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.

If one wants to raise the question of ‘authenticity’ to challenge the ‘truth’ behind Salish ways of knowing, one must first reach methodological equivalence. Methodological equivalence is achieved in cross-cultural studies when the researcher diminishes biases and when what is being accessed is perceived the same way across cultures. (Cheung). Even though Carlson does not use the term methodological equivalence in Orality and Literacy, he does point out the different interpretations of authenticity. To understand how the Salish notion of authenticity differs from the western perspective, one must first understand the types of stories that distinguish the Salish peoples way of knowing.

Carlson refers to two different types of stories: sxwōxwiyám/shee-ma-ee and sqwélqwel/teek-wl. Sxwōxwiyám and shee-ma-ee are two terms that apply to “stories set in the distant past describing both the work of Transformers or Coyote as they set about ‘making the world right’ by transforming it into its present stable and recognizable form and their efforts to introduce special technical or ritual power to heroic ancestors…” (Carlson 56). The terms Sqwélqwe and teek-wl refer to recent stories from recent events and generations. (Carlson 56). Even though both of these are equally true and real to the Salish people, authenticity is not part of the criteria that the Salish people use in assessing them. Instead, the stories are judged by ones that are better remember and conveyed. (57). An ethnographer, cultural psychologist, anthropologist, or sociologist that want to do their job beneficially should realize that authenticity is not a term that can be used in understanding and comparing the Salish culture to the Western culture because it does not have methodological equivalence. The same can be said about the terms accuracy and literacy.

Carlson is correct in asserting that Western academics and Salish people differ in how accuracy is accessed, but Carlson forgets to mention that this is likely due to analytic vs. holistic thinking. To mainstream Western academics, historical accuracy is measured concerning verifiable evidence which means that when historical interpretations conflict with one’s understanding, the historical evidence would be regarded as poor scholarship. (Carlson 57).  With Salish people, on the other hand, historical evidence is “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. In cases of conflicting narratives, discrepancies are as often as not dismissed according to familial alliances and associations.” (57). However, Carlson could have taken his analysis further and adopted research on analytic vs. holistic thinking. For instance, Westerns are found to interpret the world through analytic thinking, and when they encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the better argument as even more compelling than when they encounter the same argument by itself. (Heine 368). In contrast, people from Asian cultures and many Ingenious cultures are found to interpret the world through holistic thinking. When they encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the weaker argument as more compelling than when it is presented by itself. (Heine 368). This is because holistic thinkers understand that something can be both true and untrue, similar to the quote from Laso Tzu, “If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given.” (Heine 369).  However, as important as it is to understand the different ways in which various cultures think, it is also essential to look for intersections.

While some Western perspectives view the indigenous traditions of orality as primitive and illiterate, the truth of prophets in Salish culture or Judeo-Christian Western culture are equally valid. Carlson refers to Mrs. Peters’ story about her great-great-great-great-grandfather St’a’saluk that had a paper with written text that predicted knowledge that came from Europe. (60). This is only one of many pre-contact prophet stories. (52). Whether or not this is historical truth or fiction is up to what one chooses to believe, and the same can be said for the stories in the bible. The sacred Western beliefs achieved dominance in part because they were written down; however, the fact that indigenous people did not write down all their stories did not mean they were illiterate. For instance, Carlson refers to Bertha Peters who perceived “literacy not as a source of knowledge and power itself, but as a tool for preserving certain kinds of knowledge that could have assisted Salish people during times of great distress.” (48). Again, the various interpretations and histories of the term “literacy” make it challenging to achieve methodological equivalence.

Carlson focuses on establishing that Salish peoples were, in fact, literate; however, it is also important to understand that both cultures put tremendous value on spoken stories. “Talking and language have held a privileged position in much of the Western intellectual history. Among ancient Greeks, Homer concluded that there was no greater skill than to be a good debater, and Socrates thought that knowledge existed within people and could be revealed only through verbal reasoning. In Judeo-Christian beliefs, the “Word” was viewed as sacred because of its divine power to create.”  (Heine 375).  The importance that Westerner’s place on oral communication is seen in our judicial systems, the popularity of radio and podcasts, and public debates. As Carlson points out, “those that share stories in the public forum will acquire a reputation as poor historians if their retellings are sloppy and transgress.” (57). Even though Westerners and Indigenous people differ in some ways when discrediting stories, there are many similarities in how they perceive the ‘truth’ of stories.

It seems that both Western academics and Salish people are interested in telling stories that reliably help people understand their history and culture. Neither authenticity nor accuracy can be used to correctly understand how stories affect Salish people. As Carlson states, “this is not to argue that outsiders should not ask about authenticity, just that they should be alert to the significance and implications of their questions to indigenous people.” (59). I would also urge people to find intersections between the cultures to better grasp what questions are valid to ask when doing cross-cultural research. One cannot and should not judge a culture with the same reference points they use to judge their own culture.

Works Cited

Carlson, Keith Taylor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality and Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto. U of Toronto P, 2011. 43-72

Cheung, Benjamin. “Lecture 14: Measuring culture.” Cultural Psychology. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 1 February 2019. Lecture.

He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture. 6 June 2012. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111

Heine, Steven J. Cultural Psychology. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, New York, NY, 2016.

Kennedy, Dorothy, and Randy Bouchard. “Coast Salish.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. 6 Feb 2006, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/coastal-salish.