Thanks for including Maus in our reading. I looked up Spiegelman in Wikipedia and found some interesting comments that were referenced in Fieldwork, specifically the work of Daumier.
Here's the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Spiegelman
Here are my initial comments on the “Yellowman Tapes” article. The relatively sharp ridgelines of the Yellowman example provide a useful framework for us to examine the application of Toelken’s thesis to our own studies, studies that may confront much more nuanced cultural guidelines.
Barre Toelken argues that the guidelines of a studied culture should trump, when in conflict, the “objective scholarly” concepts of public good and ownership. Thus he explains his decision to return tapes to the widow of Yellowman, a Navajo. In the tapes, Yellowman described ceremonies that, within the Navajo culture, are to be performed only during a specific season, and of equal importance, to be talked about only during that season.
Toelken states we are obligated to listen to the voices, when they use it, of our informants who are our colleagues and teachers. We play by their rules, not ours. He reinforces this, noting that “In contract disputes, a mediator usually resolves issues in favor of the party that was not in control of the advantages”. He speaks to issues of “power and colonialism in fieldwork”.
He examines the issue of ownership. While deciding to return the tapes, he acknowledges the close call in his mind about “a still greater kind of proprietorship that is often overlooked, one that grows out of the need for human community for good stories.”
He questions, “Where is the Navajo culture really – in its documented expressions or in its live interactions?” He notes his conviction that “tape-recorded narratives do not actually preserve a culture as much as they function as sound fossils; important artifacts, to be sure, but not to be confused with the culture itself.”
He notes his hope that Yellowman’s children, encouraged by Toelken’s attention, would take up the telling if their father’s stories. They didn’t. Toelken concludes, therefore, that the benefits of his work accrued to him, not the Navajo’s. “Stories are brought to a dramatic reality when they are told in a living cultural context. Believing that a tape maintains a story’s existence when its narrator is gone is like thinking that a home movie of your deceased father keeps him alive.”
One question that jumped off the page is the apparent passivity of Toelken’s statement that we should listen to the voices of our informants – WHEN THEY USE IT. This seems at odds with his view that, being in control of the advantages, we have a responsibility to not only honor cultural guidelines, but to inform the informants about the possible implications of our study and whether those implications conflict with their culture.
The value of this article will be found in applying Toelken’s thesis to our own studies. This starts with the requirement to engage the informants in questioning what will be the consequences and conflicts of the study for their culture/community. And it requires us, together with our informants, to acknowledge and resolve questions of ownership and stewardship of both the published study, and the gathered stories and media.
Saturday Forum on Community Media in Durham ..........
This week's Independent has an interesting call to arms for anyone interested in a community access media center (and as aspiring documentarians that would include us). There is a forum on Saturday afternoon from 12-3 at the Durham Arts Council downtown to brainstorm ways to get the city of Durham to continue to provide cable access via local Channel 8. The article can be found here:
Unless you want to sound boorish, you have to answer that question in support of honoring those rules, no?
However, if one is working on a deadline with a team of Native Americans some of those rules can very nearly bring a project to a halt. Lengthy pauses to consider the reaction/ approval of the entire community, of children, their children and their children are common. Seeming to agree and support a concept or approach and disagreeing totally several days later sans explanation are common. These specific characteristics or "ways" or community rules are common reports.
I understand and appreciate that there is often an underlying distrust of Caucasians in the museum world that stems from Natives having been taken advantage of since we arrived on this continent. We took their land, drove them from their homes, introduced illnesses that killed their people, disregarded their rituals and scavenged their artwork for a pittance.
Toelken's role of observing, recording and reporting was quite different from trying to work collectively with a group to accomplish a specific task. I support Toelken's having given the tapes to Helen Yellowman to destroy, distressing as that must have been. Nevertheless, working with, as opposed to within, a Native community can be maddening. I'm not sure one has a choice in this community but to play by the rules.
My friend Martha! Is Martha a reflection of ruth? How has the move and marriage changed Saol and Martha's relationship? Is it cultural? Why does Martha wants to be referred Chiken by her son? Is the removal of Martha's uterus intentional or solely neccesary?
10 comments:
Thanks for including Maus in our reading. I looked up Spiegelman in Wikipedia and found some interesting comments that were referenced in Fieldwork, specifically the work of Daumier.
Here's the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Spiegelman
And the link to Daumier's Le Wagon de Troisieme Class:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Honoré_Daumier_034.jpg
Spiegelman's cover design for the New Yorker, 24 Sept 2001 is worth looking at as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spiegelman-cover.jpg
Interesting that we are reading Maus at the beginning of high holy days. Coincidence?
Is anyone else having trouble finding the interview with Behar?
Her personal website is lovely, BTW, but I'm not locating the interview.
http://www.ruthbehar.com/
Here are my initial comments on the “Yellowman Tapes” article. The relatively sharp ridgelines of the Yellowman example provide a useful framework for us to examine the application of Toelken’s thesis to our own studies, studies that may confront much more nuanced cultural guidelines.
Barre Toelken argues that the guidelines of a studied culture should trump, when in conflict, the “objective scholarly” concepts of public good and ownership. Thus he explains his decision to return tapes to the widow of Yellowman, a Navajo. In the tapes, Yellowman described ceremonies that, within the Navajo culture, are to be performed only during a specific season, and of equal importance, to be talked about only during that season.
Toelken states we are obligated to listen to the voices, when they use it, of our informants who are our colleagues and teachers. We play by their rules, not ours. He reinforces this, noting that “In contract disputes, a mediator usually resolves issues in favor of the party that was not in control of the advantages”. He speaks to issues of “power and colonialism in fieldwork”.
He examines the issue of ownership. While deciding to return the tapes, he acknowledges the close call in his mind about “a still greater kind of proprietorship that is often overlooked, one that grows out of the need for human community for good stories.”
He questions, “Where is the Navajo culture really – in its documented expressions or in its live interactions?” He notes his conviction that “tape-recorded narratives do not actually preserve a culture as much as they function as sound fossils; important artifacts, to be sure, but not to be confused with the culture itself.”
He notes his hope that Yellowman’s children, encouraged by Toelken’s attention, would take up the telling if their father’s stories. They didn’t. Toelken concludes, therefore, that the benefits of his work accrued to him, not the Navajo’s. “Stories are brought to a dramatic reality when they are told in a living cultural context. Believing that a tape maintains a story’s existence when its narrator is gone is like thinking that a home movie of your deceased father keeps him alive.”
One question that jumped off the page is the apparent passivity of Toelken’s statement that we should listen to the voices of our informants – WHEN THEY USE IT. This seems at odds with his view that, being in control of the advantages, we have a responsibility to not only honor cultural guidelines, but to inform the informants about the possible implications of our study and whether those implications conflict with their culture.
The value of this article will be found in applying Toelken’s thesis to our own studies. This starts with the requirement to engage the informants in questioning what will be the consequences and conflicts of the study for their culture/community. And it requires us, together with our informants, to acknowledge and resolve questions of ownership and stewardship of both the published study, and the gathered stories and media.
None = Peter Rumsey
So what do you all think of the idea of playing by the rules of the communities we work with?
Saturday Forum on Community Media in Durham ..........
This week's Independent has an interesting call to arms for anyone interested in a community access media center (and as aspiring documentarians that would include us). There is a forum on Saturday afternoon from 12-3 at the Durham Arts Council downtown to brainstorm ways to get the city of Durham to continue to provide cable access via local Channel 8. The article can be found here:
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A265944
If you want to find out more about the organization sponsoring the forum, you can check this out:
http://durhammediacenter.org/index.htm
and if you're interested but can't attend the meeting, there's a petition you can sign here:
http://gopetition.com/online/20120.html
Unless you want to sound boorish, you have to answer that question in support of honoring those rules, no?
However, if one is working on a deadline with a team of Native Americans some of those rules can very nearly bring a project to a halt. Lengthy pauses to consider the reaction/ approval of the entire community, of children, their children and their children are common. Seeming to agree and support a concept or approach and disagreeing totally several days later sans explanation are common. These specific characteristics or "ways" or community rules are common reports.
I understand and appreciate that there is often an underlying distrust of Caucasians in the museum world that stems from Natives having been taken advantage of since we arrived on this continent. We took their land, drove them from their homes, introduced illnesses that killed their people, disregarded their rituals and scavenged their artwork for a pittance.
Toelken's role of observing, recording and reporting was quite different from trying to work collectively with a group to accomplish a specific task. I support Toelken's having given the tapes to Helen Yellowman to destroy, distressing as that must have been. Nevertheless, working with, as opposed to within, a Native community can be maddening. I'm not sure one has a choice in this community but to play by the rules.
My friend Martha!
Is Martha a reflection of ruth?
How has the move and marriage changed Saol and Martha's relationship? Is it cultural?
Why does Martha wants to be referred Chiken by her son?
Is the removal of Martha's uterus intentional or solely neccesary?
Having Ruth Behar here was great!
Ditto. Thank you Joy, for inviting her to our class.
Post a Comment