Co-Creating Relational Pathways to Reconciliation: Transforming Colonial Systems with Relational Systems Thinking. A Literature Review (December 2024)

Introduction

By adapting a Two-Eyed Seeing lens, this literature review explores how the pursuit of truth and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples across Canada can further be enhanced by the strategic co-creation, co-development, and co-application of relational systems change theories through meaningful collaboration between Indigenous peoples and settlers in the fields of climate justice, education, and healthcare. This journey begins by grounding the reader with a critical understanding of the transdisciplinary theory Two-Eyed Seeing and how this opens the mind to consider how there is more than one world(view), one way of knowing and doing, and one pathway to reconciliation. By introducing barriers to reconciliation in healthcare (social work), the author calls upon the expertise of those within the inter-connected fields of climate justice and education to weave together a transdisciplinary theoretical approach to seeking truth and reconciliation in practice.

In the spirit of relationality, inter-connectedness, and reconciliation, the author is positioning themselves as a registered social worker whose profession carries the legacy of residential and day schools and its continued colonial reign throughout child protective services' (CPS) sixties-, millennial-, and ongoing-scoop of Indigenous children and youth. The purpose of this review is to create accessible opportunities for cross-disciplinary application so reconciliatory work can be shared with and by settlers who may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the topic. The hope of the author is for non-Indigenous persons and settlers to discover their role in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and develop their own commitment to carrying out actions that support the longevity of this shared goal. This also serves as ongoing development for the author's professional framework of practice as a healthcare practitioner, introducing transdisciplinary frameworks as an act of reconciliation in itself.

Bartlett et al. (2012) - Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning

journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of being.

This transdisciplinary article builds upon previously noted 'lessons learned' as stated in the introduction of Two-Eyed Seeing to scientific academia by these same authors earlier in the new millennia. A trio consisting of two Mi'kmaw elders and a biologist, they have been developing these lessons together since the early 1990's. Two-Eyed Seeing is only one of eight lessons yet noted as the most crucial to successful weaving of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) in mainstream (western) scientific knowledges. Two-Eyed Seeing, known as Etuaptmumk (E/TES) in Mi'kmaw, refers to "learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all," (Bartlett, 2012, pp. 335). While this framework originated in the sciences of post-secondary educational curriculum, it has since been adapted and applied in many fields extending beyond just science and material-world circles. Bartlett et al. (2012) contextualize E/TES as an emerging theory in transdisciplinary research and encourage its use into other post-secondary curricula.

The importance of this theory is two-fold: first, it introduces readers to the theoretical and practical ability to view traditional worldviews along those of the modern western world. When adapting this into practice, one should be switching back and forth to consider the strengths of both systems to co-create innovative solutions to larger issues such as global warming, colonial systems of government, and expanding post-secondary education; as it extends into education, Etuaptmumk has the potential to be utilized in any and all fields. Second, it states that this only addresses Mi'kmaw traditional knowledge and western knowledge; the authors identify this as a limitation and users of the theory can describe four-eyed seeing or ten-eyed seeing, depending on how many worldviews and/or knowledges they are utilizing. This open door to the expansiveness of shared knowledge systems frames the argument of transdisciplinary co-creation, co-development, and co-application through cross-disciplinary collaboration in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Louie (2024) - Barriers to engaging with reconciliation in Canadian education: Confusing

colonial and western knowledge.

Louie (2024) defines reconciliation as "an attempt to create an equitable society that no longer oppresses Indigenous people and removes the harmful components that emerge through both systemic and interpersonal means and attends to the impacts of generational systems of colonization," (pp. 471). Mainstream concepts of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples are most often equated to the process of offering apologies for one element of colonization (residential schools). By including the interpersonal implications of colonial tactics, whether they are intentional or done through ignorance, Louie (2024) tasks settlers with the active choice to continue in ignorance or begin an ongoing self-reflective practice; the latter requires settlers to unlearn ingrained ideologies of colonial and Western beliefs as having higher moral value and credibility than non-Western worldviews.

Louie (2024) prepares the reader for this decision by separating Western cultures from the colonial system which dominates its power over non-white groups to maintain authority in western society. This separation clarifies that being born and raised in Western culture as a white person does not make one a colonizer. This creates opportunities for settlers to meaningfully engage with decolonizing efforts by disrupting colonial systems on an interpersonal level while connecting with a circle of learning communities with the shared goal of reconciliation.

Choate (2019) - The call to decolonise: Social work's challenge for working with Indigenous People.

One of the core barriers preventing social workers from pursuing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples is the continued effort of inter-related government agencies' colonial assimilative approaches in controlling (limiting) the free movement of Indigenous Peoples throughout Turtle Island; this includes the historic, contemporary, and ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples, currently through public policies and widespread anti-Indigenous racism throughout Canadian systems. Many of these violent policies are enacted through social services systems at the hands of social workers; Choate (2019) suggests it may not be possible for social workers to reach reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples as there was never a mutually beneficial relationship in the first place. This tense relationship is exacerbated through inadequate social work education which tends to instruct students on how to practice from the dominant worldview, therefore unable to prepare them for engaging with real people facing real problems rooted in colonialism from a critically trauma-informed lens.

One solution would be to improve social work education by introducing Indigenous Knowledge as expressed with Etuaptmumk, but Choate (2019) notes a hesitancy and reluctance from non Indigenous faculty in delivering these materials in their classrooms. This reliance on Indigenous faculty members is not only unrealistic, as they only form a small number of faculty and cannot instruct every student, but shows a discomfort to acknowledge and represent TK as equally relevant knowledge systems in post-secondary institutions. This barrier prevents students from learning how to become better social workers when engaging with Indigenous clients and communities, identifying a gap where social workers (helping professionals) must collaborate across disciplines to pursue meaningful truth and reconciliation with integrity.

Neufeldt (2018) - When good intentions are not enough: Confronting ethical challenges in peacebuilding and reconciliation.

In transitioning to the separate but adjacent discipline of peacebuilding, Neufeldt (2018) explains how good intentions often limit a practitioner's ability to meaningfully engage with persons impacted by violence and genocide. She goes on to explore how dogmatic approaches where one believes they are morally right, superior, and therefore the only logical perspective creates a barrier where they are unwilling to view another person's worldview or moral values. In the case of reconciliation in Canada, Neufeldt (2018) describes efforts to date as slipping back into legal and technical endeavours as opposed to relational and in the spirit of learning from past wrongs on behalf of the state.

When those in power through helping profession roles consider themselves to be the expert to all possible solutions with peoples systemically harmed by the state, there is little hope that they will be critically self-reflective of how their 'morally good' practice negatively impacts those they aim to serve. This often leads to groupthink where all parties on the helping side concur there is simply only one way of doing things, and this is the only route to seeking peace and justice for all. The author affirms that without this critical analysis of reconciliation by settlers across the country, this privileged group will only 'come when called' and are not likely to go out of their way and seek truth and reconciliation on a personal level. Neufeldt (2018) stresses the importance of learning how to listen to others, specifically those living on the margins who are often unheard by the system itself.

Vanthuyne (2021) - "I want to move forward. You can move forward too." Articulating

Indigenous self-determination at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

As expressed by many Indian Residential School (IRS) Survivors throughout this article, there is concern that Canada's approach to truth and reconciliation focuses too much on the apology and not enough on the restoration to Indigenous nations, governments, lands, wellness, and healing aspects of reconciliation. This article follows the Cree Nation of Chisasibi (Eeyou Istchee) and their community's contentious relationship with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada. IRS Survivors express frustrations with the state's reconciliatory process only viewing them as victims instead of whole peoples with so much more to share than solely their shared trauma from ‘cultural’ genocide. There is a collective desire to 'move forward' from these painful events but with many TRCs channelling efforts to prioritize state-building and governmental reconciliation, their efforts have not been well received by the Canadian state.

According to the TRC, reconciliation is "a long-term journey toward the restoration of balance in the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people," (Vanthuyne, 2021, pp. 357). This narrow scope of reconciliation illustrates the continued injustice against Indigenous communities as it neglects to extend the promise to stolen lands, financial restitution, and compensation for other harms on behalf of the state. Vanthuyne's (2021) article presents critical shortcomings of the state's view of what reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples is and should be, calling for Indigenous self-determination of their own resources, services, and choice to what reconciliation means for them and its application. Outlining the limitations of state sanctioned 'reconciliation' creates space for more innovative, relational, and collective shared approaches to reconciliation as defined, organized, and led by Indigenous Peoples and settlers joining in solidarity.

Snelgrove et al. (2014) – Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics of

settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations.

Snelgrove, Dhamoon, and Corntassel (2014) come to the table as a white settler, a settler who immigrated from India, and an Indigenous person respectfully. This article encapsulates numerous interviews between all three authors where they shared their own perspectives of what it means to be a settler, how this definition influences their view of settler colonial studies, and why solidarity efforts must be centred on the voices of Indigenous persons and worldviews so to not re-create colonial methods of power and control in reconciliatory spaces. One of the critiques of settler colonial studies is how it creates a binary of Indigenous and non-Indigenous that can lead to ‘neo-racism’, forcing non-Indigenous persons off Indigenous lands (Snelgrove et al., 2014, pp. 9). However, by implementing a Two-Eyed Seeing lens, one can reframe this as two worldviews that need not compete for attention or to be recognized as ‘the correct one’; according to Etuaptmumk, it is about utilizing the best of both worldviews to co-create a better future for everyone. The focus should not be on pressuring anyone to leave, but instead, for everyone to reconsider what it means to show up to their communities in a good way and contribute to a sustainable future through relational approaches to truth and reconciliation.

This article acts as a representation for how Indigenous persons, settlers, immigrants, and persons of colour can come together and learn from one another when exploring their relationship to colonialism. This literature review does not intend to differentiate between white settlers whose families have settled on stolen land for centuries, persons of African descent who were stolen and brought to Turtle Island as slaves, asylum seekers and. immigrants fleeing their countries for a safer place to call home, or any other person non-Indigenous to Turtle Island currently residing on these lands. Rather, the author is considering relations between Indigenous persons to Turtle Island and non-Indigenous persons (settlers) who benefit from Canadian systems, structures, and policies that were developed to intentionally harm Indigenous Peoples. The author recognizes this is a simplified perspective on a complex identifier that not all non-Indigenous persons will accept and requires further research before declaring who is and is not a settler. A shared concept throughout the article lists numerous ways non-Indigenous persons reposition themselves by identifying as terms other than settler to distance themselves from the guilt associated with being a settler. This revolving door of guilt and shame loans itself to settlers removing themselves of responsibility in seeking reconciliation, therefore missing the process of amplifying a shared truth between all Canadians on how their government has enacted genocide against Indigenous Peoples.

Kizuk (2018) – Settler shame: A critique of the role of shame in settler-Indigenous

relationships in Canada.

Kizuk (2018) argues that the shame settlers feel in relation to Canada’s historic, contemporary, and continued violence against Indigenous Peoples prevents them from meaningfully and authentically engaging with reconciliatory work in a good way. Where guilt is a negative feeling about an action or otherwise willed-event, shame is an internal feeling toward oneself as being inherently wrong or bad (Kizuk, 2018). When settlers are caught up with feeling bad about being white, having ancestral ties to colonizers, and/or having the privilege of owning stolen land, this self-centric emotive venture does not actively support the resurgence of Indigenous self-determination. On the contrary, settler shame prevents settlers from coming to terms with the reality of how the Canadian state has intentionally wreaked havoc on Indigenous nations, communities, and the lands and waters across Turtle Island. Before Canada as a collective can move forward with reconciliatory work, there must be a shared understanding of its responsibility (truth) in genocide against Indigenous Peoples.

When settlers personally identify with the shame of Canada’s actions, they are too preoccupied with state sanctioned genocide that they cannot see how their actions and inactions have been and continue to be complicit with colonial domination. Connecting back to Louie’s (2024) distinction between settler and colonizer, shame blurs (pollutes) settlers’ vision and defines a barrier that prevents them from truly seeing their own reflection in the polluted rivers and lakes. Ironically, the shame of settler history can often result in settlers behaving like colonizers when they think they are being politically just with their linear understanding of reconciliation. Kizuk (2018) reminds readers that reconciliation does not equal justice, and the pursuit of justice is not a linear process. For every settler tied up in toxic cycles of shame, self-hatred, and self loathing, Canada’s colonial systems of education, healthcare, and private industrialization continue perpetuating harm against Indigenous Peoples and Mother Nature herself. To branch away from surface-level recognition of systemic injustices, settlers and Indigenous Peoples must come together and work as a collective with a shared goal of pursuing truth and reconciliation on interpersonal- and systemic-levels.

Hernández et al. (2017) – Engaging with complexity to improve the health of indigenous

people: a call for the use of systems thinking to tackle health inequity.

Based on their transformative work with Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala, Hernández et al. (2017) recommend using systems thinking as a method of innovating and streamlining the collective work of healthcare researchers and practitioners to better meet the intersecting needs of Indigenous Peoples’ health and wellness. Systems thinking is a method of re-orienting one’s perspective to view systems as whole entities, thus requiring cross-, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to successfully achieve innovative solutions. Adapting a systems thinking framework and approach requires the individual to consider factors both in and outside healthcare systems, encouraging them to view colonial systems as a whole entity that negatively impacts Indigenous Peoples’ health through various systemic and intersecting root causes. In applying this framework to reconciliation within and in opposition to colonial systems, one can make the argument that the system of colonialism in and of itself requires reconciliatory transformative change and redesign through collective action that is led and informed by Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, worldviews, and approaches as an act of Indigenous self-determination.

Schaefer et al. (2021) – Understanding socio-technological systems change through an

Indigenous community-based participatory framework.

Socio-technological systems are framed to address the societal, technological, and environmental barriers to developing more sustainable solutions to global energy crises. Schaefer et al. (2021) review two previously used change frameworks to identify their limitations in fostering equitable and inclusive innovative solutions to these complex problems. Schaefer et al. (2021) collaborated with the Michigan Community Anishinaabe and Rural Energy Sovereignty (MICARES) who shared their re-imagined medicine wheel as a new framework for Indigenous community-based participatory framework; four quadrants ask the guiding questions, “What do we care about?; What do we know?; What is possible?; and What should we do about it together?” (Schaefer et al., 2021, pp. 9). This relational, reciprocal, and respectful approach to problem-solving acts as inspiration for how nations, governments, institutions, educational bodies, and healthcare systems can come together to re-imagine truth and reconciliation in collaboration with Indigenous communities across Canada.

Schaefer et al. (2021) note how most energy development initiatives will extract resources and/or dump toxins in regions where they as the regime are not the ones impacted; this is an example of environmental racism where Indigenous lands and waters, communities, and reserves are often the regions targeted by oil and gas developers. Reconciliation is inherently tied to land-based healing initiatives as Indigenous worldviews see all living human and non human beings to be relatives, including and centering Mother Earth (Schaefer et al., 2021). Indigenous research methodologies are relational in nature and those practicing Indigenous-led and -aligned research are answering to all their relations when conducting research; the research is complete when they have fulfilled their obligations and responsibilities to their human and non-human relatives.

Johnson et al. (2024) Te Ruru: co-creating an Indigenous systems change framework.

Johnson et al. (2024) frame systems thinking as consisting of both natural and human-made systems based on Indigenous worldviews, specifically Māori worldviews. The article differentiates between multiple Māori tribes who came together in collaboration to develop a shared systems thinking worldview they call Te Ruru, intentionally noting this knowledge is the culmination of knowledges shared from various and distinct Māori cultures. Johnson et al. (2024) clearly expresses this knowledge has been handed down from the elders of Ngāti Hauiti and they are carrying these knowledges to reclaim, revive, and re- apply the knowledge of their ancestors. Iwi tribe researchers share how they “operate from ‘responsive Indigenous standpoints’, which means for us that we exist by positioning our own whakapapa (genealogy), whenua (land), tikanga (values), and mātauranga (knowledge) in relation to that of others, and with the core belief of connection (whanaungatanga),” (Johnson et al., 2024, pp. 51). By coming together through relational practices, Iwi researchers co-created a framework of practice for Māori healthcare systems that can be adapted to Canadian healthcare systems in the shared collective goal of improving health equity outcomes for Indigenous Peoples around the globe.

In leading with the Iwi tribe’s Indigenous language when defining core concepts framing their theory, readers are encouraged to consider the role language plays when coming together to co-create new pathways for healthcare systems serving Indigenous Peoples. This decolonial approach to knowledge(s) dissemination sets precedent for how the collective can be taking steps to affirm the credibility and relevance of Indigenous knowledges alongside western knowledge. Further, their active choice to introduce the concept of ‘connection (whanaungatanga)’ in English serves as an invitation from the Iwi researchers to non Indigenous persons who are showing up and looking for guidance on how they can be involved; this work is relational, it is all about how individuals come together bringing the knowledges they carry from their own families, culture(s), language(s), and lived experiences. Cross-disciplinary initiatives and teams are encouraged to mirror this behaviour in how they show up and share their own knowledges and worldviews in spaces designated for re-designing transformational systems change. While Te Ruru can serve as inspiration for how Indigenous and settler peoples can come together to co-create new pathways to reconciliation as a collective, the framework itself cannot be directly translated; this knowledge is relational to the lands, waters, peoples, and spirits of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and frameworks developed for application on Turtle Island can re-create this approach with Indigenous worldviews tied to the lands, waters, peoples, and spirits who have lived across Turtle Island for millennia.

Relational systems thinking: That’s how change is going to come, from our Mother Earth.

Launching out of the first volume of the Journal of Awareness Based Systems Change, this article written by Melanie Goodchild, Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Roronhiakewen (He Clears the Sky) Dan Longboat, Kahontakwas Diane Longboat, Rick Hill, and Ka’nahsohon (A Feather Dipped in Paint) Kevin Deer is academically recognized as Goodchild et al. (2021). The article begins with Deer and Senge leading the readers into two stories, both printed side by side. The reader is immediately presented with non-linear storytelling and depending on their experience with dual and non-linear knowledges and worldviews, may be very confused and unsure where to begin and how to follow along. This continues for several pages and when both stories have been shared, the article walks into its introduction. Deer tells the story of when he physically re-connected with Mother Earth, noting “Change is going to happen from people going inward within themselves and along with going back to having communion with their first mother, Mother Earth,” (Goodchild, 2021, pp. 78). In affirming the living relationship humans and non-human beings share, Goodchild et al. (2021) actively decolonizes the reader’s perception of their relationship with Mother Earth; this intentional positionality co-creates a connection between the authors and the readers.

Awareness based systems change (ABSC) is defined as “a process of co-inquiry into the deeper structures of the social systems in order to see, sense, presence, and shift them,” (Goodchild et al., 2021, pp. 94). Goodchild et al. (2021) set out to view ABSC through a Haudenosaunee (Mohawk) lens through two-row visual code as present in the Tekani teyothata’tye kaswenta (two-row wampum belt) (pp. 81). Readers are asked to consider the similarities and differences between this practice and the application of Etuaptmumk as present in Mi’kmaw culture. This approach may be unfamiliar, foreign, and intimidating to those who have never had to learn, teach, or share in this manner before. The author encourages readers to consider how Indigenous Peoples who were stolen and forcibly relocated to residential schools felt when their ability to learn from a ‘uni’versal and linear worldview determined their safety within violent institutions; even then, safety is never guaranteed for Indigenous Peoples existing and breathing within colonial systems. 

Social workers often expect their clients to show up and deliver the linear information required to complete paperwork and forms, navigate systems of healthcare, social services, and justice, and fulfil the social worker’s obligations before they move on to the next client. How will social workers benefit from learning another way to work with their clients? How will the lives of Indigenous communities, families, and individuals improve when their (forced) involvement with the state is carried out by a healthcare professional who recognizes there is more than one way to do things? More than one way to speak, to share, to ask, to express emotion?

Conclusion

Throughout this literature review, the author has introduced a decolonial approach of truth and reconciliation in Canada as viewed through a Two-Eyed Seeing lens. The author has clarified the challenges social workers face when trying to pursue truth and reconciliation, noting the limitations of the healthcare profession itself. By incorporating an innovative framework which recognizes the overarching system of colonialism as the ‘client’ that needs transformative care on behalf of government representatives, healthcare practitioners, and educators in relational and respectful collaboration with Indigenous communities by recognizing their right to self determination, the author asks the reader to re-consider their role in the colonial system. How do individuals (settlers) benefit from these systems? How do Indigenous Peoples continue to be controlled and dominated by these same systems? What is the responsibility of the practitioner to decolonize their own framework of practice?

These questions can be explored through the adaptation of a relational systems thinking approach to complex systemic problems. As opposed to colonially-taught and therefore prejudicial interpretations of how to achieve social justice and reconciliation, Indigenized approaches require collaboration, to learn with and alongside those who have different experiences than you, come together for a shared goal, and recognize one’s intrinsic connection with Mother Earth. Social workers adapting a land-based framework of practice will likely adapt an environmental racism framework as an extension of the same root that has been poisoned by colonialism’s insistence of one universal truth. If healthcare practitioners can come together to organize alongside educators and climate justice professionals to engage in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, they will be led down the path of re-discovering how Canada has intentionally been built on a system of colonial dominance. In seeing the world through a new lens, potentially through two eyes, the author implores professionals to consider co-developing a relational systems thinking approach. Practitioners can meaningfully and respectfully organize in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples but will only be successful when they have looked inward to reveal their own individual and systemic relationship with colonization. Looking inward is the key to connecting outward and embracing a relational approach to the pursuit of truth and reconciliation.

References

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons

learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream

knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 331–340.

Choate, P. (2019). The call to decolonise: Social work’s challenge for working with

Indigenous Peoples. British Journal of Social Work (2019), 49, 1081-1099.

Goodchild, M., Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Longboat, R. D., Longboat, K. D., Hill, R.,

and Deer, K. K. (2021). Relational systems thinking: That’s how change is going to come, from our Mother Earth. Journal of Awareness Based Systems Change, 1, 1, 75-103.

Hernández, A., Ruano, A. L., Marchal, B., Sebantián, M. S., Flores, W. (2017). Engaging

with complexity to improve the health of indigenous people: A call for the use of systems

thinking to tackle health inequity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16, 26, 1-5.

Johnson, T., Allport, T., Boulton, A. (2024). Te Ruru: Co-creating an Indigenous systems change framework. Journal of Awareness Based Systems Change, 4, 1, 49-75.

Kizuk, S. (2019). Settler shame: A critique of the role of shame in settler-Indigenous

relationships in Canada. Hypatia (2020), 35, 161-177.

Louie, D. W. (2024). Barriers to engaging with reconciliation in Canadian education: Confusing colonial and western knowledge. Canadian Journal of Education, 47, 2, 466 491.

Neufeldt, R. C. (2018). When good intentions are not enough: Confronting ethical challenges in peacebuilding and reconciliation. The Conrad Grebel Review, 36, 2, 114-132.

Schaefer, M., Olabisi, L. S., Arola, K., Poitra, C. M., Matz, E., Seigel, M., Schelly, C., Adesanya, A., Bessette, D. (2021). Understanding socio-technological systems change

through an Indigenous community-based participatory framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2257, 1-13.

Snelgrove, C., Dhamoon, R. K., Corntassel, J. (2014). Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3, 2, 1-32.

Vanthuyne, K. (2021). “I want to move forward. You can move forward too.” Articulating Indigenous self-determination at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Human Rights Quarterly, 43, 2, 355-377.