Whakapapa, Mauritau, and Placefulness to Decolonise Indigenous Minds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Māori have resisted and fought to protect ourselves from British colonisation ever since it arrived in our territories. It has nevertheless wrought immeasurable damage to every aspect of our lives, and we know that we can only be free to be Māori if we can extract ourselves from colonisation's suffocating grasp. We often talk about decolonising our minds by reconnecting to our own world but for most Māori that connection is tenuous at best. Yet, there have always been the tohunga, the great philosophers and scholars, who took responsibility for preserving the fundamental values and thinking that defines who we are as Māori. The author draws expertly on that knowledge in a careful and meaningful way, suggesting the beginnings of a framework within which deeper understandings can be accessed and explored. They also provide an insightful critique of why Eurocentric philosophical approaches are inappropriate and inevitably destructive of the balance that must exist between and amongst all elements of the natural world. This is an innovative, carefully considered, logically argued and well-presented article. It is a pleasure to read.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I imagine for an international audience much of the content would be new (i.e., b/c content not widely known or read outside of Aotearoa) and thus of wider interest.  The Mauritau, whenua kura and RumiNative methodology secitons in particular are new and original contributions, though I found the discussions of these concepts and methodology would benefit from being further strengthened.  For example, the discussion of mauritau and whenua kura - concepts central to the paper - never really moves beyond an expanded translation.  These two concepts, which are fairly recent constructions - something I take no issue with, and actually would like to see more of - I would like to have seen this part of the paper expanded to be the body of the paper and really unpack the implications of mauritau and whenua kura as giving some embodiment to our understanding of whakapapa.  Whakapapa here is something akin to the Absolute - a sort of native or Māori Absolute. 

I found the RumiNative methodology less convincing - I couldnt help but think, that this was an explanation for indigenous people just, thinking. 

The assertions of rigor (an ordered systematic presentation of a case/argument) reveals, as does some of the language in other parts of the paper a tension that exists throughout the paper, and that tension is this: how do you talk about indigenous concepts, using a language that has deeply embedded within it a particular logic/paradigm for talking about the world? The words I am thinking of here are ‘mind’, ‘interconnectedness’, ‘subjectivity’, 'rigor' and there are others.  We quite literally arouse from slumber each word’s ‘ghosts’ every time we use them.  Lets take for example the "mind" in relation to the critique of Cartesianism.  Cartesianism, as in the mind-body split dualism, privileges the mind's capacity to engage its senses in an effort to make sense of the world, aka produce 'knowledge'.  It presupposes the facticity of the mind-body split itself, as if this is a manifest reality in the world.  Its not an absolute reality.  It was quite literally invented by Europeans (though not exclusively) - yet the paper pivots around decolonising the ‘mind’.  Other scholars try to get around this Cartesian hangover by putting the ‘body back together again’ by simply saying the “body” (see for a local example Hokowhitu’s Indigenous Existentialism and The Body, and there are others).  Interconnectedness is another.  Interconnectedness presupposes separateness as pre-normative - yet paradoxically treats separateness as normative.  In other words, interconnectedness makes no sense unless one presumes the reader accepts that disconnectedness is normative.

I would recommend building the paper around whakapapa-mauritau-whenua kura, include a definition and theory of decolonialism (I found the references to and discussion of decolonialism light) particular to this paper's focus, and dropping the RumiNative section. With regards to whenua kura for example, there is a connection to be made between whenua and papa (as in whakapapa).  A focussed discussion and analysis of mauritau and whenua kura could really flesh out whakapapa in a way that helped the reader see whakapapa as more than simply genealogy.  But rather a way of ordering, arbitrating and recognising ethical relationships (this is another example of the problem I refer to above) that make up and constitute the world.  Its in this way that I think that the paper could contribute something quite original.  

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nei rā aku mihi ki te kairangahau o tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. This paper is an exciting contribution to both considerations of place/body/mind intersections and also to methodological developments for Kaupapa Māori. I think that the paper will add another layer of conversation to Indigenous work that seeks to make visible the interdependence between taiao and tangata with a particular focus on the mind and mauritau. I have some offerings with regards to some of the flow of the paper, references and some technical suggestions. I hope that the author can consider these as potential ways to strengthen the flow and impact of the paper and not as a criticism of the kaupapa itself (which I think it really important). 

- Is there something to be said about the ways in which the academy may bump up against some of these kaupapa? e.g. writing a linear article in English presents somewhat of a challenge to a kaupapa that orally or creatively may be easier to describe in Te Reo Māori. 

- The author may wish to consider the plural worldviews of Māori communities - there are a few times when the author uses 'The worldview' 'The Māori mind' 'The Māori perspective' - this can be limiting and narrowing the all of the diversity, nuance and variations that exist within te ao Māori - consider pluralising these. 

- There are a number of references that are a little outdated and there are other works like that of Mikaere (2011) and Burgess & Koroi (2024) that would also add another layer to the discussion on whakapapa that serves to strengthen the conversation about the importance of place within whakapapa. The author may wish to consider these as additions.

- The RumiNative framework is a really interesting methodological development - has it been used to develop this particular piece? and how? This would be useful to know. It is just something to note that the framework doesn't explicitly mention place, taiao or land - is this interwoven throughout or something to consider including explicitly. 

- What is the role of noho puku? Has the author looked at methodological material that considers this concept.

- There is opportunity for the paper to really tease out more of the placefulness and whenua kura discussion - I think this is the part that would really add impact and transformations to the discussions. More discussion here on this I think would be really useful as it is quite a short discussion but seems to be a big part of the argument - I wonder if Whenua Kura and Mauritau should be prioritised more in the paper over the lengthy discussion of RumiNative framework as the methodology. He whakaaro noa. 

- 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some areas where paragraphs are sitting a bit 'lonely' and could be combined into one paragraph e.g. first three paragraphs of section 2.1

- Line 85 - it might be worth noting that this is changing - that there is a development and extension of Kaupapa Māori methodologies through things like Pūrākau, wānanga, hīkoi, mana wahine, mana tane etc. 

- Line 110 - discussion about academic 'rigour' can be at risk of suggesting that mātauranga Māori doesn't have it's own rigour outside of the academy - whilst I can see this isn't the intention, the author might just want to be careful not to set up a dualism in the 'academy' as rigourous and anything outside of it as not. 

- Line 294 reference maramataka work here. 

- Note that Bochner and Elis write on Autoethnography not on Pūrākau so they should be removed as citations on pūrākau. 

- Line 117 - you may wish to clarify the 'meditation essays' is this part of the method or is it referring to a particular body of scholarship. 

- Line 125-127 - These sentences aren't particularly clear it would be great to get clarity on their meaning or a slight reworking. 

- Line 274 A transitional paragraph would be helpful here to move from the specific Māori focus over to more of a wider Indigenous lens.

- Check use of capitalisation of Indigenous - capitalise when used as a proper noun but not for every use. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf