It could be argued that FNEN fits under Community Organizing as 'organizing' is about obtaining collective power for ordinary people. Yet, while it is true that many of FNEN's efforts focus on creating a collective voice for those ordinary people affected by environmental issues, the organization fulfils a community development role in that they work to bring about social change. Community development is essentially about change; it is about taking purposive action to support, enhance or build communities in order to effect positive change (Dueck, 2006; Rubin & Rubin, 2001).

Ideologically, FNEN is not a confrontational social change organization, but rather, attempts to achieve its goals by negotiating with those in power, building consensus and bringing about change through education and research. In fact, the more we learned about FNEN, the more we believed it exhibited characteristics of the social production model. Rubin and Rubin (2001) state, “In the social production model, people are more likely to work with those in power than directly confront them” (p. 18). FNEN representative, Susanne Hare (2006 personal correspondence) states, “Confrontation is not a beneficial option overall.”

Moreover, the FNEN cultural value system is primary to the institution itself. This is the essence of the FNEN community, the social glue that builds capacity. According to Rubin and Rubin (2001), "Social production projects build capacity, provide resources for the community as a whole and works to help those who have been left behind by a changing economy [or in our case, a changing environment that inhibits future generations from enjoying traditional lands]" (p. 385). As such, to work towards purposive social change, FNEN practices community development by helping to create a sense that change is possible and to show the way, by 'framing' environmental issues, and uses a community development model which mobilizes existing organizations. As Rubin and Rubin (2001) state, “History allows us to figure out what works and when it [improves the social fabric of FNEN] and teaches us the necessity of choosing tactics that will match an evolving political and social climate” (p. 67). Susanne Hare (2006 personal correspondence) states, “The Steering Committee of the FNEN across Canada …have done a great deal to help bring forward traditional knowledge in respect for all life.”

According to Rubin and Rubin (2001), “Community development occurs when people strengthen the bonds within their neighbourhoods [through traditional knowledge and customs], build social networks [through respect and understanding], and form their own organizations [FNEN] to provide a long-term capacity for problem solving” (p. 3). FNEN facilitates collective empowerment through its communications and networks and by teaching people that they share a responsibility to protect and sustain the environment and by so doing create social capital - an important resource for future community actions. They 'develop community' by "linking people and organizations to one another in ways that allow exchanges of information, social support, and material resources" (Rubin & Rubin, p.184).

Whether classified as 'community organizing' or 'community development,' in FNEN we see the overlapping of the faces of Community Development in real-life organizations, a reality that is discussed and promoted in much of the MAIS 603 course texts. We learn that a combination of models/methods and actions is required for effective community development. Like life, community development is not mutually exclusive and clearly delineated activities, but rather overlapping and intertwined undertakings to get to the final goal.

As such, community development as a practice is multi-disciplinary. It is a simplistic yet complex model that places Community Development, community organization, social planning and community economic development as adjuncts in the commitment to the overall tradition of the practice. Bringing the best aspects to a community must also spring from sociological, intellectual, philosophical and all other disciplines that, in themselves, combine to support community development as a whole and as a practice.

Barriers

FNEN has experienced multiple barriers in its community development efforts. While some barriers have been of a pragmatic nature - such as the economic and politic power of big business, perhaps the greatest barriers relate to issues of systemic cultural racism and the organization's push for ideological social change to create more 'collective responsibility' for environmental degradation solutions.

FNEN works from a grassroots level to empower marginalized voices. However, we see an example of the disempowerment of minority voices - by systemic racism, by democratic processes - in their experiences with the Institute on Governance (IOG). IOG was part of the governing process by which FNEN ended up leaving the CEN. Susanne Hare (2006 personal correspondence) claims that the IOG demanded that FNEN become a governing process that was entirely foreign to First Nations traditional understandings and processes, and adopting a non-native form of governance. As well, FNEN did not receive enough funding from the CEN to accommodate their increasing demands nor want to participate in being assimilated into something like the IOG. Hare (2006 personal correspondence) states, "Our original relationship was of two canoes going down the same river but it ended up being one big canoe with First Nations marginalized and not having a voice."

FNEN still receives information predominantly from some of the provincial networks of the CEN, such as BCEN and NBEN and participate in some of the regional work as they have common interests and work together on many of the regional environmental issues. As such, FNEN remains on the membership list of BCEN. But Hare (2006) stresses, "we are cautious to maintain our own network and cultural differences intact. There is something very valuable in the traditional perspectives and ancient relationship with Mother Earth and All Our Relations through which we really appreciate working towards solutions."

FNEN is not the only indigenous group to experience such cultural and ideological incompatibilities. During an environmental assessment in February 2005, the Oneida and two other aboriginal groups -- the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and Munsee-Delaware First Nation -- pulled out of negotiations because they believed it was not the proper process for consultation. It would appear that such failures go beyond disagreements regarding First Nations traditional principles of relating to the land versus a 'rational science' approach to environmental solutions. Rather, negotiation breakdown appears to be the result of fundamental incongruences in the way each group wishes to approach the process - between First Nations "ways of knowing" and Western "ways of knowing." As Canadian activist, David Orten, explains, “In building alliances with Native peoples in Canada on a basis of ‘equality’ [loosely defined], everything is up for critical discussion, including basic assumptions."

For example, Andrew Dobson, researcher with UK Economic Social and Research Council tells us that “social justice and environmental sustainability are not always compatible objectives." Moreover, rational science teaches us that the environmental assessment process along with the risk management assessment is the only and best way to meet the corporate, cultural, and communities’ demands while increasing the likelihood of conservation in fragile lands. However, the community voice and input section of these processes can sometimes be more or less rhetoric to appease the corporate interests, underplaying the entire macro-ecological point-of-view and discounting the perspectives of other cultures that might not quantify nature in ways that our governments (and corporations) agree on.

Community development projects and organizations described by Rasmussen (2005) as "rescuers" of indigenous communities may discount traditional knowledge and indigenous critical practices for constructing and defending knowledge. In contrast to modernity's rational science, "[t]he law of Native science requires that we look ahead seven generations when making decisions” (Colorado, 1988). In the name of progress, "Farmland and forest have been removed from local fabrics of subsistence and converted to substrates for export cropping; rivers usurped to provide power for new urban sectors.... The diversity of knowledge held by local people has been devalued, pulverized and supplanted by a handful of disciplines - Western science, economics and management controlled by outsiders." (Lohman, 1993, cited in Rasmussen, p. 188). Native organizations such as FNEN take a more holistic and long-range view, thinking about eliminating processes and systems that lead to environmental degradation - looking ahead seven generations - and perhaps beyond.

Non-natives -- even those with many years experience working on environmental issues and public involvement and consultation processes -- may continue to be mystified by those individuals or groups who choose to pull out of negotiations even when the process has been clearly defined and agreed to. Sometimes the reason given is that the terms of reference appear to limit the groups abilities to really get at the issues that they thought were important towards making more informed decisions. This can happen when information from Subject Matter Experts introduces new issues or challenges than those that had originally been thought of when the terms of reference were drafted. Other times, the process fails because there are perceptions that the trade-offs stakeholders are required to make involve unknown consequences or risk-taking they are not comfortable in assuming on behalf the group or communities they represent.

For First Nations it can be an enormous undertaking to deal with environmental impact assessments because they often consider their decision-making in terms of the affects on "seven generations" - meaning they must not impair the opportunities of future generations to enjoy the quality of life and environment the current generation now benefits from. Many First Nations also consider lands outside of their reserves and territories as part of their traditional lands (subject to land claims or at least some form of cooperative management that address First Nations issues) adding to the complexity of what appropriate and effective protocols for First Nations or Tribal consultation means and what criteria should be used.

FNEN's cultural value system is primary to the institution itself. For example, after working hard to be accepted in the CEN network they later decided to drop out and pulled out of negotiations because they believed “it was not the proper process for consultation.”

2002 Press Release from First Nations Environmental Network

FIRST NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK WALKS AWAY FROM CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK AFTER MORE THAN 10 YEARS EFFORT

"It is a time of change for the FNEN. After years of working with the Canadian Environmental Network, we have found that we cannot maintain First Nation’s cultural identity and work within the structure and system of the Canadian Environmental Network as it now exists. First Nation’s voices have been lost in the status quo and a proposal for restructuring to enable stronger First Nation’s participation in the organization has proved to be ineffective at accomplishing new mechanisms of interaction that satisfy and encourage FNEN’s continued presence within the network of the CEN.(from www.nben.ca/environews/media/mediaarchives/02/oct/fnen.htm)

 

There is much pride and passion behind FNEN's voice of dissent. It is possible that many groups would not drop out of a process if it meant more political power and clout even if it went against their ideals. Other times groups concede for fear of retaliation. A posting on the FNEN forum states, "The First Nations Environmental Network hears from communities across the country. They have noticed a disturbing pattern. Wherever First Nations opposed the extraction of the resources in their territory, they are oppressed and harassed such as at Grassy Narrows in Ontario where they have been fighting Abitibi for years, or Blueberry River against mining. When First Nations negotiators or councils approved resource extraction in their territories, they were applauded and given recognition, money and promises of future prosperity" (Steve Lawson- Council of Fire).

 

Hare (2006 personal correspondence) explains that the FNEN's experiences with the IOG was very upsetting for many of their members and those on the FNEN Steering Committee. However, this did not deter FNEN from pressing on and fulfilling their vision. As Hare (2006) states, "the Steering Committee voted, in spite of losing our core funding, to leave the CEN as FNEN was and still is, a very amazing network, before and after the CEN."

 

Conclusion

 

"Power and control is in and free thought and natural law are out. This has happened many times before and we are not so concerned here in Indian Land as we know there are a few of the memory keepers that will remember and that we are never alone. The Spirits of the old ones still walk with us. We have been given guides so that we do not lose the way." - Mitakuye Oyasin, www.fnen.org

 

Community development can be led by people with a formal knowledge of its practices, and/or by grassroots activists without formal training. Community development may be initiated within communities or begun by outsiders. Groups, individuals, and bureaucratic personnel can all begin a process of community development, but the evolution of the process always depends on the engagement of others. While community development may or may not employ paid leaders, it always involves volunteer commitment.

 

Community development can involve the following processes:

 

1. a process of supporting and building communities through purposive action, including education in practices and skills, with goals and expected outcomes; action and then reflection leading to further action (Campfens, p 71);
2. a process of collective social action in which people within a community together identify a problem, a desire or a need and make a plan to meet their need, achieve their desire, or solve their problem;
3. a process by which community members create an organizational structure for collective action with respect to decision making and leadership training (Campfens, p 84);
4. a process that develops a sense of preparedness in the community; and
5. a process of community groups becoming empowered to undertake action in pursuit of community goals.

 

FNEN exemplifies many of the community development processes outlined above. Community development is a dynamic and evolving concept, as a result, these processes do not always follow the same sequence and some steps may not even be realized in the end. William and Loureide Biddle (1965) state that the basic process of community development is exploratory (seeking out and focuses on problems), discussional (finding the best plan or alternatives with community participation), initiates new projects (plans that arise as outcomes are reached and new problems are established), focuses on continuation or sustainability (need ongoing group to continue projects), creates a ‘larger’ community (bring other communities on side), and incorporates variations (includes slumps in the process and lack of participation). FNEN's journey traverses all of these processes.

 

Community development is a complex undertaking. Notwithstanding the tremendous work required to arrive at socialy equitable solutions, it is equally daunting to reconcile cultural biases in knowledge construction and identification of core problems, as well as agreeing on a process that respects the cultures and contributions and is sensitive to the needs of all stakeholders.

 

According to the Canadian Child Care Federation(2006), Aboriginal people in Canada protect their cultural identity by enhancing their children’s sense of belonging through a sacred cultural symbol called “a circle of connectedness.” This circle places the child at the centre, surrounded by his or her parents, who are in turn surrounded by their community. FNEN extends this cultural symbol of 'the circle' to our biotic community. FNEN is self-described as "a circle of First Nations people committed to protecting, defending, and restoring the balance of all life by honouring traditional Indigenous values and the path of our ancestors." (www.fnen.org). As FNEN's website states, "We are obligated to leave footprints for our children to follow by striving to live our life with traditional values." Referring back to the opening poem, it could be said that FNEN and other similar organizations are the spritual guardians of our precious trees that "hold the parts that clothe the Earth together." FNEN is an exemplary community development organization that is committed and passionate about improving the social fabric of its network, encouraging dialogue, enabling collective action, and empowering people to participate in its fight to prevent "the fabric from unraveling and becoming undone" (Message by Tatanka Hunkesi, cited on www.fnen.org.

 

 

 

 

Appendix: Research Issues and Group Process

 

We held some interesting discussions on developing a cultural frame of analysis and formulating an appropriate research strategy. Joy Fedorick (1992) comments scathingly on the question of why non-native researchers would want to write about native people: "Yes, we're interesting to look at, analyze, speculate upon, take under advisement and pray for. All of these things also fulfil a further purpose: during the scrutiny of us, one procrastinates from looking at the 'self'" (p. 31). It was important to us keep scrutinizing our own aims and objectives, to attend issues of cultural difference, and keep questioning our functions and presuppositions throughout this project. Fedorick's checklist for well-intentioned non-native artists who contemplate the use of native stories or concepts is cautionary:

 

Source: Fedorick, J. A. (1992)

 

 

 

Because of FNEN's focus on traditional knowledge, the question "What is traditional knowledge?" concerned us. A table developed by Crowshoe Consulting for The First Nations Centre National Aboriginal Health Organization was informative:

 

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE	SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Assumed to be the truth	Assumed to be a best approximation
Sacred and interconnected	Secular (non-religious) segregated
Teaching through storytelling	Formal teaching
Learning by doing and experiencing	Learning by formal education (molding)
Oral and visual	Written
Integrated, based on whole system	Analytical, based on parts of the whole
Intuitive	Model or theory based
Holistic (based on complete systems)	Reductionist (reduces complex systems to simpler systems)
Subjective (based on personal experience/beliefs)	Objective (not based on personal opinion)
Experiential (based on experience)	Positivist (based on facts)

 

Yet we wondered how reliable or partial this table was. Ways of knowing in indigenous cultures typically involve intergenerational knowledge, oral tradition and apprenticeship within a community, whereas modern industrial societies stress the individual supervised learner reading / writing a text. The notion of contrasting

 

Subjective (based on personal experience/beliefs)

with

Objective (not based on personal

 

promotes the idea that there is inevitably an individual subjective knower and an external objective world, a "Cartesian" paradigm that we believed to be peculiarly Western. As Heisenberg states, "What we see is not Nature, but Nature exposed to our method of questioning" (n.d., cited in Gowan, n.d.).

 

The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples asks: “How can traditional knowledge be applied to modern problems of individual psychological well-being and of bureaucratic process and decision making?” They add, “There is no single, simple answer to this question." Traditional knowledge is a living system - a practice, as well as a body of knowledge. According to the First Nations Centre, the preservation of traditional knowledge continues within First Nations communities through a five-step process that starts with 1) developing a First Nations Research Committee, 2) developing policies, 3) developing Curriculum Apprenticeship Programs, 4) promoting ethical responsibilities and 5) retaining language/dialects. An Aboriginal website suggests that traditional knowledge changes over time, which causes the loss of this accumulated knowledge to be critical because it has so many uses in our world today. The site explains, “The term traditional knowledge has come to mean the knowledge that has been passed from one generation to the next through the oral or written traditions...However, all cultures change, and as they do new knowledge is added and some knowledge is lost. The knowledge that is being lost can provide people with a sense of identity.” The threads of traditional knowledge are a very powerful component of community building and form part of the process that becomes collective action."

 

Another diagram, reproduced below, allowed some insight:

 

Source:  First Nations Centre

 

 

This inquiry into the difference between First Nations ways of knowing and Western ways of knowing was an interesting component of our group process, yet we continued to be very conscious of the limited and limiting character of our cultural biases in knowledge construction. We reviewed a paper by Rasmussen (2005) that basically discredits the whole practise of community development as it has been applied to indigenous people, including the notion that indigenous societies need literacy and economic development. He quotes Dove (1996), who writes, "Development interventions are typically conceived as some type of 'addition,' which is based on the premise that underdevelopment is caused by some type of 'absence.' ... The problem with this approach is that it shifts attention away from the international community's own role as resource degrader and focuses instead on its potential role as 'helper.'"

 

Our group process has been challenging and invigorating, from early days when we discussed the merits and characteristics of various groups, to the collaborative project of document construction on a wiki.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIS603 CD DISCUSSIONS ~ (don't forget your password)

References:

 

Adams, D. and A. Goldbard. (2001). Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development. Retrieved online November 16, 2006 at http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2001/08/community_cultu.php

 

Assembly of First Nations. (May 31, 2005). First Nations Environmental Stewardship Action Plan. Retrieved online November 16, 2006 at http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Environmental-Stewardship-Action%20Plan.pdf

 

Biddle, William W. and Loureide Biddle. (1965) The Community Development Process—The Rediscovery of Local Initiative. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

 

Bowers, C. (2005), “How the ideas of Paulo Freire contribute to the cultural roots of the ecological crisis,” and “Afterword.” In Bowers, C. and F. Apffel-Marglin. (2005). Re-thinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Electronic Version

 

Canadian Child Care Federation(2006). Aboriginal children: The healing power of cultural identity. Canadian Health Network. Retrieved online November 19, 2006 at http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1156774256755&pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/CHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource&NL=20060901en

 

Campfens, H. (1999). Community Development Around the World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

 

Community Development Exchange. (n.d.). What is community development? Retrieved online October 13, 2006, at http://www.cdx.org.uk/about/whatiscd.htm

 

Colorado, Pam Oneida, 1988. Retrieved from http://fnen.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=28)

 

Dove, M. (1996). Center, periphery, and biodiversity. In S. B. Brush and D. Stabinsky (Eds.) Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous people and intellectual property rights (pp. 58-71). Washington, D.C.: Island Press

 

Dueck, W. (2006). Community Development. Assignment 1 MAIS 603.

 

Edgar, L. (2002). Building Policy partnerships: Making Network Governance Work. Institute on Governance. Retrieved from [www.iog.ca/publications/effective_network.pdf]

 

Elias, P. D., ed. Northern Aboriginal Communities: Economies and Development. North York, ON: Captus Press Inc., 1995.

 

Fedorick, J. A. (1992). "Fencepost sitting and how I fell off to one side." In Kelley, C. (Ed), Give Back: First Nations Perspectives on Cultural Practice, pp. 27-46. North Vancouver: Gallerie Publications.

 

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

 

Government of Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Electronic Version Volume 4. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sj33_e.html#6.4%20Traditional%20Knowledge

 

Gowan, J. (n.d.). General Systems, Gravitation, and Unified Field Theory: A Collection of Original Papers, Tables, and Diagrams on General Systems, Cosmology, Unified Field Theory, Gravity, Fractals, Complex Systems, Physics and Metaphysics. Retrieved online November 17, 2006 at http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/.

 

Hare, Susanne (2006). FNEN Community Relations. Personal email correspondence with W. Dueck.

 

Hart, Elisa. (1995) Getting Started in Oral Traditions Research. Occasional Papers of the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, No. 4, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife. Retrieved online November 19, 2006 at http://pwnhc.ca/research/otm/otrman2.htm#2.3.

 

Kloppenburg, T. (1991). "No hunting! Biodiversity, indigenous rights, and scientific poaching." Cultural Survival Quarterly, 15 (3), 10-18.

 

Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.) Web Exhibition: Aboriginal Documentary Heritage: Historical Collections of the Canadian Government. Retrieved online November 19, 2006 at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/aboriginal-heritage/020016-1000-e.html

 

Lohman, L. (1993). Resisting green globalism. In W. Sachs (ed.), Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict, (pp. 157-167). London: Zed Books.

 

Orten, D. http://ncseonline.org/nae/docs/rethinking.html .

 

Rasmussen, D. (2005). "Cease to do evil, then learn to do good...(a pedagogy for the oppressor). In Bowers, C. and F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds.), Re-thinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis, pp. 115-129. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Rees, W. and L. Westra. (2003). When Consumption Does Violence: Can There be Sustainability and Environmental Justice in a Resource-limited World? In Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. J Agyeman, RD Bullard and B Evans (eds.) London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

 

Rubin, H. and I. Rubin. (2001). Community Organizing and Development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 

Sirolli, E. (1999). Ripples from the Zambezi: Passion, Entrepreneurship and the Rebirth of Local Economies. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

 

Wackernagel, M. (n.d., with The Task Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities, University of British Columbia). “How big is our ecological footprint?” Retrieved October 12, 2006 at http://www.iisd.ca/consume/mwfoot.html

 

Wenger, E., R. McDermott and W. Snyder. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press