Braiding Knowledge Systems as Environmental Peacebuilding A four-dimensional analysis for co-applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous worldviews in Great Lakes water governance

Full text

Braiding Knowledge Systems as Environmental Peacebuilding
A four-dimensional analysis for co-applying Indigenous and
non-Indigenous worldviews in Great Lakes water governance
Natalija Vojno
Our Future First1
Environmental peacebuilding has evolved since Conca and Dabelko’s seminal
work on peacemaking to now include preventative interventions as well as those
that occur post-conflict. In recent years, both practitioners and academics have
identified the need to recognise the leadership of women, Indigenous Peoples,
youth, and local peacebuilding actors. However, the process of integrating
worldviews in the sustainability sciences risks instrumentalising belief systems
in a way that perpetuates underlying power and political asymmetries.
Critical water management literature calls for an ontological shift in how
epistemologies relate to one another (Ermine et al., 2007; Stefanelli et al., 2017;
Taylor, Longboat, and Grafton, 2019; Reid et al., 2021). Ontologies, or
worldviews, can validate or invalidate ways of knowing and thereby open or
constrain what are deemed to be viable policy responses within water
governance and environmental peacebuilding. In response, this paper
introduces a non-hierarchical conceptual model for braiding non-Indigenous
and Indigenous ways of knowing for the management of the Great Lakes and, in
1https://ourfuturefirst.co/

2
turn, applies an ontological and phenomenological approach to environmental
peacebuilding.
KEYWORDS: environmental peacebuilding, water governance, phenomenological peace,
political ontologies, worldviews
RSD TOPIC(S): Methods & Methodology, Policy & Governance, Society & Culture
Positionality
The author is not a member of an Indigenous community. Further, the term Indigenous
is not intended to promote a false sense of pan-Indigeneity as each First Nation, Métis,
and Inuit community has distinct cultures and community protocols. The author is a
first-generation settler from Bosnia & Herzegovina who was raised within the
Kabechenong (Humber River) Watershed in Toronto on the territory of many Nations,
including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the
Haudenosaunee and the Wendat Peoples. The land is now home to many diverse
peoples and is covered by Treaty 13, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the Dish With
One Spoon treaty.
Introduction
The field of environmental peacebuilding has evolved from the introduction of
environmental peacemaking (Conca & Dabelko, 2002) that utilised shared natural
resources as a conflict resolution tool to a broader framework of environmental
peacebuilding that encompasses conflict prevention as well as post-conflict
peacebuilding (Ide et al., 2021). However, efforts to 'integrate' worldviews in
sustainability sciences instrumentalise belief systems and risk perpetuating underlying
power and political asymmetries (Cleaver et al., 2021). Without a critical understanding
of distinct worldviews, the means of synthesising local epistemologies within
environmental peacebuilding and natural resource management risk assimilating one
ontology into another. The systematic oppression of the cultures and languages of
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

3
Aboriginal peoples as defined under Canadian must be noted (TRCC, 2015) and efforts
made not to perpetuate historical violence in the process of working with traditional
ecological knowledge. Fortunately, critical water management literature calls for an
ontological shift in how epistemologies and peoples relate to one another (Ermine et al.,
2007; Stefanelli et al., 2017; Taylor, Longboat, and Grafton, 2019; Reid et al., 2021).
Ontology and worldview will be used interchangeably. A worldview is defined as a set of
assumptions about physical and social reality that influence personality traits,
motivation, cognition, behaviour, and culture (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Worldviews are tied
to how we gather knowledge about the world (epistemology) and then, in turn, choose
to act on that knowledge (axiology).
In response to the need for an ontological shift, this paper aims to identify how
non-Indigenous and Indigenous ways of knowing can be co-applied to the management
of the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Ecosystem. Phenomenological peace entails
conceptualising different frames of knowing in a non-hierarchical (Behr, 2019) and will
inform the approach used in this paper. Recognising that worldviews shape watershed
management strategies, a model is proposed for understanding the dimensions by
which multiple ontologies – and their related epistemological, axiological, and
phenomenological manifestations – can be conceived as co-existing in a pluralistic and
dynamic relationship.
Braiding knowledge systems
Many different terms exist that provide a conceptual framework for incorporating
transdisciplinary fields and co-applying a plurality of cosmologies to the Earth sciences.
The concepts of braiding (Kimmerer, 2013), two-row wampum (McGregor, 2008) and
Etuaptmumk or two-eyed seeing (Hatcher, Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2009) represent
concepts that originate from the Anishinabek-speaking, Haudenaushonee, and Mi'kmaq
First Nations communities, respectively, to represent the complex systems
understanding that develops as a result of harmonising distinct worldviews rather than
simply integrating one into the other.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

4
Working across multiple knowledge frames
Multiple knowledge frames create ambiguity about what information to consider valid
and whom to include (Brugnach et al., 2008). In the previously secularised field of
International Relations, 'post-western IR' scholars suggest replacing hegemonic
differences with a system of inter-cosmological relations (Shani, 2021). Rather than
seeking to influence the “other”, the post-Western framing allows the self and the other
to co-exist in difference. A pluriverse of worlds with their universality and particularity is
possible (Escobar, 2020). Relating back to water management, Wong et al. (2020) call on
natural scientists to contribute to reconciliation in Canada by rebuilding trust between
researchers and Indigenous communities through an understanding of the
socio-political landscape; knowledge co-production; and by engaging as people with
humility, honesty, and a willingness to adapt.
Methodology: reconciliation through research
A dual-phase exploratory design process was applied, in which expert interviews were
supplemented with secondary data from a survey of professionals engaged in Great
Lakes governance (Creswell, Plano Clark, et al., 2003). The questions were designed to
capture attitudes towards reconciliation, positive peace, water justice, and
environmental peacebuilding. The research sought to abide by an ethic where the
means of achieving peace are peaceful by not perpetuating historical injustices and
colonial research practices (Schnarch, 2004). Ultimately, following preliminary scoping
and out of a desire to avoid placing additional research burdens on Indigenous
communities while turning the lens back on colonial society, the study group was
defined as other non-Indigenous people engaged in water governance within the
watershed. This followed from the understanding that the assumed ethics, perspectives,
and values of non-Indigenous people required reflection prior to engaging in a
relational approach to ecosystem management across different knowledge systems.
In order to avoid the physical, psychological, social, economic, legal, or relational
cumulative effects causing local communities harm, a certificate in the Ownership,
Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP®) of First Nations information was obtained
from the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC).
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

5
Boundaries of inclusion
Water management in Canada exists in a patchwork of policies and regulations under
Federal, Provincial, and Municipal jurisdiction. For most First Nations, the Indian Act,
administered by the Federal government, controls how reserve lands and resources are
managed. However, most water management and protection decisions fall within
provincial and territorial responsibility, with drinking water, wastewater and related
services being delegated to municipalities and local authorities. This multi-jurisdictional
aspect of water governance complicates how the drinking water needs of First Nations
communities living on reserve are addressed. Far from a co-existing plurality of
worldviews in respectful relationship, existing consultation processes are fraught with
procedural concerns: the lack of capacity for Indigenous Peoples to fully participate and
the lack of open dialogue spaces for Indigenous values to be expressed. At all scales,
who is included in decision-making, what knowledge is considered valid, and which
solutions are appropriate expands with an acceptance of co-existing cosmological
systems.
Expanding socio-political dimensions of analysis
The three dimensions of analysis common to environmental peacebuilding and water
governance are: Cultural; Economic & Institutional Resource Arrangements; and Politics,
Power & Social Relations. These complementary dimensions are common to the
research of Cleaver et al. (2021) pertaining to water governance and Ide et al. (2021)
pertaining to environmental peacebuilding. Contested 'ontological politics' of water
have made the cultural political economy more prominent with emphasis on the plural
discourses about water (Mollinga, 2019). Missing are conceptions of systems and
relations over time. A fourth dimension (4D) analysis is needed to open up the range of
possible interventions.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

6
Figure 1. Progression of analytic methods within water governance and environmental
peacebuilding.
Figure 1 shows the progression of analytical approaches to understanding socio-political
dimensions from left to right. The first image is akin to the 2D political compass
representing economic polarities on the x-axis and socio-political organisation on the
y-axis. It reflects realist and liberal ontologies. The second 3D image adds the z-axis
expanding the Cartesian grid to include cultural theory and social analysis as
represented by constructivism. The third image serves as a visual metaphor to convey
the added space of possibility for intervention created by extending from space into
time. The addition of time allows for the study of relations, including the dynamic
between knowledge systems (epistemology), ethics (axiology), and ways of being
(phenomenology) as a sequence.
As framing expands to accept Indigenous worldviews on their own terms, “new”
dimensions of full body and mind knowing, such as Anishinabek water knowledge or
giikendaaswin, held for thousands of years, become accessible “spiritual, physical,
mental, and social” ways of knowing and acting (Chiblow, 2019, p. 8). Relationships are
an example of something which holds a particular form or quality but cannot be seen
and, in turn, measured. The visual metaphor is a tool to choreograph possible
relationships within and between the human and other-than-human worlds. If our
perception is limited to the three-dimensional (3D) space, then by recognising and
affirming different ways of knowing (intuition, body-sensing, dialogue etc.), we could
begin to sense through the fourth dimension (4D).
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

7
Ways of knowing frame water governance
Traditional ecological knowledge is "a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief
evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural
transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including human beings) with one
another and with their environment” (Berkes et al., 2000, p. 1252). Merely including local
and traditional knowledge within governance processes and decision-making does not
dismantle the power imbalances inherent in colonial governance frameworks (Simms et
al., 2016). Efforts to increase participatory water governance require a reflexive
approach.
Ontologies evade empirical measure but inform epistemological approaches to what
knowledge is considered and how it is acquired (Hay, 2011). Epistemology has created
an asymmetry between 'outdated' sciences and the 'sanctioned' sciences stripped of
context and past (Latour, 1993). Historically, discriminatory attitudes towards
“non-Western” knowledge systems have constrained their production (Butler, 2006;
Harding, 1998). Values were lost as a result. For instance, the Anishinaabek notion of
zaagidowin (love) is core to shaping how justice, in an Indigenous framing, is concerned
for the wellbeing of people as well as the water (McGregor, 2013). Some Indigenous
perspectives, such as the Haudenosaunee knowledge system, further respect water as a
sentient being and spirit in contrast to the harm perpetuated by Western perceptions of
water as a commodity (Basic Call to Consciousness, 2005).
Political ontology explores to what extent something constitutes a feasible reality and
which ideas may legitimately be pursued. A mechanical understanding of the
environment would lead to modes of production – be it capitalist or communist – that
are extractive and reduce the living ecosystems to units. Extending beyond fixed
socio-political binaries, political ontology differs from political ecology by recognising the
complex entanglement of human and other-than-human relationships; in other words,
the agency of the more-than-human (Blanco-Wells, 2021). The concept of “a world of
many worlds” by de la Cadena and Blaser (2018) and the notion of “integrating
pluriverses” (Escobar, 2017) speak to a diversity of ontologies. Analysis that does not
critically look at the underlying worldviews risks perpetuating existing epistemic
inequalities by assuming a hegemonic singular worldview.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

8
In the dynamic system that is earth’s ecology, the whole is more than the sum of its
parts, and data requires interpretation by those holding tacit knowledge of the system
(Bateson, 2000). Noting Ashby’s law of requisite variety, if the system is living, then to
match the dynamic variety of the issues to be managed, the embodied life of the
knowledge holder and their generational knowledge must be present for the full
generative capacity of that knowledge to be applied to policy. Within water governance,
this translates to ideas being as relevant as who sits at the decision-making table.
Figure 2 illustrates the difference between epistemology (ambiguity) and ontology
(uncertainty). The latter is dynamic and sees the limits of knowing across multiple
frames of knowledge, e.g. engineering and law. Phenomenological peace pertaining to
water management entails dialoguing across sets of values and preferences about a
living system. Building a weir or flood control structure is a method of control, whereas
a combination of solutions developed alongside multiple stakeholders is an example of
adaptive management under uncertainty.
Figure 2. Knowledge Represented within Epistemology and Ontology.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

9
The following model is a response to Behr’s (2019) question within phenomenological
peace of “how can we conceptualize difference in a nonhierarchical way” (p.174).
Figure 3. Model of Co-Existing Worldviews.
In Figure 3, the first image represents isolated knowledge systems coloured to reflect
different worldviews. The dots represent points of information. The second image
reflects a horizontal cross-section of braided worldviews that weaves through time and
space to make sense of their distinct, co-existing, and interrelated ecologies. The third
image imperfectly represents ontologies and a thin slice of what can be known about
the whole.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

10
Conclusion
In contrast to integrating traditional ecological knowledge within fixed epistemologies, a
relational approach to water management would entail ongoing interaction for
negotiating meaning between different ways of knowing. Framing determines the scope
of the problem and who should be involved. Depending on the framing, a water
shortage is an issue of supply or excessive demand. The related solutions to uncertain
water availability could entail large-scale infrastructure, market mechanisms to
incentivise more efficient water consumption or policy approaches like crop diversity.
An ontological shift proposes ongoing interactions that negotiate meaning between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing. The paper advocates for
environmental peacebuilding and water governance to build upon existing economic,
institutional and cultural epistemologies in order to develop phenomenological peace
by acknowledging co-existing worldviews and possible relations over time. Visual
metaphors were offered to serve as a symbol to “see” into different understandings of
the world.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all those who participated in the research process, including the peer
review and editing of the RSD11 proceedings. With gratitude to Anastasia Lintner and
Andrew McCammon for also directing me to further individuals with whom to discuss.
And, a particular miigwech (thank you) to Garry Pritchard ~Giniw (Golden Eagle) from
Curve Lake First Nation and Founder of Four Directions of Conservation Consulting for
modelling how to mediate between Indigenous and western governance systems and
inviting me out on the land. Niawen (thank you) to Dr Henry Lickers, who is a
Haudenosaunee citizen of the Seneca Nation, Turtle Clan and Canadian Commissioner
for the International Joint Commission for sharing knowledge that speaks to a lifetime of
bridging worldviews guided by the Great Way of Peace. And, finally, kʷukʷscémxʷand
wela'lin (thank you) to Kasey Stirling for reviewing and providing comments from the
perspective of bridging Indigenous and western knowledge systems.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

11
References
1. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Basic call to consciousness. (2005). Summertown, Tenn: Native Voices.
2. Behr, H. (2019). "Peace-in-Difference: Peace through Dialogue about and across
Difference(s) - A Phenomenological Approach to Rethinking Peace", in Rethinking
Peace. Discourse, Memory, Translation, and Dialogue, ed. by Alexander L. Hinton,
Giorgio Shani, and Jeremiah Alberg, Rowman & Littlefield International, pp.
174–190.
3. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications.;10(5):1251–1262.
4. Blanco-Wells, G. (2021). Ecologies of Repair: A Post-human Approach to
Other-Than-Human Natures. Frontiers in Psychology, p. 12, 633737.
5. Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu. (2008). Toward a relational
concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and
accepting not to know. Ecology and Society 13(2): 30.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art30/
6. Butler, C. (2006). Historicizing indigenous knowledge: Practical and political
issues. In C. R. Menzies(Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge and natural
resource management (pp. 107–126). University of Nebraska Press.
7. Cleaver, F.; Whaley, L. and Mwathunga, E. (2021). Worldviews and the everyday
politics of community water management. Water Alternatives 14(3): 645-663
8. Chiblow, S. (2019). Anishinabek Women’s Nibi Giikendaaswin (Water Knowledge).
Water, 11, 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020209
9. Conca, K & Dabelko, G. D. (2002). Environmental Peacemaking. Woodrow Wilson
Center Press
10. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, pp. 209–240. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. De la Cadena, M., and Blaser, M. (eds) (2018). A World of Many Worlds. Durham:
Duke University Press.
12. Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1):
193–203.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

12
13. Escobar, A. (2017). “Sustaining the pluriverse: the political ontology of territorial
struggles in Latin America,” in The Anthropology of Sustainability. Palgrave Studies
in Anthropology of Sustainability, eds M. Brightman and J. Lewis (New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan), 237–256. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-56636-2_14
14. Escobar, A. (2020). Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press.
15. Goodchild, M. (2021). Relational systems thinking: That’s how change is going to
come, from our Earth mother. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1(1),
75–103.
16. Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-Eyed Seeing in
the Classroom Environment: Concepts, Approaches, and Challenges. Canadian
Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,9(3),141–153.
17. Hay, C. (2011). Political Ontology. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science
(Robert E. Goodin Eds.) DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0023
18. Ide, T., Bruch, C., Carius, A., Conca, K., Dabelko, G., Matthew, R., and Weinthal E.
(2021). The past and future(s) of environmental peacebuilding, International
Affairs 97(1): 1-16.
19. Kimmerer, R.W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific
Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions.
20. Koltko-Rivera, M.E. (2004). ‘The Psychology of Worldviews’. Review of General
Psychology 8(1), 3–58, https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.8.1.3
21. Latour B (1993). We have never been modern. (C. Porter, Trans.), Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
22. McGregor, D. (2008). Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western
science: aboriginal perspectives from the 2000 State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference. Can J Nativ Stud, XXVIII(1):139–158.
23. McGregor, D. (2013). Indigenous Women, Water Justice and Zaagidowin (Love).
Can. Woman Stud. Downsview, pp. 30, 71–78.
24. Mollinga, P.P.. (2019). Cultural Political Economy and critical water studies: an
introduction to the special themed section. Water Alternatives 12(3): 788-801
25. Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J.F., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., Cooke, S.
J., Ban, N.C., Marshall, A. (2021). “Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)

13
transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, pp. 22, 2,
243–261.
26. Schnarch, B (2004). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP) or
self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First
Nations research and some options for First Nation communities. Journal of
Aboriginal Health, 1, pp. 80–95.
27. Shani, G. (2021). IR as inter-cosmological relations? International Politics Review
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41312-021-00120-2
28. Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., and Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in
collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and indigenous
communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 73: 6-16.
29. Stefanelli, R. D., Hart, C., Castleden, H., Cunsolo, A., Martin, D., & Harper, S. L.
(2017). Canadian and Australian researchers' perspectives on promising practices
for implementing Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in water research
and management. Water Policy, pp. 19, 6, 1063–1080.
30. Taylor, K. S., Longboat, S. & Grafton, R. Q.. (2019). Whose Rules? A Water Justice
Critique of the OECD’s 12 Principles on Water Governance. Water, 11, 4.
31. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC). (2015). Truth and
Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action. Winnipeg: Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
32. Wong, C., Ballegooyen, K., Ignace, L., Johnson, M.J., Swanson, H. (2020). Towards
reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets 5,
769–783. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2020-0005.
PROCEEDINGS OF RELATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND DESIGN 2022 SYMPOSIUM (RSD11)