves. It has been a hugely decolonizing experience (the children of the Haida Nation even wrote their own declaration of their rights which is to be passed into law).
So things are ticking along and this has brought us to today where we have gathered 120 people to share their experiences and accelerate their work together. It has been a good meeting so far, conducted in ceremony and working productively and positively. Today the deputy minister made an announcement though that has rocked us all. She announced today that provincial government was now opening the door for First Nations and Metis groups in BC to create their own legislation to replace the Child and Family Services Act and to enbale indigenous child and family services systems to be established and supported designed and delivered by the Nations themselves. It is the first time anyone can remember the colonial government ever stepping out of the power they have and giving over the legislative jurisdiction to First Nations.
Suddenly our meeting has got a lot more interesting. Accompanied by the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn A-in-shut Atleo, she stood for the principle that only a system created by the people for whom is it intended will be the right system. Everything we have been working towards suddenly is a reality. The chiefs are excited, the people who have been developing and delivering the indigenous systems are elated that their work will be made the formal system for their people in the province and everyone is buoyed by the right thing happening at the right time.
Suddenly we are all on the same side. My long time mate David Stevenson who is an Art of Hosting steward is right at the centre of the work in his job as the Executive Director of Aboriginal Services for the Ministry. Many other people who were with us through the regionalization process on Vancouver Island including Marion Wright, Kyra Mason, Pearl Hunt, Bruce Parisian and others are here celebrating and preparing for the hard work ahead. We are taking a break now while we get ready to go to the Sts’ailes longhouse for an evening of singing and speaking in ceremony. Tomorrow when we come back to work, we’ve thrown out our agenda and will just spend a half day in Open Space to articulate the opportunities that we have among us, all of us hosting together the very first steps on what will become the next chapter in a historic journey.
Share:
Nenan is a child and family services initiative serving the treaty 8 region of northeastern BC. Have a look at their work here for simple, direct, culturally based ways of engaging everyone in their community as they create a new system deeply rooted in culture and integrated world views.
Nenan has utilized the Circle of Rights Community Empowerment Process (formerly Triple A) in many communities in the north-east providing an invaluable wealth of information on the strengths, assets and resources- specifically culturally based, as well as risks and challenges to supporting children and families. A deep exploration of community values has also been undertaken providing a wonderful foundation from which systems and services will be built upon.
A grounding principle of the Circle of Rights approach is that the wisdom of Elders and community members, including young people, will be central to the redesign of services for children and families to ensure the strengths of the past and present are respectfully applied to creating holistic, strength based services for children today and for generations to come
There is a fine art in doing this work to surface the values that are inherent in the language and way of life and translate them into principles and ways of working without trivializing them or minimizing them or creating boiler plate statements. The 15 projects that are gathered here at the conference I am co-hosting in harrison Hot Springs are feeling their ways through, and producing marvelous work.
Share:
What is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?.
Principles of the Inuit way of life that are finding their way into decision making and governance in Nunavut and other Inuit governments and authorities.
1. Pijitsirniq (or the concept of serving) This principle lays out the roles and relationships between the organization and the people it serves;
2. Aajiiqatigiingniq (or the concept of consensus decision-making) Tied in with this concept is the need to develop a standardized consultation process for the Government of Nunavut and the Inuit oganizations;
3. Pilimmaksarniq (or the concept of skills and knowledge acquisition) This concept was added to ensure a meaningful capacity-building adjunct to all government community-empowerment exercises. More research into teaching and learning practices needs to be done, obviously;
4. Piliriqatigiingniq (or the concept of collaborative relationships or working together for a common purpose) The initial research that Joelie Sanguya, an Inuit consultant from Clyde River, conducted with Inuit elders for Sustainable Development suggested strongly that the communities wanted to be full and meaningful partners in all community and social development activities;
5. Avatimik Kamattiarniq (or the concept of environmental stewardship) This planet is all we’ve got. Since we are the only creatures capable of massive, irreparable damage to the environment, this makes our stewardship all that much more serious;
6. Qanuqtuurunnarniq (or the concept of being resourceful to solve problems) There is no single defining factor of being Inuit, but this comes close. Inuit culture is qanuqtuurniq.
This inquiry has accelerated for me, even though it has been the basis for my life and work for more than 20 years. Since the experience I had in Hawaii in June and susbsequent conversations and musings, deeply understanding the intersections between worldviews, and especially indigenous and settler worldviews has been the focus of my work. More than ever, and especially with some projects I have been engaged in recently, I’m falling deeply into this space of inquiry.
Applying values like these is not only possible, it is necessary and important. Our world is at a place where a strong understanding of indigenous science is necessary if we are to transcend all kinds of old ways of being. The above is a very crystallized version of what Inuit communities and families bring to the table.