Identity: is it "worth it"?

In the readings for this week, I found that the authors both worked to define the meanings of identifying a person as "American Indian" or "mixedblood." In his introduction to the book American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic, Ernest Stromberg explores the meaning of rhetoric in terms of American Indians, and how it applies to the discourse communities of American Indian students. From a different perspective in his article "Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe," Scott Lyons considers how the identity of "mixedblood" people affect their writing, as well as the perception of the academic world.

To begin, Stromberg questions a definition of rhetoric for his topic: American Indians. By taking into account historical contexts and various voices influencing his writing, Stromberg states: "a definition of rhetoric as the use of language or other forms of symbolic action to produce texts (in the broadest possible sense) that affect changes in the attitudes, beliefs, or actions of an audience" (4). This definition set the groundwork for how I looked at his description of how rhetoric affected writers, in addition to being affected by writers.Within a discourse, writers must address the audience; this can be even more effective when using the language of the audience, that of the discourse community. Where Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric as a "process of establishing 'identification' between self and other(s)" (3), Stromberg takes into account that American Indians are often seen as "the other" in the United States, a culture different from the Western majority. Noting this difference between cultures may be the first step to communicating between and within communities.

Crossing discourses--from Western rhetoric to that of American Indians--is vital to understanding writing of multicultural students. As a writer considers the audience, perhaps readers need to consider the writer and his or her background and context for texts. As Stromberg notes, the "rhetoric of the victor is what we usually remember, despite the frequently superior logic and eloquence of the vanquished" (9). As the white majority is the historically powerful group in the United States, a reader outside of the the American Indian community must work to understand their writing, style, and perspective to fully appreciate the text.

Similarly, the author must establish a sense of identity in order to speak to the audience. This, however, is much more difficult that it sounds. Lyons suggests that "we translate lived experience into narrative; conversely, we rely on narratives to live our lives, make sense of our worlds, engage in production, relate to others, and construct and assert our identities" (88). The narratives of Indian students collect their cultural and personal histories, intelligence and learned knowledge, and ideas into identity which, in turn, is seen in their writing. Identity becomes difficult for students when they are considered mixedblood: " a term [Lyons] uses to refer to humans, texts, language, and consciousness emphasizing duality-as-wholeness" (Lyons 89). Identifying oneself as mixedblood may be difficult due to the perceptions of self and others--what belongs in the community and what is outside of the community. In a multicultural community, defining an identity for a member is difficult and, perhaps, impossible. Multiple identities can be found within one person, as Gloria Anzaldúa expresses due to the fact that she may belong to many communities--is this a type of mixedblood writer?

The term "mixedblood" brings up questions for me. To begin, does Lyons include multicultural people outside of Native Americans to be mixedblood, or is it specific to one group? When a person is choosing to identify himself of herself within the confines of race, ethnicity, or other defining entity, does this choice create definitive boundaries for the person? By choosing a discourse community, does this limit in what a person may participate? Using Anzaldúa's logic, Lyons asserts that mixedbloods must live within boundaries, yet notes that "the mixedblood is mobile (yet excluded) and flexible (yet caught)" (90). Looking back to James Gee's analogy that a discourse is like a map; to me, a map has rigid boundaries. Here, a writer may feel captive in his or her own identity, stuck to the cultural expectations of oneself and others; the perception of one's identity is criticized through actions, as well as physicality (Lyons 96, 105). The story of Dick Lyons, the author's father, saddens the reader because the man was unable to continue working for the people of his culture because he "'burned out'" in his community (Lyons 95). The inability to fully "assimilate" into white culture stressed his work as an educator, but his inability to fully participate in his cultural history also pulled at his work. In the end, Lyons didn't know if it was "'worth it'" (95).

To me, identity is something I struggle with, particularly cultural identity. However, I find the struggle to be worth it. Perhaps, with further education and understanding, other students, writers, and educators will also find the merits of personal and community identities and how they influence themselves and others.

Also, to follow up from our discussion last week, here is a link to to La llorona told by Joe Hayes. This is the version I grew up with--it scared the heck out of me. I preferred his The Day it Snowed Tortillas. I'm working on finding the actual audio, but it's hard to find online....



Works Cited

Lyons, Scott. "A Captivity Narrative: Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe. In Outbursts in Academe: Multiculturalism and Other Sources of Conflict. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998. Pp. 87-108.

Stromberg, Ernest. "Rhetoric and American Indians: An Introduction." American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic. Ed. Ernest Stromberg. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. Pp. 1-14.