Nishnaabeg Sovereignty, Ontology, and Epistemology

Introduction

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2014) asserts there is an irresolvable conflict between state-run education and Nishnaabeg ontology and epistemology. The former is an inherently anti-sovereignty colonizing mechanism; while the latter regenerates individual and group/nation sovereignty. She argues for the refusal and dismantling of colonial structures that are not able to provide the proper conditions for Indigenous self-determination and self-actualization.

Regeneration of Sovereignty through Learning

In contrast to a western “power over” style of sovereignty that is hierarchical and heavily dependent on land possession and border defenses, Simpson (2015) writes that diverse Indigenous understandings of sovereignty relate to self-determination and reciprocal relationships, including with the land. She states: “our idea of sovereignty accommodates separate jurisdictions and separate sovereignties over a shared territory as long as everyone is operating in a respectful and responsible manner” (p. 19). Sovereignty from this perspective includes sustainment and continuation of Indigenous ways of being and knowing, including deep theory and complex social systems, across generations.

Goals and Processes of Nishnaabeg Learning

To understand what it means to regenerate knowledge, we must consider what this knowledge entails, and the processes through which its regeneration takes place. Simpson (2014) describes how this occurs in a Nishnaabeg context.

Simpson (2014) describes how the Implicate Order (the spirit world) bestows gifts upon individuals, ensuring the range of diverse skills needed for the community’s wellbeing are present. The Implicate Order then guides individuals to realize and develop their gifts through dreams, ceremony, stories, and visions.

These transmittances take place in the setting of aki. Aki includes and can be translated as “land”; but is broader than common sense notions of land. It includes people, practices, places, plants, animals, ceremony, spirituality, medicine, language, and more – all in relationship.

Learning through immersion in aki requires repeating past generations’ experience of Nishnaabeg existence on the land with the loving guidance and support of parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, elders, and ancestors. Stories provided by the implicate order are used to transmit complex theory across generations. Children achieve a basic understanding of stories when they are young, which then grows deeper and more complex as the story is retold through their lives in many life and relational contexts, graduating from concept to metaphor to application and finally teaching and modelling over time.

Learners are responsible for discovering and developing their individual gifts, attaining mastery, and then modelling the teachings they have received. The resulting knowledge held by each person is unique, resulting in a plurality of truths that collectively support the community to thrive. Because knowledge is plural, care is taken not to refute others’ experiences and knowledges. Imposing one person’s experiences and knowledge on another could undermine their ability to self-actualize.

Each learner must be respected as sovereign (self-determining). Learning is not coerced or forced. It occurs through informed consent and mutual respect, which reproduces sovereignty rather than dominance and oppression.

Refusal

Simpson (2014) demonstrates the ways in which the western colonial education system is fundamentally incompatible with Nishnaabeg ontology and epistemology. Specifically, the modern western education system directly diminishes capacity for Nishnaabeg regeneration through reducing time and proximity for access to aki. Knowledge is also imposed and coercive, undermining and reducing capacity for self-determination and self-actualization. Hierarchy and domination – western modes of sovereignty – are regenerated instead. Simpson (2014) asserts, “Indigenous education is not Indigenous or education from without our cultural traditions unless it comes through the land, unless it occurs in an Indigenous context using Indigenous processes” (p. 9).

While Simpson does not advocate for the total abandonment of western education by Indigenous people, she highlights the need to correct the current imbalance which insists Nishnaabeg children and youth immerse themselves in colonial systems of learning, knowing, and being. She (2014) concludes that Nishnaabeg people should refuse to languish within the western, state-run, colonial education system, and instead do what is needed to assure regeneration of Nishnabeeg sovereignty – including “sabotage” of colonial structures (p. 22).

References

Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 1-25. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22170/17985

Simpson, L. B. (2015). The place where we all live and work together: A gendered analysis of “sovereignty.” in S. N. Teyes et al., Native Studies Keywords (pp. 18-24). University of Arizona Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183gxzb.5

See Also

Ahenakew, C. R. (2017). Mapping and complicating conversations about Indigenous education. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 11(2), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2017.1278693

Flowers, R. (2015). Refusal to forgive: Indigenous women’s love and rage. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(2), 32-49. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22829

Suggested Readings for Further Study

Barajas-López, F., & Bang, M. (2018). Indigenous making and sharing: Claywork in an Indigenous STEAM program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1437847

Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1005-1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12779

Sabzalian, L. (2016). Native feminisms in motion. The English Journal, 106(1), 23-30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26359312

Sabzalian, L. (2018). Curricular standpoints and native feminist theories: Why native feminist theories should matter to curriculum studies. Curriculum Inquiry, 48(3), 359-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2018.1474710

Sabzalian, L. (2019). The tensions between Indigenous sovereignty and multicultural citizenship education: Toward an anticolonial approach to civic education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47(3), 311-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1639572