TakingITGlobal

C O N N E C T E D N O R T H : A J O U R N E Y O F T R A N S F O R M AT I O N & W E L L- B E I N G 17 Many Indigenous cultures view healing as a shared process that is about growth and Well-Being as much as it is about repair (Katz, Biesele, & St. Denis, 1997). Individuals are seen to heal with others, which sits in contrast to traditional psychotherapeutic and medical models of Well-Being (Katz, 2017). Community Well-Being is another concept that has gained greater traction in the literature on education and health (Craven et al., 2016; Nelson, Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Prilleltensky, 2010; Senécal, Sullivan, & Guimond, 2013). This frames Well-Being as something shared and recognizes the many connected influences of the person and those around them that influence Well-Being (Myers, Prilleltensky, Hill, & Feltz, 2017; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2007). This perspective on Well-Being represents a dynamic interplay between individual and community, producer of culture and recipient of culture. The concept of community includes geographical issues, historical, familial, and environmental concerns, which touch upon issues of justice, fairness, and equity (Atkinson et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2011; Prilleltensky & Huygens, 2014; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2007). Well-Being is organized in the literature as a subjective concept with three aspects: evaluative Well-Being (life satisfaction), hedonic Well-Being (feelings of happiness, sadness, anger, stress, and pain), and eudemonic Well-Being (sense of purpose and meaning in life) and is closely linked with age (Steptoe, Deaton, & Stone, 2015). Well-Being can also be organized based on focus: individual, organizational (which include schools), and community (Atkinson et al., 2017; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2007; Shute & Slee, 2016). Individual aspects of Well-Being include personal interests, preferences, personality, biology, skills and abilities and personal history (Kok, 2014; Myers et al., 2017; Wold & Mittelmark, 2018). The literature on Well-Being focuses largely on the individuals and relatively little on the context or relationships of those individuals beyond simple assessments of whether relationships exist. Most common models neglect much of the context of Well-Being – they are a-contextual. There are four key areas where most models of Well-Being consistently come up short: 1. Interconnections: The number, type, availability, and quality of relationships and activities between the person, their peers, elders, and the world around them. An individual has their own 'mix' of these that work best in promoting their Well-Being made up of interconnections. 2. Community & Systems: This is the physical and social environment where people live, work, play, and learn. This represents the geographical characteristics and the cultural characteristics of where Well-Being is lived. 3. History: First Nations communities place great importance on their history as a guide for the present and future as an integral part of their culture. It is partly for this reason that colonialism and its practices have had such a devastating impact on these communities. 4. Resources: Embedded in the assumptions within the common models of Well-Being is that there is an abundance of resources to help promote, sustain, and advance Well-Being. The geographic and social isolation of some communities from each other and supportive resources that are found in greater abundance in the South makes this assumption problematic for understanding Well-Being.

• Cover