Indigenous knowledge? Listening for the drumbeat and searching for how I know

The unfamiliar meets with the familiar

Epistemology. I had to look that word up in the dictionary. Should I not have known that word as a PhD student in the social work program? I learn that it is about knowledge and how one comes to know. Okay, that unfamiliar word is now familiar to me when different words are used that I know. I am learning that there is much to know about epistemology. In this class, the readings seem endless. It has been a whirlwind of struggle and unsettlement of “okay, I got it; now I don’t; now what?” I have asked myself why knowing about epistemologies is important and how this relates to my dissertation research that seems so far off in the distance? My mind tells me that there is a reason and that the knowing will come in time. My emotions of frustration, unsettlement, and wonder are telling me that there is something to pay attention to. My body tells me it is tired and needs a rest from all this unsettlement. My spirit tells me it is excited! I am waiting; listening for the sound of the drumbeat. How will I know it when I hear it?

I thought I was settled in my knowledge that would guide my dissertation research. My heritage, motivations, personal experiences, and who I am play a large part in why I am doing this research. I am of Indigenous Sáami (i.e. my roots come from the Indigenous peoples of Finland) and Irish Settler heritages. I facilitate a local urban Indigenous women’s drum circle. I hope to use Indigenous knowledge and methodology in my research on how Song can contribute to positive relationships between Indigenous and Settler peoples. A central aspect of Indigenous knowledge that I am personally familiar with and which has been discussed in the literature is the Anishinabe (i.e. Indigenous word for the Ojibway peoples in Canada) concept of the medicine wheel (Kathy Absolon, 2010). This concept is used as a way to look at all of life in a wholistic way by exploring the spiritual, emotional, mental (i.e. cognitive), and physical aspects. This perspective will help to guide my research in a balanced way. My research interest is prompted by the Truth & Reconciliation process that is happening across Canada (Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2012). This process has involved a public apology and acknowledgement of the traumatic impact of government policies that forced attendance of Indigenous children at residential schools. Reconciling the past and questioning how to move forward is what Canadians are being asked to grapple with. I hope to contribute to this process through collaborative singing partnerships between our Indigenous drum circle and Settler choir members.

The personal and the intersectionalities of reconciliation and research

Reconciliation is very personal to me. I can remember throughout my childhood having a feeling of not fitting in; like I was missing something. Contributing to this is a story my mother has re-told to me since I was a child. She said that when I was born, my skin color was dark. She wondered if I belonged to the Anishinabe woman who was sharing the room with her in hospital, who also birthed a baby the same day I was born. My mother asked the nurse to confirm the identification tags of me and the other baby. This story has stayed with me.

The Eurowestern Irish part of me is not something that I have found much comfort in. In fact, it feels quite conflicting to have the heritages of the colonizer at the same time as the colonized. At times, I have hated that colonizer part of me, and perhaps I still do. I am working on it, but it is a struggle and I still question my belonging and how to search for this. When it comes to searching for how Indigenous and Settler peoples can reconcile their relationship with one another, it seems that my personal struggle is the embodiment of this national struggle for reconciliation. It is my own struggle within that motivates me to explore ways that Indigenous and Settler peoples can move toward reconciliation.

There is another part to the personal struggle of reconciliation for me. Here I am, a social work researcher with Indigenous and Eurowestern heritages, completing my PhD in mainstream academia. Why would I want to pursue social work research when social work and its history are implicated in the traumatic impacts of the residential schools, the later 60’s scoop which involved enormous numbers of Indigenous children being taken into the child welfare system, the continued overrepresentation of them in this system and the overrepresentation of Indigenous men and women in prisons (Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2012)? Am I a traitor to myself and Indigenous peoples for wanting to pursue social work research? These are the very reasons to pursue research! With much conviction, I believe that it is incumbent now more than ever on social work research and practice to find non-oppressive ways to decolonize the relationships between Indigenous and Settler peoples. Many Indigenous peoples face enormous disparities in social welfare, health care, education, and employment, along with the intergenerational impacts of the residential schools (Cora Weber-Pillwax et al., 2012). ¹ Continuing disparities create enormous societal and financial costs; the burden of which is passed on to Canadians. With over 70% of Indigenous peoples living off-reserve and mainly in urban areas (Yale Belanger, 2014), they are already living alongside and interacting with Settler peoples. What can help bridge the relationships between Indigenous and Settler peoples, so that these atrocities never happen again? This is a tough question for social workers to answer. It’s a tough question for me. Help is a “loaded” word for many Indigenous peoples, as it has historically not served their needs; but those of the dominant society (Cyndy Baskin, 2011; Thomas King, 2015). I question how I can help, but not perpetuate oppressive ways? I don’t have the answers; however, I share with you my journey of searching for how I know. In this journey are the spaces and places to grapple with the security (or insecurity) of how one knows, how to reconcile (if that is even possible) and possibly how to help.

Using reflexive inquiry in research

This exploratory journey is my way of exercising reflexive inquiry in qualitative social work research such that it challenges normative processes and practices in social work. It involves critically thinking about how information is gathered and about the relationship that the researcher has with the research (Barbara Myerhof and Jay Ruby, 1982; Barbara Probst and Laura Berenson, 2014). Woven into this are the influences of the social, political, and historical contexts that impact how the researcher interprets the research (Joan Scott, 1992).

Questioning the familiar and trodden paths is necessary if the desire is to create greater equity with individuals, families, and communities social workers are helping. I see the value of this reflexive methodology for my dissertation research, as it can offer an ethical and respectful way of doing research with Indigenous peoples. Much research has been done on Indigenous peoples by researchers not familiar with the contexts of Indigenous peoples’ lives and from researchers not considering the impacts of themselves in the research process. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) and Kathy Absolon (2011) speak of the disrespect, mistrust, and epistemic violence that can result from wrong interpretations and knowledge.

In the beginning, there was familiarity

Settling into the epistemology course, the early readings made sense to me. Yes, research in the social work profession needs to be robust and collaborative within and between disciplines to reflect the changing realities in society, cultures, politics, and the economy (e.g. Carla Fehr and Kathryn Plaisance, 2010). It makes sense that research needs to be open to further investigations and testing; that assumptions are not taken for granted. So far, so good. The familiar of my knowing is there!

Researcher/self is part of the research

Topics arose regarding the need to challenge the Eurocentric, scientific assumption that reality can be defined; and, that it can be defined using a universal approach to knowing and gathering information; as if neutrality or objectivity could be achieved in research (Barbara Myerhof and Jay Ruby, 1982; Joan Scott, 1992; Sara Ahmed, 2000). If the researcher is only looking out at the Other, and there is no gaze coming back in a reflexive way to the researcher with an awareness of the impact of his/her worldview, experiences, and assumptions on the research, a question arises as to whose story is really being told. Yes! This makes sense to me. An Indigenous teaching that I know is the interconnectedness of all things and that something by itself cannot be understood without understanding how it is connected to everything else. I recognize that this frame of knowledge is different from dominant Eurocentric epistemology. My knowing recognizes that different people will see things differently because they come from different cultures, backgrounds, worldviews, and assumptions. Thus, there will be different realities for looking at and understanding things. Okay, so far so good!

Further readings addressed imperialistic ideology and the resulting colonialism and epistemic violence that have been occurring with Indigenous ways of knowing for centuries. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) speaks to the need for Indigenous researchers to decolonize themselves and to be critical about the location from which they are writing, so that they do not replicate this dominant ideology in their research. Kathy Absolon (2011) shows that there are Indigenous researchers in the academy who have found a way to be who they are, remain connected to their culture, community, and roots and use Indigenous epistemologies in their research. Great! That leaves room for me and my research.

Cognitive dissonance: Disruption of familiar knowing

Oh, oh! The sound of a different drumbeat. A contradictory thought lurks in the corners of my mind. Is one knowledge bad and the other good? Does it have to be one or the other? Could it be both? Oh, oh! I forgot about the Eurocentric part of me. In fact, I am of European heritage. My Irish and Sáami heritages come from outside of Canada. Oh, oh! I thought of something else. I know little of my Sáami heritage compared with the Anishinabe ways of knowing that I have been taught by elders living in my region of Canada. I question what Indigenous teachings will guide my research. If I am to be a conscientious social work researcher, what epistemology do I focus on? Kathy Absolon (2014) helped me to think about this when she visited our class. She said, “Ethically, locate yourself, even when you are going into another territory.” She also said, “You don’t need permission to be who you are and what processes [methods] you use.” I took this to mean that I don’t need to have just one epistemology to do my research; but, I do need to acknowledge who I am, where I come from, and why I am choosing a particular research interest and methodology. Because my research will include Indigenous peoples, I will be mindful to include reflexive inquiry for the reasons noted earlier. I can also acknowledge my Indigenous and Eurowestern heritages in my research.

Questioning how knowledge is produced

Hmm. It occurs to me to question if Indigenous epistemologies can ‘stand alone,’ separate from Eurowestern epistemologies; not in response to or in opposition to Eurowestern epistemology, but stand in their own right. Hmm. Can any knowledge exist in its own right? This implies an exclusivity of knowledge; as if one kind of knowledge could be separated from another. My familiar knowing of the interconnectedness of all things would suggest that this is not possible. It came from somewhere. It is related to something.

As the class continues, I learn about post- and anti-colonial thought and how these responses to colonialism contribute to knowledge production (Edward Said, 1978; Frantz Fanon, 1967; Robert Young, 1990; Young, 2001). I cannot help but think that post-colonialism and anti-colonialism only exist because of colonialism. Thus, even in the argument of opposition, colonialism is still the dominant discourse. As Sara Ahmed (2000) would say, their very opposition to one another shows how much they are in inseparable relation to one another. One does not exist without the other.

I found myself really trying to understand anti- and post-colonial thought. European culture, according to Edward Said (1978), created knowledge of the Other (e.g. the Orientals) and they used this knowledge to justify the colonization of the Other. But, if one thinks about this, a question arises as to what knowledge the Europeans used that led the Oriental scholars to even think that colonization of the Orient could happen? In other words, before colonization, there must have been other existing knowledge that led to colonization. This is a criticism Robert Young (1990) makes of Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism; that there is a failure of the researcher to query the lens he/she is looking through and also, what in that lens created that particular way to look out at the Other. It is amazing to me that knowledge on this grand master narrative level got told this way. And, subsequent scholars believed it; wrote about it, and continued to frame their research around this dominant way of seeing the world; as if it was and is the Truth; the universal way of interpreting our understandings. What is so very fascinating to me is that the colonizers (i.e. scholars of the dominant culture) were being colonized at the very same time as they were colonizing the Other! Thus, as they were re-writing history about the Others, they at the same time, were re-writing history about themselves.

Unsettled and unfinished aspects of epistemology

So, what has all this got to do with my dissertation research? I am beginning to see that there is no pure knowledge residing with anyone! It is produced and reproduced by our experiences and interactions with others and all that comes with it (i.e. worldviews, assumptions, values, beliefs, etc.). This is so unsettling! I thought I had firm footing in pursuing an Indigenous epistemological stance. But now I am thinking that if I take this Indigenous stance, it HAS to be that I am leaving something else out; but what is it? If all knowledge is impacted by other knowledges and everything around us and inside us, how can I then say that my knowledge is coming from a particular epistemological perspective? How can I say that I am using only an Indigenous epistemology? It has to be touched by other knowledges.

It seems that scholars cannot get away from this dominant knowledge discourse; the “one” that tries to convince us that it is universal and normative. Challenging it is one action; but, as noted previously, this still keeps the dominant knowledge alive. It is easy to get caught in the trap of using dominant thought as the bench mark for comparing and differentiating one’s scholarly work as that is the dominant discourse that often gets “heard” in journals and it is what forms the basis of thought in most mainstream academic settings.

Is there another way to escape the dominant discourse? The readings prompt me to think that this is not possible (e.g. Donna Haraway, 1988; Michel Foucault, 1980; Marker, 2013). Even if I produce local knowledge within a certain context and from my experiences, perceptions, and assumptions, I cannot say that I arrived at this information all by myself. It had to come from somewhere. It came from my interactions with other people and my environment, all of which are connected to other spaces and places. And those spaces and places could be local, national, and beyond to global. I have no complete idea of where my knowledge comes from, or other knowledges for that matter. Can any knowledge that I know ever be more than partial? I cannot know all about another, even if the Other is part of my same community (Robert Young, 1990; Sara Ahmed, 2000). We have different experiences, knowledges, and assumptions that all contribute to our different interpretations of something or someone.

Unsettling: The familiar ways of knowing become unfamiliar

What to do!! This “uncanny,” that Ken Gelder and Jane Jacobs (1998) refer to as feeling unsettled in the familiar and unfamiliar, is simultaneously creeping in. It is like I am losing my footing with my chosen Indigenous epistemological stance. Is this still the one? What about the Others: post-structuralism, feminism, and post-modernism? They all make sense; but they don’t at the same time! To choose one means that I am leaving out something else. Now I am questioning the very topic of reconciliation. Can it even happen between Indigenous and Settler peoples? From a postmodern perspective where there is no one way or truth, Ken Gelder and Jane Jacobs (1998) question the plausibility of there being one nation when Indigenous and Settler peoples have differing worldviews, values, and ways of being. Can reconciliation be one idea when there is differentness among and between Indigenous and Settler peoples?

Reconciling with unsettlement

Where do I go with all of this knowledge and unsettlement? I admit that at first I had the impulse to say, “Well, if you can’t beat ’em, pack up and go in another direction.” I have wanted to run away from my Eurowestern heritage; but no matter how far I go, I am still here. As a social worker I could avoid or run, but, ethically, is that helping? I could become one of them and join the dominant discourse. Deliberation tells me that even if I go in another direction of knowledge (such as with Indigenous epistemology), I cannot do so fully outside of dominant thought anyways, because it is all around me and in me. Can I do something different? Can I produce different knowledge in a way that fits for me; yet also unsettles central or normalized thought?

The study of epistemology has taught me to not close my mind to how I come to know something. I am learning that there cannot be one definition of what reconciliation means for Indigenous and Settler peoples. I will continue my search for what reconciliation means in the local area, among all the meanings of reconciliation, where I live. While being local, I know that my dissertation research will also be inseparably connected to the greater national and global discourses on reconciliation.

I am still wrestling with my epistemological stance. I am not yet ready to define it. It seems that the qualitative research I will do fits well with my stance of keeping my thoughts open. I don’t want to close a door on learning more and finding other ways to help. If I close the door too quickly, I risk staying with the familiar and with the normative way that things are “supposed to be.”

My drum is calling me. I am feeling a pull back to the beginning of my journey to look again at all that I have learned, question familiar paths of knowing, and wondering what is lurking beyond my grasp of knowing. Perhaps what I don’t know that I don’t know, will one day change and add further knowledge that will change a reality or truth for me. The search continues …

I cleanse my mind, body, heart and spirit. I am singing with my drum, sitting on the land, by the water. My mind wanders and settles on nothing in particular. I am with spirit and enjoying a moment of contentedness. I see someone approaching me. He appears to be a Settler. He smiles and asks if I can tell him about the drum. I cry and ask him to sit. I share my story with him. I ask him what drew him to come and speak to me. He shares his story. We are forever changed. Reconciliation!?