“To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing” (Carlson 59).
Questioning the authenticity of the stories of the Salish people challenges both the narrative and their way of knowing the world. For them, neither reality nor authenticity is part of the criteria for assessing narratives (Carlson 57). Like Western academics, historical accuracy in the Salish world is a matter of great concern (Carlson 57). A problem Carlson addresses is how non-Natives have “grown accustomed to associating authentic Aboriginal culture with pre-contact temporal dimensions that we have dismissed or ignored Native stories that do not meet our criteria for historic purity” (56). Likewise, our ethnocentric perspectives closes the door on another way of knowing. Such close-mindedness is also particularly offensive and insulting.
Naturally, everyone has their own approach of quantifying it. While the majority of individuals are accustomed to the Western way of measuring historical accuracy with empirical evidence, the Salish practice appears to be foreign. They “largely assess historical accuracy in relation to people’s memories of previous renditions or versions of a narrative and in relation to the teller’s status and reputation as an authority” (Carlson 57). In face of conflicting narratives, the verbal citing of one’s sources and authorities known as “oral footnotes” are referenced (Carlson 57). If one is unable to back up their narrative, it is likely to be regarded as substandard history by the listeners. Consequences are inevitable for those who spread bad history.
It is important to recognize this point because the majority of people are outsiders looking in. As mentioned in John Lutz’s Myth and Memory, we “perceive Indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans” (32). We are biased towards the Western methods of measuring authenticity. We are institutionalized to believe in the truth can only be supported with tangible, quantifiable evidence. Here, Carlson isn’t asking for readers to change their beliefs. Instead, he wants us to be hyperaware of our biases, especially when we are trying to understand the belief systems of cultures other than our own. As commented on Caitlyn’s blog, awareness forces us to think more deeply about our own actions and belief systems. Carlson also warns readers to tread carefully when asking questions to Aboriginal people about their narratives, as there can be significance and implications behind them. Above all, it’s important to realize that we, as Westerners, have the upper hand in many situations. We’re not constantly being pestered by people wondering if what we know is real. We are hardly on the defensive. We have “the ability to not just tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of the person” (Adichie, “The Danger of a Single Story”). This excellent TED Talk by novelist Chimamanda Adichie warns of the dangers of only hearing a single story about another culture.
The question of this blog post brings me back to the earlier lesson on oral versus written culture. The more I think about it, the differences in Western and Indigenous ways of quantifying historical accuracy is not far off from the oral versus written culture debate. When we challenge the Salish narrative, we are also questioning and potentially devaluing their methods. Because they rely on oral means of recording history, there is the implication that it is of lesser importance than written methods. As well, the use of oral footnotes helps to break down the notion of how “speaking and listening are simple and natural” (Chamberlin 19). By now, we all know that oral communication/storytelling is complex and is an art within itself- remember Lesson 1.3?
Still, what bugs me is the specificity and implications of Carlson’s suggestions. Why does he only suggest that people should be mindful about the questions pertaining to Aboriginal populations? What if the Salish or other groups raise the question of authenticity of Western way of knowing? Does challenging the authenticity of a narrative automatically mean that the individual is questioning the truth in one’s way of knowing? Is it safe or fair to assume that? Is a little bit of challenge healthy? With my many questions, I hope this will spark a dialogue to follow.
Works Cited
Adichie, Chimamanda. “Chimamanda Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story.” Video. Youtube.com. YouTube. 2009. Web. 26 June 2014.
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 2011. 43-72. Print.
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: A.A. Knopf, 2003. Print.
Harrison, Caitlyn. “Lesson 2:2: The Dangers of Dichotomies.” Intersections & Departures. UBC Blogs. 21 June 2014. Web. 25 June 2014.
Lutz, John Sutton. Myth and Memory- Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007. Print.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1:3.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre 98A May 2014. UBC Blogs. n.d. Web. 26 June 2014.
sharper(BESimpson)
July 1, 2014 — 10:04 pm
Hi Jenny-Great post, I loved the ted talk link : ) I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points you make, especially about the deeply ingrained bias towards Western points of view that seems endemic in our society. Regarding your statement: “We are biased towards the Western methods of measuring authenticity. We are institutionalized to believe in the truth can only be supported with tangible, quantifiable evidence.”, where would you say this bias originates from? Our education system, the stories we tell our children, advertising, novels, movies? How, in your opinion, is this bias perpetuated?
In response to your question about whether questioning the authenticity of a story means questioning a culture’s way of knowing, in my opinion the two things aren’t necesarrily linked. I think someone can question the authenticity of a particular narrative, without calling into question the entire method of relaying those stories within a culture. However, this raises the question, if the two things can be mutually exclusive, why are they so often viewed together? And should they be?
On another note, the time to pick our groups for the research team is coming up-we’ve maintained some dialogue on blog entries over the past couple weeks, would you be interested in being part of the same research group?
Lovely post,
Cheers, Breanna
jennyho
July 2, 2014 — 12:07 am
Hi Breanna, thanks for leaving a comment! Although it’s a bit of everything, I think the bias largely originates from the education system. Speaking for myself, I can remember learning in high school how to “write essays”, which was to come up with a topic, have x number of paragraphs with supporting statements/evidence. Obviously, UBC itself is an institution in which research is its main focus. Being a double major in psychology and English, I can really see how much we value and biased towards tangible evidence. Pretty much everything in psychology is based off on research/data, etc- it’s the heart of the discipline. If you know any psych majors yourself, I’m pretty sure you will know at least one or two people that work as a research assistant in a lab. I work in one myself in which I score research materials using thematic content analysis. I have to reach a very high reliability rate/correlation with fellow RAs in order for my work to be valid/reliable. In contrast to everything I do in English lit… it’s a huge difference. Even with close reading and all, I feel like there is so much more wiggle room. Because you can pretty much come up with any interpretation of a reading, I feel like there’s less of a demand for hard evidence. In general though… there’s so much about the culture of education that revolves around hard evidence. Things like tenure, grad school, essays all revolve around evidence.
Leo Yau
July 3, 2014 — 6:49 am
I thought your blog post was really interesting and your TED talk by Adichie definitely caught my eye as I read “Purple Hibiscus” and thought it was brilliant! Anyway, as a fellow psych major I can definitely relate with the emphasis that’s being placed on evidence. I think that’s just how Western society has adapted itself. For example, when Carlson suggests that the Salish people “largely assess historical accuracy in relation to people’s memories of previous renditions or versions of a narrative and in relation to the teller’s status and reputation as an authority”, Westerners weren’t much different prior to the age of reasoning.
Perhaps, for many westerners, disregarding evidence and science would be seen as a “step backwards” (to the times before the age of reason). Unfortunately, advancement in science seems to come hand in hand with ethnocentrism and cultural elitism. This makes western society highly intolerant to cultures who understand life narratives differently.
jennyho
July 5, 2014 — 9:48 pm
I agree with you in how it would appear to be a “step backwards”- in one of my psych classes (I believe it was 304), my prof mentioned that some researcher was discovered to make up all his data because people couldn’t replicate his studies- I can’t remember his name right now. Also 100% agree with you on the cultural elitism/ethnocentrism. We tend to forget that the practices we engage in aren’t always common in other parts of the world, or even within the Western world itself.
jennyho
July 2, 2014 — 12:11 am
Sorry that my previous comment has gotten really long… I’m wondering where you think a large part of the bias comes from too, if you don’t mind answering. And your other question, I’m not exactly sure if challenge/truth are often viewed together at all. It’s not something ever occurred to me until Carlson’s reading.
I would also be interested in being part of the same research group! Thanks for asking! Have you approached anyone else yet?
sharper(BESimpson)
July 5, 2014 — 11:03 pm
Hi Jenny-thanks for the comment-sorry for the late reply, I’ve been swamped at work for a while and am just catching up on school now. If you’re still interested, I’d love to be part of the same research group. I’ve also asked Kristin Kozar about being part of the same group, and she’s expressed interest. Maybe we can start a dialogue on facebook or something to discuss it?
In regard to your question about bias, I agree with you that the education system is a large part of it, although I think it’s also partly due to books and shifting social attitudes-there’s been a trend for decades in North America to prioritize concrete, “truthful”, practical things, and undervalue more “fanciful”, indefinable things-we believe only what ours eyes can see.
Talk to you soon,
Cheers, Breanna
erikapaterson
July 10, 2014 — 4:22 am
I’ve pulled a few quotes from this blog to engage with. I was happy to see you repeat this point: “Consequences are inevitable for those who spread bad history.” Yes, and equally importantly, there are also consequences for the listeners – indeed, the entire community is impacted negatively.
I was also pleased to see you emphasize Carlson’s goal “Here, Carlson isn’t asking for readers to change their beliefs. Instead, he wants us to be hyperaware of our biases, especially when we are trying to understand the belief systems of cultures other than our own.” This can be said for both Chamberlain and King as well; these authors are not asking us to change beliefs, but rather to consider how we believe (not what we believe) and the power of our ability to believe.
Now, here is a question you raise at the end of your blog, which it appears to me you have already answered at the beginning. You write:
Still, what bugs me is the specificity and implications of Carlson’s suggestions. Why does he only suggest that people should be mindful about the questions pertaining to Aboriginal populations? What if the Salish or other groups raise the question of authenticity of Western way of knowing?
There is a great difference in power between Indigenous populations and Western, and here in lies the difference between who is asking the question, and you seemed to have captured this when your wrote:
Above all, it’s important to realize that we, as Westerners, have the upper hand in many situations. We’re not constantly being pestered by people wondering if what we know is real. We are hardly on the defensive. We have “the ability to not just tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of the person”
But, a more interesting revelation provoked by your questions is that the Salish and other First Nations have indeed questioned and explored and accepted – or not, and integrated many Western ways of knowing into their epistemological and spiritual paradigms. The difference is, is that the Western epistemological paradigms do not so easily adapt to new encounters; no doubt in part because of the foundational belief that ‘our way’ is the right way; our way is human nature.