Search

In this article, I ask that culture be properly recognized as transnational, with all the implications of transnationalism, including cultural mobility as well as cultural imperialism and colonial legacies. I first establish that we all have culture and that the culture we all have is always already transnational. In particular, I call for the contextual specificity of the dominant culture to be acknowledged and scrutinized, as well as for all cultures to be thought of as provisional assemblages of multiple and entangled scales that co-create each other. I then offer some methodological, ethical, and political propositions to advance a truly transnational cultural studies, including radically contextualizing culture, employing comparative research, and de-westernizing academia. In conclusion, I ask for a radical mainstreaming of transnationalism in cultural studies; a universal recognition of culture as transnational and a universal engagement with a transnational sense of place in the studies of culture.

Contextualizing disciplinary histories through the personal stories of forerunners creates compelling narratives of the craft of evolving professions. By looking to our intellectual and practitioner ancestors, we participate in a dialogue with a history that shapes our contemporary professional identities and aspirations for the future. Grounded in a decolonizing approach to social work, this article examines how the discipline shapes its professional identity and ways of knowing by centering the role of canonical founders in the social work curriculum. The global social work origin story in the curriculum often centers on Anglo-American ancestors that illustrate the development of the disciplinary boundaries of the international profession. One method of decolonizing social work epistemology at the intersection of ancestors and professional lineage could be to look to public history as a pedagogical tool in the curriculum. The article concludes by examining the use of podcasts as having the potential to decolonize the process of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating local knowledge of ancestors thus challenging the top-down approach to expert-driven epistemologies.

Martin Parker recently auto-critiqued his book Against Management. Parker reflected on the book’s circulation, responded to some criticisms, and proposed a manifesto for a School of Organizing that must emphasize alternative organizational forms. I highlight the Eurocentric frame that permeates the book and the auto-critique. This Eurocentrism manifests as settled geographies, histories, and epistemic practices. Such knowledge practices truncate the possibilities of radically imagining alternatives to the contemporary crises of capitalism. I borrow Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing’s metaphor of foraging to briefly consider how subterranean struggles and solidaristic transgressions offer possibilities for alternative world-making.

This paper responds to a recent EPA Exchanges paper by Eric Knight, Andrew Jones and Meric Gertler ( Knight et al., 2021 ). It concurs with their argument for the significance of economic geography for explaining the “local-global” dilemmas facing the university in contemporary society. In response, it will propose three additional optics for understanding the role of the university in the contemporary city. First, as a space of risk, where the neo-liberal university is now undertaking various modes of financing their real estate models, drawing on bond markets to finance future growth, soliciting politically risky philanthropic donations, and betting on future student recruitment trends – including the high-risk international student sector – as being sufficient to fund capital investments in buildings and facilities. Second, as a space of decolonisation, where the university must seek to locate campus development within discussions about the university's responsibilities within systems of settler colonialism, and racially inflected gentrification. Third, as a civic disruptor, where the university campus is seen as more than just a backdrop or context to the university's governance, culture, and business models, but also as a front door to understanding the city and economy within which it is embedded.

Family violence within Aboriginal communities continues to attract considerable scholarly, governmental and public attention in Australia. While rates of victimization are significantly higher than non-Aboriginal rates, Aboriginal women remain suspicious of the ‘carceral feminism’ remedy, arguing that family violence is a legacy of colonialism, systemic racism, and the intergenerational impacts of trauma, requiring its own distinctive suite of responses, ‘uncoupled’ from the dominant feminist narrative of gender inequality, coercive control and patriarchy. We conclude that achieving meaningful reductions in family violence hinges on a decolonising process that shifts power from settler to Aboriginal structures. Aboriginal peoples are increasingly advocating for strengths-based and community-led solutions that are culturally safe, involve Aboriginal justice models, and recognises the salience of Aboriginal Law and Culture. This paper is based on qualitative research in six locations in northern Australia where traditional patterns of Aboriginal Law and Culture are robust. Employing a decolonising methodology, we explore the views of Elders in these communities regarding the existing role of Law and Culture, their criticisms of settler law, and their ambitions for a greater degree of partnership between mainstream and Aboriginal law. The paper advances a number of ideas, based on these discussions, that might facilitate a paradigm shift in theory and practice regarding intervention in family violence.

As a means to disrupt the historical and present narratives of adolescence and adolescent development, which often build upon and reify settler colonialism and white supremacy, this article calls for theoretical and methodological reconsiderations of colonial-centered developmental science, particularly regarding Native American youth. Thus situated, this article has two purposes. The first is to illuminate the constitutive nature of settler colonialism, white supremacy, and the constructs of adolescence and adolescent development—and the ways these continue to adversely impact Indigenous youth. From this exigency, the second purpose is to articulate a framework designed to inform developmental science’s anti-racist aims, especially related to disrupting ongoing settler colonialism, engaging in culturally humble inquiry with Native youth and communities, and supporting Indigenous (youth) futurity. To elucidate this framework, this article brings together Native youth-focused developmental research, Indigenous methodologies scholarship, and experiences gained and lessons learned from a long-term research project with Native youth.

Our paper will examine the question of counter-hegemonic knowledge production in the Western academy and the responsibilities of the Racialized scholar coming to know and producing knowing to challenge the particularity of Western science knowledge that masquerades as universal knowledge in academia. We engage the topic from a stance examining the coloniality of knowledge in educational leadership by centering Indigenous knowledge systems in the academy as a means to disrupt Euro-colonial hegemonic knowledging. We ask: How do we challenge the “grammar of coloniality” of Western knowledge and affirm the possibilities of a reimagining of “new geographies” and cartographies of knowledge as varied and intersecting ontologies and epistemologies that inform our human condition as “learning experiences, research, and knowledge generation” practices? The paper highlights epistemic possibilities of multicentricity, that is, multiple ways of knowledge as critical to understanding the complete history of ideas and events that have shaped and continue to shape human growth and development. The paper highlights Indigeneity as a salient entry point to producing counter-hegemonic knowing. The paper concludes pointing to implications for educational “re-search” and African educational futurity.

The period following the Second World War saw much international debate around African marriage, especially practices believed by Western observers to be coercive, and the emergence of international instruments ostensibly designed to counter these practices. Drawing on feminist readings of governmentalities, this article explores United Nations debates around the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, and the 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages. Despite the United Nations’s preferred impression of benign universality, neither the international debates around forced and early marriage, nor the instruments they generated, were the product of neutral ‘expertise’. Rather, they represented attempts to reframe and govern marriage and the family through knowledge production. The interventions produced did not – and were not intended to – produce tangible benefits in the lives of African women and girls. Instead, they served political ends in the adversarial atmosphere of the decolonization and Cold War-era United Nations, and also represented continuities with earlier colonial ideas. In the creation of these discursive framings, African women’s voices were largely ignored, excluding them from debates that concerned them and minimizing their contributions to international ‘knowledge’.

This article offers a critical outlook on existing debates on state recognition and proposes future research directions. It argues that existing knowledge on state recognition and the dominant discourses, norms and practices needs to be problematized and freed from power-driven, conservative, positivist and legal interpretations and reoriented in new directions in order to generate more critical, contextual and emancipatory knowledge. The article proposes two major areas for future research on state recognition, which should: (a) expose the politics of knowledge, and positionality, and seek epistemic justice and decolonization of state recognition studies; and (b) study more thoroughly recognitionality techniques encompassing diplomatic discourses, performances and entangled agencies. Accordingly, this article seeks to promote a long overdue debate on the need for re-visioning state recognition in world politics.

This article engages Queer Theology in conversation with Naga Indigenous Theology. A Naga folk poem is employed to help navigate the intricacies of indigenous experiences and the questions of sexuality in Naga Indigenous Theology. I do this by engaging both Marcella Althaus-Reid and Wati Longchar in their Liberation Theology and move towards queering Longchar’s theology. Using the hermeneutical lens of Althaus-Reid, I demonstrate that there are possible avenues of queering Longchar’s theology. There is also the prerequisite of a justice lens that demands a deconstruction of the colonial legacy in Indigenous Theology. This article shows that Naga Indigenous Theology rooted in Liberation Theology has a potential to propose a Queer Naga Indigenous Theology.

In this study, we explore a student-supervisor relationship and the development of relational and reflexive research identities as joint actions towards decolonizing management knowledge and practice. We frame a specific case of PhD supervision through he awa whiria the braided rivers metaphor, which emerges from Māori traditions. This metaphor recognizes a plurality of knowledge streams that can start from different sources, converge, braid and depart again, from the mountains to the sea. In this metaphor, each stream maintains its own autonomy and authority, but knowledge is created at an interface in partnership. We use this framing metaphor to illustrate the tensions between co-creating knowledge with an Indigenous community that a research student has kinship ties with and feels a strong affinity to, and navigating the institutional requirements for a PhD within a UK university. We surface two contributions that open up future possibilities for supervision, research and practice. The first is the use of the metaphor to frame the student-supervisor partnership and strategies for decolonizing management knowledge more broadly. The second is the requirement for relational and reflexive research identities in decolonizing management knowledge.

In this article we seek to understand how gendered coloniality is re-affirmed and reproduced. It does so by analysing the inter-national relationships formalised through two recent policy initiatives by the Government of Canada: its Feminist International Assistance Policy and ongoing bilateral mechanisms with Indigenous peoples organisations. Using feminist discourse analysis, we argue that the logics underpinning these initiatives are treated as mutually exclusive, with the result being solitudes across policy areas – Indigenous reconciliation and feminist governance – that should instead overlap. Our analysis suggests that in addition to failing to address systemic marginalisation, establishing exclusive domains of feminist and reconciliation policy reproduces gendered coloniality through the building of inter-national relationships. Ultimately, this results in a failure of both policy initiatives.

This article assesses the relative merits of the “reversal of fortune” thesis, according to which the most politically and economically advanced polities of the precolonial era were subject to institutional reversal by European colonial powers, and the “persistence of fortune” view, according to which early advantages in state formation persisted throughout and beyond the colonial era. Discussing the respective arguments, the article offers a synthesis: the effect of early state formation on development trajectories was subject to a threshold condition. Non-European states at the highest levels of precolonial political centralization were able to resist European encroachment and engage in defensive modernization, whereas states closest to, yet just below, this threshold were the most attractive targets for colonial exploitation. Since the onset of decolonization, however, such polities have been among the first to regain independence and world patterns of state capacity are increasingly reverting to those of the precolonial era.

Even as policymakers in both the United States and Britain agreed that decolonization should be gradual, the principles and institutions that the Americans advocated undermined the very prospect of the sort of gradual change they claimed to prefer. At the heart of the matter was the notion of political accountability to an international organization. While American policymakers assumed that such accountability would – and should – be established after the Second World War, British policymakers recognized that the mere assent to the principle of international political accountability would lead to the pressure to decolonize more rapidly. American policymakers would constantly reassure their British counterparts that the commitments to international accountability which they had undertaken under American pressure were safely restricted to the moral and legal realm and would therefore not undermine their ability to govern in the colonies. But policymakers in Britain accurately predicted that once admitted in principle, the moral commitment to political accountability to the international community would become a political weapon against the colonial powers. The American conviction – which stemmed from a thoroughgoing liberal internationalism – that the colonial powers could persuade the anti-colonial powers to moderate their stance and sympathize with the dilemmas of decolonization was refuted time and again.

Anthropocene debate centers on the start-date and the cause of the geologic Epoch. One argument for the Epoch’s start-date is the “Early Anthropocene,” contending humanity “took control” of Earth systems during the Neolithic Revolution. Adherents contend agriculture contributed to rising carbon emissions and laid the groundwork for societal ills such as colonialism and extractive capitalism. Such a deterministic theory erases centuries of relational agriculture practiced by Indigenous peoples in the Americas. This article upsets the narrative of the “Early Anthropocene” that would mark all agriculture and agricultural societies as destructive and extractive, and instead offers embodied Indigenous narratives that view agriculture as a relational system of partnerships between humans and other-than-human beings over centuries. First, I trace the “Early Anthropocene” narrative from its origins with paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman to its contemporary adherents and show how such a theory lines-up with the narrative of the Christianized Biblical Fall. I show that “Early Anthropocene” theorists portray agriculture as society’s “ultimate sin,” wherein humans fall from a hunter–gatherer Eden and must toil to cultivate crops, eventually giving way to colonialism and extractive capitalism, ultimately causing environmental degradation and destruction and leading to a second coming of the hunter-gathering Eden. I then argue against such stories, tracing examples of relational agriculture practiced prior to settler colonization into our contemporary moment by Cherokee, Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Western Apache, Karuk, Coast Salish, and Ponca peoples. Such stories show a pattern of missteps, understanding, and knowledge production between human groups and the more-than-human, rather than the environmental and societal destruction that Early Anthropocene theorists portray as the inevitable end of agricultural societies. This study disproves the agricultural “Early Anthropocene” as a starting point for Earth’s Epoch. It also presents relational environmental understanding through decolonized agriculture on repatriated land as a future method for interacting with the other-than-human environment.

From the Latin American modernity/coloniality project, we address the inhospitality of the modern/colonial and globally designed world-system in relation to suicidality. In our vernacular Spanglish, guided by epistemological disobedience, and responding to epistemicide, we interpellate ourselves to unmask the hidden colonial structures of power of modernity’s global design on suicide knowledge. Our intent is to argue, specifically from the perspective of coloniality and our racialized, gendered, and monetized bodies, that suicide is rather an extension of modernity’s colonial genocide. From the decolonial geo and body-politics of knowledge, our discussion on modernity’s Eurocentric rhetoric on suicide departs from the materialization of suicidality in our flesh. We story experiences of our bodies with life and pleas of death, within the context of our immigrant backgrounds, and as family therapists in the United States (U.S.). We adopt autopsy as an analogy from where to advance such analysis to contest Eurocentric configurations of suicide from within, but against modernity. We emphasize the hidden racism and capitalism of suicide embedded within the persuasive Eurocentric promises of the Anglo scientific method and the U.S. American Dream. We address the concepts of epistemicide, coloniality of knowledge and of being. It is our hope to contribute to further advance decolonizing possibilities to reinscribe options that would border with the current Western knowledge on suicide. This may require other configurations of the body, knowledge, hence ways of being, doing, thinking, sensing, feeling, imagining, and dreaming to coexist among pluriversal hospitable worlds of life and death.

This article sheds new light on the relationship between internationalism, decolonisation and ideas about development through a reassessment of an overlooked period in the life of Joseph Murumbi (1911–90), cultural collector and Kenya’s second vice-president. It follows Murumbi’s engagement with three internationalist spaces during the 1950s: in the Afro-Asian worlds of India and Egypt he honed his vision for community development and the practical coordination of internationalism; in London he pushed British activists to take a more internationalist approach to anti-colonialism in a case of ‘reverse tutelage’; disillusioned with the British Left, in Scandinavia and Israel he questioned the translatability of community development and the practical role of external sympathisers as Kenyan independence approached. Murumbi’s trajectory confirms the inseparability of internationalism and nationalism in 1950s Africa, reinserting internationalist thought into narratives of Kenyan freedom struggles and suggesting how alternative visions for post-colonial Kenya were lost. Moreover, we argue, this reassessment of Murumbi’s life advances the burgeoning scholarship on internationalisms in the decolonising world by showing that Murumbi’s internationalist practices and his interest in the supposedly ‘local’ question of community development drove one another. Murumbi thus shows us a particular set of entanglements between the ‘local’ and the ‘global’.

Though it began with an assumption that there was one universal and normative Christian theology, the modern missionary movement has resulted in the emergence of polycentric theology. As each new centre thinks through the meaning of the faith in contextual terms, it offers a distinctive theology – to the extent that it becomes a question whether any universal theological affirmation can be possible. Meanwhile the theory and practice of mission has been no less radically reshaped by a polycentric vision, with the concept of “mission from the margins” capturing the imagination. A profound openness to others and, ultimately, the deep spiritual discernment that is sensitive to the presence and action of the Spirit of God in our world, is the essential equipment needed for leadership in mission today.

Renewed calls for decolonizing anthropology in the 21st century raise the question of what work earlier waves of decolonization since the 1960s have left undone. Some of this work should focus on the classification of human differences, which figured prominently in all phases of the discipline’s history: as a methodology in its racist phases, as an object of study during its late colonial phase of professionalization, as self-critical reflexivity in the 1980s and 1990s, and as a renewed critique in the 21st century. Can a universal methodology of studying classifications of human kinds arise from the discipline’s past of colonial stereotyping? I argue affirmatively, through an approach that recognizes time as the epistemic condition that connects past and present positions to present and future methodologies. Firstly, my analysis distinguishes the parochial embedding in colonial culture of Durkheim and Mauss’ ideas about classification from their more universal intentions. This is then developed into a threefold reflexive and timeful methodology of studying classification’s nominal-descriptive, constructive, and interventionist dimensions—a process of adding temporality to the study of classification. Subsequently, Anténor Firmin’s 19th-century critique of racial classifications, and W. E. B. Du Bois’s theory of double consciousness help to show how this threefold methodology addresses the insufficiently theorized process of being classified and discriminated against through racial categories wielded by the powers that be. These arguments radicalize the essay’s timeful perspective by concluding that we need to avoid modernist uses of time as classification and adopt the aforementioned threefold methodology in order to put time in classifications of human kinds. This reverses modern positivism’s subordination to methodological rules of the epistemic conditions posed by contingent history and shows instead that the universal goals of methodology should be understood as a future ideal.

Scholars in childhood research have been reconsidering whether the participation of children and young people in sensitive research is necessary. This paper questions whether some of these objections arise out of colonial attitudes towards childhood, young people, human rights, and research. This paper draws on a participatory study that sought to ascertain how Palestinian young people construct their understandings of human rights. Discussion of some of the local perspectives and decolonial strategies offered by the Young People’s Advisory Groups show how they facilitated the voices of their peers safely and decolonised concepts of participation and protection in the process.

Taking inspiration from Neo-colonialism: the last stage of imperialism, by Kwame Nkrumah of the thesis by Lenin that Imperialism (is) the highest stage of capitalism, I postulate that reparative justice is the final stage of decolonization (Nkrumah 1968). Based on the argument in Counter-Colonial Criminology that imperialism is the general form of all types of deviance in the sense that all acts of deviance seek to invade and colonize the private and public spaces of others, I conclude that reparative justice programs addressing the legacies of crimes committed by empires and corporations would signal the final stages of decolonization. Contrary to the conventional assumptions in criminology that poverty and powerlessness are the major causes of deviance, I suggest that power, not powerlessness, is a more significant cause of all deviance by the powerful and by the relatively powerless alike because the relatively powerless prey on those even more powerless in the community while the majority of the poor remain overwhelmingly law abiding and the rich get away with bloody murder, as Steve Box and Jeffrey Reiman theorized (Box, 1993; Reiman and Leighton, 2020). Accordingly, the preferred societal response to deviance should be reparative rather than punitive justice in keeping with the decolonization paradigm in criminology and justice towards a more humane world devoid of immigration control, repressive policing, the prison-industrial complex, racism-sexism-imperialism, militarism, homophobia, the war on drugs, capital punishment, homelessness, illiteracy, and without state power as class domination to make way for the principles of taking from all according to their abilities and giving to all according to their needs (Pfohl, 1994).

Although Indigenous peoples’ perspectives and concerns have not always been accommodated in climate change adaptation research and practice, a burgeoning literature is helping to reframe and decolonise climate adaptation in line with Indigenous peoples’ lived experiences. In this review, we bring together climate adaptation, decolonising and intersectional scholarship to chart the progress that has been made in better analysing and responding to climate change in Indigenous contexts. We identify a wealth of literature helping to decolonise climate adaptation scholarship and praxis by attending to colonial and neo-colonial injustices implicated in Indigenous peoples’ climate vulnerability, taking seriously Indigenous peoples’ relational ontologies, and promoting adaptation that draws on Indigenous capacities and aspirations for self-determination and cultural continuity. Despite calls to interrogate heterogenous experiences of climate change within Indigenous communities, the decolonising climate and adaptation scholarship has made limited advances in this area. We examine the small body of research that takes an intersectional approach to climate adaptation and explores how the multiple subjectivities and identities that Indigenous peoples occupy produce unique vulnerabilities, capacities and encounters with adaptation policy. We suggest the field might be expanded by drawing on related studies from Indigenous development, natural resource management, conservation, feminism, health and food sovereignty. Greater engagement with intersectionality works to drive innovation in decolonising climate adaptation scholarship and practice. It can mitigate the risk of maladaptation, avoid entrenchment of inequitable power dynamics, and ensures that even the most marginal groups within Indigenous communities benefit from adaptation policies and programmes.

Combining leisure, travel, and voluntary work, volunteer tourism’s popularity as an alternative travel option is undeniable. Yet postcolonial critiques plague the marketplace and those involved in these aiding efforts. In this article, which is based on consumer interviews involving a photo-elicitation component, we reveal increased presence of consumer reflexivity over neo-colonial aspects of the marketplace in comparison with the findings of past studies. However, great variability marks these consumer responses and the majority attempt to justify the potential harm of their activities abroad to cope with the ambivalence felt about such contradictory outcomes. We suggest closer attention be paid to decolonization theory as an approach to delivering these volunteering interventions in a more holistic and sensitive manner.

In the quarter-century since it began its work, the South African TRC has been endlessly debated. At the same time, a field of study emerged centred on settler colonialism, and settler colonial analyses have become established in transitional justice. South Africa���s TRC, however, has escaped examination through the lens of settler colonialism. Typically, settler colonialism in South Africa is treated as an historical phase; however, recent scholarship emphasises South Africa���s colonial present. Following these insights, this article: (1) establishes the relevance of a settler colonial lens for interpreting the South African TRC by demonstrating the settler colonialism of apartheid; (2) provides an empirical examination of the TRC���s Report . The Report acknowledges settler colonialism while advancing a series of denials, producing ���ambivalent denial���; (3) explores the implications of ambivalent denial. Specifically, ambivalent denial contributes to democratisation without decolonisation by enabling settler denial and failing to address settler colonial structures., Social & Legal Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, p. 216

The call to decolonize African Studies has a profound influence on the field, with varying degrees of success. This article addresses this topic in relation to the author’s personal experiences in the publishing industry in Namibia. By describing the attempt to publish a historical book about Namibian beer with a well-known German–Namibian publishing house, the lingering power of German–Namibian settler colonialism becomes clear. This article renders visible the power structures within the Namibian book market that perpetuates a whitewashed version of Namibian history and argues that decolonizing knowledge cannot succeed without paying attention to the (private) publishing industry.

This article examines the policies employed by United Nations (UN) peacekeeping leadership and mid-level staff to silence West Papuan anti-Indonesian activists and dismiss the population’s political opinions as immaterial to their territory’s sovereign future. The UN brokered the New York Agreement, legitimising Indonesia’s claims to the region following a decade of international discussions and military skirmishes between Indonesia and the Netherlands over the territory of West Papua. The Agreement vested the UN with sovereign control of West Papua for seven months to facilitate the transition in authority from Dutch colonial rule. Drawing on a multi-archival study of the mission, this article offers depth and balance to previous high-policy-focused scholarship on the dispute, rendering mid-level peacekeepers visible and bringing their role in shaping peacekeeping practices to light. It illuminates how the mission staff dismissed the views of West Papuan representatives in 1962–3 and contributed to the project of disenfranchisement carried out by the Indonesian government. In doing so, the mission leadership decisively participated in the re-colonisation of the population and disregarded rights violations on the ground.

Political theorists are increasingly drawn to the recovery of anticolonial thinkers as global figures. Frantz Fanon is largely excluded from these discussions because of his presumed commitment to the nation-state and its territorialist assumptions. This essay claims, by contrast, that Fanon’s writings reveal an alternative way of thinking about worldmaking, less as a question of political and economic institution-building spearheaded by leaders than as a multiscalar project that permeates the production of the built environment and the creation of selves. I show how Fanon challenges the dichotomy between the global and the national by seeking to transform not just the national scale in relation to the international, but also the corporeal, urban, rural, and regional scales of an imperially configured world. In order to read Fanon as a scalar thinker and to highlight aspects of his thought that have been relatively neglected, I draw on concepts from geography, and specifically scalar analysis, which, I demonstrate, allows political theorists to develop a richer understanding of the operations of power in colonial contexts and how they can be restructured to inaugurate more liberated ways of being human.

Contemporary Algeria was born after 132 years of colonization and a bloody decolonization war that lasted almost eight years. The official version and the dominant historical narrative of the war of independence has been influencing the state-owned media, the process of memorialization and the education system for years. This article will focus on how history was manipulated and used to legitimate political power using ordinary legislation as well as the highest source of law: the constitution. This article argues that by studying Algerian legislation and the various constitutional charters we can obtain key insight into ways in which the triad of the state, the party, and the army has been able to reproduce and re-appropriate symbols and narratives of the nation through constitutional measures and/or amendments.

Background. Western ideologies and systems of occupation and justice are implicated in the colonization of indigenous peoples worldwide. Yet, colonialism, racism, and privilege are minimally acknowledged and examined within occupational therapy and occupational science literature, as evidenced in uncritical development of notions of “occupational justice.” Purpose. First, to open a discussion of how and why theories and approaches to justice have developed as they have in Aotearoa New Zealand. Second, to further a burgeoning field of Indigenous perspectives and critiques of colonial theorizing within the profession, while highlighting local Indigenous justice frameworks including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Matike Mai Aotearoa. Key Issues. Colonialism is minimally examined in occupational justice approaches and promotion. Implications. Honest examination of colonialism alongside Indigenous justice frameworks can advance critical praxes of decolonising occupation and re-connect occupation with justice and equity.