Celebrity Status and the Right to Speak

For a number of years Joseph Boyden, a  bestselling Canadian author and multiple award winner, has spoken out eloquently on a number of indigenous issues including that of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. He has been given a voice in these issues because of his literacy status and because he has made claim to having links to at least three distinct tribal roots through either his mother or father. The Canadian literary scene is all abuzz with the news that perhaps the author Joseph Boyden is not quite as indigenous as he suggested he was. In theory an author's ethnic background is not particularly relevant  in terms of his or hers ability to write entertaining novels. However, when those novels purport to reflect a specific orientation and/or a specialized understanding of a culture or a history - it becomes critical. When those authors are given specific platforms to speak out because of those assumed cultural or ethnic affiliations - we all need to be sure that they have the right to be there.

There is a long history of Europeans claiming a specific cultural or ethnic heritage to either increase their income or to enhance their message. While Archibald Belaney may be one of the better known names in Canada, the tradition of appropriating another culture is not restricted to Canadians. In the USA a number of individuals have claimed kinship to First Nations including Elizabeth Warren, a US senator and Ward Churchill, a former University of Colorado professor. We live in a world where at least ideally, it does not matter what race we are. We publically espouse the theory that the colour of skin is only skin deep and that individual characteristics such as skills or intelligence are not related to one's race.  So does it matter whether or not Boyden's ancestry is indigenous? If he can eloquently discuss the issues of such communities, if he can bring those issues to our attention in new and attention getting ways - what is the harm?

Canadians have struggled for the last 400 years to accept that the perceptions of Indigenous peoples in terms of history, discrimination and of land use are legitimate.  From the time of the first comments of the Recollet priests in the early 1600 in Quebec, there has been the assumption that oral histories are not valid, that the spirituality and culture of the First Nations lacked legitimacy because it was not written down. Until fairly recently courts have refused to accept oral traditions has having any relevance.  As Canada hopefully matures in its capacity to understand other culture's truths that are expressed differently - we need to continually ensure that those who have the knowledge are given the platform to speak and to be heard.  If those platforms are taken over by individuals who, while they may have the best interests of another culture at heart, are not part of that community - there will be less space for those have been immersed in and who are part of that culture.

For too long we have decided what is best for Indigenous Canadians. That sort of cultural do-gooding is inappropriate. It is the kind of colonialist thinking that allowed for residential schools, out of community adoptions, relocation to other places and the creation of on reserve government that frequently does not work. I do not know if Boyden's cultural/ethnic roots are Indigenous or not, but it is clear to me that it is not sufficient just to think that you are. (Boyden himself has described himself as “white kid from Willowdale with native roots”  (The Star.)

 It is not enough to feel an affinity for another culture, specifically one that has been oppressed - such affinity makes one an ally - not a member of that group. Oppositional consciousness ( sociological term referring to the need to identify with a marginalized culture/group so that one can legitimately protest ) is at best - the appropriation of another culture's truths. Even worse it can smudge the truths and lessen their impact.

We need to be able to let people speak and to be heard even if that means that some of those people do not have celebrity status.

Post Secondary Education - Revisited

I was washing some wool the other day when, almost out of the blue, it struck me that the whole argument about the relevancy of post secondary education was, at the very least, based on the wrong question.

We seem to go through spurts of enthusiasm for reviewing the value of our education system. Almost invariably the conclusion seems to be that we are teaching young adults the wrong information. The argument is that  if we could only give them access to the right information, they would be so much more successful and so much more useful to the business world. We make the assumption that people don't use the information/theories they are taught because those facts and theories are not relevant in the 21st century.

 But what if the question was - why don't people use the information that we give them?  Before we assume that the information is not useful - perhaps should wonder if there is some other reason why it is not being used. Let me give two examples of information that every student who takes first year sociology and psychology course is exposed to: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Durkheim's theory of suicide.

The first argues that before an individual can maximize their potential they need to have their basic needs meet. That is, before an individual can have meaningful relationships, experiment with their creativity or be engaged in an exploration of their world in a meaningful way - they need to have, amongst other things - a secure supply of food and a safe place to live.  If our governmental and corporate policies reflected this theory; if we focused on ensuring that basic needs were met - everyone could potentially be a full and meaningful participant within our society.  

The second theory suggests, in part, that people who feel disconnected from their society, who have been forced to relocate away from their roots (either physical or emotional), who no longer feel as if their society can provide to them the needed moral values or guidelines, are far more likely to commit suicide ( or engage in anti- society acts) - Durkheim referred to it as anomie - than those who have maintained close ties to a society that has retained its value. We have known for over a century what causes despair amongst dislocated peoples. Yet we continue to create policies that facilitate such dislocation.

Both of these theories (there are many more)  are well known and accepted within the academic world.  Both have been tested and explored by more than a few generations of students and social researchers. The question is not whether or not the information is valid or useful - it is why, in spite of some excitement on the part of students when they learn them, do we not use the information when we leave school? Why, as soon as we leave university or college - do we never think about them again? How are our perceptions of the world shaped/manipulated so that we ignore what we have paid good money to learn.

I am not a great believer in conspiracy type theories but one has to wonder if there is an explanation other than the theory is not valid. Using Maslow as an example - do the capitalist elite really want individuals to be self actualized? Does it want a population of workers and consumers who have the capacity to think creatively and critically?  Is it possible that society gets "fed" the question about our post secondary education not being of value because some don't  want the real question to be answered?

It is so often true that we waste time and money solving problems that don't exist because we don't take the time to ensure that we are asking the right questions.

p.s. Actually the above thoughts did not appear totally out of the blue - my daughter's questioning what kids learn in high school and a friend mentioning how rare it was to see people quote academic writers outside of university in all likelihood laid the seeds of the thought .