Question #7: Following Carlson’s discussions on literacy as “part of a broader genre of transformation” (61), try to explain what he means when he says that transformation is an “act of literacy.” This can be confusing at first, but if you follow his discussion beginning with “how Salish people understand the process or act of transformation in relation to literacy itself” and pay attention to how he uses etymology to shape his insights, you should be able to extract an explanation for conceptualizing transformations as writing and as readable.
In Chapter 2 of “Orality about Literacy”, Carlson discusses unique perceptions of literacy by Salish people through representation of their oral stories, which “challenge us to reconsider both the history of Native-newcomer relations and our understanding of such core concepts as the relationship between orality and literacy” (Carlson, 43).
As one of the arguments, Carlson refers to the story about Great Spirits, called Xe:xál:s, the Transformers, which travelled the land and had incredible powers of alteration “people and things into their permanent forms, thereby creating the world we recognize today” (Carlson 46). Bertha Peters, Stó:lō Salish elder, shared a story about transformed chiefs, which were given the gift of written language by one of the Xe:xál:s. The chiefs promised to share this knowledge and teach people how to write, but they kept the gift to themselves. As a punishment, they were turned to stone (43).
According to Carlson, the act of transforming to the stone “was an act of literacy” (62) where the Transformer “was engaged in the act of writing” (62). He explains, that for Bertha Peters, “literacy was not necessarily a source of knowledge or power in itself. Rather, it was principally a tool for preserving certain kinds of knowledge” (48).
Therefore, Salish people offer different perspective of treating literacy, which assumes “documenting the change from one state to another” (61). Under these terms, act of literacy may include transformation of abstract concepts like knowledge into the permanent states in the form of physical objects, which are represented by the marks left by the Transformers (61) as the legacy of their work.
I can see a similarity between traditional understanding of literacy (as the ability to read and write) and Salish transformation of a story or message into the different state. We transform our thoughts into the lettering and symbols, thus changing the initial state of the message from the abstract form to visible “marks” on the paper. Only literate person would be able to read the message conveyed in these marks. Being literate means to know what each mark stands for. You are literate if you know the alphabet and how letterings add up to form the words, because you can understand the message conveyed in the written text. If you know the oral story which explains what is the mark is for, you are also literate, because you know what message and moral are symbolized by the marks. In other words, marks left by the Transformers like the stone in Salish story, function as memory devices aimed to recall the oral stories and knowledge passed by the ancestors and thus connecting many generations.
The other interesting insight used by Carlson to reinforce the significance of the concept of literacy in Salish culture is the etymology of the word xelá:ls. It is used by Salish people for the verb to write, and is not a borrowed word from any other language, but of their own. This suggests that the concept of literacy in Salish culture was not “something imposed on or introduced to Aboriginal people as part of colonization” (45). Therefore, according to Carlson, Salish literacy predated European arrival and challenges not only the traditional understanding of this concept, but questions the binary approach to the relationship between orality and literacy. In Salish terms, literacy is not following orality, it is within orality.
Works Cited
Bianco, Francesca, and Holly McKenzie Sutter. “Set in Stone: Stó:Lō Ancestors’ Spirits Live in Fraser Valley Landmarks | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 28 Apr. 2017. Web. 16 Feb, 2020. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/spirits-stolo-ancestors-live-fraser-valley-landmarks-1.4074785
Carlson, Keith. “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History”. Ed. Carlson, Kristina Fagna, & Natalia Khamemko-Frieson. Toronto: Uof Toronto P, 2011. 43-72.
Wonders, Karen. “Coast Salish.” First Nations – Land Rights and Environmentalism in British Columbia, Web. 16 Feb, 2020. http://www.firstnations.de/development/coast_salish.htm.
“Xá:ytem / Hatzic Rock National Historic Site of Canada”. HistoricPlaces.ca . Parks Canada Agency/Agence Parcs Canada, Smyth, 1997. Web image. Web. 17 Feb, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20151018163007/http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/image-image.aspx?id=2256#i1
Hi Joanne,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. It’s interesting to think of different but parallel understandings of literacy, and to question our specific definition of literacy. It’s troubling how Indigenous cultures have been generalized to be only oral cultures, without orality and literacy being treating with nuance. One thing this course has taught me for sure is how we have to take a closer look at every lesson we’ve internalized as fact. Orality and literacy, for example, upon closer inspection are closely intertwined–this is especially clear in the stories of Harry Robinson.
Based on your discussion above, I have a feeling you might be interested in semiotics. I’ve read Roland Barthes Mythologies, and found it really interesting. You might want to have a look at this article for a bit about what Barthes studies: http://theoria.art-zoo.com/from-myth-today-roland-barthes/.
Hope you find it interesting!
Hi Georgia,
Thank you very much for your suggestion. I was not familiar with Barthes’s studies. From what I’ve read today I can definitely agree that his ideas are enormously interesting and engaging. One fragment from the link provided by you is especially interesting, as in my reading it resonates with Carlson’s non-binary approach to interpret literacy in Salish narratives. Barthes speaks of myth as a type of speech, which “is not defined by the object of its message, but by the way in which it utters this message: there are formal limits to myth, there are no ‘substantial’ ones.” It’s hard to understand that the Western world having so many theories and diverse fields of deep studies, like semiotics, experiences difficulties to understand and accept the Indigenous ways of knowing which do not satisfy Western’s criteria for many concepts, like literacy or “historical purity”.
Thank you again,
Zhanna (Joanne)
Hi Joanne,
I really enjoyed this post! I know that this course follows indigenous writing and literature, but your blog about literacy as understanding marks was really thought-provoking. I wonder if this idea of literacy could be applied to people with disabilities or issues with verbal communication. If that were the case, then it could really change the way that society understands literacy and the requirements of ‘being literate.’