In The Truth About Stories, Thomas King, like Chamberlin seems to advocate for us to use caution when looking at the world through a binary system. In other words, we should avoid seeing the world as a series of dichotomies, as black and white. Paradoxically, in his retelling of two distinct creation stories, “King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview” and ultimately provides his readers with a set of rigid binaries (Paterson, lesson 2:2). Why does King employ binary systems while making an argument that they are dangerous?
I will admit that when I read The Truth About Stories (or rather listened to it), I found this contradiction to be somewhat problematic. Indeed, it seems quite clear which creation story (and hence, the values that come along with it) King prefers. It was hard to listen to King tell the stories and not be smitten by the story of Charm, and slightly bored by the story of Adam and Eve. King argues against the fact that “to believe one story to be sacred, we must see the other as secular” and therefore, it seems that he is trying to tell us that they are both equally legitimate (King 25). Perhaps King is using binaries in his argument to highlight the impossibility, or at least, the difficulty, we face when trying to eliminate dichotomies from our way of processing the world. Whether we leave feeling more compelled by the Native creation story or the Christian creation story isn’t so much important as the fact that we tend to create dichotomies and thus, hierarchies naturally. By drawing our awareness to the problematic nature of this kind of thinking, King encourages us to resist it and look at things from a more complex perspective.
Yet, King claims that dichotomies are an “elemental structure of Western society” (King 25). Might it not be dangerous to claim that Western society endorsed/endorse such dichotomies while natives did/do not? In Wickwire’s retelling of one of Harry Robinson’s story, we are introduced to a set of twins: one obedient and good and black, the other disobedient and bad and white; a story that much resembles those seen in genesis and is filled with binaries and hierarchies of it’s own (Robinson 9, 10). Does this not suggest that this type of black and white thinking is part of human nature, rather than a characteristic of a certain society? And in realizing that this form of thought is human nature could it not promote a more unified perspective of existence rather than an “us vs. them” dichotomy? In other words, could acknowledging that we are all prone to believe in “us vs. them” somehow unify us and in turn avoid such reductive thinking? Here is a compelling psychological theory called “Terror management theory”, explained by one of it’s creators Sheldon Solomon. It offers a unique perspective on why human beings tend to react with hostility to “the others” stories. This article looks at cultural differences in cognitive dissonance (that is the discomfort one feels from holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously) and found that “both Easterners and Westerners can experience dissonance, but culture shapes the situations in which dissonance is aroused and reduced” (Hoshino-Browne 294). This study is interesting, for while it finds that the tendency for black and white thinking may be universal, it also highlights some key differences stemming from individualism and collectivism.
All in all, I think that King is asking us to question the story that we believe in, regardless of which one it is and I believe this to be a noble goal. However, King does seem to be saying one is better than the other. He asks the question: if these creation stories are both simply “stories” maybe we should believe in a creation story that promotes co-operation over competition. I do agree with King that the Christian creation story may be the source of many of the negative values that have plagued our society (such as racism and sexism), I’d even go as far as to say that maybe Western society (and a lot of other people for that matter) could have been happier or more fulfilled with a different story. Regardless, I do find it problematic that King uses the very dichotomies he criticizes to make this point. Dichotomies are dangerous and reductive and promote an ideology of “us vs. them,” which I believe King may be doing, though perhaps unknowingly.
***
Hoshino-Browne, Etsuko., et al. “On the Cultural Guises of Cognitive Dissonance: The Case of Easterners and Westerners.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89.3 (2005): 294 –310. Web 27 June 2014.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2003. Print.
Pangeaprogressredux. “Terror Management Theory (Sheldon Solomon – Ernest Becker).” Online video clip. Youtube, 2 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 June. 2014.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2:2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre. UBC, n.d. Web. 21 June 2014.
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books, 2005.
Hi Caitlyn, although this video from the RSA Animate isn’t directly on topic about the dangers of dichotomies, I think it offers some good insight on the problems of thinking about in a black and white fashion. It’s about the divided brain (left/right hemispheres)- I remember that you’re a psychology major too, so I hope you find it somewhat interesting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI
I also do find it rather problematic that King claims that dichotomies are an element of Western societies. Maybe what should’ve been said may be that Western societies are MORE prone to dichotomies than other cultures, but they are essentially a part of human nature. Don’t know if you’ve ever taken Cultural Psychology (I find the course material is really relevant to a lot of the stuff in this class), but between Westerners and East Asians, Westerners are more likely to have a lower toleration of contradiction. I think it partially accounts fort black and white thinking. On the other hand, East Asians are more comfortable with contradiction because they see the world in constant flux and change. I think it was termed naive dialecticism. But to me, this DOESN’T indicate that East Asians are exclusively comfortable with contradiction. Back to King… it’s very black/white thinking on his part, which goes back to the first problem you mentioned. It’s also dangerous how he lumps Indigenous populations in that claim, as if they were all the same. They’re not.
Hi Jenny – I am re-reading through all of Caitlyn’s blogs in my evaluation process – and I can not resist stoping to comment on your comments – the first I have to say is that King is completely aware of what he is doing – using dichotomies to critique the impact of this way of thinking. My, my. And, King is absolutely aware that Indigenous populations are diverse – my, my again. I guess you just have not read enough of King yet. Jess Marlow offers an excellent insight into what Kings is doing on her blog: https://blogs.ubc.ca/jmarlow/2014/06/25/2-2-double-double-binary-trouble/
Which I highly recommend you read – for now here is an excellent quote from Jess’ blog:
“I don’t have an answer as to why King chose to present his argument in this way. I think perhaps he seeks to establish a basic understanding of two different perspectives to set the stage for a new appreciation of the complexities of their meeting. I also think that King is clever enough to know that many of his readers will be puzzled by this overly-simplistic, two-dimensional notion of us-versus-them, and be encouraged to look further into the various stories that flesh out the realities of “first contact,” challenging them to do their own work in order to take their understanding into a more three-dimensional vision of Indigenous/settler relations.”
Thinking more about it now… hm, it’s pretty unfair on King’s part to assume that dichotomies are an element of Western society. I guess I’m feeling a bit defensive about it. It really doesn’t serve his purpose to say that, because it causes a divide within people when we should be trying to bridge it. I don’t have the book on me right now, but I wonder if he has anything to back his claim up. I wonder if some of these problems can be avoided if people thought along the lines of a continuum/pendulum, where there’s a lot of room for more perspectives. What do you think?
Jenny – again, the urge is too strong to resist. If we want to cross the divide, we will have to accept that other cultures have other ways of coming to knowledge and the Western way is NOT human nature – you must trust me on this 🙂 Take a look at what I say on my blog: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl47098amay2014/:
A part of the problem lies precisely in the insistence that Western knowledge knows it all — and other ways of knowing are wrong – or, not even possible because our Western nature simply must be human nature.
To jump onto this discussion about dichotomies, I also agree that his claim about dichotomies as an element of Western society problematic. I feel a bit like a broken record because of other comments I’ve made, but like Robinson, it appears to me that our need to categorize and create this black-white distinction stems from our need to understand, our need for rationalization and control, and is universal, not contained to one culture.
Adding another element, I wonder how much of these dichotomies are ingrained in us by societal structures, and if the cultural background of these structures greatly influence our thought processes. What I mean by this is that Thomas King attended the University of Utah, which is, as far as I can tell a traditionally European/Western school, whereas Harry Robinson had no formal education. Were these dichotomies and schools of thought ingrained into Thomas King at university? I’m not sure that made a lot of sense, but does anyone else have thoughts on the matter?
I understand what you mean about King. It’s so difficult to pinpoint anything because there are so many confounding variables. Although it’s likely that his education played a role in shaping his way of thinking, it’s definitely not exclusive.
I also agree with you on your first point, Fidelia. Putting things into two categories makes it one heck of a lot easier to understand it than multiple ones. Personally, I’m not sure calling it universal is a safe thing to do. Chances are it’s probably not, there’s going to be one exception there somewhere in the world.
Now that we’ve recognized these two points, how do we move forward? Moving forward is something that I’ve been reflecting a lot on, not only just in this context. It’s not enough to recognize problems and let it rest at that. How do we address changing the way we view or think about dichotomies (for example)? Is it even possible to find an alternative way of thinking? I feel like I’m confusing myself in the head, but it’s difficult for me to think of another way of categorizing…or not categorizing.
Jenny, you mentioned that East Asians are comfortable with contradictions. While I’m aware of this fact, I am also personally a rational person who likes things to be organized neatly. Is there a way to reconcile the contradictions in the way we view dichotomies?
Tough one. I think being aware of the black and white ways we think is a good starting point- when (not really if at this point now) we do it, at least we’re aware of it. I think it would force us to think a bit more about what we’re doing. I suppose you could trying to be more open to different ideas and acknowledge various contradictions… but easier said than done. Yeah, this is a difficult one- I’m with you on this one.
As for your second point- it’s fine we think differently about it. Makes commenting more interesting! At this point it’s a rather daunting challenge trying to come to a conclusion, especially not giving Caitlyn some time to comment back! Regarding the East Asian finding- it’s an common theme, but obviously not applicable to everyone!
Thomas King is First Nations – you know that, right?
Yes, he is half First Nations and half Greek/German. Will take a look at the link to the other blog you provided!
Hi Jenny and Fidelia!
Thanks for your engaging comments—there is a lot going on here!
First off, thanks for posting the link to that video Jenny. As a psych major with a particular interest in neuropsychology I found it really entertaining and definitely relevant. It gives an interesting perspective on black and white thinking.. I wonder what he would have to say about left vs. right brain thinking across cultures. The way he spoke seemed to be directed pretty universally, but it would be interesting to see if he has come across any differences across cultures? I haven’t had a chance to take a cultural psych course (though the topic has come up in many of my other psych classes), but now I wish I had!!
It seems that we all agree that regardless of if or how black and white thinking differs cross-culturally, it is problematic for King to draw so much attention to it, thus furthering the divide between us and them. I agree, Jenny that looking at things in terms of a continuum is generally healthier and more accurate. I too would be curious to hear what King has to say about this!!
Fidelia, I think you raise a great point regarding whether thinking in dichotomies is a fundamental aspect of human nature or more contextually driven. My guess would be that is a combination of both. For King to make such a broad and blatant claim that it is exclusively a Western way of thinking, without any supporting evidence is a bit bold in my opinion.
In terms of moving forward, I definitely agree with Jenny and believe that recognizing the issue is probably the first and maybe most important step. I think that just knowing that you are engaging in a behaviour makes you more likely to notice when you are doing it and therefore more likely to make a change.
I also don’t know if thinking in dichotomies is an entirely negative thing. It probably is adaptive and very useful at times. That being said, it can definitely lead to negative things and therefore I think it is important that we monitor it in others and ourselves.
Anyways, this has gotten super long. I hope I addressed all or most of your questions!!
“It seems that we all agree that regardless of if or how black and white thinking differs cross-culturally, it is problematic for King to draw so much attention to it, thus furthering the divide between us and them.”
O.K. what can I say? Let see, let’s put this discussion in a different context to see if I can show you why I am confused with this conclusion. Let’s say we are talking about the differences between genders, and I argue that as long as we keep talking about the oppression of women, we will never agree. If I suggest that by talking about the differences, you are only fueling the flames and creating greater discord. Would you agree, the solution is to not talk about the inequalities? To not “draw so much attention to the problem?
I definitely agree with you, but that is not exactly what I meant by my comment. I actually say further down that to move forward we have to recognize problems (and in turn I think that can be extended to mean, talk about these issues), so I am definitely not saying that we should just brush things under the table. What I am referring to here is King making the claim that black and white thinking is exclusively a Western way of knowing. I guess I took issue with this because to me it is not really backed up by any evidence. And perhaps for King’s argument that is not necessary, as he is obviously trying to get us to think about different ways of knowing (which he is successful at doing). But the way he says it is so decisive and I just cannot say that I agree 100 percent. I do not disagree either… I guess I just feel that it is more complicated then just one way or the other. And maybe this is part of his point? Even so, I think this discussion became less about why King (specifically) uses dichotomies and more about whether using dichotomies is a Western thing… Sorry if this made you more confused!
Hi Caitlin, thanks for your response – yes, I was confused as to why it was difficult to accept that dichotomizing is a Western way of coming to knowledge and not ‘by human nature.’ ? To say a type of thinking is ‘human nature’ is to imply that people who do not think that way are not natural; they are some how thinking incorrectly; or rather, mistaken. So, King tells us dichotomizing is a western way of thinking, and it appears that this is what you and Jenny do not like to hear; you want dichotomizing to be ‘natural’ – ? Or, you want dichotomizing to be a technique used by other epistemological or ‘world views’ — not just Western thinking? I can see you want evidence for this claim, but what lies under the desire for our way of thinking to be shared by different cultures with different world views? And, please never say sorry to your teachers; learning is about questions and challenges and taking risks and experimenting — there is no right or wrong; there is only learning, for which you should never apologize to the teacher :0 And, I am learning right along side you; we are creating knowledge through our social relationships with this course; and this, is not typically a Western way of learning – so enjoy and keep up the wonderful dialoguing. Thank you.
Hi Erika,
Thank you for engaging in our discussion– so interesting!
To clarify, I do not “want/desire” dichotomizing to be natural. I am simply raising the idea that it MAY be. What I am taking issue with really is the idea that we have to view it as either or, all or nothing. By reducing it in this way doesn’t it become a dichotomy in itself? All I am saying is that it may be AS problematic to say that it is exclusively a Western way of thinking as it is to say that it is “human nature”– at least without evidence. [On a side not, even the idea that ANYTHING can be purely Western (or insert culture of choice) seems unlikely to me, especially with the way communication and technology works these days].
I completely understand and believe that different cultures have different ways of knowing and that the “Western way” is not the only way, but I have trouble truly defining or pinpointing those differences or narrowing them down to something like dichotomies– it just seems like an assumption to me, rather than a fact. Again, I do not have an agenda in saying this. I see all options, or rather, all combos that could exist on what I speculate may be a spectrum, to be equally possible (that is without further evidence to back up those claims).
I took issue with King in my post because, while he does do a good job at drawing our attention to arbitrary dichotomies that exist in our way of knowing, he presents “thinking in dichotomies” as a dichotomy in itself (either you do engage in it or you don’t). While I know that to a certain extent he uses dichotomies intentionally, I am not sure whether this specific dichotomy is intentional or not, which is why I decided to draw attention to it in my blog. All in all, I find this topic really fascinating to deliberate… brings up a lot of good questions!
Ps- I agree that an online class creates a totally unique learning experience—really enjoying it!
No, I don’t agree with that. Hmm, I think what we’re trying to suggest here is that if you put too much emphasis on the differences, then you might not get very far. Not saying that you shouldn’t examine them at all, it’s something we all need to do. More importantly it’s about what we do with the differences after and how we move on from there… what we can learn and take away from the past.
Wow, you guys have a really interesting dialogue going already, but I thought I’d add my two cents : ) If King is indeed reinforcing an “Us vs. Them” attitude, do you think it really is unintentional, or could it be a deliberate device to make us realize how insidious the use of negative dichotomies can be? I’m inclined to agree with Caitlyn that his employment of dichotomies might be unintentional. However, it is interesting to think about what might be motivating his bias.
I like the way you talk about the advantages of moving towards a common understanding, rather than maintaining a strictly “us vs. them” attitude. I found it interesting in King’s piece “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial” in the course packet, the clear distinction be makes between European and “Native” understandings of native literatures-he seems to make it quite clear that “they”(the colonizing whites), will never understand “us”(the colonized indigenous peoples) on more than a superficial level. I found this message a little at odds with his denouncement with the “post-colonial” terminology, as it still privelieges one group over the other, simply reversing the traditional model. However, his story makes no claim of superiority on either side, which I found also at odds with the rest of the article. What do you think is the purpose of King’s statement: “Non-natives may, as readers, come to an association with these communities, but they remain, always, outsiders”, particularly in an article that started with outlining why forming opinions based on assumptions and perceptions is a bad idea?
In terms of your comment about liking King’s retelling of Coyote’s story more interesting than the retelling of Adam and Eve, I completely agree, partly I think due to the novelty of the Coyote creation story, which I think most of us have never heard before. I did a quick google search, and wasn’t suprised to find that searching “adam and eve” turned up 90 million plus results, while “coyote creation story” turned up less than 200 thousand-it’s hard to argue that “us vs. them” isn’t still prevalent in today’s society when all evidence points to the drastic, subtle bias still present in today’s education systems, and the world at large.
In response to “Non-natives may, as readers, come to an association with these communities, but they remain, always, outsiders”:
Maybe he’s saying that non-Native readers can sympathize for them, but because they haven’t experienced it for themselves, they will remain on the outside. Until they experience something of that sort and live through it, they won’t truly “get it”, if that makes sense. Or you could think of it as initiation of some sort- one is not truly part of a group until they have gone through some rite of passage, and then the person is “in”. Anyways, I partially understand King’s point of view here, but I’m not a fan of it. Whether he does this unconsciously or with a motive, he’s starting to irritate me!
Hi Breanne, I will jump in here and see if I can make some of what I find to be quite confusing assumptions a little less cloudy. When you say,
” I found it interesting in King’s piece “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial” in the course packet, the clear distinction be makes between European and “Native” understandings of native literatures-he seems to make it quite clear that “they”(the colonizing whites), will never understand “us”(the colonized indigenous peoples) on more than a superficial level” I feel compelled to comment that what King is saying is that as long as “we continue to use dichotomies to understand each other, then – no, we will not get past our inability to meet on common ground. This is his point, and his reason for telling the two stories in two different story telling voices. The model is not reversed in post-colonial theory.
Another point of you to consider, you say:
” “post-colonial” terminology, as it still privelieges one group over the other, simply reversing the traditional model.” – but you have misunderstood King here, he is criticizing post-colonial theorizing because the theories always begin with the arrival of the Europeans — as if the First Nations did not exist previously, as if all their ways of knowing and all their knowledge does not begin until the day of contact. As if all First Nation’s literature must be measured in relative terms to European oppression. This is what King is criticizing in his text ‘Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.’
Thanks so much for you insightful comments here 🙂
🙂