Imagine a novel about a young Native American boy who, attending an "Indian
School" where Native Americans were forcibly assimilated to European-American
ways, develops a deep relationship with his grandparents who have maintained
Cherokee traditions. Through them he learns the ways of Cherokee culture,
resists the worst manifestations of European-American culture, and arrives at a
healthy maturity. The book's author is hailed for giving birth to a renaissance
of contemporary Native American literature, some bands of Cherokees look to the
book as a way of educating their children, and is seen as an authoritative
rendition of Native American culture's engagement with the contemporary world.
After the author's death, scholars discover that, in fact, the book's
author was not a Cherokee Indian or even Native American at all, and that he had
been living under an assumed name. More, scholars discover that the author spent
the bulk of his career writing racist editorials for white supremacist
magazines, and had himself been an organizer of Klan klaverns in Alabama Critics
quickly demonstrate that the book is rife with white supremacist themes and
imagery and denounce it as yet another instance of literary racism.
Dr. Powers gave us handouts the other day in class that illustrated three scenarios dealing with the question, "What does it matter who's speaking or writing?" The above situation is one of the three we discussed in class. We were supposed to discuss our own views on these situations, as well as the views of structuralism theorists such as Todorov or Foucalt. In this blog however, I will only discuss my own view as a means of trying to arrive at original literary theory (perhaps not so much original, and more like adaptive).
I suppose my view stands on the basis of affectiveness. Clearly, the book enriched the culture of the Cherokee nation and encouraged them in continuing their traditions. It had a positive effect on their lifestyle and their views of themselves--it resulted in good. Should the fact that the author was a white supremist retract the good that already took place? I don't believe it should. I think it's easy to look at a text and twist words and phrases to adapt to a certain mindset (for example, all the controversy with Disney films and sexual innuendos--who knows for certain what the true meaning is in that situation?). Can we instead rejoice that a white supremacist's possible intent for bad resulted in good?
1 comments:
This is an interesting response, Jorilee, and builds to some degree on my questioning of "intention." I think it's important to think through just HOW the Cherokee came to find it enriching. Was it a quality of the work itself, was it something in the author's vision that might have been later corrupted--or somehow escaped his otherwise corrupt vision. Formalists or romantics might be attracted to both these views. The poststructuralist is going to be less interested in the origin of a works usages than how it is put to use. In some sense the Cherokee made the work traditional by reading it in to their culture. Something that could happen in a wide variety of ways and with a wide variety of things. In this view, a culture is not a stable and unchanging entity, but something that is constantly being produced and reproduced through the activity of cultural agents. We normally only give cultural agency to writers, so we think a writer is either producing or not producing a great or authentic work of art. The poststructuralist might be more interested in how the work is read.
Post a Comment