Assignment:
We began this unit by discussing assumptions and differences that we carry into our class. In “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” Lutz makes an assumption about his readers (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). He asks us to begin with the assumption that comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants is “one of the most obvious difficulties.” He explains that this is so because “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans.” Here, Lutz is assuming either that his readers belong to the European tradition, or he is assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around. What do you make of this reading? Am I being fair when I point to this assumption? If so, is Lutz being fair when he makes this assumption?
My response:
In his article, “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” John Sutton Lutz states that “one of the most obvious difficulties is comprehending the performances of indigenous participants” (Lutz 32) as one must “enter into a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans” (Lutz 32). While Lutz makes two assumptions in doing so – that his readers are non-aboriginal and that it is easier for indigenous Canadians to understand the reality of European Canadians than vice versa – his assumptions are sadly justified.
While it is certainly possible that an indigenous Canadian will read Lutz’s article (and some no doubt have), it is published in an academic volume with a very limited, scholarly readership. According to Stats Canada, 9.8% of aboriginal Canadians aged 25 to 64 had a university degree in 2011, compared with 26.5% of non-aboriginal Canadians in the same age bracket (The educational attainment of Aboriginal peoples in Canada). This, combined with the fact that only 4.3% of the population of Canada was aboriginal in 2011 (3.8% in 2006) (Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations People, Métis and Inuit), leaves no doubt that the limited market Lutz’s book is written for is a predominantly non-aboriginal one.
Lutz’s second assumption, that indigenous Canadians can better understand European performance than European Canadians can indigenous performance, is equally justified as aboriginal Canadians, like African Americans, live in the margins. According to bell hooks,
Living as we did – on the edge – we developed a particular way of seeing reality. We looked both from the outside in and from the inside out. We focused our attention on the center as well as on the margin. We understood both (hooks xvii).
While hooks lived much closer to the centre than many aboriginal Canadians, who live in isolated, remote communities, do, they nevertheless share the experience of being “part of the whole but outside the main body” (hooks xvii). Even the most isolated of aboriginal Canadians have been educated in the European school system, by predominantly European Canadian teachers, and out of European-written textbooks. While they may grow up hearing the stories of their parents and learning their nation’s traditions, they also grow up learning the traditions of European Canadians. From schools to the courts to television, western tradition has penetrated aboriginal communities.
The same cannot be said in reverse. Canada’s European-written textbooks make little mention of aboriginal Canadians and the curriculum teaches about aboriginal culture as though it were a thing of the past. The majority of non-aboriginal-Canadians living in major cities have little contact with indigenous Canadians or their cultures. The stories European-Canadians hear at home over dinner mirror the stories they are taught at school and see on TV. While each family’s stories vary, they are born of the same Euro-Christian tradition.
While I do not believe that Lutz assumes that his readers are European, I do believe that he assumes they are not aboriginal. This assumption, along with the assumption that European-Canadians cannot understand indigenous performance as well as indigenous Canadians can understand European performance, is fully justified. Of course, this is not true of all aboriginal-Canadians, some of whom have been isolated from their traditions, nor of European-Canadians, some of whom have grown up in small, predominantly indigenous communities; however, it is true of the majority.
© 2015 Heather Josephine Pue
Works Cited:
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations People, Métis and Inuit. Statistics Canada. Census Analysis Ser. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
“bell hooks.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encylopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. New York: Routledge, 1984. Google Books. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
The educational attainment of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Statistics Canada. Census Analysis Ser. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
Hi Heather,
What a great blog post, I liked how you gave the statistics in the beginning to support your argument. While it is unfortunate that many First Nations will not read Lutz, I think his work is beneficial in educating non-Indigenous people in the difficulties and benefits of understanding cultures other then our own. As Lutz says, the problem with attempting to understand both performances is that « we have insufficient distance from our own and our ancestors world views » (Lutz, 2007). He claims that we must step outside and view ones own culture as alien. On my blog, you posted a response and said that « it is impossible shed our culture and maintain any understanding of the world » (Heather, 2015). I do agree with your argument, but I think that what Lutz is trying to get the reader to do is abandon their biased understandings of the world (tainted by our own cultural beliefs/understandings) and become accepting of different social practices. Is this possible? It is probably very difficult and takes a lot of practice, since you mentioned, our own cultures and understandings are ingrained into us since birth.
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your interesting analysis of Lutz’s assumptions. Your statistical insight into his assumption that readers of his scholarly article will be non-aboriginal was particularly interesting and quite unfortunate. These stats do indeed lead one to believe that very few of the 9.8% university graduates had exposure to his piece. I hope that indigenous Canadians in other post secondary institutions and/or senior high school might also have had opportunities to review his commentary. I suspect though that even if we considered these groups the stats would still be very low. I somehow overlooked this second assumption that indigenous Canadians can better understand European performance than European Canadians can indigenous performance. Where was this implied?
Perhaps I am naively optimistic but I am hoping that the consistently larger percentage of educated non-aboriginal Canadians are learning to think critically and objectively when it comes to these first contact stories and I hope that they take note of the message I gleaned from Lutz’s articles in that we must avoid ethnocentric approaches to understanding both cultures. When we educate ourselves of the spiritual contexts of both groups – Indigenous and European – at the time of first contact we better appreciate the motivations and consequences of each party’s behaviour. I like to think that by making this effort we gain a more balanced perspective of both historical accounts which in turn will encourage more engagement in indigenous issues of the past, present and future.
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for the response! Lutz implies that indigenous Canadians can better understand European Canadian performance than vice versa when he says that “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans” (emphasis mine). You’re right to say that this implication isn’t as strongly stated as the other one; however, it still seems to imply that European Canadians will have difficulty understanding indigenous Canadian performance/culture with no comment on indigenous Canadian’s understanding of European Canadian culture, which I think is taken for granted. Do you think I’m being unfair in this assumption?
I like to think things will get better and we certainly are making baby steps; however, improving native/settler relations is a challenging task that we seem far from achieving. I think one of the biggest challenges is the lack of contact most non-indigenous Canadians have with indigenous Canadians. Hopefully, with the increasing indigenous population, this will change over time, but it won’t happen quickly.
Heather
Hi Leana,
Thanks for the great response! I agree that increasing our understanding of other cultures is important, as is becoming aware of our cultural lens; however, I still believe it is impossible to shed our cultures entirely and maintain any understanding of the world. Everything we see, feel, hear, taste, touch, think, etc., is through a cultural lens — whether we’re aware of it or not. I think the first step is to become aware of this and to try to see other cultures through their lenses; however, I don’t expect much success without first spending a great deal of time amongst that culture.
Lutz’s work is interesting, but I get the impression it is written for a settler audience. It would be good if someone were to write something similar for an indigenous audience (and perhaps they already have)!
Heather