Knowledge From the Afrikan World, For the World

PMC Articles

Worlds Apart, Te Ao Māori and Western Worldviews in Aotearoa, New Zealand

PMCID: PMC12783291

PMID: 40540144

Abstract

Even though the last war between Tangata Whenua and the Crown ended over 150 years ago, Tiriti obligations and the rights of Tangata Whenua remain largely unaddressed. Significant disparities persist, with limited discourse on effective solutions. The recently introduced Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill highlights enduring challenges in honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This manuscript examines Te Ao Māori (the Māori worldview) and Western worldviews in Aotearoa, exploring their profound cultural differences and implications for relationships between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. We highlight the holistic, interconnected nature of Te Ao Māori, rooted in whakapapa, and contrast this with the rationalism and compartmentalization of Western traditions. To bridge these worldview differences, we propose a relationship framework grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi to promote equitable, respectful partnerships. This framework addresses power imbalances and advocates for a two-worldview methodology that honours the mana of both perspectives. By integrating these approaches, we identify pathways for building stronger, inclusive relationships. This pluriversal approach respects the integrity of both worldviews and offers a foundation for coexistence rooted in mutual respect.

Full Text

Te Ao Māori is characterized by interconnectedness and collaborative practice that transcends tribal boundaries (Mikaere 2011; Edwards et al. 2023; Royal 2003). In contrast, a Western Worldview operates by segmenting the whole as we experience it in order to make sense of the parts. The aim is to examine how individuals or groups from different worldview perspectives can form cooperative relationships without prioritizing one worldview over the other. This is a challenge that remains highly topical and relevant in present-day Aotearoa (Los 2023). Next, we discuss some critical issues involved in working with worldview differences and in the final sections, we review approaches to managing worldview differences in Aotearoa, proposing methods to improve interactions between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti in groups and organizations within the Tangata Whenua, Community and Voluntary Sector, and the Public Sector in Aotearoa.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi positions us for the challenge of dealing with worldview differences as we communicate across the gap between the two parties. As a Māori worldview differs greatly from a Western worldview, a specific methodology is needed to facilitate connection and communication. Acceptance of worldview difference rather than sameness is crucial for operating a methodology with credibility in a Tiriti two-worldview setting. When one party dominates or uses elements of their worldview to force change on the other, there is a loss of mana on both sides. Working together using a Tiriti two-worldview approach keeps the mana of both worldviews intact and on par with each other. It discourages a “winners and losers” mentality between the worldviews where tension arises. It also discourages assimilation (Patterson 1992; Barlow 2002; Royal 2003; Hikuroa 2017; Mikaere 2011; Edwards et al. 2023).
We explore how worldview differences are reflected in identity, examining the role of understanding “who we are” in shaping values and assumptions within relationships. Relationship breakdowns are often rooted in an inability to handle or navigate these differences (Shiundu 2024). Drawing on both Māori and Western traditions, we trace the historical and philosophical roots of these perspectives. Kamler and Thomson’s (2006) view of doctoral research as a social practice aligns with this relational focus, emphasizing the integration of identity, process, and outcomes in fostering meaningful engagement. Such relational methods support the Tiriti-based approach necessary for building effective, respectful partnerships.This approach is particularly relevant to groups where fostering mutual understanding and collaboration is crucial. By integrating relational approaches that respect and uphold the integrity of both worldviews, this manuscript contributes to the broader dialogue on creating equitable, inclusive, and cooperative relationships across our public life in Aotearoa (Edwards et al. 2023; Walker, Reedy, and Tibble 2022).
Te Ao Māori is grounded in an interconnected framework of relationships that provide meaning and structure to Māori thought. This worldview explores cosmogony (origins of the universe), ontology (the nature of existence), epistemology (knowledge acquisition), teleology (life’s purpose), and ethics, integrating spiritual, physical, and moral dimensions (Royal 2003; Barlow 2002; Mikaere 2011; Patterson 1992). Unlike Western empirical approaches, which often isolate knowledge into discrete parts, Te Ao Māori emphasizes the nature of understanding, where everything is approached relationally and where knowledge is as much subjective as it is objective. Royal (2005) describes knowledge from a Māori perspective as the internal consciousness of a person. He contrasts this with its Western equivalent, where knowledge becomes the product of consciousness. Royal adds that experience in Te Ao Māori is inseparable from knowledge whereas within a Western paradigm, knowledge becomes the explanation of experience (Royal 2005). Central to Te Ao Māori is whakapapa (genealogy), which connects all living and non-living things through layered relationships. Whakapapa provides a framework for understanding the universe’s interconnected realms: Te Kore (potential), Te Pō (becoming), and Te Ao Mārama (being). These genealogies, embedded in creation stories, guide ethical behaviour and reflect the intrinsic link between human well-being and environmental sustainability (Reilly et al. 2018; Royal 1998).
Manaakitanga (hospitality) is central to fostering and maintaining relationships, where care and respect for others enhance the reciprocal nature of mana (prestige and authority). This value is vital in whānau (family) and marae (meeting space in front of the wharenui), underscoring importance of mana-enhancing relationships as a cornerstone of social cohesion (Kawharu, Tapsell, and Tane 2024). Whanaungatanga (kinship) builds upon whakapapa, focusing on the bonds and mutual obligations within whānau, hapū (sub-tribes), and iwi (tribes). It also reflects the collective nature of Māori society, where the value of relationships extends beyond human connections to include the environment and spiritual entities, reinforcing the concept of interdependence. The deep relationship between people and the environment is expressed through mana whenua, which links spiritual authority to land. Practices like burying the placenta in the whenua symbolize this connection and the reciprocal responsibilities between people and the natural world (Read 2021).
Māori values are further shaped by atuatanga (divine excellence), representing life’s ultimate purpose. This spiritual dimension is aligned with a holistic set of interconnections between the spiritual, social, and material dimensions, promoting harmony across all aspects of existence (Royal 2003). Tikanga Māori (customs) provides practical and ethical guidance for daily life. While it evolves over time, it retains core practices arising from the distinction between tapu (sacred) and noa (ordinary), which continue to influence how respect for food-related spaces is valued (Rolleston, McDonald, and Miskelly 2022). Tikanga fosters sustainable practices, ensuring that actions align with cultural values and obligations to people and the environment. Kaitiakitanga (guardianship) exemplifies the Māori stewardship ethic derived from whakapapa and the interconnected relationships among all living things. Kaitiaki (mana whenua guardians) actively maintains the balance within the natural world, ensuring that resources and ecosystems are protected for future generations (Roberts et al. 1995; Resource Management Act 1991). Kotahitanga (unity) emphasizes the importance of collective action and harmony within communities. By discouraging conflict and division, kotahitanga guides cohesive relationships that align with the understanding of the Māori world and its interconnected parts (Bishop 2008). Finally, rangatiratanga (sovereignty) embodies leadership and self-determination grounded in relational ethics. It reflects authority within the framework of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provides a governance model that respects the unity and diversity of communities in Aotearoa (Hēnare 2015).
Kaupapa Māori frameworks have been effectively implemented across various organizations and community initiatives, including the Community Sector Taskforce, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Māori Business Network, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and the Māori Party. Models such as Te Whare Tapa
tWhā, Te Wheke, and Ngā Pou Mana exemplify interconnection. Te Whare Tapa Whā conceptualizes health through the metaphor of a house with four dimensions—physical, mental, family, and spiritual—emphasizing the need for balance across these aspects (Durie 2004). Te Wheke, represented by the octopus, also highlights interconnectedness, with the tentacles symbolizing dimensions such as life force (mauri), ancestral connection (hā a koro mā a kui mā), and emotional expression (whatumanawa), suggesting that imbalance in any dimension impacts overall well-being (Pere 1984). Ngā Pou Mana, introduced by the Royal Commission on Social Policy, uses four foundational pillars—family (whanaungatanga), cultural heritage (taonga tuku iho), the environment (te ao tūroa), and land base (tūrangawaewae)—to provide a comprehensive framework for community and individual health planning (Durie 2004). The Whānau Ora initiative further exemplifies kaupapa Māori by empowering families to achieve better health and social outcomes. It connects applications of Māori values to the way service delivery can be changed, focusing on the interdependence of physical, mental, spiritual, and social health to support holistic family well-being.
In summary, Te Ao Māori, as a worldview, presents itself as an all-encompassing philosophical framework. It facilitates inquiries into identity, origins, the nature of the world, our place in the universe, our future direction, knowledge acquisition, the development of ethical conduct for enduring physical and cultural existence, and innovative responses to emerging challenges (Mikaere 2011; Royal 2002).
Understanding the Tangata Tiriti worldview is crucial for engaging meaningfully with the differences between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Grounded in Western traditions, this worldview emphasizes historical and conceptual approaches that often contrast sharply with Māori perspectives, particularly regarding land and nature. While Māori view land as sacred, embodying stewardship (tiakitanga), the Western tradition has often regarded it as a commodity, reflecting a broader disconnection between humanity and the natural world (Williams, Roberts, and McIntosh 2012; Berry 1988; Webster and Cheyne 2017).
Western Worldview thinking has evolved over the centuries. Karl Jaspers wrote about an Axial Period (800–200 BCE) which marked a significant shift in global thought, giving rise to new philosophical traditions and major ideologies, such as Greek rationalism and monotheism. This period deepened the separation of humanity from nature and individuals from one another, profoundly influencing Western cosmology and societal organization (Armstrong 2006; 1999; Jaspers 1953). Over time, Western thought evolved through three key epochs: Greek rationalism in the classical era, Christian theology in the medieval period, and empirical science in the modern era. Each phase built upon the intellectual legacy of the Axial Period, progressively shifting toward a fragmented, human-centric view of the universe. By the modern era, Cartesian dualism reinforced a division between mind and matter, prioritizing scientific inquiry and individual rationality while diminishing the importance of maintaining links between spiritual and natural dimensions of the wider world (Tarnas 2010). Romanticism in the late eighteenth century countered this trend by celebrating emotional depth, artistic creativity, and humanity’s connection to nature. David Bohm’s theory of the “implicate order” further challenged the dominant fragmentation of the Western Worldview proposing a holistic view of reality all elements of the universe are connected (Bohm 1980). This holistic perspective offers an alternative to the mechanistic and reductionist approach prevalent in Western thought.
In a contemporary Western worldview, tensions persist between fragmentation and integration. Postmodernism emphasizes the fluidity of knowledge and experience, advocating for diverse approaches to truth and rejecting fixed principles. Participatory epistemology seeks to reconcile this divide by presenting the human mind as a tool for articulating interconnected realities, fostering a holistic and participatory worldview (Berry 1988). The dominance of a fragmented, mechanistic understanding in Western approaches often conflicts with nature-centric and relational perspectives. Concepts such as Freud and Jung’s focus on the unconscious, along with participatory methodologies in modern research, highlight the potential for reconnecting individuals with the cosmos and adopting a more nature-centric approach (Tarnas 2006). Ultimately, while the Western tradition has profoundly shaped Tangata Tiriti perspectives, the need to connect relational and ecological approaches is increasingly recognized. This shift aligns with the broader quest to reconcile fragmented Western worldviews with holistic frameworks better suited to addressing contemporary challenges.
Western methodological thought, traditionally anchored in individualism from the perspective of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am,” contrasts sharply with the collectivist values of other cultural paradigms (Friston 2016; Gergen and Gergen 2003). The discourse around the African philosophy of Ubuntu, translated as “I am because we are,” asserts that the individual’s existence and knowledge are contingent upon relationships with others (Battle 2009). This aligns with the concept of “double consciousness,” as described by W.E.B. Du Bois, which refers to the experience of black Americans feeling a sense of “two-ness” in their soul, thoughts, and perceptions. This term articulates the internal conflict of navigating a bicultural framework relating to identity, primarily from an individual perspective (Ladson-Billings 2003).
In Aotearoa, the interaction between a Western worldview and Te Ao Māori within a decolonization framework calls for a pluriversal approach that acknowledges the legitimacy and richness of diverse epistemic, ethical, and political thinking and practice from both worldview perspectives. Grosfuguel’s advocacy for a pluriversal world instead of a singular universal design reflects a critical dialogue essential for honouring both Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives (Jaramillo and McLaren 2008). This indigenous challenge to universalism, powerfully rooted in the colonization discourse, critiques the Western worldview for its historical tendency to segment knowledge and relegate non-Western epistemologies to “myth,” a category deemed irrational by thinkers like Habermas (Mutu (Ngāti Kahu) 2019).
Acknowledging Te Ao Māori and challenging Western universalism underscores the importance of engaging with the complexities of knowledge creation and understanding from both worldview perspectives, not just one. The shift towards a more inclusive and relational approach in both research and public life emphasizes not only the interconnectedness of body, mind, and spirit but also the multiple interconnections across the wider natural world. Such an approach offers a holistic perspective that transcends the transactional segmentation of Western thought, promoting a comprehensive view that includes Te Ao Māori in a way that avoids “problematizing the indigenous” or assimilation (Aluli-Meyer 2008; Wilber 1983; 1995; Smith 1999). As Aotearoa moves towards a post-colonial environment, effective engagement between Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua worldviews will be needed. Successful engagement will require support from a broad and well-defined analytical framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi that respects the rich diversity and historical experiences of people in both communities.
In Aotearoa, over the last forty years, our track record for dealing with worldview differences when deciding how we will manage community governance has been shaped by the colonization agenda and academic critique/challenge from a Māori perspective where Te Ao Māori is not operating on its own terms. This is likely because the methods of analysis, decision-making, and implementation of change require change. The work of the Waitangi Tribunal (Came, Sullivan, and Kidd 2020), notwithstanding that it is a Crown agency marked the beginning of an iterative change process that has enabled us to progressively develop our understanding of a different type of methodology (Figure 1).
Understanding the journey since 1840 differs from comprehending the direction forward. The tensions between Articles 1 and 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi highlight two key points: first, the different worldviews of Tangata Whenua and the Crown are in the 1840 document; second, these tensions are not to be “resolved” or the Articles rewritten. Recent developments, such as the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill by ACT Party leader David Seymour, have intensified these discussions. The bill aims to redefine the Treaty’s principles, sparking significant debate and public protests, including a notable haka led by Māori MPs in Parliament (Seymour 2024). These events underscore the relevance and complexity of interpreting Te Tiriti in contemporary Aotearoa.
To continue to honour Te Tiriti as the nation’s founding document, we must develop robust mechanisms that respect and advance the interests of both parties, embracing the inherent tensions as integral to the partnership it establishes. A relational framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi can help us undertake change that is relevant, respectful, and sustainable. We propose a relationship framework that focuses on driving change but acknowledges the need for prior learning. A Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview approach builds on understanding worldview differences and facilitates analysis beyond mere critique. It begins by engaging both worldviews to foster mutual understanding. Learning and development processes must be tailored to the specific group involved, with adjustments in design and direction that suit the context (Figure 1A) (Smith 1999).
The proposed methodology guides movement across six continuum points, balancing learning with action (Figure 1B). Each step assumes competence at prior levels (Freire 1996). Both parties introduce their worldviews, and after thoroughly discussing how each value under consideration is applied to the issue at hand, they can attempt to look at the question of change because both sides will have a shared understanding of what they are dealing with. The shared application of values to the issue at hand will be crafted in such a way as to ensure the integrity of each worldview, especially Te Ao Māori (Royal 2002). This is broadly the process of engaging a Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview in the workplace or the community with the support of an appropriate methodology.

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR23\", \"CR11\", \"CR34\", \"CR22\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Te Ao M\\u0101ori is characterized by interconnectedness and collaborative practice that transcends tribal boundaries (Mikaere 2011; Edwards et al. 2023; Royal 2003). In contrast, a Western Worldview operates by segmenting the whole as we experience it in order to make sense of the parts. The aim is to examine how individuals or groups from different worldview perspectives can form cooperative relationships without prioritizing one worldview over the other. This is a challenge that remains highly topical and relevant in present-day Aotearoa (Los 2023). Next, we discuss some critical issues involved in working with worldview differences and in the final sections, we review approaches to managing worldview differences in Aotearoa, proposing methods to improve interactions between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti in groups and organizations within the Tangata Whenua, Community and Voluntary Sector, and the Public Sector in Aotearoa.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR25\", \"CR4\", \"CR34\", \"CR16\", \"CR23\", \"CR11\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Te Tiriti o Waitangi positions us for the challenge of dealing with worldview differences as we communicate across the gap between the two parties. As a M\\u0101ori worldview differs greatly from a Western worldview, a specific methodology is needed to facilitate connection and communication. Acceptance of worldview difference rather than sameness is crucial for operating a methodology with credibility in a Tiriti two-worldview setting. When one party dominates or uses elements of their worldview to force change on the other, there is a loss of mana on both sides. Working together using a Tiriti two-worldview approach keeps the mana of both worldviews intact and on par with each other. It discourages a \\u201cwinners and losers\\u201d mentality between the worldviews where tension arises. It also discourages assimilation (Patterson 1992; Barlow 2002; Royal 2003; Hikuroa 2017; Mikaere 2011; Edwards et al. 2023).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR37\", \"CR19\", \"CR11\", \"CR41\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"We explore how worldview differences are reflected in identity, examining the role of understanding \\u201cwho we are\\u201d in shaping values and assumptions within relationships. Relationship breakdowns are often rooted in an inability to handle or navigate these differences (Shiundu 2024). Drawing on both M\\u0101ori and Western traditions, we trace the historical and philosophical roots of these perspectives. Kamler and Thomson\\u2019s (2006) view of doctoral research as a social practice aligns with this relational focus, emphasizing the integration of identity, process, and outcomes in fostering meaningful engagement. Such relational methods support the Tiriti-based approach necessary for building effective, respectful partnerships.This approach is particularly relevant to groups where fostering mutual understanding and collaboration is crucial. By integrating relational approaches that respect and uphold the integrity of both worldviews, this manuscript contributes to the broader dialogue on creating equitable, inclusive, and cooperative relationships across our public life in Aotearoa (Edwards et al. 2023; Walker, Reedy, and Tibble 2022).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR34\", \"CR4\", \"CR23\", \"CR25\", \"CR35\", \"CR35\", \"CR28\", \"CR32\"], \"section\": \"Te Ao M\\u0101ori\\u2014M\\u0101ori Worldview\", \"text\": \"Te Ao M\\u0101ori is grounded in an interconnected framework of relationships that provide meaning and structure to M\\u0101ori thought. This worldview explores cosmogony (origins of the universe), ontology (the nature of existence), epistemology (knowledge acquisition), teleology (life\\u2019s purpose), and ethics, integrating spiritual, physical, and moral dimensions (Royal 2003; Barlow 2002; Mikaere 2011; Patterson 1992). Unlike Western empirical approaches, which often isolate knowledge into discrete parts, Te Ao M\\u0101ori emphasizes the nature of understanding, where everything is approached relationally and where knowledge is as much subjective as it is objective. Royal (2005) describes knowledge from a M\\u0101ori perspective as the internal consciousness of a person. He contrasts this with its Western equivalent, where knowledge becomes the product of consciousness. Royal adds that experience in Te Ao M\\u0101ori is inseparable from knowledge whereas within a Western paradigm, knowledge becomes the explanation of experience (Royal 2005). Central to Te Ao M\\u0101ori is\\u00a0whakapapa\\u00a0(genealogy), which connects all living and non-living things through layered relationships. Whakapapa provides a framework for understanding the universe\\u2019s interconnected realms: Te Kore (potential), Te P\\u014d (becoming), and Te Ao M\\u0101rama (being). These genealogies, embedded in creation stories, guide ethical behaviour and reflect the intrinsic link between human well-being and environmental sustainability (Reilly et al. 2018; Royal 1998).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR20\", \"CR27\"], \"section\": \"Key Kaupapa and Tikanga from Te Ao M\\u0101ori\", \"text\": \"Manaakitanga\\u00a0(hospitality) is central to fostering and maintaining relationships, where care and respect for others enhance the reciprocal nature of mana (prestige and authority). This value is vital in wh\\u0101nau (family) and marae (meeting space in front of the wharenui), underscoring importance of mana-enhancing relationships as a cornerstone of social cohesion (Kawharu, Tapsell, and Tane 2024). Whanaungatanga\\u00a0(kinship) builds upon whakapapa, focusing on the bonds and mutual obligations within wh\\u0101nau, hap\\u016b (sub-tribes), and iwi (tribes). It also reflects the collective nature of M\\u0101ori society, where the value of relationships extends beyond human connections to include the environment and spiritual entities, reinforcing the concept of interdependence. The deep relationship between people and the environment is expressed through\\u00a0mana whenua, which links spiritual authority to land. Practices like burying the placenta in the whenua symbolize this connection and the reciprocal responsibilities between people and the natural world (Read 2021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR34\", \"CR31\", \"CR30\", \"CR29\", \"CR7\", \"CR15\"], \"section\": \"Key Kaupapa and Tikanga from Te Ao M\\u0101ori\", \"text\": \"M\\u0101ori values are further shaped by\\u00a0atuatanga\\u00a0(divine excellence), representing life\\u2019s ultimate purpose. This spiritual dimension is aligned with a holistic set of interconnections between the spiritual, social, and material dimensions, promoting harmony across all aspects of existence (Royal 2003). Tikanga M\\u0101ori\\u00a0(customs) provides practical and ethical guidance for daily life. While it evolves over time, it retains core practices arising from the distinction between tapu (sacred) and noa (ordinary), which continue to influence how respect for food-related spaces is valued (Rolleston, McDonald, and Miskelly 2022). Tikanga fosters sustainable practices, ensuring that actions align with cultural values and obligations to people and the environment. Kaitiakitanga\\u00a0(guardianship) exemplifies the M\\u0101ori stewardship ethic derived from whakapapa and the interconnected relationships among all living things. Kaitiaki (mana whenua guardians) actively maintains the balance within the natural world, ensuring that resources and ecosystems are protected for future generations (Roberts et al. 1995; Resource Management Act 1991). Kotahitanga\\u00a0(unity) emphasizes the importance of collective action and harmony within communities. By discouraging conflict and division, kotahitanga guides cohesive relationships that align with the understanding of the M\\u0101ori world and its interconnected parts (Bishop 2008). Finally,\\u00a0rangatiratanga\\u00a0(sovereignty) embodies leadership and self-determination grounded in relational ethics. It reflects authority within the framework of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provides a governance model that respects the unity and diversity of communities in Aotearoa (H\\u0113nare 2015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR10\", \"CR26\", \"CR10\"], \"section\": \"Key Kaupapa and Tikanga from Te Ao M\\u0101ori\", \"text\": \"Kaupapa M\\u0101ori frameworks have been effectively implemented across various organizations and community initiatives, including the Community Sector Taskforce, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Housing New Zealand Corporation, the M\\u0101ori Business Network, Te W\\u0101nanga o Raukawa, and the M\\u0101ori Party. Models such as\\u00a0Te Whare Tapa\\ntWh\\u0101,\\u00a0Te Wheke, and\\u00a0Ng\\u0101 Pou Mana\\u00a0exemplify interconnection.\\u00a0Te Whare Tapa Wh\\u0101\\u00a0conceptualizes health through the metaphor of a house with four dimensions\\u2014physical, mental, family, and spiritual\\u2014emphasizing the need for balance across these aspects (Durie 2004).\\u00a0Te Wheke, represented by the octopus, also highlights interconnectedness, with the tentacles symbolizing dimensions such as life force (mauri), ancestral connection (h\\u0101 a koro m\\u0101 a kui m\\u0101), and emotional expression (whatumanawa), suggesting that imbalance in any dimension impacts overall well-being (Pere 1984).\\u00a0Ng\\u0101 Pou Mana, introduced by the Royal Commission on Social Policy, uses four foundational pillars\\u2014family (whanaungatanga), cultural heritage (taonga tuku iho), the environment (te ao t\\u016broa), and land base (t\\u016brangawaewae)\\u2014to provide a comprehensive framework for community and individual health planning (Durie 2004). The Wh\\u0101nau Ora initiative further exemplifies kaupapa M\\u0101ori by empowering families to achieve better health and social outcomes. It connects applications of M\\u0101ori values to the way service delivery can be changed, focusing on the interdependence of physical, mental, spiritual, and social health to support holistic family well-being.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR23\", \"CR33\"], \"section\": \"Key Kaupapa and Tikanga from Te Ao M\\u0101ori\", \"text\": \"In summary, Te Ao M\\u0101ori, as a worldview, presents itself as an all-encompassing philosophical framework. It facilitates inquiries into identity, origins, the nature of the world, our place in the universe, our future direction, knowledge acquisition, the development of ethical conduct for enduring physical and cultural existence, and innovative responses to emerging challenges (Mikaere 2011; Royal 2002).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR45\", \"CR6\", \"CR42\"], \"section\": \"Tangata Tiriti Worldview\", \"text\": \"Understanding the Tangata Tiriti worldview is crucial for engaging meaningfully with the differences between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Grounded in Western traditions, this worldview emphasizes historical and conceptual approaches that often contrast sharply with M\\u0101ori perspectives, particularly regarding land and nature. While M\\u0101ori view land as sacred, embodying stewardship (tiakitanga), the Western tradition has often regarded it as a commodity, reflecting a broader disconnection between humanity and the natural world (Williams, Roberts, and McIntosh 2012; Berry 1988; Webster and Cheyne 2017).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR3\", \"CR2\", \"CR18\", \"CR40\", \"CR8\"], \"section\": \"Tangata Tiriti Worldview\", \"text\": \"Western Worldview thinking has evolved over the centuries. Karl Jaspers wrote about an Axial Period (800\\u2013200 BCE) which marked a significant shift in global thought, giving rise to new philosophical traditions and major ideologies, such as Greek rationalism and monotheism. This period deepened the separation of humanity from nature and individuals from one another, profoundly influencing Western cosmology and societal organization (Armstrong 2006; 1999; Jaspers 1953). Over time, Western thought evolved through three key epochs: Greek rationalism in the classical era, Christian theology in the medieval period, and empirical science in the modern era. Each phase built upon the intellectual legacy of the Axial Period, progressively shifting toward a fragmented, human-centric view of the universe. By the modern era, Cartesian dualism reinforced a division between mind and matter, prioritizing scientific inquiry and individual rationality while diminishing the importance of maintaining links between spiritual and natural dimensions of the wider world (Tarnas 2010). Romanticism in the late eighteenth century countered this trend by celebrating emotional depth, artistic creativity, and humanity\\u2019s connection to nature. David Bohm\\u2019s theory of the \\u201cimplicate order\\u201d further challenged the dominant fragmentation of the Western Worldview proposing a holistic view of reality all elements of the universe are connected (Bohm 1980). This holistic perspective offers an alternative to the mechanistic and reductionist approach prevalent in Western thought.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR6\", \"CR39\"], \"section\": \"Tangata Tiriti Worldview\", \"text\": \"In a contemporary Western worldview, tensions persist between fragmentation and integration. Postmodernism emphasizes the fluidity of knowledge and experience, advocating for diverse approaches to truth and rejecting fixed principles. Participatory epistemology seeks to reconcile this divide by presenting the human mind as a tool for articulating interconnected realities, fostering a holistic and participatory worldview (Berry 1988). The dominance of a fragmented, mechanistic understanding in Western approaches often conflicts with nature-centric and relational perspectives. Concepts such as Freud and Jung\\u2019s focus on the unconscious, along with participatory methodologies in modern research, highlight the potential for reconnecting individuals with the cosmos and adopting a more nature-centric approach (Tarnas 2006). Ultimately, while the Western tradition has profoundly shaped Tangata Tiriti perspectives, the need to connect relational and ecological approaches is increasingly recognized. This shift aligns with the broader quest to reconcile fragmented Western worldviews with holistic frameworks better suited to addressing contemporary challenges.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR13\", \"CR14\", \"CR5\", \"CR21\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Western methodological thought, traditionally anchored in individualism from the perspective of Descartes\\u2019 \\u201cI think therefore I am,\\u201d contrasts sharply with the collectivist values of other cultural paradigms (Friston 2016; Gergen and Gergen 2003). The discourse around the African philosophy of Ubuntu, translated as \\u201cI am because we are,\\u201d asserts that the individual\\u2019s existence and knowledge are contingent upon relationships with others (Battle 2009). This aligns with the concept of \\u201cdouble consciousness,\\u201d as described by W.E.B. Du Bois, which refers to the experience of black Americans feeling a sense of \\u201ctwo-ness\\u201d in their soul, thoughts, and perceptions. This term articulates the internal conflict of navigating a bicultural framework relating to identity, primarily from an individual perspective (Ladson-Billings 2003).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR17\", \"CR24\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"In Aotearoa, the interaction between a Western worldview and Te Ao M\\u0101ori within a decolonization framework calls for a pluriversal approach that acknowledges the legitimacy and richness of diverse epistemic, ethical, and political thinking and practice from both worldview perspectives. Grosfuguel\\u2019s advocacy for a pluriversal world instead of a singular universal design reflects a critical dialogue essential for honouring both Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives (Jaramillo and McLaren 2008). This indigenous challenge to universalism, powerfully rooted in the colonization discourse, critiques the Western worldview for its historical tendency to segment knowledge and relegate non-Western epistemologies to \\u201cmyth,\\u201d a category deemed irrational by thinkers like Habermas (Mutu (Ng\\u0101ti Kahu) 2019).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR1\", \"CR43\", \"CR44\", \"CR38\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Acknowledging Te Ao M\\u0101ori and challenging Western universalism underscores the importance of engaging with the complexities of knowledge creation and understanding from both worldview perspectives, not just one. The shift towards a more inclusive and relational approach in both research and public life emphasizes not only the interconnectedness of body, mind, and spirit but also the multiple interconnections across the wider natural world. Such an approach offers a holistic perspective that transcends the transactional segmentation of Western thought, promoting a comprehensive view that includes Te Ao M\\u0101ori in a way that avoids \\u201cproblematizing the indigenous\\u201d or assimilation (Aluli-Meyer 2008; Wilber 1983; 1995; Smith 1999). As Aotearoa moves towards a post-colonial environment, effective engagement between Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua worldviews will be needed. Successful engagement will require support from a broad and well-defined analytical framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi that respects the rich diversity and historical experiences of people in both communities.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR9\", \"Fig1\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"In Aotearoa, over the last forty years, our track record for dealing with worldview differences when deciding how we will manage community governance has been shaped by the colonization agenda and academic critique/challenge from a M\\u0101ori perspective where Te Ao M\\u0101ori is not operating on its own terms. This is likely because the methods of analysis, decision-making, and implementation of change require change. The work of the Waitangi Tribunal (Came, Sullivan, and Kidd 2020), notwithstanding that it is a Crown agency marked the beginning of an iterative change process that has enabled us to progressively develop our understanding of a different type of methodology (Figure 1).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"CR36\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Understanding the journey since 1840 differs from comprehending the direction forward. The tensions between Articles 1 and 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi highlight two key points: first, the different worldviews of Tangata Whenua and the Crown are in the 1840 document; second, these tensions are not to be \\u201cresolved\\u201d or the Articles rewritten. Recent developments, such as the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill by ACT Party leader David Seymour, have intensified these discussions. The bill aims to redefine the Treaty\\u2019s principles, sparking significant debate and public protests, including a notable haka led by M\\u0101ori MPs in Parliament (Seymour 2024). These events underscore the relevance and complexity of interpreting Te Tiriti in contemporary Aotearoa.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"Fig1\", \"CR38\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"To continue to honour Te Tiriti as the nation\\u2019s founding document, we must develop robust mechanisms that respect and advance the interests of both parties, embracing the inherent tensions as integral to the partnership it establishes. A relational framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi can help us undertake change that is relevant, respectful, and sustainable. We propose a relationship framework that focuses on driving change but acknowledges the need for prior learning. A Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview approach builds on understanding worldview differences and facilitates analysis beyond mere critique. It begins by engaging both worldviews to foster mutual understanding. Learning and development processes must be tailored to the specific group involved, with adjustments in design and direction that suit the context (Figure 1A) (Smith 1999).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12783291\", \"pmid\": \"40540144\", \"reference_ids\": [\"Fig1\", \"CR12\", \"CR33\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"The proposed methodology guides movement across six continuum points, balancing learning with action (Figure 1B). Each step assumes competence at prior levels (Freire 1996). Both parties introduce their worldviews, and after thoroughly discussing how each value under consideration is applied to the issue at hand, they can attempt to look at the question of change because both sides will have a shared understanding of what they are dealing with. The shared application of values to the issue at hand will be crafted in such a way as to ensure the integrity of each worldview, especially Te Ao M\\u0101ori (Royal 2002). This is broadly the process of engaging a Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview in the workplace or the community with the support of an appropriate methodology.\"}]"

Metadata

"{}"