Changing Narratives: Colonised Peoples, Criminology Cunneen and Rowe 2014.pdf · development of...

www.crimejusticejournal.comIJCJ&SD20143(1):49‐67 ISSN2202–8005

©TheAuthor(s)2014

ChangingNarratives:ColonisedPeoples,CriminologyandSocialWork

ChrisCunneen1JamesCookUniversity,AustraliaSimoneRowe2JamesCookUniversity,Australia

Abstract

ThereisgrowingrecognitionincriminologyandsocialworkoftheimportanceofIndigenousknowledgesandmethodologies.Yettodatetherehavebeenlimitedattempts(particularlyincriminology and criminal justice social work) to consider the theoretical and practiceimplications of Indigenous understandings and approaches to these disciplines. Bothdisciplines have also been slow to recognise the importance of understanding the way inwhich colonial effects are perpetuated through knowledge control, particularly in theoperationofcriminaljusticesystems.Our paper thus begins by examining the historical and institutional factors that havecontributed to the continuing subjugationof Indigenousknowledges andmethodologies.AdiscussionoftheconnectionsbetweenthehegemonyofWesternscience,theconstructionofrace,andthecolonialprojectfollows.WhilehereinWesternandIndigenousapproachesareconceptualised broadly, the dangers of over‐simplifying these categories is alsoacknowledged.Thepaperproceedsbyexaminingthedistinctivecharacterofeachapproachthroughaconsiderationoftheirontological,epistemological,axiological,andmethodologicaldifferences.Whilstacknowledgingtheconsiderablechallengeswhichariseinanyattempttodevelop connections between these differing worldviews, a pathway forward forunderstanding both theoretically and methodologically the relationship between WesternandIndigenousapproachesisproposed.Keywords

Indigenousmethodologies,criminology,criminaljusticesocialwork,colonialism.

ChrisCunneen,SimoneRowe:ChangingNarratives:ColonisedPeoples,CriminologyandSocialWork

IJCJ&SD50

Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com©20143(1)

Introduction

For the past three decades the quest to better understand and respond to the extremeoverrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system has occupiedcriminologists and criminal justice social workers3 alike. Yet despite manifold intersectinginterests, social work and criminological cross‐disciplinary collaborations are scarce. At thesametime,astrongcritiqueofEurocentricismhasbeenunderwayinallfieldsofsocialthought.These critiques – of postcolonial theory in particular – have revealed, inter alia, thatcolonisation and thepostcolonial arenot simplyhistorical events: rather, theyare continuingsocial,political,economicandculturalprocesses(Cunneen2011b).Howevertodate,areflexiveandengagedintegrationofpostcolonialtheoryinbothcriminologyandsocialworkremainsinitsinfancy.Alongsidethesedevelopments,therapidlyevolvingfieldofIndigenousknowledgesandmethodologies4has revealed the transformativeanddecolonisingpotentialof Indigenousstandpoints and perspectives. Despite the significance of these developmentswith respect toIndigenouspeoples’ increasing incarceration rates, in the fieldsofcriminologicalandcriminaljusticesocialwork,thereisaconcerninglackofengagementwithIndigenousknowledgesandmethodologies.5It has been argued that part of the problem of understanding the theoretical and practiceimplications of Indigenous methodologies rests in the fundamental disjuncture betweenWestern6andIndigenousknowledgesystems(Briskman2008:87;seealsoBattiste2005:6andWilson2001:176). This paperopens anewperspective to transcending thisdisjuncture.WeproposeapathwayforwardthatmakescentralIndigenousstandpoints,Indigenousknowledgesandmethodologicalperspectives.Wearguethatunderstandingandrespondingtotheextremeoverrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system demands a deeperappreciationandintegrationofIndigenousknowledgesandmethodologies,bothintheoryandin practice. Greater cross‐disciplinary collaborations between academics and practitionersconcernedwithreducing Indigenousoverrepresentation in thecriminal justicesystemwillbeanimportantstepinachievingthisaim.We take as our starting point that the subjugation of peoples is directly connected to thesubjugation of their knowledge and culture. As Indigenous scholar Leanne Simpson (2004)argues:

Academics who are willing to be true allies to Indigenous Peoples … must bewilling to step outside of their privileged position and challenge research thatconforms to the guidelines outlined by the colonial power structure and roottheirworkinthepoliticsofdecolonisationandanticolonialism.(Simpson2004:381)

We thus see the development of a pathway forward as part of an anti‐colonialist struggle.Understanding Indigenous knowledges and methodologies is not simply or even primarilyabout improving research and practice. Rather, like Simpson (2004: 376), we see therecognition and development of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies as part of atransformativepoliticalprocess.Transformation, we argue, must begin by exposing the historical and institutional factorscontributingtothecontinuingsubjugationofIndigenousknowledges.Hencesectiononeofourpaper explicates the role of criminology and socialwork7 in the historical and contemporaryproduction of colonial relations of power. Further, fundamental to the decolonisation of thecriminaljusticesystemiscognisanceofthewaysinwhichdominantepistemologiesofWesternknowledge production have perpetuated a belief in the superiority of Western knowledgesystems, aprocesswhichhas constructed the racialised inferiorityof Indigenouspeoplesandtheirknowledge.Thisisthefocusofsectiontwo.Thereafterwecontemplatethecoreconcerns


IJCJ&SD51


centralto ‘understanding’ Indigenousknowledgesandmethodologiesthroughaconsiderationoftheontological,epistemological,axiologicalandmethodologicaldifferencesbetweenWesternand Indigenous approaches.Thepractical implicationsof thesedifferencesareexemplified insectionfour’sdiscussionofthecontrastbetweenlegal‐bureaucraticandIndigenousknowledge.Section five considers how Indigenousways of knowing, being, and doing (Martin 2003) aremanifested in Indigenous approaches to healing. In this way the inadequacy of mainstreamapproachestorehabilitationinthecriminaljusticesystemtorespondtoIndigenousneedsarehighlighted.TheprecedingpointsculminateinourconcludingargumentforaparadigmaticshiftincriminaljusticetheoryandpracticewithIndigenouspeoples8thatmakescentralIndigenousstandpoints,knowledgesandmethodologiesthatdrawsuponcriticaltheoretical insights,9andisrootedinadecolonisedvisionofjustice.ThecontinuingsubjugationofIndigenousknowledges

In the dominant criminological and social work traditions limited critical analysis has beengiven to the relationship between colonised peoples and Western values, beliefs, laws andinstitutions. Notions of legal neutrality, legal positivism, formal equality, and legal objectivityhave failed to reflect Indigenous peoples’ conditions of substantive social, political, andeconomicinequalityandmarginality.Westernclaimstoabsolutesovereigntyhaveunderminedthe legitimacy of the laws of colonised peoples which are often characterised as partial,incomplete, and customary (Cunneen and Schwartz 2005). The imposition ofWestern valuesand beliefs, as reflected in particular institutional practices and programs (such as thedominance of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) in prison settings), have largely ignoreddifferencesduetorace,cultureandgender,andfurtherunderminedIndigenousapproachestohealing, health and wellbeing (Briskman 2008; Pollack 2004). Indeed, transplanting andapplyingWesternlaws,values,andbeliefstocolonialpeopleswereakeypartoftheprocessofempirebuilding,aprocessthatcontinuestohaveexploitativeconsequencestoday.With relatively few exceptions in criminology (for example,Agozino2003, 2004, 2005;Blagg2008;Cunneen2011a and2011b;Morrison2006; Sumner1982; Tauri andWebb2012) andsocialwork(forexample,Gray,YellowBirdandCoates2008;GreenandBaldry2008;Razack,2009;Sinclair2004),thecolonialsubjugationofIndigenousknowledgeshasnotbeenanalysedto any great extent. For criminology, part of theproblem is thatby ‘taking theAmerican andEuropean criminological traditions as the point of departure, whether right or left realism,criticaltheoryoradministrativecriminology—isthattheyalltendtooperatewithoutatheoryofcolonialismanditseffects’(Blagg2008:11;seealsoCohen1988).Similarly,theexportationofWesternknowledge,values,andbeliefsinsocialworkhasnotonlyproveninappropriatefortheprofessiontorespondtoIndigenouspeoples’‘experiences,needsandunderstandingsoftheworld’ (Green and Baldry 2008: 390), but it has also seen the profession collude with theapparatusofthestatesuchthatsocialworkcannotbeseenasinnocentofthehistoricalabusesassociatedwithcolonialism(Briskman2008:85;Razack2009:11).Forcriminal justicesocialworkinparticular, thedominanceof individualisingandpsychologisingdiscoursesstandsoutas an institutionalised vehicle through which such collusion continues to take place (Gray,YellowBirdandCoates2008:49;seealsoPollack2004:695;TaylorandSwain2009:320‐321).Thedominant intellectual frameworksofsocialworkandcriminologywereestablished inthewest: criminologywith a view to understanding and explaining thephenomena of crime andcrime control; and social work to deal with the social problems of industrialised urbancommunities. Part of theprocessof ‘decolonising’ socialworkand criminology is to seebothdisciplines as a product of a particular set of narrativeswithinWestern social sciences. Suchnarrativeswere‘fashionedinrelationtotheexperienceofthe[European]Diasporaandintheconstruction of complexly stratified societies within and around the urban conurbations ofWestern cities’ (Blagg 2008: 202). Others have drawn attention to the historical connectionsbetween the development of criminology in the nineteenth century and the projects of


IJCJ&SD52


colonialism and imperialism (Kitossa 2012; Morrison 2006). Similar connections are madethrough social work’s association with various colonial practices, in particular its operationthroughmissionary activities and child removals,practices thathave resulted in aprofession‘tingedwiththestainofcolonialismandimperialism’(Razack2009:1).Forsocialwork,thepowerfultraditionsofempiricismandpositivismweretheprimarymeansbywhich theprofessionsoughtrespectabilityandprofessional status (Lynn2001:904). Suchprofessionalising trends have constructed enduring boundaries that render inferior ways ofknowing (such as Indigenous knowledges) that do not conform to the dominant model ofscientific reasoning (Coates, Gray and Hetherington 2006: 3). Blagg and Smith (1989: 139)suggest that: ‘Notions of pathological individuals, families and cultures have played a centralroleindefiningtheagendaofsocialworkpracticesinceitsinfancy’.Similarlyincriminology,thedominance of ‘evidence‐based’ and ‘what works’ approaches continue to marginaliseIndigenous perspectives in the design and operation of criminal justice interventions andpolicies(Cunneeninpress;TauriandWebb2012:9).The question arises, then, of the extent to which these historical origins reproduce incontemporarysocialworkandcriminologicaltheoryandpracticeaninabilitytoconceptualisethe degree to which criminal justice systems reproduce neo‐colonial relations of power.Certainly, both the criminological and social work imagination falters when confronted withgenocideanddispossession,andwithpeopleswhodemand that their radicaldifference, theirlaws and customs, and their alterity to thewest be recognised (Blagg 2008). There is thus aneed to understand the multi‐dimensional aspects of those factors that bring Indigenouspeoplesincontactwiththelaw(Pollack2004:704).Thereisaneedforasustainedcritiqueofcrimecontrolpolicyandpracticethatismulti‐dimensionalandstrategic(TauriandWebb2012:12).Andthereisaneedtoexcavatethewayinwhichcolonialeffectsareperpetuatedthroughknowledge control, particularly in the operation of criminal justice systems. Through thedevelopment of anti‐colonial, postcolonial and Indigenous perspectives in criminology andsocialworkwearebeginningtowitnessaresponsetosuchneeds,a frameworkwithinwhichthesilencingofIndigenousvoicesisbeingchallenged(seeforexampleincriminology:Agozino2003,2004,2005;Blagg,2008;Cunneen2011a;Davis2011;Stubbs2011;Tauri2005TauriandWebb2012,andinsocialwork:Bennettetal.2012;Briskman2008;Coatesetal.2006;GreenandBaldry2008;Sinclair2004).These theoretical and conceptual tools help make transparent definitions of crime and theinstitutional determination of criminality. Such definitions can no longer be seen as separatefrom,orindependentof,thebroaderclaimsofWesterndiscoursesofdominance:rather,crimeandcrimecontrolmustberecognisedasembeddedintheexperiencesofcolonisation.Thishassignificant implications for how wemight explain and respond to the overrepresentation ofcolonised peoples within criminal justice systems. Positivist approaches in criminology andcriminal justice social work understand racial or ethnic over‐representation as the result ofessentially individualised factors that can be determined from aggregate populations (forexample, rates of offending and reoffending; living in crime‐prone neighbourhoods; singleparent families; prior child abuse or neglect; high levels of unemployment; low levels ofeducation; and so forth). Within the scientific paradigm these factors can be separated,quantified,measuredandputthrougharegressionanalysis.‘Race’isreproduced,notasasocial,economic,culturalandpoliticalsetofrelations,butasanindividualisedfactorthatmayormaynot shows signs of statistical significance. As Blagg and Smith (1989: 138‐139) have noted,criminal justice social work has tended to translate the problem of racism into individualdysfunction,pathology,andculturalimpoverishment.In contradistinction, anti‐colonial, post‐colonial and Indigenous perspectives argue that theindividualisedfactorsidentifiedaboveareembeddedinthehistoricalexperienceofcolonisationand dispossession. It is the relationship between the processes of colonisation and


IJCJ&SD53


criminalisation that need to be excavated and explained. Such an approach refuses to takeoffendingratesatfacevalue,arguingthatoffendingratesarenot‘knowable’separatefromtheagencies that identify and process crime. As well, we cannot discount the contribution ofinstitutional practices and legal frameworks within which criminalisation and the use ofimprisonment are embedded (Cunneen 2006: 340). These institutional practices are caughtwithinbroaderdominantculturalvaluesandpoliticalrelationshipsthatreproducemarginalisedpeoples as criminal subgroups. As discussed in ensuing sections Indigenous qualitative andquantitative methodologies provide an invaluable tool with which to excavate andreconceptualise the unspoken racialised assumptions underpinning mainstreamrepresentationsofIndigenouspeoplesinthecriminaljusticesystem.Race,knowledgeandcolonialism

OfequalsignificanceisthewayinwhichWesternknowledgehasbeenusedasanintegralpartof thecolonialproject toconstructaparticularviewof theracialisedinferiorityof Indigenouspeoples.Oneof thecommonargumentsfoundamongst Indigenouswriters inthis field is thatthe developing hegemony of Western science was built on and informed colonial societies’views of ‘race’ and racial inferiority (Rigney 2001: 4; see also Battiste 1998, 2000, 2005;KincheloeandSteinberg2008;Moreton‐Robinson2000).Knowledgecannotbeunderstoodaseither innocentorneutral: rather,knowledge isakey topowerandmeaningwhichhasbeenand continues to be used to dominate and control (Moreton‐Robinson 2000). As IndigenousscholarMarieBattiste(2000:195)succinctlystates:‘modernknowledgehasbeentheideologyofoppression.Thisideologyseekstochangetheconsciousnessoftheoppressed,notchangethesituation that oppressed them’. Indeed Indigenous systems of knowledge, economy, law, andgovernancewereattackedanddevaluedbycolonial institutionson thebasis that thosesocialsystemsandtheirinstitutionswereinferior.AsLesterRigneyelaborates:

If one’s racial superiority could be scientifically legitimated then the logicalconclusioncouldbedrawnthatthescientificmethodsusedin‘other’culturestoinvestigate or transmit knowledges were inferior and irrational. Indigenousintellectual traditionsandknowledgetransmission,whichsustainedIndigenouscultures and humanity for thousands of years, were not considered worthyscience or even science at all. ‘Race’ theories laid the firm foundation fordetermining whose knowledge was valid and whose science was legitimate.(Rigney2001:4)

Battiste (1998:21)concurs,arguing that theassumeduniversalityofWesternknowledgehas‘manufacturedthephysicalandculturalinferiorityofIndigenouspeoples’.As a key part of the devaluing of Indigenous culture, Indigenousways of sharing knowledge,mostlythroughoralorperformativecommunicationmodes,wereseenashearsayandinferiortowrittentexts‘thatrecordedasuperiorintelligence’(Louis2007:130).AccordingtoHawaiianscholar Renee Pualani Louis (2007: 131), the legacy of invalidating Indigenous knowledgedisconnected Indigenous people from ‘their traditional teachings, spirituality, land, family,community,spiritualleaders, [and]medicinepeople’.Yetdespitecolonialhegemonyandcloseinteraction with the dominant culture, traditional views in Indigenous communities remainimportant(Handetal.2012:450).Furthermore, Indigenousknowledgesystemsremainintactandcontinuetodevelopasliving,relationalschemas(Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter2009:97).The revalorisation of oral histories and narratives offers a powerfulmedium throughwhichcriminologists and social workers can assist in bringing Indigenous perspectives to theforefront.From the rapidly growing andemergent fields of Indigenous knowledges andmethodologies,thereareatleastfiveconsiderationswithpertinentimplicationstocriminaljusticetheoryand


IJCJ&SD54


practice. Firstly, as the objects of research, Indigenous peoples have been ‘interpreted andanalysed utilisingWesternperspectives,methodologies and agendas’ (Moreton‐Robinson andWalter 2011: 6). Given Indigenous people have been constantly seen as ‘research curiosities’and‘problems’,itisnotsurprisingthattheterm‘research’isoftenlinkedwithcolonialism.‘Thewayinwhichscientificresearchhasbeenimplicatedintheexcessesof imperialismremainsapowerful remembered history formany of theworld’s indigenous peoples’ (Porsanger 2004:107;seealsoRigney1999andSmith1999).Second,ithasbeenarguedthattheassumeduniversalityofEurocentricismcreates‘astrategyofdifference that leads to racism’ (Battiste 1998: 21). An important question raised by theconnection betweenWestern research structures, philosophies andmethods and the colonialprocess is whether these approaches are fundamentally racialised in their investigation ofissues related to colonised peoples. Some have considered these approaches ‘racistepistemologies’(ScheurichandYoung1997;Tauri2012a).Third,itisnotsurprisingthatIndigenousperspectivesonresearchrepresentalternativewaysof thinking about the research process. The decolonisation of research methods is seen asnecessary to develop Indigenous knowledge (Kovach 2009; Smith 1999). These alternativeapproaches are not necessarily meant to replace a Western research paradigm (Porsanger2004) but rather to challenge it and to reconfigure Indigenous research as one that isincreasingly defined by and responsive to Indigenous needs (Louis 2007; Smith 1999). Animportant response to this issue has been the development of Indigenous standpoint theory(Nakata 1998) and Indigenous women’s standpoint theory (Moreton‐Robinson and Walter2009).10Fourth, it is understandable that Indigenous approaches seek to revalorise Indigenousknowledgesasvalidwaysofunderstandinganddescribingtheworld.Thusthe importanceofIndigenous research methodologies has to be understood within the broader valuing andassertionofIndigenousknowledgesandcultures.Thedecolonisationofresearchisonestrategyemanating from Indigenous approaches, the other is research for decolonisation: the laterreflects thewidelyheldethicalviewamongIndigenousscholarsthat researchneedstobe forthebenefitofIndigenouscommunities.Researchfordecolonisationinevitablyleadstoadiscussionofpower:thatIndigenousresearchis part of the decolonisation process, particularly in the struggle for Indigenous self‐determination (Porsanger 2004). However, research involves relations of power at multiplelevels between the researcher and the research participant; in determining the priorities ofresearch agendas; in the broader assumptions that give ‘truth’ value to certain types ofresearch; and in the social, political and cultural values that underpin our processes ofreasoningandunderstandingoftheworld.Thisisaviewthatknowledgeproductionoperateswithincommunicentricframesofreferencethatenableandlegitimiseit(ScheurichandYoung1997).AsHart(2010:4)notes: ‘Eurocentric thoughthascometomediatetheentireworld tothepointwhereworldviewsthatdifferfromEurocentricthoughtarerelegatedtotheperiphery,iftheyareacknowledgedatall’.Battiste(2005:6)explainsthat:

Recognition of themonopoly that Eurocentric thought reserves for itself is thekey tounderstanding thenew transdisciplinaryquest tobalanceEuropeanandIndigenous ways of knowing. The contradictions, gaps and inconsistenciesbetween the two knowledge systems suggest that the next step needed in thequestisadeeperunderstandingofIndigenousknowledge.

Foucaulthaswrittenextensivelyonthepower/knowledgerelationship.Theexerciseofpowerreliesuponknowledgeofthetargetorfielduponwhichpowerisexercised.AsGarland(1990:139)hasnotedinhisdiscussionofFoucault:


IJCJ&SD55


… the relationship between knowledge and power is an intimate and internalrelationshipinwhicheachimpliesandincreasestheother...thesocialorhumansciences which developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries must bethoughtofnotasindependentintellectualdevelopmentsbutratherasknowledgeforms and techniques of enquirywhich are deeply embedded in the history ofpower‐knowledgeanditsrelationswiththebody.

In relation to the colonial project these techniques of enquiry were (and arguably still are)aimed at the control of colonised peoples. For example, one might point to the ‘science’ ofeugenicsinlegitimisingtheforcedremovalofIndigenouschildrenfromtheirfamiliesduringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury(NISATSIC1997).Thedistinctivecharacterofindigenousandwesternapproaches:Ontology,epistemology,axiologyandmethodology

Theauthors’ socio‐culturalandpoliticalpositioningasnon‐Indigenous researchers, combinedwith our methodological orientation to critical theory, is such that we are aware of ourlimitations to ‘understanding’ the full depth and breadth of the diverse, and in some areasdivergent, field of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies. There is also a danger of anessentialisedviewofIndigenousknowledge.With5,000distinctIndigenouspeopleslivingin70countries across the globe, and with a world population of more than 300 million (Battiste2008: 499), we are acutely aware of the differences between Indigenous peoples. We alsoacknowledge the distinctive and sometimes conflicting positions advanced by Indigenousacademics pertaining to the potential commensurability between Indigenous and Westernapproaches. So too are we aware of the dangers of essentialising Western knowledge. Forexample,therearecleardifferencesbetweenpositivist,postpositivist,constructivist,andcriticalapproaches11 in both criminology and criminal justice socialwork. Our concluding argumentregarding the points of connection between Western and Indigenous approaches refersspecifically to latter: that is, to the fieldofcritical theory.Finally,weareawareof the limitedexposure many non‐Indigenous critical researchers and practitioners have to Indigenousmethodologies(Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter2009:95).Theensuingdiscussionresponds tothisconcern.LincolnandGuba(2005:97‐128)andLincoln,LynhamandGuba(2011:191‐215)havearguedthat any research paradigm consists of an ontology, an epistemology, amethodology and anaxiology.Wilson (2001: 175),Kovach (2009) andMoreton‐Robinson andWalter12 (2009: 98‐99) have considered this approach in relation to Indigenous knowledges,methodologies andresearch. This schema also provides a useful tool for exploring some of the fundamentaldifferences between mainstream ‘Western’ (that is, positivist) and Indigenous researchparadigms.Ontology deals with assumptions about the nature of being and society. Notions of whatconstitutes reality (or a researcher’s ontological base) directly influences interpretations ofresearch findings. Reality viewed through the lens of Western and Indigenous researchersdiffers(Walter2010:53).OneofthefundamentalontologicaldifferencesbetweenWesternandIndigenousontologiespertinenttocriminaljusticetheoryandpracticeisthenatureoftheselfaseitherarationalindividualexercisingfreewill,comparedtoaviewthatseestheindividualasdefined by, and with obligations and relationships to, kinship groups and the naturalenvironment.Weseethisasabasicdistinctionbetweentheideasof individualautonomyandindividual relationality. As McCaslin and Breton (2008: 523) clarify, ‘The most fundamentalreality factor that Indigenous lawacknowledges (andEurocentric lawdoesnot) is the realitythatweareallrelated’.Further,accordingtoHart(2010:7):


IJCJ&SD56


Onedominantaspectthathasbeennotedamongstsome,ifnotmany,Indigenouspeopleistherecognitionofaspiritualrealmandthatthisrealmisunderstoodasbeing interconnected with the physical realm... Another dominant aspect isreciprocity, or the belief that aswe receive from others,wemust also offer toothers...Reciprocityreflectstherelationalworldviewandtheunderstandingthatwemusthonourourrelationships.

ForexampleWilson(2001:73)makesreferencetotheextendeduseamongAboriginalpeopleof terms like ‘cousin’, ‘brother’and ‘auntie’asdemonstrationofanepistemology inwhich theontological importance of kinship relationships is stressed. In contradistinction, Westernontology is predicated on an individualised, hierarchical, gendered, and racial dichotomy(Moreton‐Robinson and Walter 2009: 99), a way of being dominated by Cartesian ideasseparatingmindandmatter,selfandworld(Kincheloe2006).13Epistemologyreferstothewayinwhichweknowandthinkabouttheworldandthevalidityofknowledge. One of themost challenging discussions on this issue has been by Scheurich andYoung (1997) who raise the issue of epistemological racism. These authors argue thatepistemologiesariseoutofthesocialhistoryofaparticulargroup.Europeancolonialexpansionoccurred under the rationale of the supremacy of European civilisation within the broaderdevelopments around ‘modernism’. For these authors, ‘modernism is an epistemological,ontological and axiological network that “makes” theworld as thedominantWestern cultureknows and sees it’ (Scheurich and Young 1997: 7). It is incontrovertible that the history ofresearch on Indigenous peoples has imposed a dominant epistemology that has facilitateddefinitions through various research processes of the racialised Other as defective,dysfunctional,disturbedandculturallydeprived. Indigenousepistemologystressesa focusonIndigenousexperienceandtheconcomitantmethodologiesthatcanfacilitatethis.OthershavenotedthatIndigenousknowledgeis local,holisticandoral(Hart2010:3).Indigenouswaysofknowingare transmitted throughstorytelling, ritualsandceremonies. It is fluid, intuitiveandintrospective.Itarisesfrominterconnectionsbetweenthehumanworld,andthespiritualandphysical world (Hart 2010: 8). Many Indigenous scholars emphasise the importance ofrelationships, not only human relationships, but Indigenous peoples’ connection to theirancestors,natureandtheland.ForCarjuzaaandFenimore‐Smith(2011:12),‘itisrelationalitythatisthekeytounderstandingandembracingIndigenouswaysofknowing’.Bycontrast,Westerntheoriesofknowledgearepremiseduponnotionsofobjectivity,whereby‘reasonistheapexofthehierarchyofknowledgeproduction’and‘knowledgestatusislimitedto the educated and social elite’ (Moreton‐Robinson andWalter 2009: 98). Further,Westernepistemologiestendtocompartmentaliseknowledgeintodifferentsocialandphysicalsciencesor disciplines. This compartmentalisation contrasts strongly with the holistic framework ofIndigenousknowledgewherebylegitimacyisbaseduponconnectivity(Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter 2009: 98). It is worth emphasising here that knowledge is not acultural: rather,approachestoresearchandconsequentlyknowledgeproductionareembeddedininstitutionalstructures that canbe seen topromoteandmaintain the status quo (CarjuzzaandFenimore‐Smith2011:3).Axiologyreferstothesetofvalues,ethicsandmoralitywhichunderpinourresearch,includingour ethical standpointon the relationshipof research tobroader social orpolitical goals. ForLincolnetal.(2011:116),axiologyiscentraltothefoundationalphilosophicaldimensionsofaresearch paradigm, encompassing all ‘basic beliefs’ including the ethical dimensions of aresearchparadigm,andnecessarily involvesconsiderationof theroleofspirituality inhumaninquiry.WhatisvaluedinIndigenousapproachesis‘observationbasedonbeingintheworld’,andvaluedknowledgecomesfrommanysourcesincluding‘dreams,theancestors,stories,andexperience’ which is embedded in the land. In contradistinction, what is valued in Western


IJCJ&SD57


knowledge is scientific ‘rigour, established via measurement, explanation, causality,classificationanddifferentiation’(Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter2009:99).Indigenous ethical and moral models call for a collaborative social science research model(Denzin and Lincoln 2008: 15). A critical element here is that research be for the benefit ofIndigenouscommunities.AsLouis(2007:131)bluntlystates: ‘Ifresearchdoesnotbenefit thecommunitybyextendingthequalityof life forthoseinthecommunity, itshouldnotbedone’.Indigenous knowledge needs to be protected (for example, through the recognition ofIndigenousintellectualpropertyrights),andresearchoutcomesshared.SomeofthecorevaluesincludeIndigenouscontroloverresearch,respectforindividualsandcommunities,reciprocityandresponsibility.Thevaluesofrespectandreciprocityareperhapsthemostfrequentlycited(Hart 2010: 11; Porsanger 2004: 113). A further value has been referred to as rights andregulation,which‘referstoresearchthatisdrivenbyIndigenousprotocols,containsexplicitlyoutlined goals, and considers the impacts of the proposed research’ (Louis 2007: 133; Smith1999).Methodology refers to theprocessor toolsweuse forunderstandingordescribing theworld.Anyresearchmethodologyrestsonafoundationofontological,epistemologicalandaxiologicalassumptions.AsWalter(2010:52)states:‘itisresearchmethodology,notmethod,thatcontainsthe explicit and the implicit, cultural, social and consequently political meanings of researchprocess and practice’. Methodology is also interwovenwith and emerges from the nature ofparticulardisciplinesandperspectives(Lincolnetal.2011:97).AcriticalelementhereisthatIndigenouspeoplenotbetreatedasobjectsofresearchbutarepartnersintheresearchprocess.ThisrequirestheuseofmethodologiesthatenablevoicetobegiventoIndigenouspeopleandtheirunderstandings.Indigenousmethodologiesaredescribedasbeing‘collective’,asinvolvingreciprocity and accountability (Hart 2010: 9). In reviewing the developments internationally,Moreton‐Robinson and Walter (2011: 10‐11), drawing on Martin (2003), note four keyunderlyingtheoreticalprinciplesconsistentwithinallIndigenousmethodologies:

the recognitionof Indigenousworldviews, knowledges and realities asdistinctive andvitaltoIndigenousexistenceandwhichserveasaresearchframework;

the honouring of Indigenous socialmores as essential processes inwhich Indigenouspeople live, learnand situate themselves in their land andwhen in the landsofotherIndigenouspeople;

anemphasisupon thesocial,historical, andpolitical contextswhichshape Indigenouspeoplesexperience,lives,positionsandfutures;and

privileging the voices, experiences and lives of Indigenous people, and recognition oftheirIndigenouslands.

Contrastinglegal‐bureaucraticknowledgeandindigenousknowledge

We can contrastWestern ‘legal‐bureaucratic’ forms of knowledge that dominatemainstreamsocialworkandcriminologywithIndigenousresearchparadigms.Legalbureaucratic formsofknowledgearebasedonwrittenscripts,recordkeepingandofficialdocumentation,allofwhichhavebeenessentialpartsofimperialculture.Indeed,recordkeepingwasintegraltotheprojectofcolonisation: it isthetool fordescribing, itemisingandcontrollingthecolonisedOther.It isalsothestuffofmainstreamsocialworkandcriminology;forexample,thecrimefiguresorchildabusereportsthatendlesslyrepeattheoffendingratesofIndigenouspeoples.Further,thelegalprocess itself tends to construct, reinforce, prioritise and legitimise particular forms ofknowledge, particularly written documentation, as evidence while dismissing othercommunicative processes as uncertain, unreliable, partial and impermanent. By contrastIndigenouscommunicativemodeshave traditionally reliedonoral story‐telling,music,dance,artandothermaterialartifacts(Cunneen2010).


IJCJ&SD58


AconsiderationofIndigenouscommunicativemodesprovidestheopportunitytobreakoutofthepositivistepistemologicalstraightjacketthathastendedtodominatebothsocialworkandcriminologicaltheoryandpractice.Otherformsofknowledgeandcommunicativemodesenablea repatriation of Indigenous knowledge and critique. Indigenous cultures utilise rich andcomplex oral and artistic traditions as an essential part of the communicative process. Yetthrough traditional disciplinary approaches these forms of communication will remainunrecognised.14Thesedifferentmodesofknowledgeandcommunicationreflectdifferingviewsof the importance and function of knowledge. Legal‐bureaucratic forms of knowledge incriminologyandsocialworkaredirectlytiedtotheproductionofknowledgeintheinterestofgovernanceofpopulations.Indigenousknowledgeistiedtovaluesofconnectedness,reciprocityand the maintenance of kinship and environmental relations. Legal‐bureaucratic forms ofknowledgeandthemethodologiestheyemployarefunctionallyrelatedtotheinstitutionsofthestate,tomanaging‘problem’populations.Indeedthemanagementof‘problem’populationshasbeen foundational to criminology and social work.15 By contrast Indigenous knowledge isrelatedtomaintainingvaluedrelationships.Atamethodologicallevel,westresstheimportanceof oral histories andnarratives as a significantmeansbywhich tomake explicit the value ofrelationality.AsBriskman(2008:85)notes,oralhistoriesarea‘powerfulmediumforbringingIndigenousperspectivestotheforefront’.TheproductionofstatisticsaboutIndigenouspeoplesisakeycomponentoflegal‐bureaucraticknowledge,particularlyasitismanifestedincriminologyandcriminaljusticesocialwork.Yetrarelyarethe implicationsof Indigenousapproachesconsideredinrelationtotheproduction,analysisandpresentationofquantitative,statisticalIndigenousdata.AsTaurinotes:

The majority of criminological material that is influencing public policy andmediadiscourseontheIndigenousquestion,emanatesfromapproachesthatarepredominantly quantitative inmethod, and largely ‘Aboriginal free’ in termsofdata gathering and engagement with the research population’ (Tauri 2012b:219).

Tauri(2012b),TauriandWebb(2012)andCunneen(2006,2011b)pointtotheinfluenceoftheriseofrisk‐basedanalysisandthesubsequentdevelopmentofvariousdiagnostictools(basedon ‘criminogenic need’) and therapeutic interventions (usually CBT) derived from actuarialmodelsofoffending.Inparticular,theydrawattentiontotheextenttowhichtheseapproacheshaveundermined Indigenousknowledgesandmethodologies,andthestruggle for Indigenousrightsmorebroadly.The insightful work of Australian Indigenous scholar Maggie Walter (2010) provides animportantcontributiontothefieldofunderstandingandcritiquingstatisticalIndigenousdata.Walter’s exposure of the racialised politics underlying the unspoken, non‐Indigenousontological framework applied to Indigenous data production,most evident in the dominantportrayalofIndigenousdysfunction,hassignificantimportforthecriminaljusticefield,afielddominatedbyquantitativerepresentationsofIndigenouspeoples.AsWalter(2010)explains,anIndigenous quantitative methodology challenges the construction of racialised statistics,16explicitly foregrounds Indigenous voices and knowledges, and makes central the IndigenousontologicalsignificanceofrelationalityratherthandominantWesternpositionsofsubjectandobject.Identityandhealing

When we see criminology and social work as racialised discourses, as dominant systems ofmeanings that produce knowledge and practice about crime and race, we can begin tounderstandhowthedisciplinescontrolboththemodeofrepresentationandtheirmeaning.Thediscoursecontrolstheprocessthroughwhichweunderstandcrimeanddeviance,forexample,


IJCJ&SD59


with the construction of Indigenous dysfunction through the unspoken racialised politics ofquantitative data pertaining to Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system,and the symbolic meanings we attach to those representations (such as Indigenous men ascrime‐prone).Inthecaseofracialisedcriminalityweseesimultaneouslytheoffenderasracialandtheracialisedindividualascriminal.AsFanononceremarked:‘notonlymusttheblackmanbeblack;hemustbeblack in relation to thewhiteman’ (Fanon1967:202).The colonised isforced to exist individually and as an embodiment of race, an embodiment that is overladenwithsignificationsofcriminality.One consequence of the importance of identity for colonised peoples, and the need to affirmidentityinthefaceofcolonialstrategiestocircumscribe,defineandcontroltheidentityofthecolonised,istheapproachtakentowardsreformingandrehabilitatingoffenders.Wearguethatthere is a different understanding betweenmainstreamWestern and Indigenous researchersand practitioners about how unacceptable criminal behaviour is changed. Generally withinIndigenous approaches there is a greater focus on healing and community‐controlledinterventions for offenders. If we reflect on Indigenous developed interventions it is evidentthat they start at a different place to conventional individualised programs. They representdifferent ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies and axiologies. The concept of healing isfundamentaltoIndigenousapproaches.AstheAustralianAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommissionerstates:

Indigenousconceptsofhealingarebasedonaddressingtherelationshipbetweenthespiritual,emotionalandphysicalinaholisticmanner.AnessentialelementofIndigenous healing is recognising the interconnectedness between, and theeffectsof,violence,socialandeconomicdisadvantage,racismanddispossessionfrom land and culture on Indigenous peoples, families and communities(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommissioner2004:57).

Indigenousprogramsstartwith thecollective Indigenousexperience. Inevitably, that involvesanunderstandingof the cumulative harmsand long‐termoutcomesof colonisation, includinggenocidal policies andpractices; the loss of lands; thedisruptions of culture; the changing oftraditionalrolesofmenandwomen;thecollectivelossandsorrowoftheremovalofchildren;and relocation of communities. Criminal offending is not only understood as an outcome ofdisadvantageandmarginalisation:itisalsolinkedtonon‐economicdeprivation‘suchasdamagetoidentityandculture,aswellastraumaandgrief’(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommissioner2002:136).Individualharmsandwrongsareplacedwithinasocialcontext.Ontheonehand,offendersaredealtwithasindividualsresponsiblefortheirownactions:theirpainandtheforcesthatpropelthemtoharmfulbehaviourtowardsthemselvesandothersareconfronted.Ontheotherhand,theyareunderstoodwithinacollectivecontextof theexperienceof Indigenouspeoples in thedominantnon‐Indigenoussociety.Theexplanatorycontext–theexplanationforbehaviour–iswithinthecollectiveexperiencesofIndigenouspeoples.Healingisnotsimplyaboutaddressingindividualisedoffendingbehaviour.Itisfundamentallyaboutaddressingtrauma.Threetypesoftraumahavebeenidentified:situationaltraumacausedbydiscreteevents;cumulativetraumacaused by pervasive distress over time (for example, racism); and inter‐generational traumawhich is passed down fromone generation to another (Aboriginal andTorres Strait IslanderSocial Justice Commissioner 2008: 153‐154). The process of healing is inextricably linked toIndigenousspiritualityandcultureandtorepairingtheeffectsoftrauma(AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommissioner2008:152).InthissenseIndigenousapproachestohealingareuniquebecausetheyseekindividualchangewithinacollectivecontext.Mainstreamprograms(suchasCBTprograms)cannotachievethat:they do not understand individual change as part of a collective experience; nor do they


IJCJ&SD60


understandthatfactorssuchasraceandclassoppressionintersectatindividual,interpersonaland systemic levels (Pollack 2004: 704). This is why Indigenous programs and Indigenouspeople prioritise the concept of healing: healing is quintessentially and simultaneously anindividualandcollectiveexperience.Itisfarmoreexpansivethananotionofrehabilitation:itisconcernedwithsimultaneouslyhealingone’sselfandcommunity.Individualandcollectivegriefand loss become core issues that programs need to address rather than focusing oncriminogenic need. Mainstream programs simply ignore the nexus between oppression andliberation, between collective grief and loss and individual healing. Indigenous healingprograms start from this nexus: they begin with understanding the outcomes and effects oflonger‐termoppression,andmovefromtheretowardsthehealingofindividuals.In relation to the values (axiology) that underpin Indigenous approaches, many of theinnovative developments in Indigenous justice (such as healing lodges, community justicegroupsorwomen’scommunitypatrols)arisefromadisbelief:adisbeliefinthefunctionalityandthe legitimacy of state‐centred institutional responses. For themost part, criminalisation andincarcerationareseenasdestructiveavenuesthatcausefurtherfamilyandsocialdisintegrationanddonotchangethebehaviouroftheperpetrator.Thedisbeliefinthecriminaljusticesystemas reformatory or rehabilitative is hardly surprising given thatmost colonised and formerlycolonised peoples have had firsthand experience of police, courts and prisons over manygenerations.ReviewingtheinternationalliteratureontheIndigenous‘healingmovement’,Laneetal.(2002:23)highlightthewaysinwhichthemanyinter‐connectedoutcomesofIndigenoushealinghaveled to increased emphasis upon the need for a transformation of existing mainstreamapproaches. This is particularly so in relation to the use of CBT programs with Indigenouspeoples involved in the criminal justice system.AsMcCaslin andBreton (2008:518) explain,‘coloniser programming’ in the criminal justice system is permeatedby a viewof Indigenouspeoplesasthe‘theproblem’andcolonisersasthe‘thesolutions’.Unlesscolonialismisbrought‘frontandcentreandnamedastherootcause’ofIndigenousoverrepresentationinthecriminaljustice system, Indigenous peoples will continue to be oppressed through processes of statecriminalisation.Thewayforward

There aremultipledangers and challenges that arise in any attempt to develop relationshipsbetween Indigenous and Western approaches. As Denzin and Lincoln (2008: 5‐6) havepreviously highlighted, there is a very real concern that the historical legacy of extraction,misappropriation,commodificationanddistributionofknowledgeabouttheIndigenousOthermaybeperpetuated through suchprocesses. Yet alongsideDenzin andLincoln (2008: x) andIndigenous scholars such as Grande 2008, Porsanger 2004 and Smith 1999, we concur thatthere is a need for a ‘dialogue’ between Indigenouspeoples, Indigenous scholars, and criticalscholars and practitioners. Jelena Porsanger (2004: 109) makes clear that ‘Indigenousmethodologiesdonotrejectnon‐Indigenousresearchers,nordotheyrejectWesterncanonsofacademic work’. Recognising the dominance of non‐Indigenous researchers in the academy,Native American scholar Cheryl Crazy Bull (1997: 24) stresses the need to build alliancesbetweennon‐IndigenousandIndigenousresearchers.Wearguethat the firststep in forgingadiscursivepathway forwardbetweenIndigenousandnon‐Indigenous critical scholars and practitioners is for non‐Indigenous people to thinkcritically and reflexively, both intellectually and practically, about the methodologicalassumptionsunderpinningourrelationshipsandourworkwithIndigenouspeoples.Insodoingwe must move beyond ill‐conceived notions of objectivity and neutrality, especially as thisrelates to research processes and practices. In their call for a ‘reflexive return’ on the socialscientist and on ‘his or her universe of production’, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992: 68)


IJCJ&SD61


advocateforatranscendenceofadominantpositioninsocialscienceresearchwhereby‘peoplewhose profession it is to objectivise the social world prove so rarely able to objectivisethemselves’.Asaprocessofreflectingcriticallyontheself, researcherreflexivity ‘forcesustocome to terms with our choice of research problem’ (Lincoln et al. 2011: 124). It furtherprovidesthemeansbywhichtorendervisibletheontological,epistemologicalandaxiologicalassumptionsthatdeterminehowtheresearchproblemisproduced,analysedandpresented.FromthisvantagepointIndigenouspeoplesandtheiralliescanbegintheworkto ‘decoloniseand deconstruct those structures within the Western academy that privilege Westernknowledgesystemsandtheirepistemologies’(DenzinandLincoln2008:6).Withrespecttothecriminal justice arena, shifting the dominance of non‐Indigenous approaches – or ‘changingnarratives’–requiresaparadigmaticshift(Porsanger2004:109),thecreationofaliminalandintellectualspaceofengagementbetweenIndigenousandnon‐Indigenouspeoples,scholarsandpractitioners(Grande2008:234).Recognitionoftheinherentlimitationsofcriticaltheory,evenin its most emancipatory form, to conceptualise and interrogate the myriad implications ofcolonialprocesses is imperative.Given its roots in theWesternparadigm,critical theory is intensionwithIndigenousknowledgesandpraxis.Weneedthereforetomakeexplicit‘theforcesshapingWestern methodological frames’ (Moreton‐Robinson andWalter 2009: 97). Withoutmodification, elaboration anddebate, critical theorywill notworkwithin Indigenous settings(Denzin and Lincoln 2008: 5). Moreover, there are certain ontological and epistemologicalfeaturesof Indigenouswaysofknowing that remain incommensuratewithcriticalparadigms(Blagg 2008: 132). Respecting and accepting such difference is paramount when seeking toreflexivelyengageIndigenousandcriticalapproaches.Wemustthereforeabandonthetendencytobe ‘overlyprecious’abouttheprojectofcritical theoryandpedagogy ‘asauniversalrecipethathastobefollowedtotheletterifitistobeeffective’(Smith2000:229).Certainly Indigenous scholars have adapted aspects of critical theory in the development oftheirIndigenoustheoreticalandmethodologicalpositions.InherdiscussionofKaupapaMaori17theory,Smith(2000:229)arguesthatKaupapaMaori:

… is themodality throughwhich the emancipatory gaol of critical theory, in aspecifichistorical,political,andsocialcontext, ispracticed.Thelocalisingof theaims of critical theory is partly an enactment of what critical theory actuallyofferstooppressed,marginalised,andsilencedgroups.

In the Australian Indigenous context,Walter (2010) uses insights from Bourdieu to critiquegovernmental statistical representations of Indigenous people and to develop a specificIndigenousapproachtoquantitativemethodology.ShetakesBourdieu’sconceptsofhabitusandfield to understand the political framework within which the production of the ‘statisticalIndigene’ takes place. Importantly she expands Bourdieu’s idea of three dimensional socialspaceandhisanalysisofsocial,culturalandeconomiccapitaltoincludeafourthdimensionofrace.This theoretical insight enablesWalter todevelopherargumenton the importanceof aspecific Indigenous quantitative methodology that shifts the axiological frame underpinningdataproduction,representationandinterpretation.Many Indigenous researchers have also developed feminist understandings of gender andpower, and some like Patricia Monture‐Okanee (1992) have been critical of aspects ofIndigenousapproaches for failingtoconsidergenderedrelations.MorethantwentyyearsagoMonture‐Okanee(1992:250)argued:‘Thegoalwesetforourselvesshouldbetoeliminatethedisadvantage that Aboriginalwomen face because it ismore startling than the experience ofeitherraceorgenderalone’.Inparticular,feministanalysisofcontemporaryIndigenousjusticehas highlighted the need for a gendered analysis.18 Others, such as Moreton‐Robinson (inMoreton‐Robinson andWalter2009:99‐105), havedeveloped a specific Indigenouswomen’sstandpoint centred upon Indigenous knowledges, and informed by a feministmethodological


IJCJ&SD62


paradigm. Cognisant of the diversity of Indigenous women’s individual experiences andperceptions of themselves, the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of Indigenous women’sstandpointsarebuiltonsharedpositioningbetweenIndigenouswomen.Inthisway,Indigenouswomen’s standpointshelpexplicate ‘the intersectingoppressionsof raceandgender, and thesubsequentpowerrelationsthatflowfromtheseintothesocial,political,historicalandmaterialconditions’which frame the livesof Indigenouswomen(Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter2009:99). More recently, the growing importance of decolonised feminist research has helpedposition feminist researchers toaddressenduringandemergentquestionsofgenderedsocialjustice,concomitantlydemandingthedecolonisationof‘selfandother’(OIesen2011:129‐130).By turning the lens reflexively upon colonising society and themselves, non‐IndigenousresearchershavealsodevelopedmethodologiesthatbridgeIndigenousandcriticaltheoreticalandmethodologicalinsights.Forexample,throughhermethodological‘bridging’ofIndigenousand feminist knowledge, the White Irish‐Australian researcher and academic Zohl de Ishtar(2005: 366) developed a methodological umbrella that ‘forged a partnership between twocultures– IndigenouswomenandWhite feminist’.Asde Ishtar(2005:358‐359)states,Whiteresearchers can investigate effects of Euro‐centric behaviours on both societies: ‘Anexaminationoftheinteractionbetweenthetwosocietiesisimperative,fortoignorehalfofthepictureistodefeattheendeavouratitsoutset’.Indeed,‘insiderinsights’canproveinvaluabletothebroaderaimto‘dismantle,deconstruct,anddecoloniseWesternepistemologiesfromwithin’(DenzinandLincoln2008:ix).Both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous researchers in the disciplines of criminology and socialwork have also reflexively employed Indigenous and non‐Indigenous theoretical andmethodologicalinsights(seeforexample,Bennettetal.2012;Blagg2008;Cunneen2010;Grayetal.2008;GreenandBaldry2008;Lynnetal.1998;Stubbs2011;Tauri2012b).ThemultipleexamplesreferredtoabovepointtothepotentialintersectionsbetweencriticalandIndigenousapproaches in the development and application of critical and Indigenous methodologies.Howeverwenotethatsucharelationshipcannotbeassumed.Itmaybepartialorstrategic.Anditwillcertainlybeopentoongoingdebate,refinementandchange.Yet we cannot be deterred by possible tensions. As Grande (2008: 236) argues:‘the lack ofengagementwithcritical theoryhasultimately limitedpossibilities for Indigenousscholars tobuild broad‐based coalitions and political solidarities’. Similarly, we argue that the lack ofengagement by critical theorists with Indigenous perspectives has impoverished ourunderstandings of Indigenous peoples, especially as this relates to the root causes of theircontactwithcriminal justicesystems.Fromapositionofhumility,criticalityandrespect,newbridges can be formed. This requires cognisance not only of existing tensions but also themyriad similarities between both parties. Indeed, through a critically reflexive lens, manypreviously considered irreconcilable tensions between critical and Indigenous approachesprovenotonlyreconcilablebutalsointegraltothedecolonisationofthecriminaljusticesystem.AcriticalandreflexiveappreciationofsuchforcesmakestransparentpathwaysofintersectionwhichenablecoreinsightsandconceptualtoolsderivedfromcriticaltheorytobereframedtoserveIndigenousneedsandagendas.Demystificationanddirectionissupportedthroughanappreciationofthecoreepistemological,ontological, and axiological dimensions of Indigenous methodological perspectives andapproaches. Central to this process is the prioritisation of Indigenous social positioning, orstandpoints (Walter 2010). If the power differentials are to be truly challenged, Indigenousworldviews must be privileged (Green and Baldry 2008: 398). Further, the nuanced andcontextualembeddednessofIndigenousapproachesmustbegivenprimacy,suchthatanyeffortto engage critical and Indigenous perspectivesmust understand that Indigenous knowledgescannotbeseparated fromtheontological,epistemological,andaxiologicalelementsembracedby their producers. It is from this vantage point that Indigenous peoples and their allies can


IJCJ&SD63


jointly participate in transformative political processes that make central the narratives andstandpoints of incarcerated Indigenouspeoples, alongwith thedecolonisationof institutionalstructuresandprocessescausativeofIndigenouspeoplesoverrepresentationincriminaljusticesystemsacrosstheglobe.Correspondence: Chris Cunneen, Professor of Criminology, James Cook University, Cairns,Queensland4870,Australia.Email:[email protected] Chris Cunneen is Professor of Criminology at theCairns Institute, JamesCookUniversity,Australia.He is a non‐Indigenous academicwho has publishedwidely in the area of Indigenous legal issues, juvenile justice, policing,criminaljusticepolicy,andrestorativejustice.

2 SimoneRowehasabackground inSocialWork. She is anon‐Indigenousresearcherat theCairns InstituteandapostgraduatestudentintheSchoolofArtsandSocialSciences,JamesCookUniversity,Australia.

3 Criminal Justice SocialWork refers to the broad range of socialwork services provided to individuals and theirfamilies involved in the criminal justice system. These services can range from early intervention programs toprisonandpost‐releaseservices.Asacorevalueofsocialwork,social justiceand itsapplicationhasaparticularresonance in the institutionsof criminal justice (Baldry and Sotiri 2009: 36). The theory andpractice of criticalsocialwork(the focusof thispaper) incriminal justicesettingsprovidesan important frameworktounderstandandtransformtheindividual,socialandsystemicdimensionsofcrimeandcrimecontrol(BaldryandSotiri2009:364;seealsoBlaggandSmith1989;CriminalJusticeSocialWorkDevelopmentCentre2013;Pettus‐Davis2012).

4We use the plural of Indigenous knowledges andmethodologies in recognition of themultiplicity of Indigenousknowledgesandmethodologicalapproaches.

5Forexample,therecentSageHandbookofCriminologicalResearchMethods(Gaddetal.2012)containsnochapteronIndigenousresearchmethodologies. Indeed,referencetoIndigenousorAboriginalpeoplesdoesnotappear intheindexofthis500‐pageplusbook.ThisisdespitethesignificantoverrepresentationofIndigenouspeoplesinthecriminaljusticesystemsofAustralia,NewZealand,CanadaandtheUS.

6Throughout thispaperthe term ‘Western’ isusedtorefertoawayof thinking,ahistoryofphilosophyrooted in‘rational’ thought where the individual subject is highly valued, secular humanism prevails, the rational,autonomous, freely choosing individual is prized, and where the dominant history is that of exploitation andconquest(YellowBird2008:290).

7Whilecriminaljusticesocialworkisthefocusofthisarticle,thefirstsectionwidensthelenstoconsiderthewaysinwhichthebroaderdisciplineofsocialworkhasandcontinuestoperpetuatetheeffectsofcolonisation.

8Herein ‘criminaljusticetheoryandpractice’referstothetheoreticalandpracticedimensionsofbothcriminologyandcriminaljusticesocialwork.

9Throughoutthispapertheterm‘critical’isusedtorefertothebroadrangeofcriticalresearch,theoryandpracticethat embodies empancipatory and empowering values, is done for explicitly political purposes, and privilegesissues of gender, race, class, equity and social justice (see for example:Denzin andLincoln 2008; Grande 2008;Smith2000).

10‘Standpointencapsulatesourposition,whoweareandhowweseeourselvesinrelationtoothersandtosociety.Withinthis,ourperceptionsandworldviewsarenotneutral,objectiveunderstandingsbutmouldedbythefiltersof our experiences and circumstances and our social, cultural, economic and personal identity location’ (Walter2010:53).

11Foradetaileddiscussionofthedifferencesbetweenthesefourparadigms,seeLincolnetal.(2011:97‐128).12Moreton‐RobinsonandWalter(2009:98‐99)constructatablethat identifiessomeof thedifferentphilosophicalassumptionsunderpinningIndigenousandWesternmethodologies.

13ForadetailedaccountofWesternandIndigenousontologicaldifferences,andanimportantconceptualframeworkfromwhichtoforge‘bridgesofunderstanding’betweenthesedifferences,seeKincheloe2006.

14 See Cunneen (2010) for a discussion of the role of Indigenous art in understanding the long‐term impact ofcolonialism,andasasourceofcriminologicalknowledge.

15 On the notion of ‘problem’ populations in criminology, see Spitzer (1975), andmore recently in connection toIndigenouspeopleasaproblempopulation,seeTauri(2012b:220).

16 ‘The default norm of Indigenous data is its comparison with data from the non‐Indigenous population. Thisresearchpractice,soentrenchedinthestatisticalpicturesthatpervadeourlives,operatestoplacetheIndigeneasthe‘Other’beforethedataareevenexamined’(Walter2010:51).

17AsanapproachtoMaoriresearch,Smith(2000)explainsthatKaupapaMaoridrawsuponMaoriknowledgeandcultural values, principles, priorities, and emancipatory aims to structure assumptions, values, concepts,orientations,andprioritiesinresearchwithMaori.Importantly,theauthornotesthatwhilethispositionisbasedon the specificities of Maori peoples’ history and politics, it does not preclude those who are not Maori fromparticipatinginresearchthathasaKaupapaMaoriorientation.

18 See for example Coker’s (2000) research of Navajo peacemaking in cases of domestic and family violenceexemplifiessomeoftheproblemsofcoercionthroughforcingvictimparticipation.


IJCJ&SD64


References

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommissioner(2002)SocialJusticeReport2002.Sydney:HumanRightsandEqualOpportunityCommission.



AgozinoB(2003)Counter‐ColonialCriminology:ACritiqueofImperialistReason.London:Pluto.AgozinoB(2004)Imperialism,crimeandcriminology:Towardsthedecolonisationof

criminology.Crime,LawandSocialChange41:343‐358.AgozinoB(2005)Crime,criminology,andpost‐colonialtheory:Criminologicalreflectionson

WestAfrica.InSheptyckiJ(ed)TransnationalandComparativeCriminology.London:GlasshousePress:117‐134.

BaldryEandSotiriM(2009)Socialworkandcorrections.InSwainPandRiceS(eds)IntheShadowoftheLaw:TheLegalContextofSocialWorkPractice,3rdedn.Sydney:FederationPress:360‐373.

BattisteM(1998)Enablingtheautumnseed:TowardadecolonisedapproachtoAboriginalknowledge,language,andeducation.CanadianJournalofNativeEducation22(1):16‐27.

BattisteM(2000)MaintainingAboriginalidentity,language,andcultureinmodernsociety.InBattisteM(ed)ReclaimingIndigenousVoiceandVision.Vancouver:UBCPress:192‐208.

BattisteM(2005)IndigenousKnowledge:FoundationsforFirstNations.Availableat:http://www.winhec.org/docs/pdfs/journal/marie%20battiste%20copy.pdf(accessed10March2013).

BattisteM(2008)ResearchethicsforprotectingIndigenousknowledgeandheritage.InDenzinNK,LincolnYSandSmithLT(eds)HandbookofCriticalandIndigenousMethodologies.London:Sage:497‐509.

BennettS,GreenS,GilbertSandBessarabD(eds)(2012)OurVoices:AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialWork.Melbourne:Palgrave.

BlaggH(2008)Colonialcritiqueandcriticalcriminology:IssuesinAboriginallawandAboriginalviolence.InAnthonyJandCunneenC(eds)TheCriticalCriminologyCompanion.Sydney:HawkinsPress:129‐145.

BlaggH(2008)Crime,AboriginalityandtheDecolonisationofJustice.Annandale:HawkinsPress.BlaggHandSmithD(1989)Crime,PenalPolicyandSocialWork.Essex:Longman.BourdieuPandWacquantJD(1992)AnInvitationtoReflexiveSociology.Chicago:TheUniversity

ofChicagoPress.BriskmanL(2008)DecolonisingsocialworkinAustralia:Prospectorillusion.InGrayM,Coates

JandYellowBirdM(eds)IndigenousSocialWorkaroundTheWorld:TowardCulturallyRelevantEducationAndPractice.Surrey:Ashgate:83‐93.

CarjuzaaJandFenimore‐SmithK(2011)Thegiveawayspirit:ReachingasharedvisionofethicalIndigenousresearchrelationships.TheJournalofEducationalControversy.Availableathttp://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/Cep/Ejournal/V005n002/A004.Shtml(accessed10March2013).

CoatesJ,GrayMandHetheringtonT(2006)An‘ecospiritual’perspective:FinallyaplaceforIndigenousapproaches.BritishJournalOfSocialWork36:381‐399.

CohenS(1988)AgainstCriminology.NewBrunswick:TransactionBooks.CrazyBullC(1997)Adviceforthenon‐nativeresearcher.TribalCollege:JournalofAmericanIndianHigherEducation9(1):24‐25.


IJCJ&SD65


CriminalJusticeSocialWork,TheDevelopmentCentreforScotland(2013)Availableat:http://www.cjsw.ac.uk(accessed10April2013).

CokerD(2000)Enhancingautonomyforbatteredwomen:LessonsfromNavajopeacemaking.UniversityofCaliforniaLawReview47(1):42‐50.

CunneenC(2006)Racism,discriminationandtheover‐representationofIndigenouspeopleinthecriminaljusticesystem:Someconceptualandexplanatoryissues.CurrentIssuesinCriminalJustice17(3):329‐346.

CunneenC(2010)Framingthecrimesofcolonialism:CriticalimagesofAboriginalartandlaw.InHaywardKandPresdeeM(eds)FramingCrime:CulturalCriminologyandtheImage.London:Routledge:115‐137.

CunneenC(2011a)Postcolonialperspectivesforcriminology.InBosworthMandHoyleC(eds)WhatisCriminology?Oxford:OUP:249‐266.

CunneenC(2011b)Indigeneity,sovereigntyandthelaw:Challengingtheprocessesofcriminalisation.SouthAtlanticQuarterly110(2):309‐328.

CunneenC(inpress)Colonialprocesses,Indigenouspeoples,andcriminaljusticesystems.InTonryMandBuceriusS(eds)OxfordHandbookonImmigration,Ethnicity,RaceandCrime.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

CunneenCandSchwartzM(2005)CustomaryLaw,HumanRightsandInternationalLaw:SomeConceptualIssues.BackgroundPaperNo11.Perth:LawReformCommissionofWesternAustralia.

DavisM(2011)AreflectionontheroyalcommissionintoAboriginaldeathsincustodyanditsconsiderationofAboriginalwomen’sIssues.AustralianIndigenousLawReview15(1):25‐33.

DenzinNKandLincolnYS(2008)Introduction.InDenzinNK,LincolnYSandSmithLT(eds)HandbookofCriticalandIndigenousMethodologies.London:Sage:ix‐20.

deIstarZ(2005)Strivingforacommonlanguage:AwhitefeministparalleltoIndigenouswaysofknowingandresearching.Women’sStudiesInternationalForum28:357‐368.

FanonF(1697)BlackSkin,WhiteMasks.France:GrovePress.GaddD,KarstedtSandMessnerSF(eds)(2012)TheSageHandbookofCriminologicalResearchMethods.London:Sage.

GarlandD(1990)PunishmentinModernSociety.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.GrandeS(2008)Redpedagogy:Theun‐methodology.InDenzinNK,LincolnYSandSmithLT

(eds)HandbookofCriticalandIndigenousMethodologies.London:Sage:233‐254.GrayM,YellowBirdMandCoatesJ(2008)TowardanunderstandingofIndigenoussocialwork.

InGrayM,CoatesJandYellowBirdM(eds)IndigenousSocialWorkaroundtheWorld:TowardCulturallyRelevantEducationandPractice.Surrey:Ashgate:49‐58.

GreenSandBaldryE(2008)BuildingIndigenousAustraliansocialwork.AustralianSocialWork61(4):389‐402.

HandCA,HankesJandHouseT(2012)Restorativejustice:TheIndigenousjusticesystem.ContemporaryJusticeReview:IssuesinCriminal,Social,andRestorativeJustice15(4):449‐467.

HartMA(2010)Indigenousworldviews,knowledge,andresearch:ThedevelopmentofanIndigenousresearchparadigm.JournalofIndigenousVoicesinSocialWork1(1):1‐16.

KincheloeJL(2006)CriticalontologyandIndigenouswaysofbeing:Forgingapostcolonialcurriculum.InKanuY(ed)CurriculumasCulturalPractice:PostcolonialImaginations.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress:181‐202.

KincheloeJLandSteinbergSR(2008)Indigenousknowledgesineducation:Complexities,dangersandprofoundbenefits.InDenzinNK,LincolnYSandSmithLT(eds)HandbookofCriticalandIndigenousMethodologies.London:Sage:135‐156.


IJCJ&SD66


KitossaT(2012)Criminologyandcolonialism:CountercolonialcriminologyandtheCanadiancontext.TheJournalofPanAfricanStudies4(10):204‐226.

KovachM(2009)IndigenousMethodologies:Characteristics,Conversations,andContexts.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

LanePJr,BoppM,BoppJandNorrisJ(2002)MappingtheHealingJourney:FinalReportofaFirstNationResearchProjectonHealinginCanadianAboriginalCommunities.Ontario:AboriginalCorrectionsPolicyUnit.

LincolnYandGubaEG(2005)Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictionsandemergingconfluences.InDenzinNandLincolnY(eds)HandbookofQualitativeResearch,3rdedn.London:Sage:97‐128.

LincolnY,LynhamSandGubaEG(2011)Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictionsandemergingconfluences,InDenzinNandLincolnY(eds)HandbookofQualitativeResearch,4thedn.London:Sage:191‐215.

LouisRP(2007)Canyouhearusnow?Voicesfromthemargin:UsingIndigenousmethodologiesingeographicresearch.GeographicalResearch45(2):130‐139.

LynnR,ThorpeR,MilesD,CuttsC,ButcherAandFordL(1998)MurriWay!AboriginesandTorresStraitIslandersReconstructSocialWelfarePractice.Townsville:CentreforSocialResearch.

LynnR(2001)Learningfroma‘MurriWay’.BritishJournalofSocialWork31:903‐916.MartinKL(2003)Waysofknowing,beinganddoing:Atheoreticalframeworkandmethodsfor

IndigenousandIndigenistre‐search.JournalofAustralianStudies27(76):203‐214.McCaslinWDandBretonDC(2008)JusticeasHealing:GoingOutsidetheColonisers’Cage.In

DenzinNK,LincolnYSandSmithLT(eds)HandbookofCriticalandIndigenousMethodologies.London:SagePublications:511‐530.

Monture‐OkaneeP(1992)TherolesandresponsibilitiesofAboriginalwomen:Reclaimingjustice.SaskatchewanLawReview56:237‐266.

Moreton‐RobinsonA(2000)Talkin’uptotheWhiteWoman:IndigenousWomenandFeminism.StLucia:UniversityofQueenslandPress.

Moreton‐RobinsonAandWalterM(2009)Indigenousmethodologiesinsocialresearch.InWalterM(ed)SocialResearchMethods.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress:95‐109.

Moreton‐RobinsonEandWalterM(2011)LeadershipinIndigenousResearchCapacityBuilding:ImplementingandEmbeddinganIndigenousResearchMethodologiesMasterclassModule.Sydney:AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil.

MorrisonW(2006)Criminology,CivilisationandtheNewWorldOrder.Abingdon:Routledge.NakataM(1998)AnthropologicaltextsandIndigenousstandpoints.AustralianAboriginalStudies2:3‐12.

NationalInquiryintotheSeparationofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderChildrenfromtheirFamilies[NISATSIC](1997)BringingThemHome.ReportoftheNationalInquiryintotheSeparationofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderChildrenfromTheirFamilies.Sydney:HumanRightsandEqualOpportunityCommission.

OlesenV(2011)Feministqualitativeresearchinthemillennium’sfirstdecade:Developments,challenges,prospects.InDenzinNKandLincolnYS(eds)TheSageHandbookofQualitativeResearch.London:Sage:129‐146.

Pettus‐DavisC(2012)Reversesocialwork’sneglectofadultsinvolvedinthecriminaljusticesystem:Theintersectionandanagenda.SocialWorkResearch36(1):3‐8.

PollackS(2004)Anti‐oppressivesocialworkpracticewithwomeninprison:Discursivereconstructionsandalternativepractices.BritishJournalofSocialWork34(5):693‐707.


IJCJ&SD67


PorsangerJ(2004)AnEssayAboutIndigenousMethodology.Availableathttp://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlit/article/viewFile/1910/1776(accessed02October2012).

RazackN(2009)Decolonisingthepedagogyandpracticeofinternationalsocialwork.InternationalSocialWork52(1):9‐21.

RigneyL(1999)InternationalisationofanIndigenousanticolonialculturalcritiqueofresearchmethodologies:AguidetoIndigenistresearchmethodologyanditsprinciples.WicazoSaReview14(2):109‐121.

RigneyL(2001)AFirstPerspectiveofIndigenousAustralianParticipationinScience:FramingIndigenousResearchTowardsIndigenousAustralianIntellectualSovereignty.Availableatwww.flinders.edu.au/yunggorendifiles/documents/Paper%20no2%20lirfirst.pdf(accessed:2October2012).

ScheurichJJandYoungMD(1997)Coloringepistemologies:Areourresearchepistemologiesraciallybiased?EducationalResearcher26(4):4‐16.

SimpsonLR(2004)AnticolonialstrategiesfortherecoveryandmaintenanceofIndigenousknowledge.TheAmericanIndianQuarterly28(3and4):373‐384.

SinclairR(2004)AboriginalSocialWorkEducationInCanada:DecolonisingPedagogyForTheSeventhGeneration.FirstPeoplesChildandFamilyReview1,49‐61.

SmithLT(1999)DecolonizingMethodologies:ResearchandIndigenousPeoples.London:ZedBooks.

SmithLT(2000)KaupapaMaoriresearch.InBattisteM(ed)ReclaimingIndigenousVoiceandVision.Vancouver:UBCPress:225‐247.

SpitzerS(1975)TowardaMarxiantheoryofdeviance.SocialProblems22:638‐51StubbsJ(2011)IndigenouswomeninAustraliancriminaljustice:Over‐representedbutrarely

acknowledged.AustralianIndigenousLawReview15(1):47‐63.SumnerC(1982)Crime,JusticeandUnderdevelopment.London:Heinemann.TauriJ(2005)Indigenousperspectivesandexperience:Maoriandthecriminaljusticesystem.

InTrevorBandWaltersR(eds)IntroductiontoCriminologicalThought.NewZealand:Pearson:129‐145.

TauriJ(2012a)EmpoweringIndigenousjusticeinaneo‐colonialcontext.PaperpresentedatThinkingAboutContext:ChallengesforCrimeandJustice,AmericanSocietyforCriminology,68thAnnualMeeting,Chicago,14‐17November2012.

TauriJ(2012b)Indigenouscritiqueofauthoritariancriminology.InCarringtonK,BallM,O’BrienE,andTauriJ(eds)Crime,JusticeandSocialDemocracy:InternationalPerspectives.London:PalgraveMacmillan:217‐233.

TauriJMandWebbR(2012)AcriticalappraisalofresponsestoMaorioffending.TheInternationalIndigenousPolicyJournal3(4):1‐16.

TaylorAandSwainP(2009)Socialworkpracticeandthejusticesystem.InConnollyMandHarmsL(eds)SocialWork:ContextsandPractice,2ndedn.SouthMelbourne:UniversityPress:319‐333.

WalterMM(2010)Thepoliticsofthedata:HowtheAustralianstatisticalIndigeneisconstructed.InternationalJournalofCriticalIndigenousStudies3(2):45‐56.

WilsonS(2001)WhatisIndigenousresearchmethodology?CanadianJournalofNativeEducation25(1):175‐179.

YellowBirdM(2008)Termsofendearment:AbriefdictionaryfordecolonisingsocialworkwithIndigenouspeoples.InGrayM,CoatesJandYellowBirdM(eds)IndigenousSocialWorkaroundtheWorld:TowardCulturallyRelevantEducationandPractice.Surrey:Ashgate:273‐291.

Changing Narratives: Colonised Peoples, Criminology Cunneen and Rowe 2014.pdf · development of...

Documents

Transcript of Changing Narratives: Colonised Peoples, Criminology Cunneen and Rowe 2014.pdf · development of...