5] “To raise the question of ‘authenticity’ is to challenge not only the narrative but also the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing “(Carlson 59). Explain why this is so according to Carlson, and explain why it is important to recognize this point.
When we question the authenticity of Salish stories and knowledge by comparing them to European ones, we devalue Salish ways of knowing just as we devalue oral culture through comparison to the supposedly more civilized western literacy. Why is ‘accuracy’ the criteria on which we base the worth of an entire culture’s wealth of knowledge? And why is western culture and story considered more accurate than Salish ways of knowing? Western accuracy involves evidence-based reasoning, documentation, etc- but to say Salish ways of knowing are invalid because they do not involve these elements is to ignore the different ways in which we measure accuracy, none more valid than the other.
Salish “historical accuracy is largely assessed 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). Just as First Nations storytelling is largely dependent on context- the who, what, where, when and why of the story- so too is historical accuracy. Note that historical accuracy is important to Salish narratives. Carlson notes that Salish storytellers who fail to establish credibility through the use of “oral footnotes” will experience diminished reputations as poor storytellers within their communities (57). This community self-policing is one way to ensure accuracy within storytelling, and the consequences of poor storytelling are understood by Salish communities just as they are within European ones (Carlson, 58).
The problem with this challenge of ‘authenticity’ within Salish and other First Nations narratives is that it values western literacy over orality and assumes that literacy brings legitimacy while orality is regressive and primitive. The belief that a culture evolves from orality to literacy places oral stories at the bottom of a hierarchy. There is a “historical purity” (Carlson, 56) associated with literacy and impurities are thus assigned to First Nations histories/stories that do not conform. Stories that are “informed by post-contact European events” are assumed to be based on post-contact European information. This ethnocentric view results in a fundamental misunderstanding of the workings of Salish/First Nations culture and ways of knowing and devalues the truth of their stories.
To challenge the truth of Salish stories in this way is to assign a higher value and meaning to western/European stories. In “Living by Stories,” Wendy Wickwire talks about how academics choose which First Nations stories to pay attention to. Academics ignore recent stories in favour of stereotypical, mythic stories, despite the fact that many of the modern stories held important insights about land and origin. When we choose which stories to assign value to, we miss the important ones and “close the door on another way of knowing” (Carlson, 56). But, as Carlson notes, “there is no story that is more or less authentic, only ‘better remembered/conveyed” (57).
How do we decide which stories are ‘accurate’? How do we decide which stories are worthy of meaning and value? I think we need to move forward from the western model of accuracy, or at least be able to acknowledge the different ways in which we can assign and police accuracy within stories. If we don’t, so many important truths, stories, and ways of knowing will be left behind.
Works Cited
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.
Courtney MacNeil, “Orality”. The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. We. 19 Feb. 2013.
Robinson, Harry, and Wendy C. Wickwire. Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Vancouver: Talon, 2005. Print.
Hey Marissa!
Interestingly, I just read your previous blog post “On Orality,” and it seems that similar questions and sentiments have come up again. This question of hierarchies among forms of storytelling, with literature on top of it all, is problematic, and indeed stems from a Western superiority. I work a lot in theatre, and here in Vancouver the theatre community is strong but not as popular as in other cities. I know exactly two people who are able to fully support themselves financially through theatre. I find that our culture values films and television shows over works of theatre, just as literature is valued over oral storytelling. I think it has something to do with the permanency of a recorded story, as it relates to accuracy, as you’ve indicated above. Perhaps it is that our culture values the ability to recreate an experience as accurately as possible, but of course you never can. If you’ve already seen a movie, you are more familiar with it than the last time you watched it, so it is never the same experience again. It’s the same with literature, the things you pick up on are different from the last time. This strange sense of nostalgia, of recreating an experience as exactly as possible, seems to me to be what fuels this preference for certain forms of storytelling. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this perspective!
Madelaine Walker
I agree that the recreating of an experience in the attempt to create something permanent could be why we all have such a penchant for storytelling that we feel captures the moment inn some way. Which is interesting because like you said, you don’t view a movie or a book the same way if you’re viewing or reading it the second time, nor any time after that. I know that we feel a film or a novel is accurate in the sense that details don’t change place as they often do in oral stories. But oral stories can be recorded now and that sense of permanency is changing, I think. Not that they need to be recorded to be accurate- as Carlson notes, people don’t present such inaccuracies without suffering serious damage to their reputation. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Marissa,
I enjoyed your post and you brought up some very valuable points in your discussion of “authenticity” and how the ideas behind civilization has become so ingrained in European culture that a hierarchy is assumed to be even if it is not accurate. Yet, as you mentioned, “Western accuracy involves evidence-based reasoning, documentation, etc”, do you believe that if something is written down, it is truly always accurate? I am finding that more and more of our “evidence-based reasoning and documentation” has become less about accuracy and more about sensationalism due to the internet. Do you feel that this may alter the way in which even European stories are considered accurate in the future?
An afterthought I just had is that perhaps the word, ‘stories’, is perhaps an unhelpful way to describe historical accounts as for myself, I associate stories with fiction, rather than non-fiction. Is there a difference between fiction and non-fictional stories to the Salish/First Nations people? I wonder as when I learned Spanish over the last two years, Spanish has different tenses for factual information vs. opinion, speculation and other information that wasn’t a fact. For example, I went to the store vs. I wish to go to the store.
Cheers,
Colleen
Definitely not! There is a widely held belief that recording information somehow makes it more accurate, and written documents are always given more weight than a story. Everyone lies and everyone makes mistakes. I think the internet has made people more aware of the accuracies that exist in written communication but I still think it’s seen as more accurate than oral stories in the hierarchy of communication and will probably remain so.
I agree with your last point- maybe I should be using “oral accounts” and “oral histories” instead of “oral story” as story does have the connotation of being fiction. Thanks for your comment.
I really enjoyed reading your post as it pertains to Western thought and the way that Acedemics are prone to only acknowledge the more mythical renditions of the First Nation’s story. You pose the questions “How do we decide which stories are ‘accurate’? How do we decide which stories are worthy of meaning and value? ” I agree with what you say in regards to needing to acknowledge the different forms of truth and accuracy. I too believe that if we continue to only see these oral traditions as mere “stories” with no truth than important information will be lost. I think that the embracing of First Nation’s stories as an important part of our cohesive history would allow for greater healing through the acknowledging the importance that we all have something to contribute to Canadian history and that they are not in fact primitive but hold equal value.
Is written work more reliable than oral story telling? Should there be a hierarchy? I do not think so as I personally feel that one does not out weigh the other and as your referred to, there are in fact “oral footnotes” that are important to the Salish people in order for a story to carry credibility. The big question for me is: how can we become this network of individuals that hears both as equal in our society without expecting conformity in the sense of having these stories written down with the appropriate footnotes? Requiring this is only once again undermining the traditional oral storytelling and only awarding ‘worth’ to that which can be read. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
My first instinct has always been that yes, written work is more reliable than oral storytelling. Stories change each time we tell them, details get lost, etc. But I think when you’re talking about oral storytelling, the meaning of the story is more important than the details, if that makes sense? The goal of a lot of oral storytelling is to communicate a culture’s values, traditions, ideals, and ideas and you don’t need identical stories to achieve that. But even in terms of accuracy, we learned that accuracy is important to both written and oral storytelling and the ways in which we measure accuracy are different for each form. Applying different standards of accuracy to oral and written stories doesn’t mean that they are unequal standards, however. So removing that hierarchy will probably require shedding the western styles of thinking that have governed how we view accuracy in the first place. I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your comment
Hi Marissa,
I’d like to second, and perhaps slightly expand upon, the question posed previously by Audrey. I strongly agree with the opinion you express regarding the need to value equally both written and oral storytelling. The moment I finished reading your post I thought “yes!” But immediately following this was the thought “but how?” I’d really love to know if there are any approaches that, to your mind, would contribute to the necessary re-evaluating and revitalizing of appreciation for a plurality of storytelling modes?
When I was in elementary school, we did a unit on First Nations culture which involved learning about and writing our own creation stories. Perhaps placing an emphasis on understanding these stories as being equal to written stories in a classroom environment could help eliminate some of the bias against oral stories. The second thing I suggested in the comment above is that we should try to change the way we think about accuracy. Instead of applying the same standards of accuracy to written and oral stories, we should use oral standards for oral stories and written standards for written stories. There are ways to measure the accuracy of an oral story- oral footnotes, for example- as well as unwritten storytelling ‘rules’ that must be followed. Beyond learning to appreciate and understand oral stories is the need to appreciate and understand First Nations culture. These stories are often devalued because they are seen as coming from a ‘primitive’ people. I don’t know how to change that, however. It’s a pretty deep, cultural bias that stems from colonialism/racism. Thanks for your comment!