Keith Carlson presents us with an interesting suggestion: “the very act of transforming … [is] an act of literacy” (62). This may seems incongruous on the surface, but when we dig deeper we can see that it really is quite simple. What do we do when we write? We transform a blank page into something meaningful through the use of symbols, and if anybody thinks this demonstrates white supremacy they should give Mandarin a shot. It is interesting to hear the symbols have not historically been included in accounts of ‘literacy’. Perhaps as academics we become caught up in literariness, and think exclusively of words as conveying deep meaning, but certainly we need to consider other symbols to be literary as well. Totem Poles are a great example of this, and this video describes how the symbols on a pole can represent the events of a story.
In the video, Mr. Hoyt also notes that there is a set of rules, or conventions, that limit that dictate what an artist/writer must do to convey the message he/she desires. Ravens have long beaks, and Eagles have curved ones. Proper nouns are capitalized, and i comes before e, except after c, except in feign… and science. Shit, even totem poles have clearer ‘rules’ than languages do. How can we not consider them to have adequate literariness?
To take this notion of transformation one level deeper, lets think about what happens to our brains when we tell a story (or speak in general). When we tell a story, or even simply listen to a story, our brains are being transformed (or marked) as the stimuli are processed by our minds. Studies in neuroplasticity, such as those quoted in the hyperlink, have shown that our brains are noticeably changed by our environments, including the words we hear and things we see. Hopefully this clears up the question of whether we should consider transformations to be literary, and it also explains why we did not consider their equality sooner. Much of the literature in neuroplasticity is recent, and academics could not have made such a connection in previous generations of First Nations studies. Clearly though, it is high time we consider transformations or markings, such as those of the Salish people, to be a form of literacy. It is ridiculous to assume that another cultures markings cannot convey meaning as ours do because they look different or exist on a different medium, especially when we now know they can affect our brains in similar ways. Whether a story is written on a piece of paper, told by a dancer, or carved on a pole, we are forging connections in our minds to allow us to interpret the story, and the possibilities inherent in all three mediums (and undoubtedly many more) should be embraced and explored.
End-note: Anyone who watched RoadRunner as a kid should be able to see what I’m getting at here.
Works Cited
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality & Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print.
Hoyt, Randy. “Art & Story in Totem Poles / Ignite Dallas.” YouTube. 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lht4XGkk0k>.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lht4XGkk0k>.
Widrich, Leo. ” The Science of Storytelling: Why Telling a Story is the Most Powerful Way to Activate Our Brains” Lifehacker 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. <http://lifehacker.com/5965703/the-science-of-storytelling-why-telling-a-story-is-the-most-powerful-way-to-activate-our-brains?action_type_map=%7B%2210151358961859747%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_object_map=%7B%2210151358961859747%22%3A133605103460290%7D>
Hi Nick,
You have written a great blog here and make an excellent point in paragraph one where you draw attention to our own use of symbols to communicate messages and tell stories. Where along the road of history did we come to think that one group’s symbols are more important/meaningful than another? Europeans can look at their various explorer accounts despite their origins and varied languages and still respect these symbols as literature. Why is there a double standard when it comes to indigenous groups?
I enjoyed the video link you provided. It was interesting to learn that only the West coast tribes from Alaska south to Vancouver Island constructed totem poles. Also interesting to note was the impact Europeans had on the production of these cultural artifacts. Since their arrival there was a proliferation of poles and an increase in the level of detail for each. This, as the author Hoyt points out, was a result of sharper European carving tools and, interestingly, a consequence of diseases introduced by newcomers. Disease wiped out tribal leaders and thus created vacancies that lead to competitions for social rank. Gift giving in the form of poles were a strategy for securing such leadership positions.
Hoyt was full of interesting details and, as you explain, does a good job of highlighting the conventions artists followed in constructing their stories/messages. I particularly enjoyed your comment that “even totem poles have clearer ‘rules’ than languages do. How can we not consider them to have adequate literariness”. I would add also that it should be clear to any visitor that anyone sophisticated enough to construct these poles – artistically and structurally – is certainly capable of being literate and owning their own set of meaningful symbols.
Thanks for illustrating your points so clearly.
Stuart
Thanks Stuart!
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the very enlightening post!
When I tutor my students I often find myself catching their mistakes and wonder why I couldn’t just let it slide. Something might be perfectly legitimate in everyday speech, yet unacceptable in formal writing. Sometimes these mistakes even seem to make sense linguistically, but “literacy” deems them to be wrong. I think it would be really nice if we took other forms of communication seriously, but I wonder if non-written formal communication is seen as too impractical in everyday life.
I feel like these days, there is little power in something that is not explicitly written. Legal documents, and other immutable things seem to be what runs the world, and it is unfortunate. Perhaps that is why people don’t take orality seriously?
Hey Florence, I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I think that the distinction between practicality and tradition is important for us to consider here. Yes it it is true that in our modern era we need things written down (laws, contracts, permits) because that gives us recourse in the event something goes wrong. What is written in those documents is given the greatest weight when we interact with each other, and our conversations are considered to be informal and non-binding. Yet when we consider culture and heritage is it necessary for us to have recourse in the event of disagreement? Certainly no one culture is more ‘right’ than another culture, so we have no need for absolute perfection of recorded events when trying to understand historical traditions; some gray area can even leave a little mystique when looking back to our ancestors. To your point that non-written communication is impractical for us today I completely agree, but I think that the impracticability of orality need not lead people to completely dismiss it as a form of literacy and transmission (especially when exploring a concept such as culture). That is what I am trying to get at with my blogs here, so hopefully I’ll have some more interesting pieces for you in the coming weeks.
Cheers,
Nick