Native American Studies – Mark Haviland

PAB Entry #5: “Literature and the Politics of Native American Studies”

Huhndorf, Shari. “Literature and the Politics of Native American Studies.” PMLA 120.5 (2005): 1618-1627. JSTOR. Web. 4 October 2016.

Huhndorf’s essay chronicles the various epistemologies spanning the relatively short span of NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES. While some Native Americanists recognize that Native scholars have little impact at universities, they also realize that placing Native studies within American literature studies is not desired, for they feel that Native studies are an entity unto itself (Huhndorf 1618). Nevertheless, it’s not only a concern at universities, for as Huhndorf explains, “If the marginalization of American Indian studies in academia, as these scholars suggested, reflects the place of Native peoples in United States society, so too does Native politics shape intellectual work in the field” (1618). This element makes the field of Native studies so potentially dynamic, for it is not only about the critical approach to literature; moreover, it is about the perceptions of Native people historically and currently. As Amy J. Elias writes in her chapter “Critical Theory and Cultural Studies,” theorists of cultural theory involving race, ethnicity, and nationhood “are concerned with the de facto and de jure rights accorded to people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds and with how people of different races, ethnicities, and/or nations are represented in written, spoken, and visual texts” (McComiskey 252). Clearly, this political and social framework adds immense importance to the goals of Native American literary scholars.

Since the prime objective for critics of Native American literature is to provide Native peoples and works with a unique sovereignty, keeping distance from COLONIALISM is vital. As Huhndorf writes, “For most critics in the field, ongoing colonization is an essential framework for understanding Native texts; not only have Native authors inevitably written under circumstances shaped by centuries of colonialism, they also engage this history and its consequences in their work” (1619). Elias also reiterates this need with all MULTICULTURAL CRITICISM when she notes that analyzing the relationships between colonizing and colonized cultures should work in conjunction with exploring the actions and attitudes that promote national independence among subservient groups (McComiskey 255). Even though the focus on colonization is paramount, Native scholars’ epistemologies differ in a variety of ways: “the connections between cultural production and anticolonial politics, the relation between Native American writing and other literatures, the contemporary significance of traditions, and the task of the critic” (Huhndorf 1619). These are only a few of the methods of study in the field, and plenty of diverse opinions are associated with each epistemology.

Huhndorf devotes a majority of her essay to these numerous epistemologies, focusing principally on Larson, Lincoln, Krupat, and Warrior’s beliefs about the directions the field of Native studies should endeavor to take. All of these critics agree with the need for Native American studies to diverge from colonialism’s influence and to reflect works created by Native Americans while directly participating in Indian politics and addressing community needs (1622). Despite this consensus, one major conflict has recently arisen among Native American critics: deciding whether individual tribes should each have their own field of study. Some scholars, like Craig Womack, feel that each tribe is unique and deserving of critical analysis; however, a majority of scholars believe Native civilizations and literatures share essential historical or cultural similarities that justify one categorization (1623). For the last decade this scuffle among scholars has existed, but with the field of Native studies already facing obscurity, it is not likely that the idea of pinpointing individual Native civilizations will gain steam.

Craig Womack's book contends that "individual tribal traditions are an especially important dimension of Native literatures and should thus shape critical analyses of them" (Huhndorf 1623). — Craig Womack’s book contends that “individual tribal traditions are an especially important dimension of Native literatures and should thus shape critical analyses of them” (Huhndorf 1623).

Additional Sources:

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print.

*To view the full text version of Huhndorf’s essay, click the link below (ODU login will be necessary):

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/pdf/25486272.pdf

Major Questions and Trends in American Literary Criticism

Most scholars of American literary studies are likely to pinpoint the NEW CRITICISM as the most predominant postwar methodology associated with American literary criticism; however, questions and debates about the New Criticism’s objectives and scopes of study raged for decades, and varying perspectives led to alternate philosophies in regard to determining a consistent definition for what the New Criticism entailed. Even as late as the 1950s, there was still a widespread agreement in America that literary criticism and history should merge (Graff 210). This consensus was primarily due to the fact that American literature had been so deeply entwined with political, revolutionary, and religious writings since the inception of Colonial America. However, as Thomas P. Miller writes, “The New Criticism was instrumental in distancing literary studies from the more politically engaged schools of criticism that were popular in the Progressive era” (162).

For a majority of scholars associated with the New Criticism, the separation of history and literature was essential, for many critics felt that the “study of literature means the study of literature, not of biography, not of literary history…or anything except the works themselves, viewed as their creators wrote them, viewed as art, as transcripts of humanity” (Miller 139). Nevertheless, completely separating history from literature was not part of the process for all scholars of the New Criticism. According to Graff, theorists like Winters, Maule, and Matthiessen applied the methods of the New Criticism to American literature, allowing the New Criticism to become a cultural and historical method” (217). These critics sought to turn the New Criticism into a method of cultural analysis where they charted continuity found in literary traditions and allegorical meanings in writings from the Puritans, Transcendentalists, and Romantics (Graff 217).

Graff writes that Matthiessen's book "comprehensively fused cultural criticism and academic literary history with the New Criticism's method of explication and its themes of complexity, paradox, and tragic vision" (217). For more information about this book, click on the image. — Graff writes that Matthiessen’s book “comprehensively fused cultural criticism and academic literary history with the New Criticism’s method of explication and its themes of complexity, paradox, and tragic vision” (217). For more information about this book, click on the image.

However subtle, the connection to history still played a role in the study of literature, and this played a major role in making American literature exclusive from other literatures. Eventually, other advocates of the New Criticism began to question this style of literary study. Some critics argued that this mode of New Criticism purposely ignored American literary texts from the Revolutionary Era and non-symbolic texts that did not conform to its presuppositions (Graff 221). Debates such as these inspired new methods of criticism, most importantly, the NEW HISTORICIST perspective that offered “a revisionary reinterpretation of American literary history” (Graff 221). This change led to myriad other American literary modes of scholarship. As Robert P. Yagelski writes in “English Education,” a chapter from English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), objectivist principles associated with the New Criticism gradually shifted to principles associated with language and epistemological relativism of postmodernism, which opened up previously marginalized and ignored literatures that promoted cultural critique while challenging the literary canon (McComiskey 303).

One such cultural study that has grown extensively over the last two decades, thanks in part to the New Historicist perspective, has been the field of NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES. However, scholars in this field of study also debate about what constitutes Native American studies, the perspectives from which its texts are written, and are even embroiled in arguments about who should be allowed to publish scholarship in the field. As most studies suggest, “The literatures that American Indian authors produce disrupt and resist the narrative strategies of colonial imaginings…” (Nelson 381). Nevertheless, despite this credence among most scholars, a newer shift in the paradigm of Native American studies is occurring, leading to a variety of related questions. Although NATIONALISM, where the focus centers on producing literary criticism that supports Native sovereignty, used to be the dominant critical form of study, a shift in critical focus to the “Native intellectual, cultural, political, historical, and tribal national contexts” is at the forefront of the new wave of study (Nelson 379). One prime reason for this shift in study is that the nationalism approach promoted an expansively broad range of study, often crossing over into all Indigenous studies, ethnic studies, and race studies, instead of just Native American studies (Nelson 383).

If that doesn’t muddy the water enough, the Indigenous literatures present further problems regarding their study. “No distinction is even attempted between migrant literatures and Indigenous literatures. But this distinction is, in fact, the elephant in the room that no one wants to address in discussions of how Native American literature should be presented (Madsen 357). As Madsen denotes, the haziness surrounding Native American literature and its subdisciplines continues to generate new questions that the field of study needs to address. Overall, these research questions are more likely to be addressed in America, for as Madsen points out, there are no European departments or programs for Native American studies (355). If these hurdles are not troublesome enough, another problem arises in terms of the act of publishing Native American studies. Ethnic conflicts about which scholars ought to publish Native American criticisms take on multiple forms. Some scholars feel that non-Indian critics should not write about Indian literature, some Indians critics claim that Indian critics should write only about Indian literature, and other critics support the notion that both Indians and non-Indians should write about Indian literature (Hove 203).

Works Cited

Graff, Gerald. “The Promise of American Literature Studies.” Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25. Print.

Hove, Thomas, and John M. McKinn. “A Relational Model for Native American Literary Criticism.” Studies in American Indian Literatures 19.4 (2007): 197-208. Project MUSE. Web. 27 September 2016.

Madsen, Deborah. “Out of the Melting Pot, into the Nationalist Fires: Native American Literary Studies in Europe.” The American Indian Quarterly 35.3 (2011): 353-71. Project MUSE. Web. 3 October 2016.

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print.

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the Postmoderns. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

Nelson, Chris. “State(s) and Statements: Reflections on Native American Literary Criticism.” Great Plains Quarterly 35.4 (2015): 377-89. Project MUSE. Web. 3 October 2016.

Additional Resources: Click on the link below to visit the American Indian Workshop (AIW), Europe’s professional networking group for Native studies. As Madsen noted, no European departments or programs directed toward Native American studies exist; however, she highly touts the AIW.

http://www.american-indian-workshop.org/index.html

PAB Entry #4: “A Relational Model for Native American Literary Criticism”

Click the above picture to learn more about the diversity and history of Native American literature.

As the field of Native American criticism grows, new conflicts continue to arise between ethnic identification and literary judgment. As with any specific English study, it can be conceived as a discipline unto itself, offering an exclusive scope and distinctive methods of analysis (McComiskey 29). Therefore, in their article, Hove and McKinn attempt to promulgate a method that will contribute to a rethinking of critical treatments of Native American identity and authenticity. Their main objective is to examine the concept of ethnic authenticity in terms of how social relations influence the field of Native American literary production. This is primarily done by looking at how members of the field put decisions of authenticity to social use and how others perceive these decisions as legitimate or illegitimate (197). Hove and McKinn wish to avoid assessing authenticity from an epistemological standpoint, for they assert that the rhetorical and sociological dimensions are of greater importance; therefore, they desire to identify the institutional, cultural, and social nuances apparent in the field of Native study (197). In order to achieve this end, the authors reference Bourdieu’s sociological studies regarding the struggles for domination.

Since Native criticism is a relatively autonomous social space, possessing its own rules and power dynamics, critics have a lot of leeway when offering political, cultural, and aesthetic judgments about authors or other critics (198). According to Hove and McKinn, this creates major conflicts due to the “social positions from which critics or authors make authenticity judgments” (199). This needs to be taken into consideration when mapping the Native critical field’s social undercurrents, for social elements play an enormous role when critics take various positions for various reasons. Since Native American literary criticism is a field of social struggle, Hove and McKinn note that there are three basic forms of capital that come into play when critics determine one another’s status in the field: institutional, cultural, and ethnic capital (201). INSTITUTIONAL capital refers to rank status of the critic, CULTURAL capital refers to the styles and insights offered by critics, and ETHNIC capital refers to whether a critic is legitimately or illegitimately Native (202). Out of these three forms of capital, the ethnic status may be deemed as most predominant and most complex. The authors denote three ideal-typical practices that define critics’ positions in relation to ethnic conflicts: non-Indian critics should not write about Indian literature (solidaristic), Indians claim that Indian critics should write only about Indian literature (nationalistic), and both Indians and non-Indians should write about Indian literature (cosmopolitan) (203).

These practices create rifts among critics who are adamant about what should be written and by whom it should be written. For example, some Indians are fixedly against non-Indians writing about the Native American culture because there is a concern that the published material will not preserve their beliefs; instead, the writing might promote European or colonial perceptions or deviate from the truth. While there are certainly some non-Indian critics who might purposely or inadvertently write with a colonial agenda, others, like Dr. Drew Lopenzina at ODU, thoroughly attempt to follow critics such as Robert Warrior. According to Lopenzina, Warrior was the first to champion the cause that if we want to understand and evaluate context of Native culture, it has to be done through Native space instead of colonial space (Lopenzina). Nevertheless, as Hove and McKinn articulate, “The question of capital always returns us to the constantly shifting relations among institutional rank, cultural expertise, and ethnic identification. These shifting relations are precisely what define the symbolic struggles in which critics compete for different kinds of dominance” (204).

Additional Sources:

Lopenzina, Drew, Dr. Personal Telephone Interview. 13 September 2016.

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print.

*To view the full text version of Hove and McKinn’s essay, click the link below (ODU login will be necessary):

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.lib.odu.edu/article/235982/pdf