Introduction
Up until the past few decades, Indigenous literature has been dismissed as unworthy of serious analysis and study. However, even as the wellspring of Indigenous Canadian literature was realized to be the rich cultural product that it is, many critics nevertheless found it difficult to leave their Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian literary ideas behind. Our dialogue To Indigenous Literature and Beyond focuses on the lack of recognition and respect inherent in the analysis of Indigenous works when performed through a Western, European lens. As Daniel Coleman asserts in his article, “Epistemic Justice, CanLit, and the Politics of Respect,” Indigenous texts must be read and understood not through a Continental framework, but instead by using a system of respect and knowledge of Indigenous culture, history, and practices. Reading Indigenous works through a European perspective and then labeling them accordingly not only shows a lack of respect, but also continues violence to Indigenous texts as a literary action of appropriation and colonization.
Recognizing the magnitude of this issue, our To Indigenous Literature and Beyond conference group decided to explore a few of the various ways that inappropriate studies of Indigenous literature affects both the work itself and the greater community. By examining various works that deal with the analysis of Indigenous literature, such as Indigenous resistance as expressed in academia, the connections and complications of both Australian and Canadian Indigenous literature, the complexities of epistemological ties and labels, and the place of Aboriginal studies in the Canadian classroom, we have tried to better understand how Indigenous literature should be approached. As a group we decided that such an intricate and fascinating topic deserved to be approached from a number of diverse angles, and through our dialogue with the Canadian Education and Electronic Literary Universe conference, we began to gain insight into how to better read and understand Indigenous literature through a network of respect and knowledge.
Central Points, Issues, and Questions that Arose in Our Dialogue
Ignoring Aboriginal literature in high school English curriculums fosters a sense of resistance in students who are confronted with Aboriginal issues in other capacities.
- Johnston, Wiltse, and Yang, in “Pushing Comfort Zones: Promoting Social Justice Through the Teaching of Aboriginal Canadian Literature,” demonstrate that because of the dominant Western voice in high school curriculums, students are resistant to the texts and to the discussion of Aboriginal social justice issues: “The dominant discourse [Eurocentric] of the school tends to silence other practices” (273).
- While we may have less resistance when studying Aboriginal literature, “we’re soaked through with the same silencing Western discourse as everyone else.” (Kaitie Warren)
Harmony and progress through the understanding of one another’s cultures is the way to foster meaningful, respectful relationships between cultures.
- Katherine Durnin states that “recognition that literary forms and practices are shared across cultures and the desire to discover what exactly is shared,” is the main impulse behind comparative literature. Evidently, then, comparative literature can be a step towards common ground.
- Bridges must be built to close gaps across cultures. Comparative literature can “enhance the cross-influence which actually exists within different societies” (Debra Goei).
- Finding common ground between cultures is an excellent foundation to foster respectful relationships.
How do we use the past to inform the future?
- Should the government put more effort into “fostering an understanding between the past history of the land in accordance with their decisions on what to do with the land?” (Goei).
- Knowledge of history is important as it helps us to avoid making the same mistakes and helps us to use the “truth of the past to build a better future” (Warren).
- In Indigenous cultures, the past is a huge element of their present. Compared to Continental cultures, they have a more holistic view of the world, finding significance in the past, present, and future.
- It is important to “[reform] the pedagogy of History and [redefine] it away from the solo Continental voice” (Jocelyn Bussieres).
- One way to reform the pedagogy of History would be to look at certain histories through a trauma-informed lens, allowing us to better understand present anger in certain cultures, specifically First Nations cultures, as a cyclical reaction that can reaffirm itself through generations.
Why does the West view itself as objective while other cultures are subjective? How do we introduce diverse voices in North American pedagogy?
- The White Western voice has been the strongest voice in academia and is seen as the norm. White Western voices are not seen as a perspective, but as the norm. Because of this, the Aboriginal voice is marked as different from the norm and is always seen as an Other to the Western norm.
- Because of the dominance of Western voices, Aboriginal stories go against the norm. Introducing diversity into North American school curriculums is a way to normalize the Aboriginal voice and would also allow for other minority voices to be heard.
- The goal is not to introduce diversity as a novel discussion topic, but to attempt to move outside of the Western vs. non-Western binary.
Key Quotations
Melissa Kuipers: Many of us are doing some serious unlearning in this class, being introduced to Aboriginal history from a completely different standpoint. Using atypical mediums to deliver history, especially storytelling/orature, is something that I’ve noticed is met with some skepticism. But learning about Aboriginal history in a form outside of colonizing literature is clearly opening up some minds and giving us more room to learn. In the Johnston et al.’s study, the English teachers choose to study [non traditional] Aboriginal texts, and use the texts as avenues to discuss broader issues.
In this point, Kuipers not only speaks to discussion around the study and teaching of History–specifically Aboriginal histories–but emphasizes the importance of medium in engagement with various epistemologies. The restructuring of epistemologies in the classroom requires both the amplification of unheard and oppressed voices and the welcoming of different forms of communication and expression. The use of non-traditional texts in the learning of Indigenous histories and epistemologies challenges the literary norms that limit expression at more foundational levels. Unlearning and learning are continual processes, as in order to engage with new epistemologies, students must unlearn norms for what defines legitimate mediums of information. Does a poem or a song have as much clout as a textbook chapter about the period in which it was written? In the unlearning hegemonic norms for writing and reading history, value judgements around epistemologies can be learned and incorporated into life and study.
Furthermore, this point touches on our discussion around notions of subjectivity and objectivity. The framework presented by current History curriculums in schools (and the academy) is heavily reliant on the idea of objectivity and using the most objective voice. But unlearning the values of this framework helps to shift the emphasis from finding the most so-called objective voice (i.e. the voice most in line with the Continental norm), to seeking out starkly contrasting voices and learning from them.
Kevin Sun: I think that all comparative studies, not just comparative literature and comparative politics, serve to build on common ground . . . as Canada’s Indigenous cultures place great importance on the history of their land as sources of their present knowledge, the Canadian government should take more action to understanding that history, as a way to understanding the present cultures of its Indigenous people.
In this, Sun not only addresses questions surrounding comparative literature/politics and the formation and maintenance of respectful relationships (between groups with various epistemologies), but also consequently notions to the various groups within current systems who hold the power and responsibility to engage in respectful relationships. Furthermore, this point speaks to discussion regarding understandings of histories, and the value of engaging with History to practice and understand non-Continental epistemologies.
While emphasis had previously been on the teaching/learning institutions that present oppressive frameworks in which to study History and engage with knowledge systems, Sun and Goei addressed the Canadian government as a structural power holder in the pragmatic realm of respecting Indigenous epistemologies and engaging critically with objective History. Identifying the government as another group that operates on frameworks of Continental epistemologies explores another world in which Aboriginal voices and knowledge systems need to be acknowledged and engaged with.
Sun identifies some of the potential groups involved in our discussion of knowledge systems and networks. He notes that we can compare “the past to the present, rather than comparing present groups.” This continues to address the question of responsibility, power, and where epistemologies come from. In studying or engaging with History, what previously existing norms are being perpetuated? What norms are being created? Are respectful relationships in comparative literature and politics informed when groups take responsibility for past actions, or when groups try to evolve and inform current knowledge, belief and value systems?
Conclusion
Our dialogue focuses on the conflict between two epistemologies; two ways of gaining knowledge; two ways of viewing the world. The two are separate and must stay that way. In colonizing Canada, Continental culture has sought to overwrite Indigenous cultures with Continental epistemology, and in forcing its ways of gaining knowledge and values of that knowledge onto Indigenous cultures, Continental cultures commit deep epistemic violence, to far-reaching consequences. Decolonization requires intervention against this violence so that it can be recognized and reversed.
In order to recognize the epistemic violence that they have committed, Canada’s Continental culture needs to critically examine not Indigenous epistemology, but its own epistemology. It needs to recognize that its view of the world is only one of many, and that no one view is superior to all others. One possible strategy for realizing this intervention is to create an environment where people are equally exposed to many epistemologies, without any labels of superiority or inferiority. Starting in the classroom, this exposure can in time lead to a greater acceptance of different perspectives, so that even as these perspectives contradict each other, they remain equally valid to those who have learned to understand them.
It is impossible to take back past wrongs caused by epistemic violence towards Indigenous cultures. However, if Canada’s Continental culture can recognize the violence that they have committed for what it is, then it can act towards ensuring that this violence is no longer committed in the future. Even if understanding cannot be reached, respect, as Coleman asserts, can be offered—respect that recognizes one’s ignorance in relation to another culture’s epistemology. This respect may then facilitate future understanding.
Intervening in the future of Canadian literature can also guide us towards this understanding. By first acknowledging that Canadian literature encompasses Indigenous literature as well as Continental literature, and then respecting Indigenous literature for what it represents in its own epistemological context, we can proceed on the path to decolonization.
Areas for Future Research
The first focus we would like to suggest for future research is on the Continental concept of objectivity. As Continental research paradigms condemn subjectivity as bias, objectivity in turn becomes a label of superiority that has consequentially been used to assert that because Continental epistemology is objective, it is superior. What qualifies the status of objectivity? What qualifies these qualifications? We suggest that this research be done with Indigenous research paradigms in mind, with their acceptance of and emphasis on subjectivity in research.
The second research focus we would like to suggest is on how Indigenous cultures perceive history and use it to support their present lives. Understanding exactly how Indigenous cultures value their history within their epistemology will lead to greater understanding of that epistemology, with its holistic emphasis, and may even assist Continental culture in examining how it should perceive and use its own history.
The third and final research focus we would like to suggest is in the field of comparative literature. As we acknowledge that Continental and Indigenous epistemologies are different yet equally valid, we can examine their contrast and thus conduct research not on an epistemology, but on epistemology, the theory of knowledge itself. Comparative studies also serves to uncover common ground, which can be used to develop a stronger bond between cultures based on mutual understanding.
Works Cited
Bussieres, Jocelyn, et al. “Annotated Bibliographies.” To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Bussieres, Jocelyn. Weblog comment. To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Coleman, Daniel. “Epistemic Justice, CanLit, and the Politics of Respect.” Canadian Literature 204 (2010): 124-126,163. ProQuest. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Goei, Debra. Weblog comment. To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Kuipers, Melissa. Weblog comment. To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Sun, Kevin. Weblog comment. To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.
Warren, Kaitie. Weblog comment. To Indigenous Literature and Beyond. UBC Blogs, n. d. Web. 15 Aug. 2015.