Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Lavonna L. Lovern
Valdosta State University
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference
The article argues for the inclusion of Indigenous voices in disability dialogues. The
application of UN documents and actions in Indigenous communities justifies Indigenous
perspectives as informing partners in disability dialogues. The article establishes a
foundation for inclusion followed by a brief discussion of some global Indigenous concepts
involving body and mind differences that are in direct opposition to Western concepts
of disability. The use of Indigenous paradigms highlights the role of colonization and
post-colonization assimilation practices in establishing discrimination dynamics involving
disability within Indigenous communities. The argument is that the inclusion of Indigenous
voices will not only assist Indigenous communities, but could also advance disability
discussions in Western cultures.
Introduction
Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 11.3 (2017) © Liverpool University Press
ISSN 1757-6458 (print) 1757-6466 (online) https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2017.24
304 Lavonna L. Lovern
knowledge can not only work to ease the burden of Indigenous persons with
differences, but also assist in advancing global advocacy.
In 1945, The United Nations Charter established protocol “for the promotion
of the economic and social advancement of all peoples” as an end goal (UN
Charter. 1/2). Article 1 references “the principle of equal rights and self-determi-
nation of peoples” as well as “encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion” (UN Charter. 1/2). In 1948, The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights elaborated and informed the language of the Charter by clarifying that
“inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights” were to be applied to
“all members of the human family” (UN A/RES13/217a. 1/8). Universal human
inclusion can be further inferred from the use of phrases such as Everyone and
No one. Article Two specifically establishes “race colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status” as included in human rights concerns (2/8). While “disability” is not
referenced in this list, the term is referenced in Article 25 regarding standards
of living. However, “disability” is used in terms of obtaining security in the
event of “sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood
in the circumstances beyond his control” (7/8). In 2000, the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) established significant global targets, but issues
involving persons with disabilities were not among the eight initiatives. The
language of the MDGs allowed for inclusion within the initiatives, but did not
specifically target the issues faced globally by persons with disabilities.
In 2006, the UN officially addressed issues involving persons with
disabilities in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol (CRPD/OP). The adoption of the CRPD/OP influenced both
disability rights movements and academic studies. The Convention referenced
international documents including the International Bill of Human Rights as
informing documents on disability issues.1 The comprehensive nature of the
1. Documents referred to in the “Recalling” included International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 305
Members of Their Families, World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and in the
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
306 Lavonna L. Lovern
2. It is understood that it is not likely that the adopted version could be overturned and replaced
with the original. The hope is then to use the adopted version in such a way as to repurpose the
document in order to align it with Indigenous paradigms and fully support global Indigenous
populations.
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 307
3. These organizations include, but are not limited to, Native American Rights Fund, National
Congress of American Indians, Walter Echo-Hawk’s In the Light of Justice, Jackie Hartley et.al.
Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
308 Lavonna L. Lovern
4. It is understood that not all colonization is historically Western. However, spatial limitations
require a focus on Western colonization and post-colonization practices.
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 309
such as the iconic Reader edited by Lennard Davis.5 Davis’s work examines
the origins of the normal–abnormal dichotomy central to modern discussions
of disability. His investigation is followed by Barnes’s chapter focusing on
disability discrimination beyond the borders of England. Supporting himself
with Hanks, Hand, and Oliver, Barnes confirms that “there is sufficient
historical and anthropological evidence to show that there is no universal
approach to disability, either in the way disabled people are perceived or in
the way societies respond to them” (Barnes 21). In the same volume, Davidson
reports the UN statistics that 80 percent of the global population with disabilities
live in “developing” countries (133). He brings forth for consideration the “folk
tales” of African communities brought into “modern” Western culture by
Mambety (139–40). Davidson establishes, but fails to fully examine, the role of
colonization in the Mambety depictions involving treatment of persons with
differences. To Davis’s credit, the Reader includes Bell’s critique of current
disability discussions. Bell redirects the disability dialogue to one involving
race arguing that current disability dialogues are constructed within white
studies (374). The charge is that disability, as a field of study, has become an
“incestuous” dialogue that functions as though persons with disabilities belong
to a homogenous family. Bell points to the irony involved in establishing white
disability studies as the “norm” or “abled” position leaving people of color, in the
“abnormal” or “disabled” dichotomous position (377–79). Bell further claims
that Davis’s multicultural discussion in Enforcing Normalcy is equally myopic.
An examination of Davis’s chapter calling for a multicultural approach does
support Bell’s claim. While the chapter calls for multicultural studies, it does
not define multiculturalism as calling for global paradigm inclusion (157–71).
An argument could be made that Davis and other authors are focusing on
disability from an experiential perspective as well as an academic perspective
and so are locating their discussions within Western paradigms. While not
directly excluding alternative paradigms, such specificity of focus relegates
these perspectives to outsider status by ignoring or denying such paradigms,
experts, and evidence. As diverse scholars with alternative orientations begin
to answer Bell’s call, disability studies will require greater inclusion.
This work is an attempt to honor Bell’s call for additional perspectives. Neither
scholarship nor claims can be extensively addressed in this brief work, but it is
hoped that enough can be established to support the legitimacy of Indigenous
paradigm inclusion. According to Cajete, “cosmology is a culture’s guiding
5. While the Reader is far from the only set of readings on diversity in the field, it is an example of
disability research and collections.
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 311
story, and that story reflects on ways of relating and understanding themselves
in natural community” (“Seven” 495). Cosmology reveals social constructs,
values, truths, and relations. Western cultures, while exhibiting religious and
spiritual components, largely rely on science for ordering principles as is
exemplified by “cosmology” being primarily located in the sciences rather than
in religious studies departments. This emphasis on science assists in establishing
a reductionist model of healthcare in Western cultures (Shroff 116). In addition
to reductionist models, logical dichotomies including good–bad, positive–
negative, health–illness, and abled–disabled inform Western definitions of
wellness. These dichotomies are ordered hierarchically with the positions of
good, positive, health, and abled representing a preferable position associated
with strength. The less desirable positions involving bad, negative, illness, and
disabled are then associated with weakness (Lovern 15–19; Waters 97–115).
In contrast to Western cosmologies, Indigenous cosmologies tend to
establish spirit as a primary ordering principle. Indigenous science becomes a
phenomenological method by which one encounters spirit as lived experience
(Dillard 286). “The spirit and the spiritual were at the center of each human
being and all that made up the universe” (Cajete, “Seven,” 490). According to
Deloria, spirit exists beyond the limits of science (193–214). As the term spirit
is often negatively encumbered by Western academics, this article temporarily
embraces an alternative translation of “energy.”6 Energy is that which is
considered to be the primary element of all beings and that through which all
beings relate (Henare 204). This discussion focuses on two specific aspects of
energy science relating to body and mind differences. First, in acknowledging
that all things are energy and so relate on the level of energy, Indigenous lived
experience is established as a science of interrelatedness (Cajete, Native, 21;
Shroff 226; Montejo 177; Henare 202). For Indigenous communities, energy
“is a life force connected to all other life forces” (Meyer 218). Energy binds
all beings and allows for a connectivity of understanding between beings
(Shroff 115–16; Henare 202, 205; Montejo 177). The primary mode of communi-
cation is then energy oriented rather than physically oriented. Furthermore,
interrelatedness entails a natural democracy as energy is equally experienced
in all beings (Lovern 39–41). No being is understood to contain a superior
composition or claim to energy, which denies any hierarchical position of
privilege. Each being is valued equally and has equal claim to continuation
6. The use of the term “energy” rather than “energies” is a matter of space. Sufficient time cannot
be given to the various Indigenous constructions of the singular/plural distinctions. Energy is
used here only to limit the focus of this article. The generalization being made here recognizes, but
cannot fully address, the diversity of Indigenous cultures.
312 Lavonna L. Lovern
and fulfilment thus creating a natural democracy. The term beings refers to all
aspects of nature including past, present, and future beings as well as beings
inhabiting alternative dimensions.
Natural democracy entails the ethical dynamic involving reciprocity (Cajete,
Native, 73; Dillard 279; Henare 5–6). Reciprocal ethics requires first that to the
best of one’s ability, one should not harm other beings. While survival consider-
ations impact the implementation of this first requirement, Indigenous practices
of hunting, gathering, and environmental actions enforce the idea of limiting
harm to the point of limiting what is considered an action of survival (Henare
202; Sponsel 166–67). The second aspect involved in reciprocal ethics requires
that, to the best of one’s ability, one must assist all beings to which one is related.
Again, this requirement extends to beings past, present, future, and interdimen-
sional. Reciprocity, as a mode of energy, requires interaction among beings to be
exemplified according to equity principles. For example, gaining food requires
that a recognition involving the equality of the plant or animal be understood
as resulting in a request for permission, an acceptance of the answer, and the
proper treatment of the being if permission is granted (Cajete, Native, 158–65).
Indigenous communities take seriously these ethical requirements as they
establish a natural democracy in which humans do not over-value their position
in nature (Verney 133–35). Historically, Indigenous reciprocity ethics involving
communication with non-human beings has been met with disrespectful or
mocking responses. Such responses mask an ignorance of Indigenous episte-
mology and a failure to understand the complexity involved in interconnected
science. Indigenous communities have a lived experience of energy as a primary
creative influence that establishes the potential for communication at an energy
level that is largely unrecognized in Western paradigms. However, unrecognized
does not entail disproven. Epistemic assumptions for Indigenous and Western
paradigms differ, but no objective justification exists for establishing a hierarchy
of legitimacy as there is no logical implication that “different from” establishes
“better than” or “worse than.”
Reciprocal ethics can be further understood given the research of Thompson,
Markus, and Kitayama into independent and interdependent cultural
definitions of self. This research notes that interdependent cultures orient
the self in terms of relationships, making motivation and action communal.
Independent cultures tend to focus the self according to individual goals,
making motivation and action primarily individually oriented. The claim is not
that societies fail to exhibit aspects of both independence and interdependence,
only that positive and negative cultural mores tend to be determined according
to interdependent-independent cultural orientation. Indigenous constructs
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 313
and institutions promote the individual self as located within a complex system
of interrelations that establish a system of responsibilities. The self is then
defined by one’s reciprocal responsibilities rather than by one’s rights as often
exhibited in independent cultures (Jojola 89). Reciprocity ethics, therefore,
establishes a balance or harmony involving all relations in order to fulfill both
the non-harm and the assistance requirements (Shroff 222; Henare 205–08).
An additional component involving energy and interconnectedness involves
the tripartite self. The tripartite self consists of mind, body, and spirit/energy
with the spirit being the primary ordering principle7 (Shroff 118). Body and
mind are often seen as temporary and changeable, but spirit is understood
as continuous and whole. Similar to Wendell, Indigenous constructs claim
that given a long enough life-span body or mind differences are inevitable
(828). Indigenous communities tend not to label body and mind differences as
“disabled.” Indeed, many traditional Indigenous languages have no word for
“disabled” or “handicapped.” Moreover as all beings exhibit differences, there
is no preferential position designated as “normal” or “ideal.” Neither do these
communities establish a negative dichotomous position based on difference.
Instead, the phenomena tends to receive only a designation of “difference”
(Lovern 96–111).
Spector explains that as humans and nature are interrelated, the wellness
or unwellness of one impacts the other (277). Wellness and unwellness are
employed because they illustrate the Indigenous concepts of balance whereas
health and illness reflect Western practices of reductionist medicine focused
on the control or elimination of the illness. Unwellness represents a position
of imbalance. The imbalance can be individual or communal requiring
treatment options ranging from individual, to a few community members,
to total community involvement. Causal factors for the unwellness often
require extensive time spent in diagnosis and in treatment. The importance
of understanding the causal agent determines treatment (Henare 208; Shroff
222). Causation is not established to determine blame or to inflict guilt,
but only to determine treatment. In cases involving a self-caused event, the
individual’s action may be noted, but she is not placed in an emotive state of
guilt. Regardless of the causal agent, the emphasis is on regaining wellness that
cannot occur if the emotive nature of guilt is imposed8 (Lovern 40–54).
7. In order to illustrate the Indigenous self, the term “spirit” will be reemployed with the
understanding that the term should encompasses the term “energy” used above. This shift is
designed only to ease the reader’s task.
8. It should be understood that Indigenous cultures do not deny or eliminate the consequences of
a person’s actions. However, guilt is not established in accordance with Abrahamic traditions.
314 Lavonna L. Lovern
9. It is not uncommon in Indigenous cosmologies for the individual spirit to be allowed to choose
whether or not to inhabit a given body. There is then neither a forced inhabitance, nor a chance
inhabitance. Choosing to inhabit indicates that there is either an importance of learning or teaching
attached to the life.
316 Lavonna L. Lovern
Works Cited
Barnes, Colin. “A Brief History of Discrimination and Disabled People.” The Disability
Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997.
20–32. Print.
Bell, Chris. “Is Disability Studies Actually White Disability Studies?” The Disability
Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997.
375–82. Print.
Cajete, Gregory. Native American Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe:
Clear Light Publishers, 2000. Print.
—. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education.” Handbook
of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln,
and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. 487–96. Print.
Davidson, Michael. “Universal Design: The Work of Disability in an Age of Globali-
zation.” The Disability Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New
York: Routledge, 1997. 133–46. Print
Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.” The Disability Studies Reader. Third Edition.
Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997. 3–19. Print
—. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London: Verso. 1995. Print.
Deloria, Vine Jr. The World We Used to Live In: Remembering the Powers of the Medicine
Men. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 2006. Print.
Dillard, Cynthia B. “When the Ground is Black, the Ground is Fertile: Exploring
Endarkened Feminist Epistemology and Healing Methodologies in the Spirit.”
Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna
S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. 277–92. Print.
Echo-Hawk, Walter R. In the Light of Justice: The Rise of Human Rights in Native America
and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Golden: Fulcrum, 2013.
Print.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Continuum, 1993. Print.
Gilley, Brian Joseph. “Two-Spirit Men’s Sexual Survivance against the Inequality of
Desire.” Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory, Politics, and
Literature. Ed. Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley, and Scott Lauria
Morgensen. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2011. 123–31. Print.
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 319
Hartley, Jackie, Paul Joffe, and Jennifer Preston. Realizing the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, Hope, and Action. Saskatoon: Purich
Publishing, 2014. Print.
Henare, Manuka. “Tapu, Mana, Mauri, Hau, Wairua: A Maori Philosophy of Vitalism
and Cosmos.” Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology
and Community. Ed. John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
198–221. Print.
Jojola, Ted. “Notes on Identity, Time, Space, and Place.” American Indian Thought:
Philosophical Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 87–96. Print.
Lovern, Lavonna, and Carol Locust. Native American Communities on Health and
Disability: A Borderland Dialogue. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. “Culture and the Self: Cognition, Emotion,
and Motivation.” Psychological Review. 98.2. (1991): 224–53. Print.
Meyer, Manulani Aluli. “Indigenous and Authentic: Hawaiian Epistemology and the
Triangulation of Meaning.” Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies.
Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles:
Sage, 2008. 217–32. Print.
Montejo, Victor D. “The Road to Heaven: Jakaltek Maya Beliefs, Religion, and the Ecology.”
Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Ed.
John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. 175–95. Print.
Morgensen, Scott Lauria. “Unsettling Queer Politics: What Can Non-Natives Learn from
Two-spirit Organizing?” Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory,
Politics, and Literature. Ed. Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley, and
Scott Lauria Morgensen. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2011. 132–52.
Print.
Patterson, Joan M. “Meeting the Needs of Native American Families and their Children
with Chronic Health Conditions.” Families, Systems & Health 15.3. (1997): 237–41.
Print.
Shroff, Farah M. “Ayurveda: Mother of Indigenous Health Knowledge.” Indigenous
Knowledges in Global Contexts. Ed. George J. Sefa Dei, Budd L. Hall, and Dorothy
Goldin Rosenberg. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. 216–33. Print.
Spector, Rachel E. Cultural Diversity in Health and Illness. New York: Appleton-Centrury-
Crofts, 1979. Print.
Sponsel, Leslie E. “Is Indigenous Spiritual Ecology Just a Ne Fad? Reflections from the
Historical and Spiritual Ecology of Hawai’i.” Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The
Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Ed. John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2001. 159–74 Print.
Thompson, Virginia C. “Independent and Interdependent Views of Self: Implications for
Culturally Sensitive Vocational Rehabilitation Services.” Journal of Rehabilitation
63.4 (1997): 16–20. Print.
United Nations. A/RES 13/217a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. A/RES 61/106. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. A/RES/68/3. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 23 September
2013. Web. 21 July 2015.
320 Lavonna L. Lovern
United Nations. A/RES 61/L.67. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations. 26 June 1945. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. CRPD/CSP/2015/5 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. 13–15 June 2015. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. DSG/SM/873-HR/5257 “Deputy Secretary-General Tells States Parties
2006 Disabilities Convention Marked Conceptual Shift from Charity to Human
Rights-Based Approach.” United Nations Press Release. 9 June 2015. Web. 21 July
2015.
Verney, Marilyn Notah. “On Authenticity.” American Indian Thought: Philosophical
Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 133–39. Print.
Waters, Anne. “Language Matters: Nondiscrete Nonbinary Dualism.” American Indian
Thought: Philosophical Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 97–115.
Print.
Wendell, Susan. “Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability.” The Feminist Philosophy
Reader. Ed. A. Bailey and C. Cuomo. Boston: McGrawHill, 2008. 826–41. Print.
White Face, Charmaine, and Zumila Wobaga. Indigenous Nations’ Rights in the Balance:
An Analysis of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. St. Paul: Living
Justice Press, 2013. Print.