Content uploaded by Polly Walker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Polly Walker on Jun 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Decolonizing Conflict Resolution: Addressing the Ontological
Violence of Westernization
Polly O. Walker
The American Indian Quarterly, Volume 28, Number 3&4, Summer/Fall 2004,
pp. 527-549 (Article)
Published by University of Nebraska Press
DOI:
For additional information about this article
Access provided at 28 May 2019 19:25 GMT from Juniata College
https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0108
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/181507
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 527
The discipline of conflict resolution perpetuates ontological violence,
the suppression and silencing of Indigenous ways of conceptualizing and
experiencing the world. In most practice, research, and training, West-
ern problem-solving models of conflict resolution are promoted as ap-
propriate for all cultures, including Indigenous peoples. Indigenous
worldviews are marginalized through Westernization, which includes
any process used to shape things in a Western mode (Galtung 1990, 313).
Westernization involves issues of both power and difference as members
of Western cultures often forcefully impose their worldview. Currently,
“the West has the power and inclination to institutionalize and imple-
ment its conceptions” regarding conflict resolution (Galtung 1990, 314).
Utilizing the power of the dominant culture, Western methods have as-
sumed hegemony in the fields of conflict resolution and mediation
(Kraybill 1996, 22–23; Lederach 1995).
In response to concerns regarding Western methodologies, re-
searchers within the discipline of conflict studies recommend further re-
search in developing effective communication between individuals from
differing cultures (Bendana 1996; Camilleri 1994; Clements 1994; Cohen
1991; Lederach 1991; Nudler 1990; Szalay 1981). However, very little re-
search has been completed on conflict transformation methodology that
is designed to acknowledge and accommodate deep cultural differences
or worldviews (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1990, 1996).
Western models of conflict resolution have been criticized as cultur-
ally inappropriate for Indigenous peoples due to differences in the
worldview underlying the techniques (Beattie 1997; Behrendt 1995; Blue-
house and Zion 1993; Grose 1995; Yazzie 1995). Concerns have been ex-
Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
Addressing the Ontological Violence of Westernization
polly o. walker
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 527
pressed regarding the practice of imposing inappropriate conflict reso-
lution methodologies on Indigenous peoples (Galtung 1996; Huber 1993;
Ross 1996; Yazzie 1995).
The worldviews that underlie Western and Indigenous cultures are
starkly different from one another. For example, Indigenous approaches
to addressing conflict are more accurately described as conflict transfor-
mation in that they seek to address the conflict in ways that heal rela-
tionships and restore harmony to the group. In contrast, Western con-
flict resolution methods prioritize reaching an agreement between
individual parties over mending relationships that have been damaged
by the conflict.
In this article I explore the impact of worldview on a people’s ap-
proach to dealing with conflict and compare the worldviews underlying
specific Western and Indigenous approaches to dealing with conflict. I
suggest that power imbalances in conflict resolution research and prac-
tice perpetuate colonization through ontological violence, marginalizing
Indigenous worldviews and ways of transforming conflict.
worldview and conflict transformation
All human endeavors are shaped by the culture within which they are en-
acted. Deep culture or worldview shapes people’s ways of dealing with
conflict (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1990, 1996). However, the
dominant Western models of conflict resolution neither acknowledge
nor accommodate differences in culture, claiming that their techniques
“cut across culture” (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991). This hegemony of
Western conflict resolution limits Indigenous peoples’ opportunities to
function within their own worldviews and to implement their own
methods of processing conflict.
Worldview represents the deeper levels of culture, the beliefs and val-
ues that shape all behavior. Edward T. Hall defines worldview as “the un-
derlying, hidden level of culture... a set of unspoken, implicit rules of
behavior and thought that controls everything we do” (1983, 7). Hall
clearly articulates the ontological violence that results when societies ig-
nore differences in worldviews: “as long as human beings and the socie-
ties they form continue to recognize only surface culture and avoid the
underlying primary culture, nothing but unpredictable explosions and
violence can result” (1983, 8).
528 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 528
The following comparison of Western and Indigenous worldviews
highlights differences that impact upon conflict transformation. Central
characteristics of the dominant Western worldview include:
a unilinear, present-centered conception of time
an analytic rather than holistic conception of epistemology
a human-over-human conception of human relations
a human-over-nature conception of relations to nature (Galtung
1990, 313)
Central characteristics of many American Indian and Native Hawaiian
worldviews include:
circular (or spiral) conception of time (Bopp et al. 1989; Meyer
1998)
a holistic conception of epistemology (Bopp et al. 1989; Cajete
2000, 2; Meyer 1998)
nonhierarchical, shared-power conception of human relations
(Bopp et al. 1989; Meyer 1998)
humans in relationship of care and responsibility with nature
(Bopp et al. 1989; Cajete 2000, 3; Meyer 1998)
The characteristics of these worldviews differ in significant ways, im-
pacting people’s conceptualization of conflict and how it might be ad-
dressed. A meaningful analysis of conflict and conflict transformation
must take into account the differences in these worldviews (Avruch and
Black 1990, 1991; Folger and Bush 1994, 7–15; Galtung 1996), yet this is
seldom the case within the Western discipline of conflict resolution.
Developing ways to respect and acknowledge the worldviews of In-
digenous peoples is made more difficult in that many aspects of world-
view are often “hidden,” operating at the subconscious level, and there-
fore not easily interpreted during intercultural interactions (Hall 1977,
1983, 6 – 9). However, worldview can be brought to conscious reflection
through a comparison with and awareness of our own and others’ beliefs
and behaviors (Hall 1977, 1983; Galtung 1990, 1996). Failure to bring these
differences in worldview into conscious awareness when conducting re-
search and practice in conflict resolution continues the ontological vio-
lence that characterizes the colonization of Indigenous peoples.
The previously described differences in worldview shape conflict pro-
cessing in significant ways. Communal societies, such as those found in
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 529
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 529
Indigenous cultures, exhibit a collectivist approach to conflict and con-
flict resolution in which members keep each other informed on conflict
situations (Barnes 1994). In collectivist cultures the primary purpose of
resolving conflict is to bring harmony to the group. Thus, conflict is
viewed holistically, not analytically or broken into parts; it is embedded
in the networks of the community (Beattie 1997; LeBaron 1995). In
collectivist cultures processing of conflict emphasizes the restoration of
relationships within the network of interconnections that defines the
community.
In contrast to communal societies, the dominant Western societies
tend to be individualistic (Hofstede 1984, 167). These noncommunal so-
cieties tend to approach conflict analytically and require linear, deter-
ministic explanations of existing conflicts. Thus, their processing of con-
flict is more likely to emphasize analytical problem solving of discrete
situations (Barnes 1994). The analytical, linear style of the dominant
Western models of conflict resolution contrasts starkly with the cyclical
and interconnected networks that characterize Indigenous conflict
transformation.
Avruch and Black (1991) maintain that lack of attention to deep cul-
ture or worldview has been the basis of justifiable criticism aimed at
scholars of conflict studies. If culture is defined as stylistic behavior that
easily can be understood and accommodated, then conflict resolution
methodology could possibly be developed in such a way as to be univer-
sally applicable to all cultures (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991). As dis-
cussed above, however, a richer definition of culture includes worldview,
the deep “assumptions that individuals and groups hold about the world:
shared common sense” (Avruch and Black 1991, 28). These deeper world-
view aspects of culture (Hall 1977) are less amenable to being laid aside
during negotiations or of being “cut through” by skillfully crafted
methodologies (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991). Worldview is the reality
from within which individuals operate, and differences in worldview
must be understood and taken into account when processing conflict be-
tween people from different cultures (Galtung 1990, 1996). To act other-
wise is to marginalize people’s abilities to function within their world-
views, an act of ontological violence.
The hegemony of Western epistemologies, one of the major processes
of colonization, has largely silenced Indigenous people’s worldviews in
regard to conflict resolution. This situation is not an unfortunate by-
530 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 530
product of colonization; rather it is one of the key tenets for subjugating
a people: “the invaders penetrate the cultural context of another group,
in disrespect of the latter’s potentialities; they impose their own view of
the world upon those they invade and inhibit the creativity of the in-
vaded by curbing their expression” (Friere 1974, 150).
Silencing Indigenous worldviews has been and continues to be one of
the major tools of colonization. During European colonization Indige-
nous worldviews were considered to be heathen and primitive and were
violently suppressed (Peat 1994; Reynolds 1999). Currently, when Indige-
nous worldviews are recognized by Western scientists and practitioners,
they are still frequently considered to be primitive or superstitious
and in need of development through Western scientific approaches (Ca-
jete 2000; Deloria Jr. 1995, 19; Begay and Maryboy 1998; Myer 1998; Peat
1994). “Today one might say that cognitive imperialism has been added
to the goals of conversion and assimilation of the dominant governing
society” (Begay and Maryboy 1998, 30).
A decolonizing approach within the discipline of conflict resolution
would involve (a) respect and understanding of Indigenous worldviews
that have been marginalized through colonization and (b) acknowledge-
ment of Indigenous approaches to conflict resolution as a body of
knowledge that predates Western conflict resolution (Walker 2001). De-
veloping appropriate approaches to conflict transformation in colonized
countries involves a conceptualization of how the processes of coloniza-
tion have privileged Western worldview, as well as acknowledgement and
accommodation of the worldviews of Indigenous peoples.
Recognizing and respecting differences in worldview involves more
than academic consideration of exotic curiosities; worldview represents
the lived realities of a people (Hall 1977, 1983). To deny Indigenous peo-
ples the right to function within their worldviews is to deny the reality of
their experience. Therefore, to disengage from the processes of coloniza-
tion it is mandatory for researchers and practitioners to acknowledge, re-
spect, and accommodate differences in worldview.
The worldviews underlying Indigenous and Western approaches to
conflict are radically different. Stark contrasts exist between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous concepts of what it means to be human, how hu-
man relationships are construed, and how conflicts between humans are
to be processed (LeBaron 1995; LeResche 1993; Walker 1998; Walker 1999,
17– 18, 24). These differences in worldview impact conceptualizations of
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 531
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 531
conflict as well as appropriate ways of dealing with conflict (Avruch and
Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1996).
Indigenous approaches to conflict tend to be holistic, interconnected,
and cyclical in nature (Walker 1998, 199–204). Dominant Western ap-
proaches to conflict tend to be atomistic, individualistic, and linear in na-
ture (Avruch and Black 1990). For example, American Indian approaches
involve families, Elders, ancestors, and the natural world, following the
rhythms and cycles of right time. Western problem-solving approaches
focus on reaching an agreement, emphasize needs of individuals, and fol-
low a tightly prescribed linear sequence. Despite these differences West-
ern models of conflict resolution continue to be implemented in many
Indigenous communities (Beattie 1997; Grose 1995; Yazzie 1995). Many
Indigenous communities resist this intrusion, protesting that Western
techniques are not culturally appropriate in many Indigenous settings
(Beattie 1997; Grose 1995; Ross 1996; Yazzie 1995).
Disregarding the response of Indigenous peoples, practitioners of the
dominant Western methodologies of conflict resolution continue to
promote Western problem-solving approaches as acultural—tran-
scending considerations of culture. However, supposedly acultural
problem-solving models merely privilege Western culture (Avruch 1998;
Avruch and Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1990). In critiquing the hegemony
of Western approaches to conflict resolution, Avruch and Black remark
that, “It is amazing how often the ‘universal’ mode of conflict resolution
turns out to be one which most perfectly expresses the theorist’s values”
(1991, 39). In the discipline of conflict resolution the majority of the the-
orists are powerfully situated within Western structures.
One aspect of decolonizing the research and practice of transforming
conflict is acknowledgement and respect for traditional Indigenous
methods of resolving conflict. Indigenous conflict transformation mod-
els precede the Western discipline of conflict resolution by centuries, yet
their contributions are scarcely recognized within the discipline of con-
flict studies (Beattie 1997, 63– 64). In the next section of this article I will
contrast an analysis of two dominant Western models of conflict resolu-
tion with four American Indian and Native Hawaiian approaches. This
comparison illuminates the deep differences in the worldviews that un-
derlie the approaches.
The four Indigenous approaches I analyze represent the smallest frac-
tion of existing Indigenous methods of conflict transformation, or
532 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 532
peacemaking, as there are 517 forms of American Indian conflict trans-
formation in the United States alone (LeResche 1993, 321). These Indige-
nous models were selected based on the availability of data in research
literature. The models of conflict transformation that I analyze in the fol-
lowing section are drawn from the Tsalagi (Cherokee) Talking Circle, the
Native Hawaiian Ho’oponopono, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Great
Law of Peace, and the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony.
The Western approaches analyzed include Fisher and Ury’s (1981)
“principled negotiation” and Burton’s “conflict resolution” (1996), two of
the most widely practiced problem-solving conflict resolution models.
The theoretical underpinnings of Fisher and Ury’s (1997) and Burton’s
(1987) models reflect significant differences when compared to Indige-
nous worldviews. The worldview underlying these dominant Western
problem-solving models reflects:
an atomistic paradigm
emphasis on technique
emphasis on intellectual experience
bounded, linear conceptualizations of time
In contrast, the worldviews underlying many Indigenous approaches to
transforming conflict reflect:
paradigms of interconnectedness
emphasis on process and relationships
holistic experience
expanded conceptualizations of time
Many Indigenous peoples in North America and Hawaii practice
forms of conflict transformation that have continued for centuries. For
example, the Haudenosaunee, the people of the Long House, known as
the Iroquois Confederacy, continue to practice their consensual ap-
proach to processing conflict (Kickingbird and Kickingbird 1987). Their
approach to dealing with conflict is embedded within the Great Law of
Peace. The purpose of their peacemaking methodology expressed
through the Grand Council is the restoration of harmony through the
balance of righteousness, health, and power (Great Law of Peace 1999).
Likewise, Cherokees practice a traditional form of conflict transfor-
mation through the Talking Circle (Garrett 1998, 80 – 83). The Cherokee
word for the transformation of conflict is tohigesesdi, most accurately
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 533
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 533
translated as “making peace” (Awiakta 1993, 288). Ingadugi (community
meetings) members practice conflict transformation in sessions de-
signed to heal relationships as well as solve problems (Awiakta 1993, 289;
Garrett 1998, 80 – 83).
Ho’oponopono is a traditional Native Hawaiian approach to process-
ing conflict. Ho’oponopono is a holistic approach that includes mental,
physical, spiritual, and natural aspects of the participants’ lives (Boggs
and Chun 1990; Shook and Kwan 1987). Ho’oponopono means “setting
to right,” and its purpose is to restore harmony to the family group as
well as to prevent more serious conflict from occurring (Boggs and Chun
1990, 123). Ho’oponopono has been practiced for centuries, although
there was a period during colonization when it was restricted due to the
influence of Christian missionaries (Boggs and Chun 1990, 125).
The Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony (Hozhooji Naat’aanii) is
a traditional form of peacemaking practiced today (Yazzie 1995; Blue-
house and Zion 1993). The ceremony is structured in ways that heal con-
flict by restoring balance to the community through prayer, expression
of emotions, traditional teachings, discussion, consensus, and reconcili-
ation (Yazzie 1995, 10). The entire process of the Harmony Ceremony is
designed to balance individual rights and group needs, which are seen as
interconnected (Yazzie 1995, 16).
contrasting worldviews: indigenous focus on
interconnectedness and western focus on atomism
“Traditionally, Native people approached the world from a cosmo-
centric perspective which emphasized the interrelatedness of everything
in the world” (LeBaron 1995, 1). The Indigenous models of conflict trans-
formation analyzed in this article are all based on a paradigm of inter-
connectedness. In the Tsalagi Talking Circle the participants are concep-
tualized as being connected to each other and to all things. The physical
circle in which they are seated depicts their worldview of reality as a web
of interconnections (Garrett 1998). Within the circle all the participants
sit in positions of equality, thus no hierarchy is established and the con-
nections are circular rather than linear.
Likewise, the Native Hawaiian peacemaking process of Ho’opono-
pono is based on concepts of interconnectedness. The metaphors that
Native Hawaiians use in this process reflect a worldview that emphasizes
534 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 534
interconnections. For example, Native Hawaiians use the metaphor “all
jam up” when speaking informally about conflict (Shook and Kwan
1987, 10). Shook and Kwan (1987, 10 –12) explain that the process of
Ho’oponopono straightens the way by restoring relationships and cor-
recting behavior. These metaphors of entanglement and disentangle-
ment address the flow of interconnections that form the web of Pacific
societies’ worldviews (Watson-Gegeo and White 1990).
Similarly, in Haudenosaunee worldview an individual is defined as
part of a network of relationships. For example, in the Haudenosaunee
Grand Council there is no hierarchy. Each child, woman, and man is al-
lowed to speak until consensus is reached. Then the consensus is relayed
to the clan mother, who shares it with their chief. In the Grand Council
the chief speaks the consensual message. In Haudenosaunee worldview
interconnectedness is reflected in this group power acquired through the
unity of heart, mind, and spirit of all of the members (How Does the
Grand Council Work? 1999).
In the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony interconnectedness
may be seen in the unified conceptualization of religious and secular as-
pects of the conflict (Bluehouse and Zion 1993, 331–34). “At the conclu-
sion of the . . . ceremony, individuals are again in their proper place,
functioning harmoniously and in beauty with everything else” (Blue-
house and Zion 1993, 332).
In contrast, Western models of conflict resolution are based on “an
analytical rather than holistic epistemology” in which effective solutions
are reached by breaking down the conflict into its component parts (Gal-
tung 1990, 316 –17). Western problem-solving models reflect an atomistic
paradigm (Avruch and Black 1990) that focuses on individuals as dis-
crete, autonomous units rather than as selves-in-relationship (Folger
and Bush 1994, 3 – 25). For example, Burton’s basic human needs ap-
proach is individualistic rather than communally based in that it defines
needs of individuals in contrast to needs of societies (Galtung 1990, 317–
19). As discussed previously in this article, most Indigenous cultures de-
fine human beings in relation rather than in isolation. These differences
in conceptualizations of human beings influence the appropriateness of
Western methodologies in conflicts involving Indigenous peoples
(Walker 1999).
The atomistic conceptualizations on which these Western models are
based also depict relationships as being separable from conflict process-
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 535
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 535
ing. Although problem-solving methods are considered to be more
beneficial to relationships than the more adversarial court-based pro-
cesses of adjudication and arbitration, reaching an agreement is priori-
tized over healing relationships.
Furthermore, Western problem-solving approaches reflect a world-
view based on “a man-over-nature conceptualisation of relations to na-
ture,” separating humans from the natural world (Galtung 1990, 319). As
such, Western conflict resolution contrasts sharply with Indigenous ap-
proaches, which honor interconnections within the natural world, ac-
knowledging animals, plants, and the animate natural world as an inte-
gral part of the process (Huber 1993; Bluehouse and Zion 1993, 332 – 33).
The role of facilitator as an impartial, unbiased observer in Western
problem-solving models also reflects an atomistic paradigm in which the
participants are considered as discrete units rather than in relation to
their interconnections. For example, the role of third-party facilitator is
not that of a well-known and respected community leader as is the case
in many Indigenous methods. In Western problem-solving models facil-
itators are selected based on beliefs about their ability to separate them-
selves from the conflict. Facilitators are expected to stand apart from the
conflict, and facilitators with little knowledge about the conflict are gen-
erally considered to be more desirable than ones with extensive knowl-
edge of the conflict (Burton 1996, 60 – 61).
contrasting worldviews: indigenous emphasis
on process and relationships and western emphasis
on technique
Indigenous approaches to transforming conflict emphasize process and
relationship above technique. Native science as a whole is characterized
by an ever-changing flux of process and relationship (Cajete 2000) in
which “A[n American Indian] peacemaking process tends to be viewed
as a ‘guiding process,’ a relationship healing journey to assist people in
returning to harmony” (LeResche 1993, 321).
The Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony emphasizes cocreative
processes as evidenced by the language used within the ceremony. Spe-
cific words within the peacemaking ceremony denote process as move-
ment toward a state of balance. For example, the leader of the ceremony
asks if the process is moving toward harmony (hozhooji) or toward
536 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 536
disharmony (hashkeeji) (Bluehouse and Zion 1993, 330). These expres-
sions illuminate a worldview founded on processes of movement and
flux rather than linear cause and effect.
The Indigenous conflict transformation approaches discussed in this
article emphasize relationships by involving many family and commu-
nity members, including extended family members, friends, and ances-
tors who are no longer present in bodily form. American Indian peace-
making “includes the widest circle of people concerned, each having a
voice if they wish, not just the immediate ‘parties’ and their representa-
tives” (LeResche 1993, 321). Furthermore, relationships with processes
and beings of the natural world are also integrated within Indigenous
conflict transformation (Huber 1993; Shook and Kwan 1987).
Indigenous choice of facilitators also reflects an emphasis on relation-
ships. Rather than selecting facilitators based on perceived impartiality,
which is the dominant consideration in most Western conflict resolu-
tion, the Indigenous processes analyzed in this article involve facilitators
who are well known to the participants and who are well versed in com-
munity beliefs, values, and history. The following discussion of these
processes reflects an emphasis on relationship as an important factor in
Indigenous conflict transformation.
In Hawaiian Ho’oponopono the leader of the session is a respected
elder chosen because ofmana, or personal power (Shook and Kwan 1987,
126 –31). The facilitators may be family elders (hanau mua), specialists
(kahuna), or healers (ho’ola). The leader uses rituals such as prayer to es-
tablish connections between family members.
In the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony the process is facili-
tated by a wise Elder (naat’aani) (Bluehouse and Zion 1993; Yazzie 1995,
10). The naat’aani reinforces the traditional values and teachings of the
Navajo people. During the ceremony the naat’aani, sometimes referred
to as the peacemaker, teaches and guides participants to traditional
Navajo values. The leader uses stories, prayers, and ceremonies that ed-
ucate participants as to how to proceed in harmony with traditional val-
ues (Yazzie 1995, 16).
The Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace reflects the importance of
maintaining balance in relationships. Both women and men hold posi-
tions of power to ensure balance and equality among the people (Aw-
iakta 1993, 169–273). In the Grand Council the clan mothers are present
to ensure that the decisions of the clan chiefs correspond to the Great
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 537
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 537
Law of Peace and continue to support the traditional belief system
(Lyons, cited in Awiakta 1983, 269–73).
The Indigenous models of conflict transformation discussed in this
chapter all privilege restoring relationships above solving specific prob-
lems. For example, the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony is de-
signed to enable the participants to discover the underlying causes of the
conflict in ways that maintain and restore relationships. This process
contrasts sharply with Western problem-solving methods in which im-
proving relationships is considered as secondary to the primary purpose
of reaching an agreement. The Justice and Harmony Ceremony process
solves problems through consensus and heals alienation by making the
offender feel part of the group again (Bluehouse and Zion 1993; Yazzie
1995). “The relationship is central . . . The method is effective because it
focuses on the parties with goodwill to reintegrate them into their com-
munity” (Bluehouse and Zion 1993, 334).
In the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony maintaining and de-
veloping harmonious relationships is considered more important than
solving the particular problems between people (Yazzie 1995; Bluehouse
and Zion 1993). A consideration of some of the major Navajo terminol-
ogy reflects their emphasis on relationships. For example, Chief Justice
Robert Yazzie translates the term k’e as meaning “that the most impor-
tant thing in life is to be yourself in good relation to others” (1995, 8).
Bluehouse and Zion (1993, 328–34) explain the meaning of k’e as en-
compassing both the respect and the solidarity needed to develop con-
sensus among the parties in conflict. In the Justice and Harmony Cere-
mony verbal expression is conducted in a respectful manner designed to
restore relationships or build new ones.
Likewise, Native Hawaiian Ho’oponopono privileges harmonious re-
lationships above problem solving. Ho’oponopono is based on a rela-
tional worldview in which a human is defined as “a self embedded in
family relationships that include manifestations and relationships in the
spiritual and natural world” (Shook and Kwan 1987, 9). This metaphor
of embeddedness illustrates the principle of reciprocity represented as a
web of mutual obligations. In a web metaphor, conflict has implications
not only for the individuals directly involved in the dispute but for the
community as a whole (Shook and Kwan 1987, 6 –11).
The Indigenous models of conflict resolution discussed here focus on
relationship through shaping participants’ speech in ways that enhance
538 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 538
and maintain relationships. Rather than an uncontrolled emotive, purg-
ing style of speech, participants are reminded that their words are pow-
erful and that they affect relationships. Participants are reminded to
speak respectfully after a full consideration of their words. For example,
Haudenosaunee conflict transformation reminds participants to speak
respectfully, mindful of their obligations to their relations (How Does
the Grand Council Work? 1999).
In many forms of Indigenous conflict transformation, silence is con-
sidered to be an effective way of responding to conflict in a way that
maintains relationships. For example, reflective silence is encouraged in
the Tsalagi Talking Circle (Garrett 1998). This contrasts with Western
conflict processing during which silence is often regarded as refusal to
cooperate (Eades 1991). In many Indigenous cultures silence is seen to
lessen conflict, and participants do not consider it obligatory to answer
direct questions (Ross 1996, 109– 10). Silence is seen to lessen conflict be-
cause answers and solutions may arise naturally when people have time
to reflect. During silent reflection participants consider what they might
have to say about a matter as well as the most respectful way to express
their point of view (Garrett 1998; Huber 1993).
In Ho’oponopono silence is also considered a natural and necessary
part of reflecting and coming to understanding. Participants are encour-
aged to engage in silence while considering their responses in regard to
traditional teachings and relationship obligations (Shook and Kwan
1987, 363).
Within the Tsalagi Talking Circle expression is much more varied than
that found within Western models of conflict resolution. Responses
range from silence to songs, prayers, stories, and dialogues. Respectful
choices of expression are encouraged, and responses are shaped by the
use of a talking stick, which indicates who is allowed to speak at a partic-
ular time (Garrett 1998, 80 –83). The talking stick also encourages the
participants to speak from and listen from the heart rather than from the
mind alone (Garrett 1998; Huber 1993).
American Indians involved in the use of the talking stick state that the
time spent in waiting for one’s turn to speak may bring about new un-
derstanding as listeners have time to reflect on others’ points of view.
They maintain that individuals’ reflections during periods of silence of-
ten assist in transformation of the conflict and healing of the alienation
brought about by the conflict (Garrett 1998; Huber 1993).
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 539
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 539
In contrast, the dominant Western models of conflict resolution em-
phasize specific techniques rather than flexible processes. Although Bur-
ton’s (1996) elaboration of the problem-solving model proposes stricter
levels of control than does Fisher and Ury’s (1981) model, both empha-
size a discrete set of techniques to move the participants toward an
agreement. For instance, Burton’s (1996, 45–82) process of conflict reso-
lution is based around fifty-six very specific techniques or “rules.” He
emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to these rules, stating that,
“In analytical facilitated conflict resolution, where tight control of dis-
cussion is required, it is most important that the rules are clearly under-
stood, consistently observed by the facilitators, and respected by all con-
cerned” (Burton 1996, 45).
Burton’s human needs approach has been criticized for its conceptu-
alization of needs as “present centered” rather than changing through
ongoing processes (Galtung 1990, 315–16). This concept contrasts starkly
with the Indigenous worldviews discussed previously in this article, in
which Indigenous conflict processing involves conceptualizations of
needs as extending generations into both the past and the future.
Likewise, Fisher and Ury’s (1981, 1997) problem-solving model is based
on a series of techniques with a narrow purpose: the satisfaction of indi-
vidual interests. Although Fisher and Ury allow more flexibility in regard
to participants, their model is also constrained by techniques designed to
lead to a mutually agreeable settlement rather than employing a more
flexible process. Both of these Western problem-solving models contrast
with Indigenous approaches that privilege process over technique.
differences in worldview: indigenous emphasis
on holistic experience and western emphasis
on intellectual experience
The Indigenous approaches to conflict transformation that are analyzed
in this article reflect holistic conceptualizations of human experience in
that they integrate intellectual, emotional, and spiritual experience. In
writing of Indigenous approaches to conflict resolution, Diane LeResche
explains the holistic approach of American Indians:
Sacred justice is going beyond the techniques for handling conflicts;
it involves going to the heart. It includes speaking from the heart,
540 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 540
from one’s feelings. It is giving advice, reminding people of their re-
sponsibilities to one another. It is helping them reconnect with the
higher spirits, or seeing the conflict in relation to the higher pur-
poses. It is helping people ease, move beyond, transform the intense
hurtful emotions like anger into reorienting and reuniting with that
which is more important than the issues of the conflict. Sacred jus-
tice is found when the importance of restoring understanding and
balance to relationships has been acknowledged. It almost always
includes apologies and forgiveness. It is people working together,
looking for mutual benefits for all in their widest circle. (LeResche
1993, 322)
Within the Indigenous conflict transformations analyzed in this ar-
ticle, emotional expression is encouraged as an integral part of the pro-
cess. For example, in the Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony emo-
tional expression is a central characteristic. The ceremony emphasizes
the central role of emotion in bringing balance to the process (Yazzie
1995). Appropriate responses during Ho’oponopono are also holistic,
stressing both emotion and intellect. The processes of Ho’oponopono
include sincerity, “talking from the guts,” a willingness to express emo-
tional truth as well as the facts regarding the conflict (Boggs and Chun
1990, 132). Under the Great Law of Peace each individual is encouraged
to treat others as equals, with respect. Thus, in Haudenosaunee conflict
transformation each person is expected to express emotions, yet to do so
in ways that do not foster resentment or hatred. Participants are to use
health of body, mind, and spirit to promote well-being between people
and nations (Great Law of Peace 1999). “At its core, American Indian
peacemaking is inherently spiritual; it speaks to the connectedness of all
things; it focuses on unity, on harmony, on balancing the spiritual, intel-
lectual, emotional, and physical dimensions of a community of people”
(LeResche 1993, 321). Haudenosaunee conflict transformation openly ad-
dresses the spiritual aspects of human experience. For example, Hau-
denosaunee processes involve the development of individual power
called orenda, the basic spiritual power of each person. The Hau-
denosaunee state that the Great Law of Peace depends on the individual
development of each person’s orenda as it relates to the well-being of the
community, the nation, and the confederacy (Great Law of Peace 1999).
The Navajo Justice and Harmony Ceremony also involves spiritual as-
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 541
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 541
pects of transforming conflict. The process involves prayer, ceremony,
and ritual that honor Navajo spiritual beliefs and thus increase the re-
ceptiveness of the people involved. In describing the importance of the
spiritual aspects of the ceremony, Chief Justice Yazzie explains: “The In-
dian world is not solely a material world. There is a spiritual dimension
to life. Many Indian groups are not secular societies; they do not separate
spirituality from everyday life. In general Indian belief, the people of the
spirit world are very much a part of daily life; they actively participate in
it” (Yazzie 1995, 10). Likewise, the Cherokee describe their traditional
processing of conflict as holistic, integrating both civic and spiritual as-
pects of participants’ experience (Awiakta 1993, Garrett 1998).
In Hawaiian Ho’oponopono, conceptualizations of relationships in-
clude those relatives who have died and may participate in spirit form.
For example, in Native Hawaiian worldview the concept of family in-
cludes amakua, spirit relations who remain senior members of clans
(Shook and Kwan 1987, 7). Likewise, ancestors are often invoked in the
Tslagi Talking Circle (Garrett 1998), the Navajo Justice and Harmony
Ceremony (Bluehouse and Zion 1993; Yazzie 1995), and the Haudeno-
saunee Grand Council (How Does the Grand Council Work? 1999).
In contrast, the Western problem-solving models explored in this
article privilege intellectual analysis over emotional expression, spiri-
tual experience, and experience of the natural world. Western problem-
solving models consider emotions to be an inevitable part of the conflict
resolution proceedings; however, they are considered to be an aspect
that has to be “worked through” in order to get to the real business of an-
alyzing the problem in ways that lead to solutions (Avruch 1998, 78). In
most cases emotional expression is allowed only for the purpose of
“venting” the emotions so that the participants can move on to the more
important issues underlying the conflict (Folger and Bush 1994, 271). Un-
restrained venting of emotions without adequate safeguards may lead to
further deterioration of the relationships involved.
Spirituality is neither mentioned nor integrated into either of the
Western problem-solving models under discussion here. Indeed, many
Indigenous researchers comment on the problematic lack of spirituality
within Western models of processing conflict (Huber 1993; Shook and
Kwan 1987; Yazzie 1995). Neither of the Western problem-solving mod-
els mention relationship with the natural world as an integral part of the
conflict resolution procedures. Johann Galtung (1990, 318–19) expressly
542 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 542
criticizes the way in which nature is “desouled” within Western conflict
resolution, raising the possibility that “animals, plants and other forms
of nature” might be conceptualized as possessing needs. Furthermore, he
raises the possibility of challenges to current conflict resolution theory in
regard to relationship with the natural world.
differences in worldview: indigenous expanded
conceptualizations of time and western linear,
bounded conceptualizations of time
The Indigenous approaches to processing conflict discussed in this ar-
ticle reflect a worldview of time that is more expansive than the domi-
nant Western linear conceptualization of time. First, in many Indigenous
worldviews time is conceived of as cyclical rather than linear. Second,
time is measured according to the meaning that is held within the web of
interconnections that make up the Indigenous worldview. Last, mean-
ingful measures of time extend to include members of previous and fu-
ture generations. Within these conceptualizations of time, conflict pro-
cessing is designed to implement long-term sustainable change.
In Haudenosaunee conflict methodology time is viewed holistically as
it relates to all the people, the natural world, and the social processes of
the community. Consideration is taken of what needs to be done to re-
store harmony to the individuals involved and to the community as a
whole. Rather than terminating sessions based on clock or calendar time,
sufficient time is allowed to reach consensus (How Does the Grand
Council Work? 1999). Likewise, participants in the Tsalagi Talking Circle
seek to resolve problems in ways that restore long-term harmony and
balance within relationships and the community at large (Garrett 1998).
The Justice and Harmony Ceremony is designed to develop under-
standing of the underlying causes of the conflict under consideration. In
Navajo worldview to get rid of disharmony one must identify it, bring it
out into the open, and examine it (Yazzie 1995, 14). This process may in-
volve consideration of many generations: “Sometimes people will go
back for generations to describe some ancient wrongdoing and a history
of relationships. It is proper, because it gets to the bottom of things”
(Yazzie 1995, 11–12). Thus, the processes of the Justice and Harmony Cer-
emony enable the participants to address conflict in ways that sustain
long-term change (Bluehouse and Zion 1993; Yazzie 1995).
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 543
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 543
The Haudenosaunee approach to transforming conflict is designed to
develop consensual agreements that both address the conflict and restore
relationships that extend throughout time (Great Law of Peace 1999).
Their procedures seek to make explicit the underlying causes of dishar-
mony and allow the people involved to make the necessary changes to re-
store balance to the web of community for seven generations.
Within these Indigenous processes the language used in the cere-
monies reflects the emphasis on sustaining harmony over long periods
of time. For example, in Ho’oponopono once the conflict has been
transformed the participants are instructed to avoid future discussion of
the problem. This process of formally closing the conflict off from dis-
cussion is named oki and signifies a cutting off, sealing up, and healing
of the conflict (Boggs and Chun 1990, 132; Shook and Kwan 1987, 16).
In the Tsalagi Talking Circle the formal closing of the circle also rep-
resents the closing of the conflict, designed to sustain harmony over long
periods of time. The problems discussed within the circle are not to be
mentioned outside the circle. Cherokees explain this process as one that
develops respect for the participants and the sacredness of the ceremony,
thus enhancing the long-term sustainability of the decisions reached
(Garrett 1998).
The Mi’kmaq and Ojibway peoples have ancient verb tenses that are
utilized to allow lessons to be learned from previous conflicts that have
been healed and closed. Using the forgiveness tense holds the message
that “this event has been concluded to the satisfaction of all” (Ross 1996,
188). The forgiveness tense establishes a framework of meaning that in-
dicates the conflict, the victims, the aggressors, and the community have
been healed, while allowing the power of the stories involved to help oth-
ers facing similar conflicts. In this way the conflict is revisited in a safe
manner, maintaining closure on the original conflict while serving as a
healing process that assists in current conflict transformation (Ross 1996,
188 – 89).
In Indigenous conflict transformation time is often measured within
its context of “right time,” considering the moment in relation to what is
happening with other members of the community and within the natu-
ral world (Ross 1996, 73 –75). Conflict transformation scholar John Paul
Lederach defines right time as “placing oneself in the stream of time and
space and determining at any given moment what things mean and
therefore what should be done” (1995, 96). In their working paper on
544 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 544
Ho’oponopono, Shook and Kwan (1987, 11) give an example of right time
in their practice. They explain that disrupted schedules are often indica-
tors that the time is not right to implement a particular action. They ex-
plain that right time is indicated when things fall into place and the “way
is clear.”
A further example of right time may be found in Haudenosaunee con-
flict transformation, in which quality of time is an important considera-
tion. For example, sessions are never held at night when the participants
might be tired and their responses affected by fatigue (What Is the Great
Law of Peace? 1999). Value is not placed on completing the sessions in re-
lation to clock time or deadlines based on the calendar but on complet-
ing the process when all aspects of the conflict have been dealt with in the
proper manner (Ross 1996).
In contrast, Western problem-solving approaches schedule sessions
based on linear, finite definitions of time (Burton 1996, 82). For example,
in Burton’s problem-solving model of conflict resolution facilitators are
instructed to complete the sessions within the shortest possible time
frames. These approaches contrast with Indigenous conflict processing
in which time is viewed as cyclical and appropriate time is measured
both in relation to many generations and to the interconnections be-
tween the conflict, the participants, society, and the natural world.
summary
In this article I have argued that Western problem-solving models of
conflict resolution are not culturally universal as some authors claim.
Rather, they reflect unacknowledged cultural underpinnings of Western
worldview. I further maintain that assertions of cultural universality of
Western models represent a form of ontological violence by marginaliz-
ing Indigenous ways of conflict transformation. A number of scholars
argue that Western problem-solving models of conflict resolution, rather
than being acultural, merely fail to make explicit the cultural basis of
their own approach (Avruch and Black 1991). For example, the cultural
parameters of Western conflict resolution often remain at an “out-of-
awareness” level:
We think of the practice of mediation as the application of tech-
niques... yet these techniques are embedded within a surrounding
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 545
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 545
cultural framework of unrecognized and taken for granted concep-
tions of the social world. This cultural framework consists of ideas
about when to fight and when to compromise, notions of the self in
relation to others, and theories about which third parties are en-
titled to intervene in problems and in what ways. To those who
share this implicit framework, it is simply the natural and sensible
way of doing things. (Merry 1987, 1)
Indigenous peoples who do not share this implicit framework may
find their worldviews and ways of transforming conflict marginalized or
suppressed. Current literature on culture and conflict resolution criti-
cizes the application of Western paradigms to conflicts involving Indige-
nous peoples (Grose 1995; Beattie 1997; Yazzie 1995) and urges further re-
search to determine the conflict resolution methods of other cultures
(Avruch and Black 1991, 31–37). In the last ten years a growing number of
researchers have addressed Indigenous processing of conflict, including
Beattie (1997), Garrett (1998), Grose (1995), Huber (1993), LaResche
(1993), LeBaron (1995), Walker (2001), and Yazzie (1995). Nevertheless,
the majority of formal research on processing conflict continues to focus
on Western methodologies.
Western problem-solving models are frequently imported into In-
digenous communities with few modifications (Beattie 1997; Grose 1995;
Lederach 1995). Ron Kraybill describes this proselytization of Western
conflict resolution stating that, “Where religions send missionaries, con-
flict resolution organisations send trainers” (1996, 22). Elements of on-
tological violence are evidenced in the marginalization of Indigenous ap-
proaches to conflict transformation through the promotion of Western
approaches. These differences in worldview are more than cultural
points of interest. They are the sites of political contestation of power.
Indigenous methods of conflict transformation are marginalized within
the Western discipline of conflict resolution. The Western methods of re-
solving conflict that are often imported into Indigenous communities
are based on an extremely different worldview. Western societies’ power
and willingness to implement their models without consideration of
Indigenous worldviews perpetuates ontological violence, the forceful in-
troduction of one worldview to the extent that it marginalizes or sup-
presses another worldview. Decolonizing the discipline of conflict reso-
546 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 546
lution involves developing a deeper understanding of, respect for, and
acknowledgement of Indigenous worldviews. The decolonizing process
also involves creating support for Indigenous people to be able to access
conflict transformation processes that are in alignment with Indigenous
worldviews.
references
Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington dc: United
States Institute of Peace Press.
Avruch, Kevin, and Peter Black. 1990. “Ideas of Human Nature in Contemporary
Conflict Resolution Theory.”Negotiation Journal 6 (3): 221– 28.
———. 1991. “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution.” Peace & Change
16 (1): 22– 45.
Awiakta, Marilou. 1993. Selu, Seeking the Corn-Mother’s Wisdom. Golden co:
Fulcrum Publishing.
Barnes, Bruce E. 1994. “Conflict Resolution Across Cultures: A Hawaii Perspec-
tive and a Pacific Mediation Model.” Mediation Quarterly 12 (2): 117 –33.
Beattie, Scott. 1997. “Is Mediation a Real Alternative to Law? Pitfalls for Aborigi-
nal Participants.” Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 8 (1): 57– 69.
Begay, David H., and Nancy Maryboy. 1998. “Nanit’a Sa’ah Naaghai Nanit’a
Bik’eh Hozhoon, Living the Order: Dynamic Cosmic Process of Dine Cos-
mology.” PhD diss., California Institute of Integral Studies.
Behrendt, Larissa. 1995.Aboriginal Dispute Resolution. Sydney: Federation Press.
Bendana, Alejandro. 1996. “Conflict Resolution: Empowerment and Disem-
powerment.” Peace & Change 21 (1): 68 –77.
Bluehouse, Philmer, and James Zion. 1993. “Hozhooji Naat’aanii: The Navajo
Justice and Harmony Ceremony.”Mediation Quarterly 10 (4): 327–37.
Boggs, S. T., and M. Chun. 1990. “Ho’oponopono,” in Distentangling Discourse
in Pacific Societies, edited by K. A. Watson-Gegeo and G. M. White. Stanford
ca: Stanford University Press.
Bopp, J., M. Bopp, L. Brown, and P. Lane Jr. 1989. The Sacred Tree. 3rd ed. Twin
Lakes wi: Lotus Light Publications.
Burton, John W. 1987. Resolving Deep Rooted Conflict: A Handbook. Lanham md:
University Press of America.
———. 1996. Conflict Resolution. Lanham md: Scarecrow Press.
Cajete, Gregory. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe
nm: Clear Light Publishers.
Camilleri, Joseph A. 1994. “Human Rights, Cultural Diversity and Conflict Res-
olution: The Asia Pacific Context.” Pacifica Review 6 (2): 17 – 41.
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 547
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 547
Clements, Kevin P. 1994. “Conflict and Conflict Resolution in the Asia Pacific
Region: Culture, Problem-Solving and Peacemaking.” Pacifica Review 6 (2):
1– 15.
Cohen, Raymond. 1991. Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in
International Diplomacy. Washington dc: United States Institute of Peace
Press.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1995. Red Earth, White Lies. New York: Scribner.
Eades, Diana. 1991. “Communicative Strategies in Aboriginal English.” In Lan-
guage in Australia, edited by S. Romaine, 84–93. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Fisher, Roger, and William Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes: Agreement without Giving In.
Boston: Penguin.
———. 1997. Getting to Yes: Agreement without Giving In, edited by B. Patton.
2nd ed. London: Arrow Business Books.
Folger, Joseph P., and Robert Bush. 1994. “Ideology, Orientations to Conflict,
and Mediation Discourse.” In New Directions in Mediation, edited by Joseph
P. Folger and T. Jones, 3 –25. Thousand Oaks ca: Sage Publications.
Galtung, Johan. 1990. “International Development in Human Perspective.” In
Conflict: Human Needs Theory, edited by J. W. Burton. London: Macmillan.
———. 1996.Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development, and Civ-
ilization. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.
Garrett, Michael. 1998. Walking on the Wind. Santa Fe nm: Bear.
Great Law of Peace. 1999. Available online at http://sixnations.buffnet.net/
Great_Law_of_Peace/.
Grose, Peter R. 1995. “An Indigenous Imperative: The Rationale for the Recogni-
tion of Aboriginal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.” Mediation Quarterly 12
(4): 327– 38.
Hall, Edward T. 1977. Beyond Culture. Garden City ny: Anchor Press.
———. 1983. The Dance of Life. Garden City ny: Anchor Books.
Hofstede, Geert. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Difference in Work-
Related Values. Beverly Hills ca: Sage Publications.
How Does the Grand Council Work? 1999. Available online at http://buffnet.net/
Great_Law_of_Peace/?articlehow_does_grand_council_work.
Huber, Marg. 1993. “Mediation Around the Medicine Wheel.” Mediation Quar-
terly 10 (4): 355– 65.
Kickingbird, Kirke, and Lynne Shelby Kickingbird. 1987. Indians and the U.S.
Constitution: A Forgotten Legacy. Washington dc: Institute for the Develop-
ment of Indian Law.
Kraybill, Ron. 1996. “Elicitive Training: Dealing with Conflict Cross-Culturally.”
Conflict Resolution News (June): 22–23.
548 Walker: Decolonizing Conflict Resolution
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 548
LaResche, Diane. 1993. “American Indians Perspectives on Peacemaking.” Medi-
ation Quarterly 10 (4): 321–22.
LeBaron, Michelle. 1995. “Conflict Resolution in Native Cultures.”
nidr
Forum
7 (Spring): 1– 4.
Lederach, John Paul. 1991. “Of Nets, Nails, and Problems: The Folk Language of
Conflict Resolution in a Central American Setting.” In Conflict Resolution:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by K. Avruch, P. W. Black, and J. Scimecca.
New York: Greenwood Press.
———. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syra-
cuse ny: Syracuse University Press.
Merry, Sally E. 1987. “Cultural Frameworks of Mediation.” University of Hawai’i
Program on Conflict Resolution, Occasional Paper Series, no. 2.
Meyer, Manulani A. 1998. “Native Hawaiian Epistemology: Contemporary Nar-
ratives.” PhD diss., Harvard University.
Nudler, Oscar. 1990. “On Conflicts and Metaphors: Toward an Extended Ratio-
nality.” In Conflict: Human Needs Theory, edited by J. Burton. London:
Macmillan Press.
Peat, F. David. 1994. Blackfoot Physics: A Journey into the Native American Uni-
verse. London: Fourth Estate.
Reynolds, Henry. 1999. Why Weren’t We Told? Victoria, Australia: Penguin
Books.
Ross, Rupert. 1996. Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice.
Toronto: Penguin Books.
Shook, Evelyn V., and Leonard K. Kwan. 1987. “Straightening Relationships and
Settling Disputes in Hawai’i: Ho’oponopono and Mediation.” University of
Hawai’i Program on Conflict Resolution, Occasional Paper Series, no. 10.
Szalay, Leonard. 1981. “Intercultural Communication—A Process Model.” In-
ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations 5 (2): 133– 46.
Walker, Polly. 1998. “Social Cosmology and Conflict: Metaphors of Indigenous
and Western ‘Worlds.’” In Re-Thinking the Social, 199 –204. Brisbane qld:
Griffith University.
———. 1999. “Concepts of the Self: Implications for Cross-Cultural Conflict
Resolution.”
adr
Bulletin 2 (2): 17– 18, 24.
———. 2001. “Mending the Web: Conflict Transformation between Aboriginal
and Non-Indigenous Australians.” PhD diss., University of Queensland.
Watson-Gegeo, Karen, and Geoffrey White. 1990. Disentangling: Conflict Dis-
course in Pacific Societies. Stanford ca: Stanford University Press.
Yazzie, Robert. 1995. “Traditional Navajo Dispute Resolution in the Navajo
Peacemaker Court.”
nidr
Forum (Spring).
american indian quarterly /summer & fall 2004/vol. 28, nos. 3 & 4 549
01a-N3381 3/3/05 2:19 PM Page 549
