Indigenous Perspectives on Difference

A Case for Inclusion

Lavonna L. Lovern
Valdosta State University
Indigenous Perspectives on Difference

The article argues for the inclusion of Indigenous voices in disability dialogues. The
application of UN documents and actions in Indigenous communities justifies Indigenous
perspectives as informing partners in disability dialogues. The article establishes a
foundation for inclusion followed by a brief discussion of some global Indigenous concepts
involving body and mind differences that are in direct opposition to Western concepts
of disability. The use of Indigenous paradigms highlights the role of colonization and
post-colonization assimilation practices in establishing discrimination dynamics involving
disability within Indigenous communities. The argument is that the inclusion of Indigenous
voices will not only assist Indigenous communities, but could also advance disability
discussions in Western cultures.

Introduction

Currently, disability dialogues tend to operate in two separate but related

fields. The first can be seen in the practical orientations involving legal status
and cultural advocacy. The second orientation involves theoretical academic
work. The two fields support and influence each other in such a way as to
create the current focus and dynamics involving global disability issues.
However, the advancement into global concerns has yet to fully embrace
global inclusivity. Much has been discussed within the academic and United
Nation (UN) realms concerning Indigenous persons with disabilities. UN
statistics leave no doubt that Indigenous persons with disabilities experience
a disproportionate burden. While UN documents and academic articles
have noted this burden, little effort has been made to involve Indigenous
voices in understanding the concern. This article seeks to understand
Indigenous knowledge perspectives concerning disability. It begins with
the justification as to why Indigenous knowledge should be a part of global
disability documents and research. The second section focuses on Indigenous
paradigms involving human difference as a means of broadening disability
dialogues. Finally, the article examines the ways in which Indigenous

Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 11.3 (2017) © Liverpool University Press
ISSN 1757-6458 (print) 1757-6466 (online) https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2017.24
304 Lavonna L. Lovern

knowledge can not only work to ease the burden of Indigenous persons with
differences, but also assist in advancing global advocacy.

Brief History of Diversity in UN Documents

In 1945, The United Nations Charter established protocol “for the promotion
of the economic and social advancement of all peoples” as an end goal (UN
Charter. 1/2). Article 1 references “the principle of equal rights and self-determi-
nation of peoples” as well as “encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion” (UN Charter. 1/2). In 1948, The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights elaborated and informed the language of the Charter by clarifying that
“inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights” were to be applied to
“all members of the human family” (UN A/RES13/217a. 1/8). Universal human
inclusion can be further inferred from the use of phrases such as Everyone and
No one. Article Two specifically establishes “race colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status” as included in human rights concerns (2/8). While “disability” is not
referenced in this list, the term is referenced in Article 25 regarding standards
of living. However, “disability” is used in terms of obtaining security in the
event of “sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood
in the circumstances beyond his control” (7/8). In 2000, the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) established significant global targets, but issues
involving persons with disabilities were not among the eight initiatives. The
language of the MDGs allowed for inclusion within the initiatives, but did not
specifically target the issues faced globally by persons with disabilities.
In 2006, the UN officially addressed issues involving persons with
disabilities in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol (CRPD/OP). The adoption of the CRPD/OP influenced both
disability rights movements and academic studies. The Convention referenced
international documents including the International Bill of Human Rights as
informing documents on disability issues.1 The comprehensive nature of the

1.  Documents referred to in the “Recalling” included International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 305

CRPD/OP marked a significant advancement in global disability dialogue.

While UN resolutions carried limited formal legal weight, the document and
signatories represented an opportunity to enact significant global pressure.
This is not to say that the global situation of persons with disabilities has
reached a state of equality, but only to note that the UN document brought
about increased awareness. While the Convention began with a record number
of signatories, the full implementation of the document remains unrealized.
In 2013, Resolution 68/3 noted the failure of the MDGs to specifically
address the global situation of persons with disabilities. The resolution stated
that while the MDGs acknowledged global issues involving disability rights,
the “commitment has yet to be fully translated into the inclusion of disability
in internationally agreed development goals” (UN. A/Res/68/3. 2/5). The
resolution called for a “timely realization” of the MDGs for persons with
disabilities noting that an “estimated 15 percent of the world’s population, or 1
billion people, [experienced disability issues] of whom an estimated 80 per cent
live in the developing countries” (2/5). The resolution further called for “more
ambitious diversity-inclusive national development strategies and efforts with
disability-targeted actions” with an additional emphasis on the “ratification
and implementation of the Convention…[and]…the Optional Protocol” (2/5).
The language of 68/3 supports the need to increase focus and action regarding
disability inclusion in both the UN operational activities and in state/national
legislation. Additionally, the language in the Resolution exhibits an urgency
involving a disability inclusive agenda in the post-2015 era.
In 2015, UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson stated that post-2015
efforts would continue to build on earlier documents in pursuing a disability
inclusive agenda. Eliasson noted that “[t]he Convention of 2006 marked a
conceptual shift-from a charity and medical approach to the human rights-
based view of disability” (UN, Press release). Eliasson went on to refer to the
rights in the Convention as “enshrined” and called for “urgent action to reduce
exclusion, inequality and discrimination” (2/4). Eliasson ended the address by
stating that “[e]mpowering persons with disabilities and securing their rights
will advance society as a whole.” She concluded by referring back to the UN
Charter Preamble “We the Peoples” (3/4). These remarks coincided with two
significant events in 2015. The first was the shift from MDGs to the Sustainable
Development Agenda. While still not an explicit initiative such as gender
equality, disability equity is directly listed and prominently displayed in the

Members of Their Families, World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and in the
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
306 Lavonna L. Lovern

description of the initiatives. The inclusion of a disability agenda marks some

forward movement, but it could be seen as a continued lapse in the realization
of purpose expressed in 68/3.
The second significant event of 2015 involved CRPD/OP. On 9–11 June 2015,
the eighth session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was held in New York. The conference
involved more than 1,000 participants with representatives from 154 States
parties. The events extended beyond the UN roundtables to off-site organi-
zational events sponsored by a variety of partners (UN. CRPD/CSP/2015/5.
1/18). Discussions included sustainability, inclusion, mainstreaming,
disaster situations, violence, and similar vulnerabilities. Charles Chauvel
(UNDP) noted that the post-2015 agenda would be unattainable without
addressing “disability as a driver of social inequality and exclusion” (13/18).
The conference concluded with remarks by the President and others calling
for renewed efforts and the advancement of a diversity inclusive agenda
post-2015 including an allocation of resources to support the rapidly growing
conference (15–16/18).
While this is an extremely limited and arguably incomplete represen-
tation of UN activity on disability, it establishes a pattern of “informing” in
which documents serve to define and expand concepts found within other
documents. The development of the documents from the Charter through
the MDGs to the 2015 Conference and the Sustainability Goals establishes
Eliasson’s enshrinement of disability inclusion efforts in the UN. This article
argues that there is at least one informing element missing in these efforts.
This missing element is the inclusion of global Indigenous voices. It could be
claimed that the requirement of Indigenous inclusion was established in the
Charter and Human Rights documents. However, many Indigenous people
would argue that that Indigenous inclusion in the UN has never been effectively
implemented. By interpreting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) as an informing document to the above,
including the CRPD/OP, a justification for Indigenous voice inclusion can be
established (UN. A/61/L.67. 1–15). A move to include Indigenous voices could
also establish a means by which to amend the adopted version of UNDRIP
to include the Indigenous-supported original version which represented the
negotiations by and for global Indigenous populations.2

2.  It is understood that it is not likely that the adopted version could be overturned and replaced
with the original. The hope is then to use the adopted version in such a way as to repurpose the
document in order to align it with Indigenous paradigms and fully support global Indigenous
populations.
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 307

Indigenous rights are addressed in several of these UN documents.

However, much like the limited inclusion of disability in the early UN
documents, Indigenous concerns have been limited to primarily Western
interpretations of Indigenous cultures and issues. While there are often
discussions about Indigenous cultures and issues, few of these discussions
involve Indigenous populations. The adopted version of UNDRIP, according
to White Face and Wobaga, represents a Western document about global
Indigenous communities rather than a document by global Indigenous
communities for global Indigenous communities as was represented in the
original version. Recognizing that the adopted version is that with which one
must work, Indigenous organizations and intellectuals continue to advance
interpretations and critiques of UNDRIP that may reorient the document.3
While UNDRIP states the need for Indigenous self-determination, it lacks
complete Indigenous interpretations as to how self-determination should be
defined as well as how self-determination is to be implemented. An example
involving the differences of Indigenous and Western interpretations involves
Chauvel’s claim that disability is a driver of inequality and exclusion. For
many Indigenous communities, disability is not a driver of inequality,
but a result. The driver of inequality is understood to be colonization
and continued assimilation efforts in post-colonization practices. Failure to
recognize colonization and post-colonization assimilation as foundational in
global Indigenous inequality denies the fundamental reason why an estimated
80 percent of persons with disabilities live in impoverished Indigenous
conditions. Indigenous people are not impoverished because they are disabled,
they are impoverished and happen to be disabled. Indeed, it is often poverty
that directly causes or leads to disability. It is unlikely that if these individuals
became “able-bodied” that they would find themselves no longer in poverty.
Disability discrimination, according to Indigenous interpretations, remains
a symptom of a deeper illness. For this reason, disability, poverty, and
health cannot be addressed in Indigenous communities without examining
the colonization histories that brought about these results. Attempting to
implement policies focused on eradicating a single symptom while ignoring
the cause of the illness will likely fail.
In order to implement inclusion post-2015, disability dialogues must allow
for Indigenous populations to be equal partners in document creation and
interpretation. UNDRIP can be interpreted under “informing document

3.  These organizations include, but are not limited to, Native American Rights Fund, National
Congress of American Indians, Walter Echo-Hawk’s In the Light of Justice, Jackie Hartley et.al.
Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
308 Lavonna L. Lovern

status” as the justification for this inclusion only if it is realigned with

Indigenous interpretations that allow for the potential to remake and redefine
diversity according to non-Western paradigms. Indigenous interpretations
establish that the primary issue of “disability” discrimination is a product
of Western cultural paradigms. In understanding that “disability” is created
and perpetuated primarily according to Western constructs, the “issue of
disability” is understood to no longer be a universal, but rather a product
of Western ideology and colonization.4 While one cannot claim that all
Indigenous cultures have the same constructs regarding body and mind
differences, diversity equality regarding difference is found in enough global
Indigenous cultures to support the validity of the equity model. By examining
these traditional Indigenous concepts of natural democracy and diversity
equity, it becomes clear that the issue of disability discrimination, as discussed
in UN documents and academic studies, is a Western construct injected into
Indigenous populations by colonization efforts and continued in post-coloni-
zation assimilation practices. Therefore, a significant component in addressing
global issues of disability discrimination requires decolonization involving
concepts of body and mind differences. Instead of attempting to eliminate
disability issues within global Indigenous cultures using Western tactics,
traditional Indigenous knowledges and practices should be employed within
these communities to regain the equality that existed prior to settlement.
Additionally, by reasserting Indigenous knowledge, non-Indigenous cultures
may be able to reorient the understanding of the discrimination within their
own paradigms.
The first step in decolonizing Indigenous cultures requires an examination
of colonizing epistemic influences. Hierarchical dichotomous knowledge
claims represent one example of intrusive colonization practices in Indigenous
cultures. The negative impact of such claims creates significant challenges to
Indigenous communities, not the least of which is the claim that Western
knowledge holds a superior hierarchical position than Indigenous knowledge.
Negative positioning is indicated by terms such as developing, underde-
veloped, uncivilized, and savage, which are used to describe Indigenous
communities. Additionally, Indigenous knowledge claims are often relegated
to children’s stories or to magic and mysticism. Aid in understanding
the issue may come in examining the terminology. For example, if the
definition of the term developed is limited to technological development,

4.  It is understood that not all colonization is historically Western. However, spatial limitations
require a focus on Western colonization and post-colonization practices.
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 309

then Indigenous communities may be disadvantaged. However, if the term

is defined by natural democracy and diversity inclusion, Western cultures
would be considered underdeveloped, placing Indigenous cultures in the
hierarchically superior developed position.
To further support the argument for Indigenous inclusion, one can
extrapolate the Canons of Construction for Federal Indian Law in the United
States. According to the Canons, interpretation of law should adhere to Native
American paradigms when applied to Native American communities. It is not
to be claimed that the Canons are fully implemented in the American system,
but only that the spirit of the Canons is a reasonable position. Extrapolation
of the Canons to documents or laws involving global Indigenous communities
appears equally reasonable. When dealing with Indigenous people, issues of
legal interpretation should fall to the community experiencing the burden
of the situation. Accordingly, global Indigenous knowledges and paradigms
should be used in the creation and implementation involving international
documents, treaties, and laws. Allowing Indigenous knowledge claims to
hold equal status in international dialogues creates a liberation of all humans,
oppressor and oppressed, through communication (Freire 114).

Indigenous Paradigm Inclusion

This section focuses on Indigenous concepts of diversity equality and natural

democracy in order to advance the argument that modern disability dynamics
in Indigenous communities is primarily a product of colonization rather than
a function of universal constructs. Before beginning this task, foundational
premises need to be established. First, it must be stated that there is no universal
Indigenous culture or epistemic structure. Each Indigenous community has
unique social constructs, histories, knowledge claims, traditions, and spiritual
understandings. However, Indigenous communities often have knowledge
and institutional resemblances. While generalities may be used for discussion
purposes, it must be understood that these generalities should not be applied
universally to Indigenous populations, communities, or individuals. Knowledge
of specific Indigenous communities and their epistemic or cultural constructs
should be gained from dialogues with each community. Length limitations
allow for only a few examples of global Indigenous research to be used in this
discussion.
Second, evidence supporting Indigenous claims that disability definition and
discrimination is a Western construct can be found in current disability studies
310 Lavonna L. Lovern

such as the iconic Reader edited by Lennard Davis.5 Davis’s work examines
the origins of the normal–abnormal dichotomy central to modern discussions
of disability. His investigation is followed by Barnes’s chapter focusing on
disability discrimination beyond the borders of England. Supporting himself
with Hanks, Hand, and Oliver, Barnes confirms that “there is sufficient
historical and anthropological evidence to show that there is no universal
approach to disability, either in the way disabled people are perceived or in
the way societies respond to them” (Barnes 21). In the same volume, Davidson
reports the UN statistics that 80 percent of the global population with disabilities
live in “developing” countries (133). He brings forth for consideration the “folk
tales” of African communities brought into “modern” Western culture by
Mambety (139–40). Davidson establishes, but fails to fully examine, the role of
colonization in the Mambety depictions involving treatment of persons with
differences. To Davis’s credit, the Reader includes Bell’s critique of current
disability discussions. Bell redirects the disability dialogue to one involving
race arguing that current disability dialogues are constructed within white
studies (374). The charge is that disability, as a field of study, has become an
“incestuous” dialogue that functions as though persons with disabilities belong
to a homogenous family. Bell points to the irony involved in establishing white
disability studies as the “norm” or “abled” position leaving people of color, in the
“abnormal” or “disabled” dichotomous position (377–79). Bell further claims
that Davis’s multicultural discussion in Enforcing Normalcy is equally myopic.
An examination of Davis’s chapter calling for a multicultural approach does
support Bell’s claim. While the chapter calls for multicultural studies, it does
not define multiculturalism as calling for global paradigm inclusion (157–71).
An argument could be made that Davis and other authors are focusing on
disability from an experiential perspective as well as an academic perspective
and so are locating their discussions within Western paradigms. While not
directly excluding alternative paradigms, such specificity of focus relegates
these perspectives to outsider status by ignoring or denying such paradigms,
experts, and evidence. As diverse scholars with alternative orientations begin
to answer Bell’s call, disability studies will require greater inclusion.
This work is an attempt to honor Bell’s call for additional perspectives. Neither
scholarship nor claims can be extensively addressed in this brief work, but it is
hoped that enough can be established to support the legitimacy of Indigenous
paradigm inclusion. According to Cajete, “cosmology is a culture’s guiding

5.  While the Reader is far from the only set of readings on diversity in the field, it is an example of
disability research and collections.
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 311

story, and that story reflects on ways of relating and understanding themselves
in natural community” (“Seven” 495). Cosmology reveals social constructs,
values, truths, and relations. Western cultures, while exhibiting religious and
spiritual components, largely rely on science for ordering principles as is
exemplified by “cosmology” being primarily located in the sciences rather than
in religious studies departments. This emphasis on science assists in establishing
a reductionist model of healthcare in Western cultures (Shroff 116). In addition
to reductionist models, logical dichotomies including good–bad, positive–
negative, health–illness, and abled–disabled inform Western definitions of
wellness. These dichotomies are ordered hierarchically with the positions of
good, positive, health, and abled representing a preferable position associated
with strength. The less desirable positions involving bad, negative, illness, and
disabled are then associated with weakness (Lovern 15–19; Waters 97–115).
In contrast to Western cosmologies, Indigenous cosmologies tend to
establish spirit as a primary ordering principle. Indigenous science becomes a
phenomenological method by which one encounters spirit as lived experience
(Dillard 286). “The spirit and the spiritual were at the center of each human
being and all that made up the universe” (Cajete, “Seven,” 490). According to
Deloria, spirit exists beyond the limits of science (193–214). As the term spirit
is often negatively encumbered by Western academics, this article temporarily
embraces an alternative translation of “energy.”6 Energy is that which is
considered to be the primary element of all beings and that through which all
beings relate (Henare 204). This discussion focuses on two specific aspects of
energy science relating to body and mind differences. First, in acknowledging
that all things are energy and so relate on the level of energy, Indigenous lived
experience is established as a science of interrelatedness (Cajete, Native, 21;
Shroff 226; Montejo 177; Henare 202). For Indigenous communities, energy
“is a life force connected to all other life forces” (Meyer 218). Energy binds
all beings and allows for a connectivity of understanding between beings
(Shroff 115–16; Henare 202, 205; Montejo 177). The primary mode of communi-
cation is then energy oriented rather than physically oriented. Furthermore,
interrelatedness entails a natural democracy as energy is equally experienced
in all beings (Lovern 39–41). No being is understood to contain a superior
composition or claim to energy, which denies any hierarchical position of
privilege. Each being is valued equally and has equal claim to continuation

6.  The use of the term “energy” rather than “energies” is a matter of space. Sufficient time cannot
be given to the various Indigenous constructions of the singular/plural distinctions. Energy is
used here only to limit the focus of this article. The generalization being made here recognizes, but
cannot fully address, the diversity of Indigenous cultures.
312 Lavonna L. Lovern

and fulfilment thus creating a natural democracy. The term beings refers to all
aspects of nature including past, present, and future beings as well as beings
inhabiting alternative dimensions.
Natural democracy entails the ethical dynamic involving reciprocity (Cajete,
Native, 73; Dillard 279; Henare 5–6). Reciprocal ethics requires first that to the
best of one’s ability, one should not harm other beings. While survival consider-
ations impact the implementation of this first requirement, Indigenous practices
of hunting, gathering, and environmental actions enforce the idea of limiting
harm to the point of limiting what is considered an action of survival (Henare
202; Sponsel 166–67). The second aspect involved in reciprocal ethics requires
that, to the best of one’s ability, one must assist all beings to which one is related.
Again, this requirement extends to beings past, present, future, and interdimen-
sional. Reciprocity, as a mode of energy, requires interaction among beings to be
exemplified according to equity principles. For example, gaining food requires
that a recognition involving the equality of the plant or animal be understood
as resulting in a request for permission, an acceptance of the answer, and the
proper treatment of the being if permission is granted (Cajete, Native, 158–65).
Indigenous communities take seriously these ethical requirements as they
establish a natural democracy in which humans do not over-value their position
in nature (Verney 133–35). Historically, Indigenous reciprocity ethics involving
communication with non-human beings has been met with disrespectful or
mocking responses. Such responses mask an ignorance of Indigenous episte-
mology and a failure to understand the complexity involved in interconnected
science. Indigenous communities have a lived experience of energy as a primary
creative influence that establishes the potential for communication at an energy
level that is largely unrecognized in Western paradigms. However, unrecognized
does not entail disproven. Epistemic assumptions for Indigenous and Western
paradigms differ, but no objective justification exists for establishing a hierarchy
of legitimacy as there is no logical implication that “different from” establishes
“better than” or “worse than.”
Reciprocal ethics can be further understood given the research of Thompson,
Markus, and Kitayama into independent and interdependent cultural
definitions of self. This research notes that interdependent cultures orient
the self in terms of relationships, making motivation and action communal.
Independent cultures tend to focus the self according to individual goals,
making motivation and action primarily individually oriented. The claim is not
that societies fail to exhibit aspects of both independence and interdependence,
only that positive and negative cultural mores tend to be determined according
to interdependent-independent cultural orientation. Indigenous constructs
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 313

and institutions promote the individual self as located within a complex system
of interrelations that establish a system of responsibilities. The self is then
defined by one’s reciprocal responsibilities rather than by one’s rights as often
exhibited in independent cultures (Jojola 89). Reciprocity ethics, therefore,
establishes a balance or harmony involving all relations in order to fulfill both
the non-harm and the assistance requirements (Shroff 222; Henare 205–08).
An additional component involving energy and interconnectedness involves
the tripartite self. The tripartite self consists of mind, body, and spirit/energy
with the spirit being the primary ordering principle7 (Shroff 118). Body and
mind are often seen as temporary and changeable, but spirit is understood
as continuous and whole. Similar to Wendell, Indigenous constructs claim
that given a long enough life-span body or mind differences are inevitable
(828). Indigenous communities tend not to label body and mind differences as
“disabled.” Indeed, many traditional Indigenous languages have no word for
“disabled” or “handicapped.” Moreover as all beings exhibit differences, there
is no preferential position designated as “normal” or “ideal.” Neither do these
communities establish a negative dichotomous position based on difference.
Instead, the phenomena tends to receive only a designation of “difference”
(Lovern 96–111).
Spector explains that as humans and nature are interrelated, the wellness
or unwellness of one impacts the other (277). Wellness and unwellness are
employed because they illustrate the Indigenous concepts of balance whereas
health and illness reflect Western practices of reductionist medicine focused
on the control or elimination of the illness. Unwellness represents a position
of imbalance. The imbalance can be individual or communal requiring
treatment options ranging from individual, to a few community members,
to total community involvement. Causal factors for the unwellness often
require extensive time spent in diagnosis and in treatment. The importance
of understanding the causal agent determines treatment (Henare 208; Shroff
222). Causation is not established to determine blame or to inflict guilt,
but only to determine treatment. In cases involving a self-caused event, the
individual’s action may be noted, but she is not placed in an emotive state of
guilt. Regardless of the causal agent, the emphasis is on regaining wellness that
cannot occur if the emotive nature of guilt is imposed8 (Lovern 40–54).

7. In order to illustrate the Indigenous self, the term “spirit” will be reemployed with the
understanding that the term should encompasses the term “energy” used above. This shift is
designed only to ease the reader’s task.
8.  It should be understood that Indigenous cultures do not deny or eliminate the consequences of
a person’s actions. However, guilt is not established in accordance with Abrahamic traditions.
314 Lavonna L. Lovern

Additionally, unwellness is understood to be the symptom of a spiritual

imbalance as the interconnectedness of individuals and communities is
primarily oriented at this level. One can treat the physical symptom of
unwellness, but if the underlying imbalance involving spirit is not addressed
symptoms will return. Because Indigenous epistemologies tend to embrace
the concept of constant change, individual and communal balance becomes
a continuous effort (Cajete 15–19). Balance as a constant position cannot be
obtained for either individual or community.
An important aspect of Indigenous balance understands that the elimination
of a specific symptom is not required in order to achieve wellness. Symptom
elimination is welcomed, but it is understood that it is not always possible.
In cases of permanent difference or chronic conditions, the symptom must
become part of the balancing process. While the individual is not defined by the
symptom, it becomes a part of the lived experience requiring diverse method-
ologies for obtaining balance (Dillard 286–89). As the individual is a part of the
interdependent society, the lived experience is not individual, but communal
designating reciprocity assistance. Reciprocity assistance, therefore, translates
into a system of interaction that aids the individual while allowing her to
fulfill her responsibilities to others to the best of her abilities. For Indigenous
populations, differences of body or mind can be thought of in terms of talents.
It is assumed that all individuals have talents and that it is the duty of each to
use these talents to support the community. The diversity of talents allows for
the advancement and survival of the community as a whole. The focus is then
on the abilities of the individual rather than the inabilities. All beings are able
to contribute. A person without the talent for walking may have a talent for
medicine or piki bread. A person without the talent for intellectual endeavors
may have a talent for sewing or agriculture. Interdependent communities judge
character according to whether or not the individual meets her obligations
based on her talents rather than according to an abstract “ideal” or “norm.”
Indigenous cultures often believe that all conditions involve spirit
understanding and that differences of body and mind are part of learning
and teaching. Additionally, these communities tend to establish that beings
are created correctly and that differences are a means of gathering knowledge
both for the individual and for the community. Therefore, body and mind
differences allow both individuals and communities to gain knowledge that
advances human wisdom. Patterson offers an example involving individuals
born with, or who come to experience, an extreme body or mind difference
(237). Patterson notes that these individuals are seen as great teachers. Those
caring for individuals with differences are given the opportunity to advance
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 315

abilities such as compassion, understanding, and patience while gaining greater

human wisdom.9 It is also understood that spirit is whole, which implies
that the inhabitance of an extremely different body or mind requires great
strength of spirit. Additionally, because the spirit is whole and participates in
the creative spirit/energy of the universe, communication remains possible.
Individuals trained to communicate using spirit/energy are often employed to
assist in the care of individuals of difference when physical communication is
not possible. These phenomena, while often unaccepted in Western cultures,
are not uncommon within Indigenous cultures. Again, Western dismissal of
such practices belies the limitations of the paradigm, but fails to establish a
logical or scientific argument denying the legitimacy of these practices. Lack
of evidence to disprove such practices disallows the unsupported dismissal of
the phenomena.
While the ability for Indigenous cultures and individuals to balance has
been significantly hindered, and in some cased destroyed, by colonization
and post-colonization assimilation efforts, movements to reassert traditional
epistemologies continue. Decolonization scholarship has gained recognition in
academic studies by critiquing individual communities as well as international
law.

Indigenous Knowledge Informing Western Disability Discussions

While the CRPD/OP was formed according to Western constructs, Indigenous

knowledge can be used to remodel the interpretation. Along with attempts to
eliminate imposed Western dichotomous hierarchies, Indigenous scholars are
focusing on introducing Indigenous natural democracy into human rights
dialogues. This method can be used to create and reinterpret national and
international documents in a way that makes them for and by rather than
about Indigenous people. Using decolonization methodology, it is understood
that much of what is called for in CRPD/OP has existed and continues to exist
in Indigenous traditions. For example, CRPD/OP called for the recognition
of “potential contributions,” “autonomy,” and the “opportunity to be actively
involved in decision-making processes” (UN. A/RES61/106. 2). Such practices
are required under Indigenous models of natural democracy and diversity

9.  It is not uncommon in Indigenous cosmologies for the individual spirit to be allowed to choose
whether or not to inhabit a given body. There is then neither a forced inhabitance, nor a chance
inhabitance. Choosing to inhabit indicates that there is either an importance of learning or teaching
attached to the life.
316 Lavonna L. Lovern

equity as established by reciprocity ethics. Additionally, CRPD/OP recognized

that all people with disabilities, especially women and children, should have
“full enjoyment…of all human rights” (7). Again, this is an inherent part
of Indigenous paradigms. Indeed, if one goes through the CRPD/OP, the
rights and opportunities being established are a standard part of traditional
Indigenous cultures. The document is, therefore, not giving to Indigenous
communities what they did not possess as implied in the language. From
an Indigenous perspective, the enshrined principles of the Convention have
existed in traditional Indigenous models of interconnection. However, these
enshrined principles have been inhibited or destroyed through continued
colonization efforts. An example of the inhibition involves American social
services and educational practices that label children as disabled. The labeling
is then used to classify children for placement in specific classes or institutions
creating the stigma associated with the negative, abnormal, and weak
dichotomous position. According to Indigenous perspectives, this labeling and
the subsequent negative stigma causes unwellness. Indigenous communities
see children as differently talented, but not negatively positioned. For this
reason, many families will strongly resist educational and governmental labels
of disability.
What seems clear is that “recognizing the importance of international
cooperation for improving the living conditions of persons with disabilities in
every country, particularly in developing countries” rests on the assumption
that all communities traditionally treat persons of difference according to
the Western constructs of “disability” (2). The implication in both UN and
academic documents appears to be that Indigenous “developing” cultures held
the same dichotomous views of abled–disabled as Western colonizing forces
which is simply not the case. Current traditional Indigenous understandings
represent an attempt to decolonize communities from imposed dichotomies,
including abled–disabled. These attempts are part of a movement to reinvigorate
traditional modes of being in the face of “armed conflict and foreign occupation”
as Indigenous people self-identify as occupied people (3).
Beyond the restoration of the balance in their own communities, developed
Indigenous cultures offer the possibility of assistance to developing Western
cultures in redesigning their treatment of persons of difference. The use of
developed Indigenous constructs involving difference can “re-make” disability
scholarship. A similar move was used by Gilley to re-make Western conver-
sations involving gender inequality (123–31). Using Gerald Vizenor’s Manifest
Manners: Narratives on Postindian Survivance, Gilley examines the impact
of Western gender/sexual constructs as the heteropatriarchy derived from
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 317

settlement practices as part of Western Manifest Destiny (130). Gilley argues

that the diversity of gender/sex within traditional Indigenous communities
was forced into the dichotomous Western model, which required the normal–
abnormal designation. Morgensen advances this argument by asserting that
non-Natives can learn from Indigenous concepts of gender/sex diversity.
Morgensen’s lessons include a reexamination of what it means to be a minority.
Morgensen’s claim is that minority status, along with specialty laws, was
not needed in Indigenous cultures as differing orientations did not imply
abnormality or differing power stratifications (134–47).
The reason that minority status was not traditionally recognized
in Indigenous populations was because they employed aspects of natural
democracy. The term minority as used in Western communities tends to
refer to a “lesser” status and power position involving social stratification.
Additionally, Western cultures often equivocate on the term minority moving
from “lesser” to “fewer” as if to indicate that persons in the minority position
are fewer in number and so potentially threatened by those in positions of
“majority.” Therefore, in Western cultures it is often thought that individuals in
the abnormal position are not only in a position involving less power, but also
in a position of fewer in number. Either or both of these claims has been used
to invoke minority status in Western cultures. Research within Indigenous
populations indicates that positions of difference are traditionally designated
neither as “lesser” nor as “fewer.” Given that diversity has been considered to
be widespread and accepted in Indigenous populations, no specialty status or
protection of rights was traditionally required. It is not claimed that utopia
existed in any Indigenous population, it is only to claim that developed systems
of diversity equity existed in Indigenous cultures and can be used to model
developed systems of disability inclusion in underdeveloped Western cultures.
Because of colonization and post-colonization assimilation efforts, Indigenous
populations recognize the need to employ minority status and to advance the
human rights of minority peoples globally. However, these communities also
understand that the need for minority dialogue is an imposed dialogue.
This article does not argue that the UN statistics relating to poverty and
discrimination in Indigenous communities are inaccurate. What is being
argued is the reason for this unwellness. More thorough research involving the
impact of colonization should be done if the scholarship is to deal effectively
with the conditions of persons of difference in Indigenous populations.
Areas of research need to include the reasons for poverty and cultural
endangerment along with intergenerational impacts regarding colonization
and continued assimilation practices. Additionally, interdependent cultures
318 Lavonna L. Lovern

require the decolonization of the whole in order to reestablish wellness on

both a community and individual level. Balance cannot come about using a
piecemeal focus on specific symptoms. Finally, balance cannot be imposed
from the outside or from occupying forces, but must come from Indigenous
paradigms. In terms of disability dialogues beyond Indigenous populations,
it seems clear that Indigenous models offer a means of advancing strategies
described in CRPD/OP requirements with the urgency called for by both 68/3
and the Eighth Convention.

Works Cited

Barnes, Colin. “A Brief History of Discrimination and Disabled People.” The Disability
Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997.
20–32. Print.
Bell, Chris. “Is Disability Studies Actually White Disability Studies?” The Disability
Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997.
375–82. Print.
Cajete, Gregory. Native American Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe:
Clear Light Publishers, 2000. Print.
—. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education.” Handbook
of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln,
and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. 487–96. Print.
Davidson, Michael. “Universal Design: The Work of Disability in an Age of Globali-
zation.” The Disability Studies Reader. Third Edition. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New
York: Routledge, 1997. 133–46. Print
Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.” The Disability Studies Reader. Third Edition.
Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997. 3–19. Print
—. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London: Verso. 1995. Print.
Deloria, Vine Jr. The World We Used to Live In: Remembering the Powers of the Medicine
Men. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 2006. Print.
Dillard, Cynthia B. “When the Ground is Black, the Ground is Fertile: Exploring
Endarkened Feminist Epistemology and Healing Methodologies in the Spirit.”
Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna
S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. 277–92. Print.
Echo-Hawk, Walter R. In the Light of Justice: The Rise of Human Rights in Native America
and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Golden: Fulcrum, 2013.
Print.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Continuum, 1993. Print.
Gilley, Brian Joseph. “Two-Spirit Men’s Sexual Survivance against the Inequality of
Desire.” Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory, Politics, and
Literature. Ed. Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley, and Scott Lauria
Morgensen. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2011. 123–31. Print.
 Indigenous Perspectives on Difference 319

Hartley, Jackie, Paul Joffe, and Jennifer Preston. Realizing the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, Hope, and Action. Saskatoon: Purich
Publishing, 2014. Print.
Henare, Manuka. “Tapu, Mana, Mauri, Hau, Wairua: A Maori Philosophy of Vitalism
and Cosmos.” Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology
and Community. Ed. John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
198–221. Print.
Jojola, Ted. “Notes on Identity, Time, Space, and Place.” American Indian Thought:
Philosophical Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 87–96. Print.
Lovern, Lavonna, and Carol Locust. Native American Communities on Health and
Disability: A Borderland Dialogue. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. “Culture and the Self: Cognition, Emotion,
and Motivation.” Psychological Review. 98.2. (1991): 224–53. Print.
Meyer, Manulani Aluli. “Indigenous and Authentic: Hawaiian Epistemology and the
Triangulation of Meaning.” Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies.
Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Los Angeles:
Sage, 2008. 217–32. Print.
Montejo, Victor D. “The Road to Heaven: Jakaltek Maya Beliefs, Religion, and the Ecology.”
Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Ed.
John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. 175–95. Print.
Morgensen, Scott Lauria. “Unsettling Queer Politics: What Can Non-Natives Learn from
Two-spirit Organizing?” Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory,
Politics, and Literature. Ed. Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley, and
Scott Lauria Morgensen. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2011. 132–52.
Print.
Patterson, Joan M. “Meeting the Needs of Native American Families and their Children
with Chronic Health Conditions.” Families, Systems & Health 15.3. (1997): 237–41.
Print.
Shroff, Farah M. “Ayurveda: Mother of Indigenous Health Knowledge.” Indigenous
Knowledges in Global Contexts. Ed. George J. Sefa Dei, Budd L. Hall, and Dorothy
Goldin Rosenberg. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. 216–33. Print.
Spector, Rachel E. Cultural Diversity in Health and Illness. New York: Appleton-Centrury-
Crofts, 1979. Print.
Sponsel, Leslie E. “Is Indigenous Spiritual Ecology Just a Ne Fad? Reflections from the
Historical and Spiritual Ecology of Hawai’i.” Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The
Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Ed. John A. Grim. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2001. 159–74 Print.
Thompson, Virginia C. “Independent and Interdependent Views of Self: Implications for
Culturally Sensitive Vocational Rehabilitation Services.” Journal of Rehabilitation
63.4 (1997): 16–20. Print.
United Nations. A/RES 13/217a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. A/RES 61/106. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. A/RES/68/3. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 23 September
2013. Web. 21 July 2015.
320 Lavonna L. Lovern
United Nations. A/RES 61/L.67. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations. 26 June 1945. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. CRPD/CSP/2015/5 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. 13–15 June 2015. Web. 21 July 2015.
United Nations. DSG/SM/873-HR/5257 “Deputy Secretary-General Tells States Parties
2006 Disabilities Convention Marked Conceptual Shift from Charity to Human
Rights-Based Approach.” United Nations Press Release. 9 June 2015. Web. 21 July
2015.
Verney, Marilyn Notah. “On Authenticity.” American Indian Thought: Philosophical
Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 133–39. Print.
Waters, Anne. “Language Matters: Nondiscrete Nonbinary Dualism.” American Indian
Thought: Philosophical Essays. Ed. Anne Waters. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 97–115.
Print.
Wendell, Susan. “Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability.” The Feminist Philosophy
Reader. Ed. A. Bailey and C. Cuomo. Boston: McGrawHill, 2008. 826–41. Print.
White Face, Charmaine, and Zumila Wobaga. Indigenous Nations’ Rights in the Balance:
An Analysis of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. St. Paul: Living
Justice Press, 2013. Print.