Framing Indigenous Perspectives through Emic and Etic Approaches

Abstract

This chapter seeks to present indigenous perspectives from emic and etic frameworks to ascertain how cross-cultural studies fit within a new explorative paradigmatic realm. The role of context to understand how the human relationship in all social settings adopts a pluralistic and inclusive mantra is paramount to address. Discussions on specific lenses of the emic and etic approaches, looking at indigenous concepts will be presented to highlight the agency and cultural tentacles deeply rooted in the emic and etic pathways. Nine key pillars are considered: 1) succinct international and indigenous emic and etic perspectives, 2) indigenous perspectives of conflict resolution, 3) shared trends in emic and etic perspectives, 4) clarification of concepts, 5) cross-cultural perspectives and community settings, 6) indigenous population resiliency, 7) social adaptation and affirmation, 8) healthcare disparities, and 9) philosophical and theoretical perspectives.

1. Introduction

The emic and etic concepts were first coined by Pike [1] in linguistic terms. The emic view relates to a culture within a particular context and considers the internal useful dealings of only one individual or culture. The etic viewpoint looks at behavior from an external perspective [1, 2]. In seemingly simple terms, Buckley et al. ([3], p. 309) defined emic as culture-specific and etic as universal. Additionally, Engler and Whitesides [4] posited:

Within a religious context, the emic/etic distinction postulates a hierarchical relation. Emic refers to concepts used primarily by members of a particular religion, and the etic concepts are used primarily by scholars of religion and related disciplines (p. 2).

The emic and etic concepts have been analyzed in cross-cultural replication (from one cultural context to another) in social psychology [5]. Etic traits, using studies from America and Europe explored in deciphering personality and personality disorders among people in the Caribbean, showed serious cultural differences along national and ethnic lines [6].

Framing indigenous perspectives through emic and etic approaches is a worthwhile and difficult endeavor due to the intellectual rigors that one must adhere to, and many misconceptions that are shared, and promoted by some intellectuals considering indigenous peoples as individuals without an advanced way of life. This problem needs to be reframed since we must realize the impracticability of such assertion in this changing, volatile, and uncertain world. In 2002, more than six thousand distinct groups were scattered around the globe with their own culture, the meaning of their culture, lived experiences, and worldviews [7]. According to the United Nations’ Chief Executives Boards for Coordination, indigenous peoples represent 6.2% of the world population, with 370 million people in the world identified as indigenous in 2019, and in 2022, 476 millions indigenous peoples worldwide covering 90 countries [8, 9].

It is paramount to argue that a population of this magnitude warrants international efforts, and intellectual insight to comprehend and tackle some of the dire problems indigenous peoples worldwide face, such as health care disparities, lack of access to sexual and reproductive health, non-participation in decision-making, lack of land delineation and titling, climate change, displacement, infant mortality, minimal access to education, human rights violations, harassment, violence, systemic discrimination, and poverty ([10], p.1; [11, 12]).

A core concern elucidated by the UN is the rights of the indigenous peoples to be considered “equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such, that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind, and affirming further that all doctrines, policies, and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust” ([12], pp. 2–3).

While this chapter considers nine components for the indigenous perspectives, it is also critical to recognize the role of culture as an important signifier to frame the perspectives about indigeneity [identity of native, and non-native] Sium et al. [13], in terms of decolonizing the mind, or deconstruction to appreciate indigenous methods of learning, knowing, cultural literacy, conflict resolution, peacemaking, leadership and decision making, social practices, and health disparities.

This type of deconstruction has produced several forms of expressions from indigenous peoples, such as resistance, expressed as art, songs, literature from many indigenous writers, indigenous popular beliefs, and movements around the globe as shared emic perspectives. In Latin America, during the mid-nineteen century, the indigenous movement was represented in political and social ideas, literary and artistic expressions, as a gateway to eliminate racial and ethnic differences among people [14]. Proponents were Carlos de Siguenza y Gongora, Espinoza Medrano, Miguel Hidalgo, Jose Maria Luis Mora. For the Latin Americans, it was the American continent that the Creoles considered their true country. For the indigenous peoples, the indigenous person ceased to exist when he or she became a citizen of a particular country they were not considered creoles (belonging to the European race). One is considered either as wealthy or poor [14]. Nonetheless, the Métis was considered a new man having a total conception of nationality. According to Andersen [15], the Métis is an individual with mixed ancestry. Métises were classified as roto in Chile, caboclo in Brazil, gaucho in Argentina, cholo in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador ([14], p. 34).

The indigenous perspectives in Latin America did not rely on a monolithic assertion of ethnicity, but on a racialized form of identity, a form of racial legitimacy construed upon historical experiences, a type of habitus. The Métis considered himself or herself different from the Indians. According to Haitian historian Thomas Madiou Fils [16], in Haiti, the Métisses were considered “sang-mêlés” (people of mixed ancestry).

In the Caribbean, another concept was espoused by the Indigenous school depicted in the Haitian literature during the 1915 era that resisted the American occupation. The indigenous school promoted the defense of indigenous cultural values and reasserted that the Haitians are predominantly African, and the ancestral heritage cannot be forgotten. The influential thinkers were Jean- Francois Briere, Jacques Roumain, Leon Laleau, Jacques Stephen Alexis, Roussan Camille, Carl Brouard, Francois Duvalier, and Jean Price-Mars. The indigenous school’s perspectives are still ideologically vibrant today. The poet Leon Laleau [17] echoed:

This obsessive heart does not correspond

not with my language and my costumes

and on which bite like a crampon

borrowed sentiments and customs

from Europe do you feel the pain

and this despair has no equal

to tame with words from France

this heart that came to me from Senegal (p. 239).

Alfred ([18], as cited in [13]) opined this form of resistance can be achieved through the renaissance of an indigenous consciousness.

2. Specific lenses of the emic and etic perspectives

The emic perspective considers the indigenous peoples’ native point of view. Forms of expression are important. They sometimes manifest as storytelling, cultural and spiritual beliefs, and legends that create awareness to eliminate what Haitian physician, diplomat, educator, historian, and ethnographer Jean Price-Mars considered as “legends’ jumble,” and “the corruption of the fables” deriving from the Western civilization ([19], p. 32). Chinua Achebe in Things Fall Apart added that the outside perspective (external perspective, a Western way of thinking) may destroy a country or continent’s heritage and is about the colonial enterprise of “depoetization” and “desacralization” of Africa [20]. It is not surprising that what Avruch [21] termed cultural bias in the mind continues to exist. Although the etic approaches offer cross-cultural strategies, there is more that needs to be done because etic schemes developed from a Western standpoint do not always reflect shear interpretations of cultures, societies, or religious beliefs. One way to establish a clear emic-etic connection is through proper contexts, discursive channels, and cultural discussions that are not easy to establish.

Anna M. Mackowiack considering the Indonesian way of unity in diversity (the bhinneka, tunggall ika, and agama) determination during the Lingsar Temple festival, advanced that scholars ought to establish a meta-dialog about how emic perspectives are entrapped with indigenous, national, and religious communications [4]. However, using the etic approach in indigenous communities requires clear assessments that harm is abated, an assertion that the “non-civilized man or woman” has always been civilized. Claims of the so-called civilized societies claiming privileged humanity from one exclusive race and or culture, exposed by objective tribulations [22] throughout history, appear to be no longer strong because of the world’s global compass, and multicultural embrace. However, for the Heiltsuk Nation in B.C, an indigenous group of the Northwest Territories of the Newfoundland province in Canada, there are unresolved grievances to be settled. A striking discriminatory reality surfaced during Britain’s Prince Charles and his wife’s visit on May 16, 2022. The indigenous groups of Newfoundland and Labrador raised concerns about reconciliation, the impacts of colonization on the residential schools, the displacement of more than 150,000 indigenous children between 1831 and 1966, labeled as cultural genocide, and harsh conditions [23]. In Canada, the Métis concept is not a one-size-fits-all because one who is indigenous may not be a native of Canada ([15], p. 24).

The development of theories about the structure of society failing past integration among oppressors and oppressed individuals has changed. Structural slavery no longer exists on the global world stage. But admonitory measures need to be analyzed as a doubled-edge sword. An important concept to consider was the trial of colonialism, a powerful theme in the African literature of the 1960s considered as the “literature of testimony” [Littéraure de témoignage] (Letembet-Ambily [24], as cited in [20]). This literature seems to consider the dualism existing between racial category and identity. Damas ([25], as cited in [20]) resisted the Western civilization attempting to assimilate his identity with a clear conscience, and claimed his freedom in the following poem entitled Solde (Clearance):

I have the impression of being ridiculous

among them accomplice

among them pimp

among them cutthroat

frighteningly with red hands

of the blood of their civilization (p. 153)

This poem suggests a diasporic experience rooted in an African indigenous perspective that is strong and provides a proper cultural context that can be respected across nation-states’ boundaries. Indigenous voices from Caribbean poets, authors, and painters echoed a dualism between western civilizations and the négritude movement [the recognition of being Black, and the acceptation of Black historical and cultural heritages]. Haitian poet Kiki Wainwright wrote [26]:

The poet spits his challenge

in the face of executioners

called civilizers (p. 31).

The famous poet Aimé Césaire [27] from Martinique echoed:

My négritude is not a sheet of dead water on the dead eye of the earth

my négritude is neither a tower nor a cathedral

it plunges into the red flesh of the ground,

it plunges into the fiery flesh of the sky,

pierces the opaque despondents of his upright patience

2.1 Succinct international and indigenous emic and etic perspectives

Some contradictions created typologies of conflicts that are eclipsed by an international system still considering structural disagreements resulting in contradictions between countries from the center to the ones at the periphery. The center is referred to as wealthy and powerful countries, while for the countries at the periphery we find less powerful and developed ones. The wealthy countries use exploitation and domination of those at the periphery through “economic imperialism social imperialism, and political imperialism” ([28], p. 98). It is a world of political power and societal dominance with deep tentacles of disparities. Indigenous peoples are caught in the middle. They are vulnerable. Sium et al. [13] claimed that the indigenous future will continue to resonate due to internal threats in the home country, and the outside world. Currently, there are 70,000 Maasai people of the Loliondo division of the Ngorongoro district in Tanzania who face eviction by the Tanzania government’s armed forces [29].

Consistent with international laws, and the United Nations’ Article 10 of the UN Declaration “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior, and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible with the option to return” ([29]. p. 1). The following questions should be raised:

1. what are the solutions?

2. How will family disintegration or displacement be addressed?

3. Is there a future for the Maasai people?

4. How will they strive to maintain their family’s perspective?

The importance of family and well-being has been explored by many researchers who found that Western cultures have appreciated the concept of family cohesion and communication [30]. The Maori group of New Zealand has prioritized family orientation and relationships as deep anchors for their survival. For them, family relations are tied to their well-being. New Zealand is a vibrant country where multiculturalism flourishes. The largest groups consist of White (74% of the population), Maori (15%), and others represented as Pacific, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern (Statistics New Zealand [31], as cited in [30]). There are other relevant cultural concepts prioritizing family.

While the Maasai people of Tanzania face displacement, the Abuja peoples of Nigeria are alienated in their lands by their government, which ensured Abuja land’s exclusive rights to the government [10], thus creating compulsory termination of customary land rights for the indigenous people of Abuja. It is worthwhile to note that the development of exclusive rights to the government through the categorization of customary rights of occupancy, and statutory rights, elucidated by Barnabas [10], creates what Wallerstein’s historical analysis referred to as economic and political power disparities among states. In the case of the Abuja peoples, it is a structural position claimed by the government showing power imbalances. The landowners were classified as farmers, hunter-gatherers, fishermen, and pastoralists. Since there was not a clear definition of indigenous people in Nigeria, what resulted was pure human rights violation. One could make a case for colonialism.

The indigenous Abuja peoples’ perspectives, as indigenous peoples highlighted peace, and no conflicts seemed to arise. A further consideration is found in Linda Alcoff’s article “The problem of speaking for others”. The Nigerian government acting as a legitimate authority seems to have spoken for the indigenous peoples of Abuja who were less privileged and had no power. In speaking about the lands in Abuja, three key questions linger:

1. was the government speaking the truth, from a legal standpoint about the land?

2. was it a lie about developing a city reflecting the Nigerian pride at the expense of the voiceless indigenous peoples?

3. Who benefited from the creation of the city of Abuja, the administrative capital?

The above considerations may produce a concept of mutual dependence required for the emic and etic frameworks to work. Cultural factors are critical, and individualism should yield to collectivism within this framework. It is pertinent to address these questions: What would an indigenous emic perspective consider banishing selfish interests in a conflictual situation? What would an etic action or group be willing to sacrifice for the common good?

Examples of the Igbo concept of “Ihe Nkétá” or “òkè” typify the dualism between indigenous perspectives of land, and heritage conservation [32]. Igbos’ view of heritage is tied with traditions, cultural norms, and practices held by a group of people about land attachment, a type of indigeneity (Ugwuanyi [33], as cited in [32]). To some extent, heritage offers a symbolic stance for the custodians of the land within the communities who consider themselves attached to it and see the land as tangible and intangible assets (p. 3). This view is shared by the entire community, and any attempt to remove indigenous peoples from the land is deemed to be uprootedness or detachment. The land is also a symbolic living space with communal memories, a known space, Nnebedum ([34], as cited in [32]) noted. It is a form of symbolic interactionism (SI), Blumer [35] would contend.

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory positing that people make sense of things, based on the meaning attached to them, and through social interactions. SI is derived from George Herbert Meade’s American pragmatism.

The removal of indigenous peoples in Africa from their lands under the pretext of heritage preservation and restoration is a form of exclusion, isolation, and marginalization, Onyemechalu and Ugwuanyi [32] posited. It is a form of social interaction capable of creating tensions but destroying the meaning of the Abuja peoples’ lived experiences who were the first to occupy the lands, before colonial rule ([10], p. 434).

The heritage discourse entails for the Igbo indigenous person, a cultural heritage that encompasses value association, a link to the present with continuity connecting to the past, evidenced by social identity, interactions, and values. Cultural heritage also refers to various traditions, norms, and cultural practices jointly secured by a group of people ([32], p. 7) Corollaries to the heritage discourse are information value, esthetic value, and economic value, asserted Wangkeo ([36], p. 190, as cited in [32]). Information value refers to the historical belief associated with a land that is communicated through generations for future use. The esthetic value expresses a cultural property that provides convenience or satisfaction, and economic value is tied to a land’s propensity to generate value [32]. The Igbo peoples in Abuja seem to have lost this heritage. The Nigerian government-orchestrated land theft and minimized a communicative process that could have generated mutual understanding during social interactions between the indigenous Igbo peoples of Abuja, and the government agents.

Indigenous peoples in protected areas in Nepal, Thailand, and China have had opportunities to retain their protected lands when governments participated in partnerships that promoted land and park planning. The governments of Nepal, Thailand, and China have implemented policies to safeguard indigenous peoples’ customary rights, and values [7]. While there are no international comparative perspectives according to the literature, common characteristics of the populations in these countries reveal that subsistence in agriculture and forestry was essential. According to Nepal [7], poverty, lack of education, and low level of infrastructure development are the main characteristics. Contrary to the indigenous Igbos of Abuja, the indigenous peoples of Nepal, Thailand, and China, participate in local communities supporting area management, and various conservation projects. However, there are wildlife conservation violations noted among the Hmong in the Doi Inthanon National Park (DINP) in southern Thailand, resulting in encroachment, and illegal hunting of tigers (p. 754). The DINH was created without the presence and approval of inhabitants of the hill near the parking area.

2.2 Indigenous perspectives of conflict resolution

Cross-cultural perspectives play a vital role in conflict resolutions among indigenous peoples. Culture is at the core of conflict resolution. Thus, recognizing cultural differences is a good start in negotiation. While some positive social and behavioral scientists claim that the cultural concept is too subtle, it is plausible to argue that culture offers a stable platform because it connects with experiences, social actions, although it can also be a source of conflict [21].

Going back to Alcoff’s dilemma of speaking for the other, typologies of conflicts cannot only be assessed through the essential philosophical nature and society. Koko [37] also summarized the conflict phenomenon with different dominant variables such as social, political, ethnic, and religious conflicts by considering the agents and the issues. Thus, the views or perspective of the other is highly paramount. To frame this perspective, one needs to eliminate preconceived ideas, biases, and stereotypes about the “other.” Alcoff explains that privileged or discursive notions of one group or person speaking for the other are dangerous and may result in the reinforcement of oppression of the “group spoken for” ([38], p. 7).

The western view of conflict resolution, peacemaking, and negotiation has failed to consider the indigenous perspectives and researchers need to learn from them [39]. Practices of peacemaking and conflict resolution are continually active in African societies. The ethnocentric worldview of the West is insufficient to solve conflicts in many worldwide circles. Various case studies show effective mechanisms of conflict resolution in African societies [37, 40, 41, 42].

Tusso [41] presented the case of the Oromo society in Ethiopia. The Oromos suffered from colonialism by the Abyssinians during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century and were on the verge of extinction by emperor Haile Selassie who attempted to eliminate the vestiges of the Cushitic cultures, including the Oromos (p. 80). The Habesha culture considered “God’s chosen people” was imposed on the Oromo society, while the Oromos were referred to as “Gallas,” which means” uncivilized, savage, and cruel in the Amharic language. They lacked education, freedom, and means of transportation, did not participate in national affairs, and the language and cultural aspects of their survival were at stake (p.81). However, in this society, conflicts are resolved through a community of elders known as the Jarsa biya whose work encompasses preventing, managing, and solving conflicts through reconciliation, justice, and punishment. Thus, the conflict resolution model is based on the following pillars [42]:

• Jarsa biya (the community of elders) makes every effort to prevent conflicts from escalating, and issues decisions.

• dhuga bassu (truth), the truth or fact-finding system for the causes of the conflict.

• Justice: The goal is to ensure justice is administered.

• guma: payment satisfaction of the wrong committed.

• arara: the process of reconciliation is considered an act that is necessary to find harmony between the creator and the creatures.

It is incredibly important to appreciate the fact that in the Oromo society, jails, and death do not exist in the administration of justice. These governing conflict resolution principles are aligned with the Oromo political structure called the Gada system, religious customs, termed as the kallu system: the elaborate apparatus of reconciliation or arara. This system of conflict resolution surpasses divisions along regional lines, clans (gossa), and governs the political system.

The Oromo society has been described as democratic and collectivist by scholars according to Tusso [41], and their worldview of social justice and conflict is very novel. The Oromos considered that conflicts create imbalances in human relations. There is a public culture that requires investments in human capital in terms of time, energy, and reputation to manage conflicts. This indigenous perspective of conflict resolution offers a viable lens for western scholars to explore conflict resolution beyond the alternative conflict resolution modalities such as arbitration, mediation, negotiation, litigation, and conciliation.

During my undergraduate years at the City University of New York, Bernard M. Baruch College, I took a course titled “Power and conflicts in tribal society.” The textbook: Europe and the people without history, captivated my attention and created in me profound cultural shocks, due to the author’s ostensibly bias. I realized then that some Western anthropologists were on a mission or traveling on a different path in history. It took me years during my graduate studies to realize that the perceptions of “the other” is what are rooted in deeply held negative values beyond the veil of cross-cultural perspectives. Indeed, the people without a history have their history, perspectives, and emic views, which negate cultural ignorance and racism. Koko [37], pp. 108–109), brilliantly researching conflict resolution from an African standpoint, exposed the following conflict resolution models:

1. The Fulbe of Guinea-Conakry use negotiation as “djoodhagol haldaywta,” or “yewtu dugol,” or “haldi fotti”. They sit down to resolve conflicts.

2. In Kpèlè of Guinea-Conakry, negotiation signifies “ki kaa,” the act of consensus consultation.

3. In southern Senegal, the word “gabutor” signifies the exchange of ideas in the Diola-bandial language.

4. The Malinké of Ivory Coast adopt negotiation as “Dienguigni,” which means finding a consensus.

5. In The Bambara of Mali, negotiation is translated as “dje ka fo,” the act of assembling to talk.

6. The Fons of Benin adopts negotiation as a “kpon bo do” practice, suggesting finding a common ground among parties dealing with an issue.

7. The Adjas of Benin perceive negotiation as “o a le gnon lepo,” the art of looking at something together.

8. The Igbos of Nigeria see negotiation in the form of “mchoputa,” meaning discussion to reach an agreement.

9. The Bangantés of south Cameroon define negotiation as “napteu,” as the act of arranging.

10. In Swahili, negotiation is “shauri” or “biashara” indicating commerce or deliberation.

11. In Lingala of the Democratic Republic of Congo, negotiation corresponds to “koyokana,” finding an agreement.

12. In Macua-Lomwe of Mozambique, negotiation signifies “othukumana,” whose connotation is discussions aimed at restoring peace.

2.2.1 Shared trends in emic and etic perspectives

One quality of an emic perspective is found in native terms selection or institutional buy-in, Avruch [21] contended. A word such as “friendship” in Chinese you-yi suggests an interpersonal construct that is pervasive in human relations and infers a mutual obligation, Avruch [21] further elucidated. What is cleverly not enunciated, is the meaning of the linguistic ramification of the emic concept if we consider a person’s communication evolves in a particular context and culture. For example, there can be cultural adaptations, and new meanings of the word friendship in English, Spanish, Japanese, French, Haitian Creole, Igbo language, etc., resulting from social, political, and institutional correctness or pressure as etic elements that may create a new emic phenomenon. Such a line of reasoning propels the following questions:

1. Are internal/native understanding or views influenced by external forces?

   We are living in a pluralistic world promoting the acceptance of one’s “personal” or “group” views, which one may consider as “generalized”, attempting to create a new culture with its own identity.

2. Is there a path for the emic concept to survive in such a culture?

   This is a problematic condition calling for a new cultural anthropology. The important gain of the emic concept is that its roots an individual deeper in relevant cultural contexts that are changing.

3. What is the future of the emic perspective around the globe?

   I would argue that it depends on the values defined by each culture. However, it is difficult to answer such a question due to the influences of the globalization culture affecting indigenous peoples worldwide. There are cultural data from innovative technologies and social media platforms in cultural spheres capable of changing the cultural template for the emic and etic perspectives to evolve. This is not an easy development.

2.2.2 Clarification of concepts

Emic and etic concepts offer a cultural space where different views are explored. There is a possibility to negotiate between actors using both perspectives. They represent speakers seeking collective understanding through a clear communicative process. When there is no room for common ground in unresolved issues, emic and etic perspectives can also be the roots of conflicts. Zartman (1982) explained that communication must be more than a question of the sheer difference in communication types. It is also necessary that actors minimize their inadequate cultural tenets, by not imposing their views on others, but embracing cultural differences.

Avruch ([21], p. 58) opined that a cultural differences continuum must be about the quality of difference when actors or individuals express their perspectives and problems in quest of solutions. Cultural differences are important when the aim is to educate or prepare the other. The notion of contexts in which communication takes place is paramount to an emic and etic scale. In high-context communication, language is expressive, whereas, in low-context communication, it is instrumental (p. 64).

2.2.3 Cross-cultural perspectives and community settings

In this chapter, I addressed the emic and etic perspectives, considered the notion of shared trends, and clarified some concepts. I presented relevant appraisals of indigenous thoughts under an intellectual lens which posits that different ethnic groups establish their own mechanisms to resist forms of alienation, potential or actual harm (or endangerment) from etic judgments ([43], as cited in [22]), or external interventions. It was necessary to do so, due to issues of etic vulnerability that indigenous peoples continually deal with, such as displacement from their lands, lack of education, health-related issues, etc.

In principle, as well as in applied terms, we have seen that there is a framework used by etic agents such as governments using socio-economic policy to disenfranchise many populations (The Maasai people of Tanzania, Igbos in southern Nigeria, the Abuja peoples, indigenous populations in Nepal, Taiwan, China, and indigenous populations in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada). Thus, the vulnerability also exists from both emic and etic perspectives. Emic vulnerabilities represent the experience of exposure to harm by indigenous populations. This section focuses on cross-cultural perspectives, as a model that does not use etic approaches to cross-cultural interpretation because diverse cultural groups have different emic-etic perspectives. As a result, it would be futile to adhere to etic interpretations that are not a one-size-fits-all fix.

At the center of the cross-cultural scheme, culture must be considered and defined. Avruch [21] offers an interesting definition from Theodore Schwartz that fits well within the cross-cultural context:

Culture consists of derivatives of experiences, organized, learned, or created by the individuals of a population, including those images or encodements and their interpretations (meanings) transmitted from past generations, from contemporaries, or formed by individuals themselves (p.37).

This definition implies culture is connected to experiences, and embraces changes. Considered in this fashion, one may find it reasonable to move away from inadequate definitions implying that culture is homogenous, a thing, uniformed distribution among a group, customs, individuals possessing a single culture, and is timeless [21]. Another definition proposed by Stead [44] highlights culture in the following terms:

Culture is a social system of shared symbols, meanings, perspectives, and social actions that are mutually negotiated by people in their relationships with others (p. 392).

Within this frame of clarification, a keen understanding of ethnicity is needed. For instance, colonizers in Africa and America of native and non-native individuals, indigenous, and non-indigenous have used race and ethnicity as tools of containment during slavery. As Sium et al. ([13], p.656) posited, indigeneity came along the race line and ethnicity, although the difference between race and ethnicities was distinct from the division between colonizers and colonized.

It is not surprising, Fetvadjiev et al. [30] argued about the necessity to find cross-cultural research emphasizing an emic etic approach relying on empirical and universal models, with much less research done on cross-cultural replicability of indigenous models. An emic or culture-specific perspective requires a cultural context interpreting the occurring phenomena. In the etic case or culture-general, research assumptions usually are made from the outside to inside contexts [45].

A cross-cultural international business research, using emic and etic approaches, provided light on the elimination of a dichotomous focus of the emic and etic concepts, seeing them as complementary [3]. The dichotomy resides in the emic concept being considered culture-specific, and etic is universal. This has led to the view that cross-cultural comparisons have been ethnocentric, Buckley et al. [3] stated. However, one needs to understand the profound differences in culture, and cross-cultural research using emic and etic approaches are vital options to get meaningful results.

Furthermore, in multicultural communities, emic perspectives, and meanings of terms such as family, diversity, loneliness, and self-esteem may have different interpretations than in the English language, although similarities in the meaning of the terms may exist [5, 13, 30]. As a result, an etic approach to cross-cultural understanding and research can be limited, due to diverse cultural contexts. There is a platform to consider cross-cultural emic and etic perspectives, not in terms of universal assumptions. Research in these domains warrants a contextual restraint and an unbiased outside outlook.

Another consideration is to apply the tenets of cultural competence, which consists of developing individual knowledge and skills to allow for effective engagement, and judgments when dealing with other cultures. Cultural competence is a great tool in cross-cultural environments, research, and fosters a better understanding of other cultures. Related terms such as cultural safety, cultural sensitivity, cultural humility, cultural responsiveness, and transcultural care, are commonly used [11].

2.2.4 Indigenous population resiliency

Indigenous population resiliency is a fascinating concept. Resiliency is the ability to recover after a major struggle, or a crisis. It involves the restoration of a prior state of wellbeing [46]. Several perspectives found in the literature deal with behaviors and attitudes linked with familial and culture-specific issues, cultural resiliency among native Americans in California in Tomales Bay, adversity and resiliency in native Hawaiian elders, the Makushi indigenous peoples in South America, and the Gullah people of South Carolina and Georgia [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. However, there is a void in the literature about an emic-etic approach. Resiliency is a complex concept requiring a clear understanding that can be perceived or defined differently depending on the context, by groups, individuals, and agencies, and there is not a simple continuum [46].

Considering the effects of land displacement or expulsion that many indigenous peoples in the chapter encountered, there are assumptions of psychological harm, stress, and collective trauma, aspects of spirituality, and cultural values as factors of resiliency to be made [52]. In the United States, indigenous peoples such as native Hawaiians, Americans, Indians, and Alaska natives share a history of involuntary assimilation, displacement, and experienced trauma as colonized peoples [47].

What do indigenous peoples consider resiliency?

One can advance that culture is vital for resiliency due to its dynamic characteristics. Resiliency also implies dynamism. There is an interdependence between culture and resiliency. Life misfortunes experienced by the Maasai of Tanzania may create stronger bonds among them due to a traumatic context and psychological effects. But what aspect in their material culture provides relief, and are there intangibles? The answer can be found in the Igbo culture since their cultural heritage preservation is deeply rooted in a knowledge-based system that is transmitted from one generation to another [32].

The Gullah Geechee community, an enclave in South Carolina, shows an example of resiliency. The Gullah Geechee people are descendants of the western coast of Africa who were enslaved in Georgia, and South Carolina. They keep on inhabiting the farm coastal plains and sea Islands since the post abolition of slavery era in 1865. Due to transportation challenges, the Gullah Geechee peoples created their language, which they still use today. They are a marginalized community facing cultural displacements from dangers of development, climate change, and access to natural resources, putting at risk the heritage they contributed to centuries ago. For them, resiliency is a pressing need in shaping and keeping their culture. So, the public must be made aware of the challenges of this minority group. A larger sense of community resiliency is to be created, meaning their capability to foresee solutions for their challenges, learn from past ones, and integrate their understanding to minimize their vulnerability ([48], pp. 1–2). For the Makushi indigenous Carib-speaking people of Guyana and Brazil and the Amerindians, resiliency consists of dependence on cassava farming practices, eating, and preservation of cultural norms [51].

Native Hawaiian Elders (na kupuna) from 1975 to 1984 established a resiliency model consisting of a cultural renaissance, which prioritized language, hula, and spiritual practices. One of the effects of the cultural renaissance was the development the indigenous health services alleviating health risks in this population, Browne et al. [47] reported.

2.2.5 Social adaptation and affirmation

Additionally, concepts such as social support, and social adaptation in indigenous populations can be relevant regardless of displacement or challenges. In indigenous Australian communities, and other indigenous Haitian communities in Miami, Florida, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has proven to be an effective intervention [50, 53]. The CBPR is linked with the theory of resilience that recognizes intrinsic power in individuals and communities (Chapin et al. [54], as cited in [47]). The indigenous Haitian community in Miami, Florida is well socially supported, and politically adapted.

2.2.6 Healthcare disparities

The literature is scant about healthcare disparities among indigenous peoples. A contextual approach is necessary it seems. The research reviewed showed one key factor of disparity is poverty which creates vulnerability in health [55]. In the indigenous communities of Nigeria, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and indigenous groups in Miami, poverty is considered a key indicator of health disparities. The main tenets of health disparities or healthcare inequalities consist of social and indigenous inequalities,and shortfalls deriving from past experiences of colonization, globalization, acculturation, land displacement, and loss of indigenous languages [49].

Two problems that many indigenous populations are confronted with are good health, and lack of healthcare access. Their daily activities depend on them. While western researchers and the World Health Organization rely on social determinants of health and psychological factors associated with good health, it is noteworthy to consider the role of culture and culture in health belief formation. Social determinants of health are generally seen as responsible factors for the poor state of indigenous health. Policymakers must consider health behaviors, coupled with sociocultural contexts in health care. The impact of ethnomedical beliefs, customs, traditions, knowledge, and intuition about sickness and treatment, in sum traditional medicine should not be underestimated. Notions of health, diseases, and healing are highly paramount [56]. Future research must address the issues of health disparities and vulnerability in healthcare, in an international healthcare system lacking equity.

3. Philosophical and theoretical perspectives

The overarching philosophical theory is the human-cultural perspectives in psychology . The human-cultural perspectives are concerned with the nature of personal and cultural rules, meaning systems, and therefore establish the “realm of reasons”, whereas the natural sciences perspective is based on natural laws and the “realm of causes” ([57], p. 113). The dualism of the emic-etic approaches fits well with the human-cultural perspectives. It may also suggest a quest for a new paradigm. Kuhn ([58], p.15) posited that out of crises, new paradigms occur.

Another philosophical concept is John Rawls’s [59] Theory of Justice as fairness. Rawls developed a theory linking utilitarianism with Kantian theory. For Rawls, governments must preserve and promote the liberty and welfare of their people. Conferring arbitrary rights to one entity, individual, or group, at the expense of others, is unjust. Thus, principles of justice as fairness are crucial.

In Rawls’ reasoning, there is a hypothetical position known as “the original position”. The original position invites us to think of ourselves in a position of equality, in which we are unaware of most of the socially significant facts about ourselves: race, sex, religion, economic class, social standing, natural abilities, and even our conception of the good life. He termed such a phenomenon the “veil of ignorance”. Undoubtedly, both philosophical theories are relevant to the issues indigenous populations face worldwide. The adversities such as displacement, poverty, human rights violations, discrimination, etc., not the mantra of “the good life” the indigenous populations face worldwide should propel rapid interventions, and efficient policies of deterrence, I argue.

The theoretical perspective considered is the cultural/symbolic perspective asserted by Eckensberger [57]. This perspective considers culture vital in understanding human development, perspectives, meaning, and institutions. It requires a pluralistic approach to human systems, and both emic and etic perspectives are captured within this theoretical perspective.

4. Conclusion

I have examined indigenous perspectives through an emic-etic pathway looking at social, cultural, health, political, and economic challenges, using a cross-cultural portal. Both emic and etic perspectives suggest the need for a progressive indigenous paradigm providing context in which, disparities and unjust practices by agency powers can be lessened. This requires proper interventions, global awareness, and allocation of resources from various actors in this rapidly globalizing world. It is plausible that positive results will follow. This chapter also underscores the need to understand indigenous voices from within (an emic call) because cultural preservation and self-determination values can be effective drivers for the indigenous population around the globe to survive. Further research is needed.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.