3.1.6

“In order for criticism to arise naturally from within our culture, discourse must serve the same function it has always served. In Euro-society, literary criticism heightens the competition between writers and limits entry of new writers to preserve the original canon. What will its function be in our societies?” (88)

In the following paragraphs in her essay, Maracle answers her question describing what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish society. Summarize her answer and then make some comparisons between Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building.

Lee Maracle begins her essay by outlining the deficiencies of traditional literary criticism in assessing First Nations’ narratives. Maracle asserts that “Western literary criticism fails to make any kind of full, fair, or just sense of Indigenous work because its orientation…is to diminish Indigenity” (83). Traditional literary criticism is advanced by European literature and archetypes, which “appl[ies] pressure on non-European writers to apply themselves to mastering the canon and to abide by the Euro-traditional story” (83).  In this way, Canada maintains its position in “white-settler primacy” and values narratives that conform to this structure over those provided by the marginalized voices of the Indigenous community (83).

According to Maracle, theorists in the Indigenous communities apply analysis in connection to their society’s knowledge with consultation to the “original story base” (84). Criticism is done by individuals within the culture who understand its base (84). Maracle stresses that these criticisms cannot “be done by disconnected individuals who apply themselves to studying another society’s knowledge, foundations, history, and its definitions of the production of literary products” (84). In other words, Western theorists cannot use their terms to define and criticize literature produced from a system like their own. The current education system is based on colonial discourse and ‘post-colonial’ theory only serves to maintain European privilege. Further, it is possible for those who pursue studies in First Nations academically, to have examined all manners of text from several different Indigenous peoples without having encountered any forms of orature. In some cases, oratory constitutes the sacred texts of First Nations people (85).

Maracle differentiates story from oratory, stating that oratory carries knowledge, while story reshapes understanding (91).  Oratory transfers information and theories that can be developed into myth or stories. Gathering and examining in a group “is the appropriate process for Salish people to examine story, [as it helps encourage] discourse around healthy communal doubt” (86). In examining these knowledge bases and old stories, the people are able to extrapolate notions of nation, community, and humanity and assess their value for growth and transformation (85). From these old stories, come the creation of  a new series of myths that alter the direction of the narrative and clear old obstacles. In this way, the creations of myths is a constant re-evaluation and positioning of oneself in a greater narrative. In the Salish community, the myth-maker is responsible for the knowledge of history and original processes in the interest of the nation within the culture.

In The Bush Garden, Northrop Frye presents two aspects of nation-building in the concepts of identity and unity—identity derived from culture and imagination, and unity rooted in politics and an international perspective towards the nation (xxii). Frye describes Canada as an “obliterated environment. . .with its empty space, its largely unknown lakes. . . [and] its division of languages” (xxiii). Frye presents the physical landscape as an antagonistic force against the unity of the country, without acknowledgement of the people who have occupied, and have knowledge of, this land prior to colonization. From this metaphor, one can assert that it is impossible to create a unified identity when one does not include all of the land, and the voices of the people who occupy it. Though he looks to rejects the forces of colonialism on literature, Frye enforces the logic that it falls upon.

Frye refers to myth as the “integral meaning” (xxiii) in a literary work, something that informs, rather than dictates the work. The myth functions as a “structural principle” (xxiii) and Frye looks at it as something to be uncovered, rather than created. Frye looks towards the imagination and history to inform works of literature, rather than myths like the Salish people.

Works Cited:

“Canadian Wilderness.” gap360.com. Web.

Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Concord: Anansi, 1995. Print.

Maracle, Lee. Across Cultures / Across Borders: Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literatures. Ed. Paul DePasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, and Emma LaRocque. Broadview (2010). Google Books. Web. 5 July 2016.