Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=resi20

Download by: [Wilfrid Laurier University] Date: 03 November 2015, At: 09:23

ResilienceInternational Policies, Practices and Discourses

ISSN: 2169-3293 (Print) 2169-3307 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resi20

Re-evaluating resilience: from individualvulnerabilities to the strength of cultures andcollectivities among indigenous communities

Darren Thomas, Terry Mitchell & Courtney Arseneau

To cite this article: Darren Thomas, Terry Mitchell & Courtney Arseneau (2015): Re-evaluatingresilience: from individual vulnerabilities to the strength of cultures and collectivities amongindigenous communities, Resilience, DOI: 10.1080/21693293.2015.1094174

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2015.1094174

Published online: 20 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Resilience, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2015.1094174

Re-evaluating resilience: from individual vulnerabilities to the strength of cultures and collectivities among indigenous communities

Darren Thomas, Terry Mitchell and Courtney Arseneau

Psychology Department, Wilfrid laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario n2l 3c5, canada

Introduction

Through this article, we review the current literature on resilience and re-consider its rele-vance to indigenous populations in a manner that disrupts its application within mainstream psychological theory and practice. Current conceptual approaches to understanding indig-enous peoples as resilient consider resilience to be an individual trait, as a predisposition to succeed despite adversity. It is our consideration that this characterisation of resilience fails to acknowledge the historical, political, social, economic and environmental realities of indig-enous communities. We propose that indigenous resilience is exemplified in the persistence of cultures and collectivities, rather than as traits of individuals. We critique the perspective of resilience that celebrates individual hardiness and successful integration of developmentally adaptive personal and social characteristics that are, in fact, largely out of the individual’s control or access (Kirmayer, Dandeneau, Marshall, Phillips, & Williamson, 2011).

We seek to reformulate a concept of resilience that is not viewed as an internalised, indi-vidual attribute, but rather as the strength and power of indigenous collective and cultural

ABSTRACTCurrent conceptual approaches to understanding indigenous resilience as an individual trait, as a predisposition to succeed despite adversity, fails to acknowledge the political, social, economic and environmental realities of indigenous communities and misdirects the responsibility away from governments and colonial policies and onto the individuals themselves. We seek to reformulate a concept of indigenous resilience that is not viewed as an internalised, individual attribute, but rather as the strength and power of the collective, cultural knowledge of indigenous communities. Despite centuries of colonial interference, indigenous knowledge and cultures have endured. We posit that it is the resilience of indigenous knowledge and the re-emergence of indigenous ways of knowing that will inform and invigorate the re-conscientisation and liberation of indigenous peoples in reclaiming and advancing the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health and well-being of their Nations.

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

KEYWORDSindigenous methodologies; indigenous knowledge; resilience; culture; liberation; decolonisation

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 22 January 2015 Accepted 6 July 2015

CONTACT Terry Mitchell tmitchell@wlu.ca

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

2 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

knowledge. Despite centuries of colonial interference, indigenous knowledge and cultures have endured. In our critique of resilience as an individual attribute, we conceptualise resil-ience as anchored within the cosmologies that Indigenous Nations draw upon. Indigenous resilience, we propose, derives from indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, and from cultural and ceremonial practices.

As community psychologists, we take a critical perspective on individual focused theo-ries of resilience. We consider the community as our level of analysis and social policy and social justice as the focus of intervention. As both indigenous and non-indigenous authors, we challenge the individual level of analysis in addressing social issues, and in particular, in this article, problematise the application of the concept of resilience with indigenous individuals. Indigenous peoples have been identified as ‘resilient’ in the face of planned annihilation, assimilation and disease. Given the dire health statistics, the ever-increasing rates of youth suicide, the ongoing social and economic crises (Adelson, 2005; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005) and the increasing conflicts between states and indigenous peoples around the world (Anaya, 2013), we question the appropriateness and utility of the concept of resilience as it is currently conceived and deployed. We will review the various perspectives on resilience, the enumerated qualities of resilient individuals, followed by the critiques of this literature by indigenous scholars, and the subsequent uptake of resilience as a posi-tive counterbalance to the disease and social pathology model from which a great deal of research on indigenous communities has been based. Finally, we comment on the concept of indigenous resilience as a form of governmentality, in which the focus is largely on the individual in keeping with a neoliberal agenda that deflects attention away from external and political sources of trauma and social disruption.

We recognise that there are hundreds of Indigenous Nations in the world, each with their own epistemologies, ontologies, axiologies, philosophies and languages. Colonisation occurred across the globe in dramatically different ways, from the slaughtering of indigenous peoples during the spanish conquest (Rowe, 1946) to acts of diplomacy in North America (Jennings & Fenton, 1995). Most of the cited research is in reference to indigenous peoples in Canada, however, its application can be extended to many indigenous peoples globally. At times in this article, Aboriginal is used to reference First Nations Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada, but generally, indigenous will be used to reference the original inhabitants of each land.

Framing resilience

Across the natural and social sciences, resilience has been framed and understood by diverse indicators of elasticity, absorbing change and bouncing back to shape in response to physical or psychological stress (Alexander, 2013; holling, 1973). Resilience is variously described as the ability to rebound from challenges (Wesley-esquimaux, 2009), to recover from and sur-vive difficult conditions (McGuire, 2010), and the ‘capacity to bend without breaking and the capacity, once bent, to spring back’ (Vaillant, 1993). Although the common terminology sug-gests appealing intersections between disciplines, recent work has begun to challenge the applicability of resilience to the social sciences (olsson, Jerneck, Thoren, Persson, & o’Byrne, 2015). Unlike an ecosystem’s tendency to maintain homeostasis, and unlike an industrially created compound’s pliability following physical stress, people have the capacity for expe-riencing and recording physical, emotional, psychological, cognitive and social memory with a demonstrated human tendency to experience the long-term impact of trauma, thus:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 3

The implication is that, for a resilient system, the perturbation leaves no lasting change. This interpretation of resilience is too static and ahistorical to capture the nature of human adapta-tion and development across the lifespan… [here] resilience usually does not involve simply springing back to a previous state but is a dynamic process of adjustment, adaptation, and transformation in response to challenges and demands. (Kirmayer et al., 2011, p. 85)

In psychology, resilience is in fact largely recognised as a process of positive adaptation (luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000); however, the parameters in which this occurs are almost exclusively attributed to individual characteristics and individual reactions to acute or chronic stressors (e.g. Bonanno, 2004; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). From a developmental psy-chological perspective, resilience is defined as an interplay of risk and protective factors (Fraser & Richman, 2001), where the ability to cope is often tied to individual traits that are independent and unalterable such as high intelligence and emotional competence (Mangham, McGrath, Reid, & stewart, 1995). Risk and protective factors deemed specific to indigenous individuals have been catalogued in an attempt to identify ‘indigenous devel-opmental pathways’ – said to inform prevention and intervention for issues such as crime and violence within indigenous communities (homel, lincoln, & herd, 1999, p. 182). The discipline of psychology also offers a socio-ecological model of human resilience that views culture, community, family and individuals as nested in various spheres of influence that affect the probability of resilience (Cicchetti & lynch, 1993) and considers the function of social capital across these spheres in navigating the ebb and flow of societal pressure and change (Aldrich, 2012; Almedom, 2005; ledogar & Fleming, 2008). Nevertheless, resilience as ‘positive adaptation to harsh conditions’ (Fleming & ledogar, 2008; ledogar & Fleming, 2008) distinguishes some people as having relatively good life outcomes, despite having experi-enced the same serious stresses and adversities as other individuals who have had poorer outcomes (Rutter, 2012). The application of resilience theory has therefore been criticised for supporting the notion of the survival of the fittest (Newhouse, 2006). In particular, the psychological application of resilience theory to indigenous individuals and communities has long examined resilience as a function of coping strategies and minimisation of risk in the face of social and environmental adversity (Berkes & Ross, 2012). Resilience in this case is considered ‘personal development’ and is often associated with not only individual traits and personal connections but with consecutive experiences in coping with stressors (Berkes & Jolly, 2001). We propose that the psychological concept of Indigenous resilience is problematic in the context of well-established literature on colonial, collective and inter-generational trauma.

Indigenous perspectives

Resilience has, however, been taken up by several indigenous scholars in an effort to shift away from a social pathology model towards a culturally appropriate strengths-based approach to Indigenous communities (Andersson, 2008). Kirmayer, a Canadian psychiatrist, and his colleagues looked at cultural constructs of resilience from four different Aboriginal communities with Inuit, Métis, Mi’kmaq and haudenosaunee (Mohawk) ancestry. Kirmayer et al. (2011) emphasized the diversity of indigenous cultures and their perspectives on resilience. The haudenosaunee were found to identify culture and language as essential resources for the resilience of individuals and communities as embedded in the Creation story and the Great law of Peace. For the Métis, resilience was described as being resourceful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

4 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

for the betterment of family and community. For the Inuit, the need for resilience was identi-fied as increasingly driven by global forces such as climate change, which they are respond-ing to through research and legal challenges. In all cases, resilience was shifted from the individual to the collective, which aligns with an ecological, systems model that involves nesting layers of individual, family and community within a cultural and political context. They found that despite cultural variance among the different Aboriginal groups, existing commonalities included:

… regulating emotion and supporting adaptation through relational, ecocentric, and cosmo-centric concepts of self and personhood, revisioning collective history in ways that valorize collective identity; revitalizing language and culture as resources for narrative self-fashioning, social positions, and healing; and renewing individual and collective agency through political activism, empowerment and reconciliation …. each of these sources of resilience can be under-stood in dynamic terms as emerging from interactions between individuals, their communities, and the larger regional, national, and global systems that locate and sustain indigenous agency and identity. (Kirmayer et al., 2011, p. 84)

This signifies the importance of understanding their own historical context, and the rela-tionships the Aboriginal communities have maintained with their collective indigeneity and their environments, as well as their social, political histories and ongoing relationships with settler populations.

Indigenous ‘resilience/strength’ is constructed from the original instructions that are held within each Nation’s indigenous knowledge, deep within indigenous philosophies and beliefs. Indigenous Nations commonly see these sets of beliefs, world views, ontolo-gies, and understandings of the universe as ‘original instructions’. For the haudenosaunee, in the Cayuga language, this is called ogwehoweh:neha (Thomas, 2012). These original instructions ask us to be mindful and grateful for all life; in the haudenosaunee world view, everything required for the enjoyment of a happy and full life has been provided not just for humanity, but for the benefit of the whole of creation. The most important part of this belief is for all humanity to aspire to Ganakwiyo [Good Mind]. A ‘good mind’ is a mind that works for Gayenshragowa [the great and everlasting love]: a peaceful co-existence with all living things in creation, the earth, humanity, water, trees, birds, animals, medicines and foods. The ‘good mind’ is not a thing, but rather a philosophy, a way of life. It asks us to use ‘awehaode’ [kind, gentle uplifting words], ‘gasahtsra’ [strength of mind], ‘ganohkwasra’ [we should love everyone and everything], ‘gendao’ [compassion for others] and ‘gahsgyaonyoh’ [encouraging words]. These original instructions ask haudenosaunee citizens to be mindful and grateful for all life and centre on the understanding that everything is inherently con-nected and inter-related (Mitchell, Darnes, & Thompson, 1984; Rice, 2013). These values are all contained in the Gayensra:gowa, and Ganikwi:yo is achieved by living all of these values. The concept of cultural resilience, through applying indigenous principles and values in a deeply spiritual, rational and relational manner, is outlined further in the following quote.

… we must strive for sken:nen [peace] with the nations of the natural world. sken:nen is more than just the absence of conflict or war; it has spiritual, social and political foundations. sken:nen is the active striving of humans for the purpose of establishing universal justice and is the prod-uct of a unified people on the path of righteousness and reason. That means the ability to enact the principles of peace through education, public opinion and political unity. It is the product of a spiritually conscious society using its rational abilities. (Arquette, Cole, & Akwesasne Task Force on the environment, 2004, p. 348)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 5

Indigenous resilience is therefore bounded in and expressed through the resilience of indig-enous cultures in all their plurality. Indigenous knowledge, based on conceptions of the land, is also posited as a critical source of indigenous resilience and may take the form of interconnected and interrelated discussions that are difficult to separate from one another. For some scholars such as Battiste and colleagues, indigenous knowledge provides a coun-ter discourse that completes and fills in the gaps of Western knowledge(s) (Battiste, 2002). Indigenous scholars have discovered that indigenous knowledge is far more than the binary opposition of Western knowledge. As a concept, indigenous knowledge benchmarks the limitations of eurocentric theory and advances a strong resource for cultural resurgence and community wellness.

Risk of governmentality

The concept of resilience as the capacity to thrive in the face of challenge, to adapt to threats, to change, to resist and then, to return to a steady state of well-being, is also critiqued as a neoliberal concept of governmentality that individualises risks and responsibilities. Jonathan Joseph, in earlier issues of this journal, cautioned that: ‘although resilience appears as a systems theory, its main effect is to emphasize the need for adaptability at the unit level’ (Joseph, 2013, p. 43). he evaluated resilience as being a shallow and shifting concept embed-ded in neoliberalism, critiquing the current trend to shift our focus ‘away from the initial external element of exposure to shocks and on to ‘internal’ matters of resilience’ (Joseph, 2013, p. 50). Neoliberalism favours the rollback of service provision and the hollowing out of the state with increased focus on individual and community responsibility (harvey, 2005). Within a neoliberal context, the ‘community’ instead of the ‘social’ emerges as a framework for thinking about social policy, particularly with regard to mental health (Rose, 1996). This is to say that the ideological terrain upon which resilience is taken up has undergone a shift underpinned by markedly different thinking about who should be responsible for what, with the responsibility of care falling increasingly and pointedly to communities and individuals themselves (Mitchell & Mcleod, 2014).

The literature we have reviewed in traditional psychology largely frames resilience in an uncritical manner as a responsibility of indigenous individuals, families and communi-ties with little or no attention to the external political, economic, and environmental reali-ties of indigenous communities. Although focused primarily at the level of the individual, Tousignant and sioui (2009) concluded their article with a statement of the importance of contextual and political solutions to the challenges of indigenous youth and their families. In particular, they describe the resilience of individuals as being contingent upon addressing racism within the dominant society and the insufficient infrastructure and services within indigenous communities in Canada.

Whatever the efforts done inside [Aboriginal communities], a resilient process will be easier if there is openness and tolerance on the part of the wider Canadian society … There is a necessity to rethink national policies regarding housing, employment, child welfare, and self-governance, and to bring together different levels of ministries and governments to find long range and adaptable solutions. (Tousignant & sioui, 2009, p. 57)

When colonial policies and state actors are not held accountable for ending the enduring assaults upon indigenous communities, indigenous peoples are expected to ‘bounce back’ from colonial trauma, and the continuous assault on their families and communities. We

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

6 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

critique resilience as a concept that facilitates the displacement of responsibility away from governments and which responsibilitises indigenous peoples for their own distress and disadvantage.

Critiquing adaptation

Resilience has been written, theorised and discussed as dependent upon the traits of individ-uals that allow for successful adaptation to adversity. With research involving First Nations, Métis, and Inuit populations in Canada, one must consider the social and political interrup-tions that Aboriginal populations have endured through the settlement process of Canada. There is an abundance of literature by indigenous and allied scholars documenting the harms resulting from colonial experiences with both the British Crown and the Canadian state. These scholars link colonisation and the powerlessness and apathy experienced by Aboriginal peoples (Aboriginal healing Foundation [AhF], 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008), and point to colonisation as the root cause for the poor social, political, economical, and cultural health and well-being that Aboriginal communities continue to endure (Battiste, 2000; Brave heart, 1998; Brave heart, & DeBruyn, 1998; Duran & Duran, 1995; Kirmayer, simpson, & Cargo, 2003). These circumstances have been analysed in terms of colonial trauma (evans-Campbell, 2008; Mitchell, in press), historical trauma (Duran, Duran, Brave heart, & Yellow horse-Davis, 1998), intergenerational trauma (Menzies, 2006) and cultural genocide (Battiste, 2000; TRC, 2015).

The relationship of domination of the British/Canadian governments over the indigenous populations was formalised through various legislative frameworks (British North American Act, 1867; enfranchisement Act, 1867; Gradual Civilization Act, 1857; Indian Act, 1874; Royal Proclamation, 1763). These legislative policies forced the banning of traditional ceremonies and ending of traditional governance structures, forcing indigenous peoples from their tra-ditional lands and onto reserves. once on the reserve, the state imposed a ‘pass system’ that required ‘Indians’ to have a ‘pass’ from the Indian Agent (a non-indigenous bureaucrat in charge of enforcing the Indian Act) to leave the reserve and forced the removal of children from families through both Indian Residential schools and child welfare adoptions (AhF, 2008; Miller, 1996, 2004; Milloy, 2006; sinclair, 2007; Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015).

These colonising policies and practices resulted in the near destruction of all indigenous knowledge systems that guided indigenous civilisations and systems of education, health care, child and social welfare, and any sense of self-determination. The loss of this indigenous knowledge was devastating because, as the settler society dismissed indigenous ways of knowing, they denied indigenous philosophies and perspectives of knowledge and real-ity and supplanted them with foreign concepts of individuality, patriarchy and ownership (smith, 2011; Tuck & Yang, 2012). During the late 1960s, a movement to organise First Nation communities politically emerged, known then as the National Indian Brotherhood and now as the Assembly of First Nations. In spite of supportive legislation for First Nation rights in Canada, these rights continue to be manipulated and ignored by the state. The unfortunate reality, however, is that most First Nation communities in Canada continue to witness a colonial framework for their institutions of education, governance, health care, child welfare and economic development which are still under the control of the federal government (Gagné, 1998). Although indigenous communities worldwide have demonstrated an enor-mous capacity to sustain their cultures over centuries of assimilative and genocidal assault, it is inappropriate to think of resilience as the ability to ‘recover quickly from’ or to ‘bounce

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 7

back from’ centuries of social, economic, cultural and environmental violence – particularly when colonial practices and colonial trauma continue into this millennium.

Although the literature on resilience within indigenous communities has begun to rec-ognise the importance of identity and sense of community in responding to oppression from dominant systems, there remains a concerning undertone that identifies adaptation and assimilative changes as successful navigation of intercultural contact. sonn and Fisher (1998) discuss the strengths of community in surviving within racist cultures through internal community structures such as racially organised churches and sports leagues. While this work was important in reconsidering marginalised communities as having an active role in their survival of oppressive state conditions, it does not address transformative change. The authors used models of intercultural contact as a framework for indigenous resilience (Berry, 1984; Bulhan, 1985; Tajfel, 1981) that all depict varying degrees of assimilation, capitulation (i.e. the rejection of original culture to become acculturated with the dominant culture) and revitalisation (i.e. rejection of dominant culture and subsequent, reactive romantic attach-ment to original culture). Bulhan (1985) provides the only transformative model in which communities may radicalise and engage in social change processes. The authors concluded that these adaptive, alternative social systems ‘provide the foundations for community resil-ience’ (sonn & Fisher, 1998, p. 13).

We reject the adaptive, assimilative approaches to intercultural contact that require a hiding or capitulation of culture and instead propose a transformative approach that sup-ports revitalisation of culture in concert with social change without denigrating cultural attachment as ‘romantic’, but rather as a valid and parallel approach. In moving beyond the notions of adaptation and assimilation, indigenous communities need the opportunity to express their indigenous knowledge. When the settler societies arrived, they enacted a plan to destroy indigenous capacity to govern themselves through policies and processes of assimilation. The federal government of Canada has recognised the profound harm of this period in history; however, this recognition has not meant an improvement in rela-tions between First Nations Reserves and the Federal government. Given the expectation for indigenous populations to ‘adapt’ to the current circumstances in order for them to be ‘resilient’, we must acknowledge that many indigenous communities are still in fact under colonial control. There are numerous supreme Court of Canada rulings (Calder et al. v. B.C. attorney general, 1973; R. v. sparrow, 1990; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014) that have ruled against the state to ensure they do not violate indigenous rights. This is why the demand from indigenous leaders in Canada is for political solutions to the serious individual and community-level health and social concerns that plague their communities.

Canada’s ‘Indian’ social policy instruments of adaptation, applied within the project of assimilation, do not fit with the Indigenous assertion of the right to self-determination that is held within customary law, the Universal Declaration of human Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state needs to improve in order to allow meaningful oppor-tunities for indigenous self-determination, not for the purpose of adaptation but with the intention of strengthening indigenous community. It is the deeply rooted indigenous ontol-ogies and enduring cultures that sustain the livelihood of indigenous peoples and provide the cultural resources needed to preserve indigenous communities in the face of ongoing challenge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

8 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

Indigenous scholars have viewed resilience as a way of coding the strengths of people, communities and cultures against a tide of pathologising diagnoses. however, the indige-nous discourse on resilience, grounded in indigenous ontologies, may be misappropriated through neoliberal discourse and used against Indigenous Nations. Indigenous peoples as a whole have survived in the face of colonial forces and the ongoing insults and assaults to the people, their cultures and ways of life. Indigenous peoples have indeed endured, but indigenous populations are irrefutably suffering worldwide from both the historical and contemporary consequences of colonialism (Anaya, 2013). strength and endurance in the face of unremitting challenge is not to be conflated with ‘resilience’. survival, under ongo-ing threat, is not equivalent to a compound that bounces back to an original state. having to adapt to survive the ongoing cultural assault and social injustice cannot be equated as resilience at the level of the individual or the collective.

The power of indigeneity

Despite the lower life expectancy and chronic social and physical illness which many indig-enous peoples have succumbed to, and despite lengthy periods of colonial interference, indigenous cultures quietly and subterraneously persist. however, to speak of indigenous resilience as an individual phenomenon, amenable to health promotion programmes is to place the responsibility on individuals, families and communities who often fall ill under the weight of colonial trauma. This reinforces a ‘blame the victim’ mentality by shifting the attention away from political accountability.

The resilience literature as applied within the field of psychology finds characterological weakness in individuals, often placing cultural, racial stigma on communities that fail to thrive in a colonial context of institutional racism and gross structural and economic ineq-uities. Indigenous resilience can alternately be found in the strength and power of cultural knowledge and practices that were dismissed, illegalised, punished, silenced, denigrated, perhaps altered, yet rarely destroyed. Cultural resilience, as defined by healey (2006), is ‘the capacity of a distinct community or cultural system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain key elements of structure and identity that pre-serve its distinctness’ (p. 12). The resilience of Indigenous cultures holds the promise for indigenous peoples globally to resurge as strong cultural peoples to liberate themselves from the bonds of colonialism.

evidence suggests that cultural identity improves the health and well-being of individuals, which is why many healing and wellness strategies in Canada support indigenous efforts to reclaim indigeneity (Allen et al., 2013) through relearning the languages, cultural practices and traditions. Given the history of assimilation in Canada, many of these elements of indig-enous individuals, families, communities and Nations were forced underground, seemingly forgotten. Those communities that have held their identities largely intact, promoting con-nection to cultures and spirituality, continue to have better outcomes and emerge earlier from the damaging long-term impacts of colonisation (Fast & Collin-Vézina, 2010). For exam-ple, through their work with First Nations youth in British Columbia, Canada, Christopher lalonde and several of his colleagues assert that indigenous culture is the most significant protective factor to reducing Aboriginal youth suicide.

If the concept of resilience can be stretched to apply to First Nations, as I believe it can, then the best chance for success lie in the efforts of First Nations to reassert cultural sovereignty and to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 9

expand the indigenous knowledge base that has allowed them to adapt to and, in some cases, overcome the adversity. (lalonde, 2006, p. 68)

The resilience of cultures is a protective factor in the promotion of individual and community wellness. Indigenous resilience is more than the cultural expressions and ceremonies of indigenous peoples. We posit that the root of indigenous resilience lies within the ‘original instructions’ or ontological positions of indigenous peoples, i.e. the resilience of the collec-tive. In spite of consciously realising one has agency over one’s life, many indigenous people feel as though they lack any agency whatsoever; therefore, there is much to be learned from liberation theory (Martin-Baro, 1994).

Ignacio Martin-Baro was a latin American scholar and Jesuit priest who started the liberation psychology movement, and in fact was murdered for his work with the people of el salvador in 1989. Martin-Baro felt that the way to understand the psychology of the oppressed was by addressing the sociopolitical structures that cause the oppression. Martin-Baro (1994) acknowledged that the need for change must come from within indigenous com-munities and proposed that the oppression that controls the lives of the oppressed has to be quelled by the indigenous peoples themselves. Through creating a critical consciousness of the ways in which oppression controls oppressed peoples’ lives, one learns how to liberate oneself from oppression. This is achieved by understanding the difference of needs and desires while creating a critical consciousness and the importance of understanding one’s personal history. The need to utilise liberation theory is essential to create the ‘critical con-sciousness’ to understand the colonial history and to comprehend the current circumstances.

Freire (1970) referred to these concepts similarly, recognising that oppressed people who endure these positions of oppression will suffer a more insidious position that he referred to as ‘internalized oppression’. This means that the sense of victimhood remains deeply laden in the internal consciousness of indigenous peoples; therefore, even though the presence of the oppressors, for indigenous peoples in Canada, is not overtly controlling their daily lives, the control and dominance of their internalised oppressive states is a constant factor. This process of creating conscientisation or critical consciousness was to be done through education. It was an education meant to explicitly elicit understanding of how systems of internalised oppression function to ensure that oppressed populations remain oppressed.

It is the resilience of indigenous knowledge and the re-emergence of indigenous ways of knowing, rooted in ancient and persistent cultures, that will inform and re-invigorate the conscientisation of indigenous peoples, their resurgence and renewal (simpson, 2008). Narratives, for example, are an important vehicle for the transmission, maintenance and reclamation of culture:

Narrative speaks directly to the ruptures of cultural continuity that occurred with the systematic suppression and dismantling of indigenous ways of life that resulted in a profound sense of dislocation and despair. Narrative resilience therefore has a communal or collective dimension, maintained by the circulation of stories invested with cultural power and authority, which the individual and groups can use to articulate and assert their identity, affirm core values and attitudes needed to face challenges, and generate creative solutions to new predicaments. (Kirmayer et al., 2011, p. 86)

Cultural knowledge is within collective and embodied memory, and in many traditions is understood to be within the land, within the rocks, with culture being stored in the DNA of the universe. Therefore, the resilience of cultures has enabled indigenous communities to survive, and will be the mechanism for them to achieve self-determination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

10 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

Strengthening indigeneity: decolonisation, research and cultural practices

As we have established, the collective strength of indigenous community is constructed with the roots of indigenous knowledge through cultural practices. A strategy to ensure the survival of indigenous knowledge(s) is needed. The knowledge that is held, transmit-ted and maintained is disappearing with each death of the indigenous knowledge holders (elders). several North American indigenous scholars’ writings on decolonisation (Alfred, 1999; Battiste, 2011; Corntassel 2012) and liberation theory (simpson, 2008) have stated that the best direction towards indigenous community health and well-being is to revitalise their indigenous knowledge(s) by embracing academia and the tools to conduct research in these areas (Archibald, 2006; Battiste & henderson, 2000; Wilson & Yellowbird, 2005). Many indig-enous scholars are utilising a proactive, and culturally grounded process to conduct their research by using indigenous methodologies – research methodologies that are informed by the cosmological assumptions that are based on each Nations’ indigenous knowledge. Indigenous methodologies will vary to reflect the diversity of indigenous peoples and com-munities around the world (Denzin, lincoln, & smith, 2008). The knowledge contained within indigenous ontologies provides the foundations and ways of knowing indigenous reality that are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago. Indigenous and allied scholars must continue to write and research the profound civilisations that existed at the time of the Imperial invasions, so a new, more accurate history is written and taught to indigenous youth, so they will learn that Indigenous Nations were not then and are not now ‘lost little savages’ as historically portrayed. having knowledge about the way Indigenous Nations maintained their governance systems, laws, welfare, child welfare protection, health care, arts, music, and social services will empower indigenous collectives who may have forgotten their indigenous knowledge. If Indigenous Nations continue to have limited capacity for self-determination due to the ongoing impacts of colonial control, then indigenous communities will continue to underutilise their indigenous knowledge. The basis to express this power and capacity for self-determination in indigenous communities will come with the opportunity to set and create policies within their own communities. We, therefore, advance the importance of the development of diverse indigenous methodologies to inform indigenous research that will respect and revitalise indigenous knowledge to inform social policy, community interventions and governance. This cultural collective knowledge is where the sources of cultural resilience and indigenous resurgence lie.

Conclusion

This article, building upon the arguments of different indigenous peoples, communities and scholars, advances a deeply sceptical view of psychological and neoliberal programmes of resilience as applied to indigenous populations. The main contribution of this article is the further development of the concept of cultural resilience vs. individual adaptation. We com-mented on the concept of resilience as applied to indigenous peoples when focused on the capacity of individuals with particular traits and resources to survive the intergenerational and ongoing traumatic impact of colonialism. In particular, we argued that the definition and common usage of resilience as the capacity to ‘bounce back’ and ‘adapt’ is inappropriate because (i) colonialism has not ended therefore people cannot be expected to ‘bounce back’ from ongoing adversities; and (ii) adaptation to colonialism is consistent with assimilative policies and practices and, therefore, the antithesis of self-determination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 11

Although we have acknowledged the importance of indigenous scholars’ counter nar-ratives to pathological portraits of indigenous peoples, we have raised concerns about the potential of conflating indigenous concepts of strength and autonomy with respon-sibilising indigenous communities for their own problems and solutions in an ahistorical, apolitical manner that fails to address the ongoing culpability and accountability of states. Reconceptualising the resurgence and self-reliance of indigenous peoples as cultural resil-ience vs. individual adaptation underscores the importance of indigenous philosophies, heritages, governing processes and the right of self-determination in the context of the survival and ongoing cultural resurgence of indigenous nations globally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Darren Thomas is seneca Nation, Bear Clan from the haudenosaunee (six Nations/Iroquois) and a PhD. student in the Community Psychology program at Wilfrid laurier University. Darren’s research has focused on the health and well-being of North American Indigenous populations, with a particu-lar focus on Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous liberation and Indigenous research methodologies.

Terry Mitchell is an associate professor of Community Psychology at Wilfrid laurier University and the Balsillie school of International Affairs. she is the Director of the laurier Indigenous Rights and social Justice Research Group and past director, and current board member, of the laurier Centre for Community Research learning and Action. she was a visiting scholar at the Institute of Indigenous studies at the Universidad de la Frontera, in Chile. her research focuses on colonial trauma, indige-nous rights, and governance issues. she is the Co-Director of the Pan-American Indigenous Rights and Governance Network which studies resource governance, processes of consultation and accommo-dation, and their alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Courtney Arseneau is a PhD. student in the Community Psychology program at Wilfrid laurier University, Canada, where she works as research coordinator of the laurier Indigenous Rights and social Justice Research Group. her research evaluates the social and legal implications of judicial protocols affecting Indigenous individuals and communities, while exploring the strengths of Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous law.

Funding

This work was supported by the Canadian Tri-Council Research support Fund.

References

Aboriginal healing Foundation. (2004). Historical trauma and aboriginal healing. ottawa: Anishinabe Printing [Kitigan-Zibi]. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/historic-trauma.pdf

Aboriginal healing Foundation. (2005). Warrior-caregivers understanding the challenges and healing of first nations men: A guide prepared for the aboriginal healing foundation. ottawa, oN: Mussell, W. J.

Aboriginal healing Foundation. (2006). Promising healing practices in aboriginal communities. ottawa: Anishinabe Printing [Kitigan-Zibi]. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/final-report-vol-3.pdf

Aboriginal healing Foundation. (2008). Aboriginal healing in Canada: Studies in therapeutic meaning and practice. ottawa: Dollco Printing. Retrieved June 16, 2013, from http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/aboriginal-healing-in-canada.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

12 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

Adelson, N. (2005). The embodiment of inequality: health disparities in aboriginal Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, 545–561.

Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Alexander, D. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13, 2707–2716.

Alfred, T. (1999). Peace, power, righteousness: An indigenous manifesto. Don Mills: oxford University Press.Allen, J., hopper, K., Wexler, l., Kral, M., Rasmus, s., & Nystad, K. (2013). Mapping resilience pathways

of Indigenous youth in five circumpolar communities. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51, 601–631. doi:10.1177/1363461513497232.

Almedom, A. M. (2005). social capital and mental health: An interdisciplinary review of primary evidence. Social Sciences & Medicine, 61, 943–964.

Anaya, J. (2013). Statement upon conclusion of the visit to Canada. United Nations special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Retrieved from http://www.unsr.jamesanaya.org/statements/statement-upon-conclusion-of-the-visit-to-canada

Andersson, N. (2008). Directions in indigenous resilience research. Pimatisiwin, 6, 201–208.Archibald, l. (2006). Decolonization and healing: Indigenous experiences in the United States, New Zealand,

Australia and Greenland. ottawa: Aboriginal healing Foundation.Arquette, M., Cole, M., & Akwesasne Task Force on the environment. (2004). Restoring our relationships

for the future. In M. Blaser, h. A. Feit, & G. McRae (eds.), The way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization (pp. 332–350). New York, NY: IRDC

Battiste, M. (2000). Maintaining aboriginal identity, language, and culture in modern society. In M. Battiste (ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 192–208). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Battiste, M., & henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge. saskatoon: Purich.

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in first nations education: A literature review with recommendations. Unpublished paper presented to Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Retrieved from http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/24._2002_oct_marie_battiste_indigenousknowledgeandpedagogy_lit_review_for_min_working_group.pdf

Battiste, M. (2011). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver: UBC Press.Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian

Western Arctic community. Conservation and Ecology, 5, 18. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art18/

Berkes, F., & Ross, h. (2012). Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26, 5–20.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller, & M. B. Brewer (eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 11–27). orlando, Fl: Academic Press.

Blackstock, C., & Trocmé, N. (2005). Community-based child welfare for aboriginal children: supporting resilience through structural change. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 12–33.

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.

Brave heart, M. Y. h. (1998). The return to the sacred path: healing the historical trauma and historical unresolved grief response among the lakota through a psychoeducational group intervention. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 68, 287–305. doi:10.1080/00377319809517532

Brave heart, M. Y. h., & DeBruyn, l. M. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaskan Mental Health Research, 8, 60–82.

Bulhan, h. A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Cicchetti, D., & lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and

child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry, 56, 96–118.Corntassel, J. (2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable

self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society, 1, 86–101.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

ResIlIeNCe 13

Denzin, N. K., lincoln, Y. s., & smith, l. T. (eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. sage.

Duran, e., & Duran, B. (1995). Native American post-colonial psychology. Albany, NY: state University of New York Press.

Duran, e., Duran, B., Brave heart, M. Y. h., & Yellow horse-Davis, s. (1998). healing the American Indian soul wound. In Y. Danieli (ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341–354). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

evans-Campbell, T. (2008). historical trauma in American Indian/native Alaska communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 316–338. doi:10.1177/0886260507312290.

Fast, e., & Collin-Vézina, D. (2010). historical trauma, race based trauma and resilience of indigenous peoples: A literature review. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 5, 126–136.

Fleming, J., & ledogar, R. J. (2008). Resilience and indigenous spirituality: A literature review. Pimatisiwin, 6, 47–64.

Fraser, M. W., & Richman, J. M. (2001). Resilience: Implications for evidence-based practice. In J. M. Richman, & M. W. Fraser (eds.), The context of youth violence: Resilience, risk, and protection (pp. 187–197). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.Gagné, M. (1998). The role of dependency and colonialism in generating trauma in first nations citizens.

In Y. Danieli (ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 355–372). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: oxford University Press.healey, s. (2006). Cultural resilience, identity, and the restructuring of political power in Bolivia. A paper

submitted for the 11th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the study of Common Property. Retrieved from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1488/healey_susan.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

holling, C. s. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

homel, R., lincoln, R., & herd, B. (1999). Risk and resilience: Crime and violence prevention in aboriginal communities. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32, 182–196.

Jennings, F., & Fenton, W. N. (eds.). (1995). The history and culture of Iroquois diplomacy: An interdisciplinary guide to the treaties of the six nations and their league. syracuse, NY: syracuse University Press.

Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience: International Policies. Practices, and Discourses, 1, 38–52. doi:10.1080/21693293.2013.765741

Kirmayer, l., simpson, C., & Cargo, M. (2003). healing traditions: Culture, community and mental health promotion with Canadian aboriginal peoples. Australasian Psychiatry, 11, s15–s23.

Kirmayer, l. J., Dandeneau, s., Marshall, e., Phillips, M. K., & Williamson, K. J. (2011). Rethinking resilience from indigenous perspectives. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 84–91.

lalonde, C. e. (2006). Identity formation and cultural resilience in Aboriginal communities. In R. J. Flynn, P. M. Dudding, & J. G. Barber (eds.), Promoting resilience in child welfare (pp. 52–71). ottawa: University of ottawa Press.

ledogar, R. J., & Fleming, J. (2008). social capital and resilience: A review of concepts and selected literature relevant to Aboriginal youth resilience research. Pimatisiwin, 6, 25–46.

luthar, s. s., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562.

Martin-Baro, I. (1994). Toward a liberation psychology. In A. Aron, & s. Corne (eds.), Writings for a liberation psychology: Essays, 1985–1989 (pp. 17–32). Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press.

Mangham, C., McGrath, P., Reid, G., & stewart, M. (1995). Resiliency: Relevance to health promotion detailed analysis. halifax, Ns: Atlantic health Promotion Research Centre.

Masten, A. s., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.

McGuire, P. D. (2010). exploring resilience and Indigenous ways of knowing. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 8, 117–131.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15

14 D. ThoMAs eT Al.

Menzies, P. (2006). Intergenerational trauma and homeless aboriginal men. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 58, 1–24.

Miller, J. R. (1996). Shingwauk’s vision: A history of native residential schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Miller, J. R. (2004). Leathal legacy: Curent native controversies in Canada. Toronto: McClelland & stewart ltd.

Milloy, J. s. (2006). The early indian acts: Developmental strategy and constitutional change. In I. A. l. Getty, & A. s. lussier (eds.), As long as the sun shines and water flows: A reader in Canadian native studies (pp. 56–64). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Mitchell, M., Darnes, B., & Thompson, J. (1984). Traditional teachings. Cornwall, oN: North American Indian Travelling College.

Mitchell, T. (in press). Colonial trauma: Complex, continuous, collective, cumulative, and compounding. In J. B. stone, & R. T. Wise (eds.), Historical trauma in Indian country. syracuse, NY: syracuse University Press.

Mitchell, T., & Mcleod, T. (2014). Aboriginal social policy: A critical community mental health issue. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 33, 1–14.

Newhouse, D. (2006). The health of urban Aboriginal people: From woundedness to resilience. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 3, 2–3.

olsson, l., Jerneck, A., Thoren, h., Persson, J., & o’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances, 1 (4). Retrieved from http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/4/e1400217

Rice, B. (2013). The creation story. The Rotinonshonni: A traditional Iroquoian history through the eyes of Teharonhia: wako and Sawiskera. syracuse, NY: syracuse University Press (pp. 22–152).

Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society, 25, 327–356.

Rowe, J. h. (1946). Inca culture at the time of the spanish conquest. In J. h. steward (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 2 (pp. 183–330). Washington: smithsonian Institution.

Rutter, M. (2012). Annual research review: Resilience- clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 474–487. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02615

simpson, l. (2008). Lighting the eighth fire: The liberation, resurgence, and protection of Indigenous nations. Winnipeg, MB: Arbeiter Ring Publisher.

sinclair, R. (2007). Identity lost and found: lessons from the sixties scoop. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 3, 65–82.

smith, A. (2011) Queer theory and native studies: The heteronormativity of settler colonialism. In Q. l. Driskill, C. Finley, B. J. Gilley, & s. l. Morgensen (eds.), Queer indigenous studies: Critical interventions in theory, politics, and literature (pp. 43–65). Arizona, University of Arizona Press.

sonn, C. C., & Fisher, A. T. (1998). sense of community: Community resilient responses to oppression and change. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 457–472.

Tajfel, h. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Thomas, D. (2012). Ogwehowehneha: A Haudenosaunee research methodology (Masters thesis). Wilfrid

laurier University, Waterloo, Canada.Tousignant, M., & sioui, N. (2009). Resilience and aboriginal communities in crisis: Theory and

interventions. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 5, 43–61. Retrieved from http://www.naho.ca/jah/english/jah05_01/V5_I1_Resilience_03.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Calls to action. Retrieved from: http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_english2.pdf

Tuck, e., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity. Education & Society, 1 (1), 1–40.

Vaillant, G. (1993). The wisdom of the ego. Cambridge: harvard University Press.Wesley-esquimaux, C. (2009). Trauma to resilience: Notes on decolonization. In G. G. Valaskakis,

e. Guimond, & M. D. stout (eds.), Restoring the balance: First nations women, community, and culture (pp. 13–34). Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.

Wilson, W. A., & Yellow Bird, M. (2005). For indigenous eyes only: A decolonization handbook. santa Fe: school of American Research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wilf

rid

Lau

rier

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:23

03

Nov

embe

r 20

15