Insights into Practice: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People - Essay Example

Insights into Practice Accountability is not met by increasingly subtle and deep feelings of rage and/or sorrow because of injustice… it requires action: the use of our power in concrete ways to implement the demands of justice (Welch, 1990, p. 35) It is in this context that I would like to situate myself at the outset of this word essay, as my identity and experiences have influenced my insights into practice and future career goals. I will begin by acknowledging that I am a White woman given a privilege to work with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I am grateful to be able to study, work, and play with the ATSI peoples. I am an able-bodied, White woman of ____ descent from an upper middle class family. Over the past few years I have come to see that I have been granted a wide range of privileges and power simply due to such social locations, not because of anything I did to deserve them. I have simultaneously grown increasingly uncomfortable about the lived realities of numerous groups of people who are marginalized because they happened to be born into different situations. I have come to recognize that I have a choice: use my privilege to benefit myself, or use it to advance a social justice agenda. Hence my goal of this assignment is to develop my own practice approach to challenge privilege contributing to the ongoing oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. My professional commitment is to work towards a more socially just society. The disparities I have observed, as well as my respect for Aboriginal wisdom, culture, and beliefs, have led me to a place of wanting to build a career around working as an ally to Aboriginal communities for the future and well-being of all people. As an outsider to Aboriginal communities I acknowledge that I will never fully understand the lived experiences of Aboriginal peoples, in particular the emotional, physical, and spiritual devastation caused by colonization. I also recognize that I face a significant challenge: Despite my genuine commitment to a career working for social justice, I still feel that I represent a history of colonizers who have deeply injured Aboriginal communities through their insensitive behaviour, self-serving policies, lack of knowledge, and failure to acknowledge the inequalities so prevalent in society. As a result, I accept that it will take a long process of trust building to be accepted by certain communities (Browne, Smye, & Varcoe, 2005), and that I will inevitably make mistakes and unintentionally hurt people due to my lack of knowledge. However, I commit to learning from such mistakes. It is in this place of not knowing, which may be uncomfortable and disquieting at a deep and disturbing level, that people may be able to transform their colonial relationships with Aboriginal peoples through a process of internal decolonization, which Regan (2005) described as “unsettling the settler within” (p. 7). It is in this space where people work through their unease that they are most open to transformative learning on a deep level. Introduction I would like quote again Welch (1990) “We can neither undo the past nor control the future. But we can learn from the past, and we can live creatively, responsibly, and compassionately in the present” (p. 37). He explained that simply feeling angry about the inequalities in this world is not true action. Though it may lead to actions, alone it means very little. Therefore, I believe that if people are to be accountable to a passion for social justice, they must act. Although I recognize that justice requires action, I simultaneously recognize that I do not yet know how to act. Yes, I am grateful that I have a huge heart, because it is this gift of loving and being loved that enables work for justice (Welch, 1990). As Welch (1990) stated, “This love for others is holy; it is rightly referred to as grace, a power that lifts us to a larger self and a deeper joy as it leads us to accept blame and begin the long process of reparation and re-creation” (p. 174). However, I know that I need more than love to be effective in my work, which has led me to this essay. I hope that my learnings and knowledge gained from experienced non-Native allies to Aboriginal communities will not only prepare me to step into my community work— informed and culturally aware—but also help prepare my agency or organization as well. I would like to specifically address in this essay each of the three elements discussed below in relation to my future practice approach with ATSI peoples. My Practice Principles First, I would like to discuss my practice principles for undoing privilege that bring together key theoretical elements of privilege and intersectionality, with my personal and professional context. I come to acknowledge that my power and privilege encompasses my understanding that I represent a history of colonizers who had tried to destroy the culture of the very communities in which I am trying to work with. I realized that this could have significant repercussions on my ability to gain Aboriginal trust and acceptance. Therefore, I am aware of the importance of trying to break down the social hierarchy where White people are positioned as superior to Aboriginal people, which was established during colonization. This meant giving the communities in which I worked the message that the communities’ voices, beliefs, and cultural protocols were valued just as much; no group was superior to the other. With this, I used the postcolonial feminist theory to consider the fact the colonized must not be essentialized. As Browne et al. (2005) stated, the presumption of an essentialized experience of colonization “reduces the experience of a diverse peoples to a presumed, reified commonality, and in doing so overlooks important differences and unique experiences, and too often overlooks the agency of those assigned to the ‘oppressed’ side of the binary ‘oppressed/oppressor’” (p. 25). All people from ex-colonial societies inhabit different realities, and within these realities are different claims to truth (Anderson et al., 2003) and different focuses on questions of ethnicity, race, and cultural risks, excluding the very real forms of oppression based on class or gender (Browne et al., 2005). This naturally increases the risk of privileging one set of influential social relations over another (Kirkham & Anderson, 2012). Postcolonial feminism allows for an inclusive analysis to shed light on colonial and neocolonial practices, which continue to play out in contemporary social life (Anderson et al., 2003). As a professional working from a postcolonial feminist perspective, I embrace a commitment to praxis-oriented work (Kirkham & Anderson, 2012). I acknowledge my social obligation to work with organizations and communities to disseminate knowledge to policy makers, health authorities, community members, and any other people who will support the aim of shifting social attitudes and correcting past and current injustices (Browne et al., 2005). I also recognized that a central feature of my work must be to share power with those who have historically lacked it. As Kirkham and Anderson (2002) explained, through a deliberate decentring of the dominant culture, the voices, experiences, and perspectives of people who typically have been marginalized become a starting point for inquiry. With analytic tools for considering poverty as the legacy of forced state dependency rather than strictly individual responsibility and choice, as a professional I can help to break the common association of Aboriginal culture with one of dependency, substance abuse, and poverty (Browne at al., 2005). My Practice Strategies In Australia currently, the ethics of studies involving Aboriginal people is one of the most frequently debated issues in research because there is increasing awareness that the research process must be part of a wider profession of restorative social justice and decolonization (Young, 2005). This involves avoiding “expert-subject dichotomies” (Young, 2011) and research on Aboriginal people, and instead committing to meaningful engagement with them. Such collaboration is a dramatic change from the deep distrust of researchers and the social sciences by many Aboriginal communities, which has developed as a result of being studied exhaustively without witnessing positive returns (Young, 2011). As one Aboriginal man stated, “Researchers come, they take our stories, take up our time, and leave. We ever see any returns from what we gave” (as cited in Young, 2005, p. 86). In addition, non-Indigenous individuals are often guilty of taking over spaces created for Aboriginal people and then being deemed as experts on Aboriginal matters (Cruz & Sonn, 2011). Indigenous scholars have been clear that they want to be active partners with significant roles in all phases of the research process, including input into research methods, data collection, measurement tools, data storage and retention, and dissemination (Browne et al., 2005). They must be assured of ownership, possession, control, and access in relation to data, as well as benefits to the participants and wider community as a result of the research (Nelson et al., 2011). Co-presenting and coauthoring are ways to prevent the exploitation of Aboriginal people in research and to ensure unequal relations of representation and power do not continue (Browne et al., 2005). Researchers must understand that strong relationships of trust that are nurtured from the very beginning of a project are the essential backbone for the ongoing negotiation of mutually acceptable ethical principles, which take an unprecedented amount of self-disclosure and time to build (Young, 2005; WesleyEsquimaux & Smolewski, 2004). An equally important practice strategy is becoming partners. There is currently a movement described as the medical wave of colonization, which is based on the idea that Aboriginal people are sick and in need of the help of professionals to heal (Thira, 2005). These professionals are often descendants of the people who have damaged Aboriginal families through colonization. However, scholars are increasingly recognizing that colonization dehumanized and brutalized the colonizer as much as the colonized, and therefore all people are in need of healing (Thomas & Green, 2007). This echoes the Indigenous teachings in the Sacred Tree (Bopp, Bopp, Brown, & Lane, 1985): “The hurt of one is the hurt of all. The honor of one is the honor of all” (p. 79). Reyes Cruz (2008) described the psychological consequences of oppression for both oppressed and dominant and groups as “colonial mentality.” In order to form true relationships built on trust and mutual respect, professionals today must commit to working with Aboriginal communities. This means a renegotiation of the relationship between the dominant culture and Aboriginal peoples (Wesley-Esquimaux & Smolewski, 2004) by moving from the dichotomous past of colonizer–colonizer, oppressor–oppressed, and perpetrator– victim (Regan, 2005), which positions White professionals as experts with attention unilaterally focused towards Aboriginal subjects (Young, 2005). In fact, Manuel (as cited in Alfred, 2005) explained that the failure to heed the plea for a new approach to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations is actually a failure of imagination. By moving forward as partners sharing the joint burden of social transformation, professionals will be less likely to be guilty of false generosity. A number of scholars have shared specific guidelines and suggestions to make these new relationships possible. All of these approaches create “contact zones” or spaces where separated people come together and feel vulnerable and at risk, raising possibilities for liberation (Somerville & Perkins, 2003). For example, Nelson et al. (2011) hope to mark a path towards solidarity with oppressed groups through their values-based framework for partnership, which involves “relationships between community psychologists, oppressed groups, and other stakeholders that strive to advance the values of caring, compassion, community, health, self-determination, participation, power sharing, human diversity, and social justice for oppressed groups” (p. 651). By demonstrating compassion, caring, community, and a deep sense of humility, professionals are able to share their power, which is a requirement for true partnerships. The Circle Process is another approach to renegotiating traditional Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relationships (McCaslin & Boyer, 2009). It brings together people from widely different backgrounds with the belief that the greater the difference, the greater the possibility for unprecedented outcomes. Circles are not about amplifying sameness, but culling wisdom from different experiences and wider knowledge bases in order to collectively approach deep and controversial problems. Shifting the framework from one of power over to inclusiveness (stepping toward decolonization) signifies a transformation between groups that has not been common, but it is a transformation that is necessary, because the costs of avoiding it are too great for everyone (McCaslin & Boyer, 2009). This new path of partnership does not seek to gloss over the substantive and very real damage that has been done in the colonizer’s name; it reveals the beauty that exists in hard places if people learn to listen and look differently. For example, Welch (1990) explained that as a person who respects all people, it is possible to admit fault and examine social patterns that perpetuate racism, which is the foundation for making amends and building egalitarian social structures. This process, she said, is “not a tortuous, life-denying one, but is life-giving. It can be the finding of a larger self and a deeper joy in the challenge of mending the refits of injustice” (Welch, 1990, p. 174). Although partnering with oppressed groups to work through a decolonizing struggle on both sides will inevitably be messy, challenging, and time-consuming (Browne et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2011) and require that professionals are willing to have their values challenged (Nelson et al., 2011), it is accepted as necessary to transform the political and social landscape to enable people to coexist peacefully (Alfred, 2005). So, how can I use these principles and strategies to begin ‘undoing privilege’ in my interpersonal, community, organisational and societal levels of practice with ATSI peoples and their concerns? My answer is having critical reflexivity. The requirement of critical reflexivity is very important in the process of becoming allies: those who work as professionals understand that they have a responsibility to understand and critically reflect on the ways in which their social locations, values, and lived experiences affect all aspects of their work and social interactions—a process called critical reflexivity (Angelique & Mulvey, 2012; Reed, Miller, Nnawulezi, & Valenti, 2012). Harrell and Bond (2006) used the concept of “speaking from” to describe the influence that personal histories and social locations have on professional lives. Further, they suggested that when engaging in critical reflexivity, individuals should consider the following topics: their cultural socialization, identity, and social location (this includes beliefs, values, ways of thinking, behavioural norms, exposure to diversity, role relationships, and other relevant dimensions of culture); power and privilege; and biases, alliances, and isms. By locating themselves relative to the community in which they are working, professionals will be positioned as either insider or outsider, both of which have a range of implications for their work. Increasingly, however, some scholars (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009) are challenging the insider–outsider dichotomy and instead emphasizing the fluid, relative nature of identity depending on context. Ultimately, critical reflexivity means wholeheartedly engaging in the question, “How does the community experience me in the context of my social identities and locations, and what does this mean for my work in this community context?” (Harrell & Bond, 2006, p. 372). The importance of this process for professionals is stressed by Freire (1970), who stated, “Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must reexamine themselves constantly” (p. 60) and by Thomas and Green (2007), who stated that “the best healers are those that know their self-best” (p. 97). Engaging in critical reflexivity means that White professionals must shift their attention from learning about the culture of the “other” to turning their gaze, mirror-like, upon themselves in order to more deeply understand their own race, social position, and culture (Brascoupé & Waters, 2009). It is important to understand, however, that critical reflexivity is more than individual self-awareness. Rather, it requires constantly evaluating the ways in which we contribute to liberation and oppression (Cruz & Sonn, 2011). This process is often difficult, but it is required in any real commitment to anti-oppressive living and professional work (Thomas & Green, 2007). As Alfred (as cited in Regan, 2005) explained, “There needs to be struggle in order to lay out a path to co-existence, and that the process of being uncomfortable is essential for non-Aboriginal people to move from being enemy to adversary to ally” (p. 3). Critical reflexivity is particularly important for those who conduct research, for inherent power differences between researcher and community can impact all steps of the research process and must be paid attention to at all times (McCorkel & Myers, 2003; Minkler, 2004). This is contrary to the formerly held notion that researchers are removed, observing and recording but not interacting (Langhout, 2006). A growing body of literature contains researchers’ firsthand accounts of their own critical reflexivity in the research process. While it is important for all professionals to engage in critical reflexivity, it is especially crucial for members of privileged groups (McGeorge, Carlson, Erickson, & Guttorson, 2006). Finally, as a professional I can apply intersectionality to my own critical reflexivity to better understand how my lived experiences and social locations have shaped me and given me power (or not), which will influence how I interact with diverse communities. Intersectionality is essential any professional to consider in their work with Aboriginal communities, to ensure they are acknowledging the variety of experiences with oppression that are alive (Archibald, 2006). For example, each Aboriginal individual and community has been affected by colonization and its aftermath in different ways, and consequently what is required for them to heal from historical trauma will also vary. In other words, grouping all into the category of colonized misses the many other important intersections of identity within the colonized. Conclusion This essay focused on the challenges facing my profession who wish to work as allies to Aboriginal communities (i.e., Aboriginal mistrust of outsiders as a result of colonization and power differences that must be broken down) and widely accepted guidelines for true partnerships (i.e., professionals engaging in critical reflexivity and recognizing that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike need healing). It is evident that many White professionals recognize that the potential for social change through redefining Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations is worth any discomfort they may face in the process of acknowledging their own privilege. As a White professional, I must come to a clear understanding of who I am in this work in order to be able to work collaboratively and respectfully as allies (Razack, 2002). Consistently identifying the importance of critical professional self-reflection, the theoretical frameworks of postcolonial feminism, intersectionality, and feminist standpoint theory provide me with lenses through which to view the challenges facing Aboriginal communities, question how to acknowledge the past in order to create a more just future, and reflect on how their positionality affects relationships. Following Tatum’s (1994) message that “allies need allies,” there is still a significant gap in my practice principles and practice strategies, which, if filled, could provide my profession a map for working across various dimensions of power and oppression in their role as ally to Aboriginal communities. Reference list Alfred, G. T. (2005). Colonialism and state dependency. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 5(2), 42– 60. Anderson, J., Perry, J., Blue, C., Browne, A., Henderson, A., Basu Khan, K., Smye, V. (2003). “Rewriting” cultural safety within the postcolonial and postnational feminist project: Toward new epistemologies of healing. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(3), 196–214. Anderson, S. K., & Middleton, V. A. (2005). Explorations in privilege, oppression, and diversity. Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks. Angelique, H., & Mulvey, A. (2012). Feminist community psychology: The dynamic co- creation of identities in multi-layered contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1), 1-10. Archibald, L. (2006). Decolonization and Healing: Indigenous Experiences in the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Greenland. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Bennett, B., Zubrzycki, J., & Bacon, V. (2011). What do we know? The experiences of social workers working alongside Aboriginal people. Australian Social Work, 64(1), 20–37. Bopp, J., Bopp, M., Brown, L., & Lane, P. (1985). The sacred tree. Detroit, MI: Lotus Press. Brascoupé, S. & Waters, C. (2009). Exploring the Applicability of the Concept of Cultural Safety to Aboriginal Health and Community Wellness. Journal of Aboriginal Health. 5 (2). 6-41. Browne, A. J., Smye, V. L., & Varcoe, C. (2005). The relevance of postcolonial theoretical perspectives to research in Aboriginal health. Journal of Nursing Research, 37(4), 16–37. Cruz, M. R. & Sonn, C. C. (2011). (De)colonizing culture in community psychology: Reflections from critical social sciences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 203–214. Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insideroutsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: The Seabury Press. Harrell, S. P., & Bond, M. A. (2006). Listening to diversity stories: Principles for practice in community research and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3–4), 365–376. Kirkham, S.R, & Anderson, J.M. (2002). Postcolonial nursing scholarship: From epistemology to method. Advances in nursing science, 25 (1):1–17. Kirkham, S.R., & Anderson, J.M. (2012). Knowledge development and evidence-based practice: insights and opportunities from a postcolonial feminist perspective for transformative nursing practice. Adv Nurs Sci., 30 (1):26-40. Langhout, R.D. (2006). Where am I? Locating myself and its implications for collaborative research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 267-264. McCaslin, W.D. and Boyer, Y. (2009). First Nations communities at risk and in crisis. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 5(2), 61–87. McCorkel, J., & Myers, K. (2003). What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field. Qualitative Sociology, 26(2), 199-231 McGeorge, C., Carlson, T., Erickson, M., Guttormson, H. (2006). Creating and evaluating a feminist informed social justice couple and family therapy training model. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18(3), 1-38. Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical Challenges for the “Outside” Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research. Health Education and Behaviour, 31, 684-697. Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I., & MacGillivary, H. (2011). Building values-based partnerships: Toward solidarity with oppressed groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 649–677. Razack, N. (2002). Critical Antiracist and Anti-oppressive Perspectives for the Human Services Practicum. Halifax, NS: Fernwood. Reed, S. J., Miller, R. L., Nnawulezi, N., & Valenti, M. T. (2012). Erecting closets and outing ourselves: Uncomfortable reflexivity and communitybased research. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1), 11–26. Regan, P. (2005). A transformative framework for decolonizing Canada: A non-indigenous approach. Reyes Cruz, M. (2008). Mexican immigrant parents advocating for school reform. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Somerville, M., & Perskin, T. (2003). Border work in the contact zone: Thinking indigenous/non-indigenous collaboration spatially. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(3), 253-266. Tatum, B.D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 462-476. Thira, D. (2005). Beyond the four waves of colonization. Retrieved from http://thira.ca/files/2014/08/Colonization-Article-CNPR-Revised1.pdf Thomas, C. (1986). Values as predictors of social activist behavior. Human Relations, 39, 179–193. Thomas, R., & Green, J. (2007). A way of life: Indigenous perspectives on anti-oppressive living. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 3(1), 91–104. Welch, S. (1990). A feminist ethic of risk. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress. Wesley-Esquimaux, C., & Smolewski, M. (2004). Historic Trauma and Aboriginal Healing. Ottawa, ON: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Young, S. (2005). Social work theory and practice: The invisibility of whiteness. In A. Moreton-Robinson (Ed.), Whitening race: Essays in social and cultural criticism (pp. 104–118). Canberra, Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press. Young, S. (2011). Educating Australian social workers in the post-Apology era: The potential offered by a ‘Whiteness’ lens. Journal of Social Work, 11(2), 159–173. Read More