Skip to main content

Comparison of Native Hawaiian Traditional Ho‘oponopono and Modern Restorative Justice Practices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Restorative Justice

Abstract

This chapter addresses the question of whether modern restorative justice emerged from and simply replicates traditional practices by tracing its history and comparing it with the Native Hawaiian traditional Indigenous healing practice ho’oponopono. The two distinct types of group processes are compared and contrasted by applying each approach to the same case study. There have been criticisms that restorative justice advocates and practitioners have not paid enough attention to the impact of race and culture in the delivery and effectiveness of this practice (Gavrielides, 2014). Positing a traditional Indigenous healing practice beside modern restorative justice, a very Western-oriented healing practice, will add value to the usefulness of these practices to a wider population. The conclusion is not that one approach is superior, but that each has strengths that may make it more appropriate in a given cultural context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some argue Westerners did not historically provide restorative processes including Richards (2004) and Daly (2002, 2015). For the purpose of distinguishing ho‘oponopono and modern restorative justice, we rely on Van Ness and Strong (2002), Braithwaite (2002), Gavrielides (2011) and Weitekamp (1999), who have found that Westerns historically provided justice processes that were restorative in nature.

  2. 2.

    These meetings are often referred to as “victim and offender ” meetings, but we try not to use those labels and instead we make every effort here to refer to these individuals as people who have harmed or who have been harmed.

  3. 3.

    Twenty years ago, Lorenn Walker said: “Conferencing is a group conflict resolution process based on Indigenous people’s practices” (2001, p. 20). Over time she now sees that RJ takes many shapes and draws from many sources and certainly from indigenous wisdom and practices as noted by Zehr (Hawai‘i Friends of Restorative Justice, 2020).

  4. 4.

    Part-Hawaiian is a colloquial term used in Hawai‘i where people often have several different ethnic backgrounds and they embrace each ethnicity, e.g. Hawaiian, Chinese, Black, Pilipino, Caucasian, etc.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenn Walker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kaulukukui, C.M., Walker, L. (2021). Comparison of Native Hawaiian Traditional Ho‘oponopono and Modern Restorative Justice Practices. In: Gavrielides, T. (eds) Comparative Restorative Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74874-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74874-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74873-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74874-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics