The Fit Between Indigenous Women’s Movements and Feminism

(Tina)Theresa Hannah-Munns
Fourth Mini-reflection paper
ING 258 - Lorena Sekwan Fontaine
November 1, 2005

The Fit Between Indigenous Women’s Movements and Feminism

Grace Ouellette’s argument that feminist theory does not complement the Indigenous women’s movement (IWM) has strength and validity and she utilizes feminist theory to highlight the differences inherent within the different worldviews of the two movements. These differences lie in the racist and classist areas of theory, two points of contention that a comparison of the two movements point out vividly (12). Ouellette’s modeling of the theoretical framework needed by the IWM is strongly anchored within an Indigenous perspective and is a great starting point for a more expansive theoretical position within academia, such as she proceeds to attempt. My reflection is based upon aspects of her argument that help or may possibly hinder the values of respect and diversity within Indigenous philosophies.
Within the southern Saskatchewan ceremonial context of indigenous peoples, diversity is a key point of contention between the outsider view of indigenous cultures as held by eurocultural academia, and the insider practice of indigenous peoples. The ambiguity of the process of diversity is held in high esteem within indigenous philosophies and is a key component to understanding the value of respect in indigenous systems. Within the eurocultural modeling of values that create social norms, ambiguity is to be isolated as deviant to the fixated classification systems of their hierarchal theories. While indigenous philosophies value differences as well as similarities, eurocultural philosophies value similarities only, resulting in a clash of two inherently different cultural systems operating in the world. This component of the argument was not well constructed within Ouellette’s argument. Colonialism has utilized this difference to dominate, with the euroculture’s adamant belief that Canada has moved into a post-colonial period. This has not occurred since intellectual colonialism has covertly been operating since the time of contact through the support of the various cultural institutions in the mainstream cultural framework of values and hierarchal structures. Since indigenous populations attend these institutions, the eurocultural values and theoretical modelings snakes into the attempts to structure indigenous philosophies into frameworks of eurocultural values that will be accepted (sic) by eurocultural academic and political standards. While indigenous philosophies from indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) are being incorporated into the academic institution, some indigenous values are sacrificed to put forward other indigenous values and needs within this foreign institution’s construction of knowledge and away from the context of IKS.

Such is the case in the structure of Ouellette’s argument. The construction of an argument with its adversarial positioning conflicts with the value of respect within the indigenous nēhiyāw worldview. Respect allows the differing positions to have validity rather than to ‘win’ the argument, which she does accomplish. In writing within the framework of eurocultural academic values, Ouellette may be sacrificing some of the values that support the framework of the oral traditional component of respecting truth and the process of gaining knowledge.

On the other hand, Ouellette’s summary of feminist theories respects the diversity within the ‘other’ culture’s soteriological attempts at equality, but points out that these theories apply to a very small aspect of the oppression faced by indigenous women (42). It is in pointing out what is not within feminist theory that she creates a positive critical analysis of these theories in the context of their application to meet the needs of the IWM. By also speaking the personal truth of indigenous women’s experience of further multi-oppression within the feminist movement (42), Ouellette bridges the adversarial argumentative structure through the use of the indigenous value of respect for the diversity of truth.

Ouellette’s strong argument against the use of feminist theory is anchored within her nuances that her conclusion is not that of all indigenous women (12), avoiding the generalization fallacy in her logic. She recognizes and respects that some indigenous women are using feminist theory, but points to the unique contexts of the Canadian contemporary issues, with the past contextualized with emphasis on the colonial domination of mainstream society (Chapter 2). Various theories of Aboriginal women’s oppression are summarized (39-42), along with concerns unique to the Indigenous worldviews within Canada (42-46). She then introduces an ‘alternative theory’ that anchors in the grassroots of Indigenous knowledge systems, both symbolically and philosophically.

Symbolically, her theory uses the circle which can be representatively applied to the political, academic, and social structures of indigenous methods that move towards self-determination (47). Problems only arise when philosophically, the attributed values and categories that are added to the circle through the four direction structure (48) may be more generalized than indigenous knowledge systems support and maybe even be detrimental to the value of respect through diversity.

Supporting IKS’s frameworks, Ouellette’s introduction of Alice William’s quilt work method of passing on knowledge is exemplary of the use of mnemonic devices through symbology in the oral tradition (47), but the use of fixated colors to these four directions and attributed values may have different positions within different indigenous knowledge structures, thus violating protocols within different IKS. William’s structure includes a race component that is not supported by all indigenous peoples (47), with one example being some of the nēhiyāwak (Cree) lineages here in southern Saskatchewan. Race was never a component within ceremonial directional prayer structures, as taught by Rick Favel, askapāyos (head elder’s helper) of many different linguistic groups around Treaty Four Territory. When viewing William’s model (48), he also points to the nēhiyāw word for life (pimātisiwin) in the title, yet the colours are attributed to a Lakota directional mode, as well as possibly to some northern nēhiyāwak prayer structures.

Even the values attributed to the directions were not complementary to the south Saskatchewan nēhiyāwak worldviews as applied to the context of prayer, especially if anchored into racist theory. Most adamantly rejected are the mixture of different IKS philosophies and the socio-racial biases (human designed) attributed to the sacred four directions (Creator designed); with East Asians being in the south direction than in the direction of their land base and Hindu and Middle Eastern Muslims being ‘brown’ (sic) not represented at all. My girlfriend, Darlene Wapegan is of mixed afro-aboriginal descent and would not be appreciative of the ‘blue-black’ representation of the West. This model furthers racist connotations and ideology that is not representative of the fore mentioned peoples of the world, let alone to the Inuit connection to their Mongul ancestors in the east.

Additional thought to the classification of values and terminology is necessary to the modeling of IK systems. Another example of this is the use of the term ‘fourth world’ (85). The historical context of this term does not seem to be fully researched as it is a major component experienced in catholic ‘Liberation Theology’, especially among the Jesuit Order. Fourth world theory was designed to expand Marxist theory and the Latin American liberation theology of Gustavo Gutierrez to the christian contexts found within the indigenous populations that suffered oppression within other colonized countries.

Ouellette’s use of a fourth world theory is beneficial with or without this knowledge, but I wonder if this knowledge may not have had some impact on the intention or choice of its use if she were to know this. This theory is used to further christian missionary goals within fourth world multi-oppressional contexts by a segment of the oppressors, and has been heavily critiqued within this perspective. This fact, along with the for mentioned insights may have to be eventually addressed so that Ouellette’s attempts may have more foundation within IKS structures and less roots in colonized ideology and process.