First, let us delve into Ruck and Wolfe’s concept. The frontier, as Ruck and Wolfe describe it, refers to the colonizer’s perceived boundary between the known and the “unknown”, the civilized and the “savage”, the settled and the “wild”. They argue the fantasy of “taming” the frontier was not only a form of cognitive dissonance that allowed settlers to do illegal and heinous things back in the day, but it still pervades today. I often hear white people talk of Indigenous nations as “conquered”, “depleted” or “chaotic” and that is why Indigenous Peoples are not at the table. Indigenous Peoples are not at the table because they are not invited.
Decolonizing decision-making processes and structures is ground zero for the battle between truth and reconciliation and the cognitive dissonance of the romance of the frontier. The committee-level provides great potential to change things in whatever area we practise in, Why? Because the committee is a community that is powerful and oversees wider projects, strategic plans, and other various initiatives whose decisions cause a ripple effect on society and it remains dominated by white people in power who mirror each other.
There are several examples of successful approaches to decolonizing decision-making that I have observed in practice, which demonstrate the importance of including diverse perspectives, embracing collaboration, and prioritizing respect and inclusivity, they are as follows:
- Decolonizing Robert’s Rule of Order:
- Robert’s Rules of Order, as a set of procedures for running meetings and making decisions, were developed within a Western context and are based on a hierarchical, individualistic approach to decision making. While they may be effective in some settings, there is a growing recognition that they may not be suitable, particularly for those at the table who have been impacted by colonization.
- Critics argue that Robert’s Rules of Order, and other similar decision-making tools, are tools of colonization because they prioritize the voices of those in power and are often used to silence marginalized voices. The rules may also be viewed as a form of cultural imperialism, as they impose Western decision-making practices on other cultures and communities.
- Decolonizing decision-making structures involves recognizing the limitations of tools like Robert’s Rules of Order and actively working to adapt decision-making processes to better reflect the values and needs of everyone at the table. This may involve incorporating Indigenous ways of knowing, such as consensus-based decision-making, and ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.
- Including Indigenous Knowledge Holders: Decolonizing decision-making structures involves recognizing that Indigenous knowledge holders have important insights and perspectives to contribute. Therefore, it is important to include Indigenous knowledge holders in decision-making processes and to ensure that their contributions are given equal weight to those of Western experts.
- Developing Culturally Appropriate Decision-Making Processes: Many decision-making processes are designed with a Western, individualistic mindset, which is not appropriate in the dynamism of diversity today. Decolonizing decision-making structures involves developing fluid and responsive decision-making processes that are inclusive, respectful, and reflective of the unique values of other voices. The only framework I have seen that can handle that is the Indigenous Sharing Circle.
- Emphasizing Relationship-Building: In many Indigenous cultures, decision-making is not just about the outcome, but also about the relationships that are built and strengthened through the process. Decolonizing decision-making structures involves emphasizing relationship-building and prioritizing the well-being of the community over individual interests.
- Prioritizing Community Consultation and Consent: Decolonizing decision-making structures involves recognizing that decisions that impact Indigenous communities should be made in consultation with those communities, and with their free, prior, and informed consent. This means taking the time to build relationships with communities, listening to their concerns and perspectives, and ensuring that they have a meaningful say in the decisions that impact their lives. In legal terms, it is called the duty to consult, and I do not see it happening at the committee level anywhere in Canada.
In conclusion, Ruck and Wolfe’s concept of the frontier provides a valuable lens through which we can understand the biases and power imbalances that arise from settler colonialism today. This framework allows society to recognize the ways in which colonization has shaped the powerful and privileged worldviews and operating structures – which is rooted in the frontier notion. Indigenous Peoples were not and are not conquered – Treaties were made and they are not respected – Indigenous laws are here and ignored. Settlers automatically move to white innocence as soon as these facts are highlighted. But the committee level remains a good opportunity to work together as a community to unpack decision-making structures and process and learn how to incorporate Indigenous ways.
Sources: Daniel Ruck, “The Laws of the Land: The Settler Colonial Invasion of Kahnaw:ke in Nineteenth-Century Canada”, Sept. 15, 2021: https://goodminds.com/products/the-laws-and-the-land-the-settler-colonial-invasion-of-kahnawa-ke-in-nineteenth-century-canada-sept-15-21
The Champlain Society is a registered charity that is driven by its vision for a better future for Canada through a better understanding of its past. Its mission is to promote original historical content, such as the Witness to Yesterday: Interfering with Indigenous Law: Settler Colonial Invasion and Land Theft podcast: https://champlainsociety.utpjournals.press/podcast/wty/interfering-with-indigenous-law-settler-colonial-invasion-and-land-theft-with-david-r%C3%BCck