least in part, Wayne's own experiences as both a victim and perpetrator of ... as Indigenous communities the world over now travel global-economic and -.
Discursive Management of Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal Interaction Paper delivered at the 2014 American Anthropological Association Annual Conference Stephen Peters, McGill University
I would like to use my time today to examine a public talk delivered by Wayne Rabbitskin, a Cree man from the James Bay region of N. Quebec. The talk was delivered at McGill University to a largely non-Aboriginal audience in April of 2014, and it addressed, at least in part, Wayne’s own experiences as both a victim and perpetrator of domestic violence. I am interested in Wayne’s talk as an instance of an emerging genre of intercultural communication that is increasingly ubiquitous in places like Canada and the US, that is, intercultural public talks featuring Native American speakers. These talks are contemporary “contact zones,” to use Mary Louise Pratt’s (1991) term, but are only now starting to receive serious attention in linguistic anthropology and other related disciplines like education. Franchesca Merlan (2014), for example, examined the relationship-building work of recognition rituals given by Aboriginal speakers at public events in Australia. Here in the US, Anthony Webster (2014) has identified some of the ways in which Native American speakers seize podium events to address larger national and global political struggles. In Canada, however, there has been little research despite the impressive frequency with which these kinds of public engagements occur. At least in Montreal, with the popularization of critiques of representation, speech events involving embodied Aboriginal speakers are increasingly seen, for both speakers and listeners, as emancipatory in their own right. This was particularly explicit in the title to this event which occurred in Montreal just a few weeks ago: An evening of Food, Film, and Resistance.
Of course, as Indigenous communities the world over now travel global-economic and cultural circuits, it is increasingly suspect for anthropologists—as in the spirit of former times— to presume cultural boundedness, or even, I think, to try and unearth just where these boundaries lie. Instead, inquiry into the sites, situations, and settings of difference-making appear all the more valuable for understanding contemporary cultural processes. Cultural boundaries aren’t given, but are actively and explicitly worked and reworked; and, of course, the research encounter is itself part of the mix. It is in this spirit that I’ll now turn to Wayne’s talk as an instance of this kind of intercultural public discourse. What I want to know is what’s going on in talks like Wayne’s? What obligations are involved? And how do speakers meet these obligations? More broadly, what, if anything, can they tell us about how difference is taking shape between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada? In what ways do they allow our differences to be understood? And how, if at all, might they provide occasions for presenting difference differently? For Wayne’s talk, I approach these questions by focusing on the various alignments he strikes between himself, the audience, and the Wayne of the past. Because of the nature of the issues addressed, Wayne’s authority coincided in important ways with the talk’s content. What we see is a speaker attempting to describe the social determinants of family violence in Aboriginal communities while making clear that he recognizes his own responsibility as a one-time abuser. So with that let’s turn now to the specifics of the talk. WAYNE’S TALK Just prior to the talk, Wayne had recently organized a walk from Chessasibi, his home community where he has spent the majority of his life, to Mistissini, a “neighboring” Cree community (which is, nevertheless, 600 mile away). Wayne organized the walk in an effort to
raise awareness within Cree nation of male domestic violence. The organizers of the event, the National Circle Against Family Violence, had invited Wayne primarily to speak on this experience. However, Wayne used the first 13 of his 30 minutes at the podium as a kind of setup. In these 13 minutes, Wayne offered a series of interlinking narratives telling of his experiences of abandonment, of his own violent history, and of his recent successes overcoming this history. It is these 13min that I’ll focus on. I first want to take up Wayne’s initial framing before examining two parallel movements that run throughout the talk. Opening Frame Wayne opens with a short (un-marked), self-introduction in Cree, followed by a partial translation and, after that, more explicit sign-posting of what’s to come. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Waachiyaah [Hi (What Cheer!)] Wayne nitisinihkaasun [My name is Wayne] (nishiiyuu-ni) [(I am Cree)] chisaasiipiihch nuuhchiin [I am from Chisasibi] My name is Wayne Rabbitskin I'm from Chessabi (1.0) ((cough)) I wanna (.5) (hh) take a different approach. I wanna talk about intergenerational trauma first, that stems from the resident ^school^ um hhh when I was ah 6 years old [00:00:31]
In total, Wayne takes only 30s to break into his series of narratives. However brief, lines 1-9 nevertheless indicate important stage-setting work underway. Lines 1-4. Those familiar with these talks will recognize the iconic use of Native language here as customary. Wayne's use of Cree performs what was overtly stated in the invitational material: that we would be hearing from an Indigenous speaker. The public use of Native languages as identity work has been discussed Laura Graham among others. However, it seems important to detail how Native language use might also differentially index speakeraudience relationships at the same time as it indexes speaker identity.
The near obligatory nature of these introductory performances suggests that what is in fact indexed is not so much the speaker’s identity but the speaker’s doing of the act itself. The self-indexing property of the utterance gives the act an “insider” quality: there are those in the audience who “like Wayne” have rights to the act, and those who (like me) can only acknowledge it. This works it seems even if, in this instance, denotationaly Wayne’s utterance is inaccessible to both groups. By becoming one of the constituents of Aboriginal personhood, the Cree usage performatively segments Aboriginal audience members from non-Aboriginal. Indeed, in Wayne’s case, his indifference to providing an explicit translation suggests the utterance was, in actual fact, more for the benefit of Aboriginal audience members than non-Aboriginal “overhearers.” Lines 7-10. Performatively, the more explicit meta-communication of lines 7-9 works in similar ways. Except, here, the footing alignment changes dramatically. In signalling an approach to come, Wayne also, of course, indicates that he is someone who takes approaches. It seems, in fact, this performative aspect is foregrounded since Wayne has yet to explicitly state what it is he’s approaching. The phrase “Intergenerational trauma” belongs to a register familiar to the social work crowd who made up the bulk of the audience. If in lines 1-4 Wayne aligns himself in terms of Aboriginal belongingness, in lines 7-8 Wayne aligns himself with those who don’t simply experience violence but who can analyze its root causes. Crucially, Wayne is not just an Aboriginal speaker – in which case the interaction risks voyeurism. He can also offer insight and analysis on the audience’s own terms.
AA testimony The rather complex interactional dynamics Wayne strikes in his opening, he sustained throughout the first 13 minutes. As I mentioned earlier, two prevalent movements are apparent in the talk, which I want to now look at in turn. I should warn that Wayne’s talk was intensely personal and at times deeply troubling: recounting experiences with domestic violence and his inability to control his own violent impulses. The testimonial form, however, gives way to a more positive story of responsibility taking and redemption. What emerges in the end is a self-centered narrative focusing on selfknowledge, accountability, and personal transformation which, in Wayne’s case, quite dramatically pivots on a return to traditional, Cree spiritual practice. This allowed the narrating Wayne of the event to set himself apart from the narrated Wayne of the storytelling world. But just how he manages this is worth looking at more closely. In the table below, I’ve listed some key passages from Wayne’s talk. Table 1. 146. And I promised (.5s) to her (.) I would never do that [00:08:33] 147. But I did it (.) I did it again
Admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion
152. It was four years ago hh i decided to return (.) to my ancestral ways (.) to the teachings [00:09:04] 153. And hh I h-heard the elders speak about honoring and respecting women
Recognizing a higher power that can give strength Examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
189. =I wro-- I wrote a letter to my ex-wife 190. And hh I told her hh that I apologized (.) 191. =that I was making my amends
Making amends for these errors;
195. I really had to hh let go 196. I really had to let go of the blame 197. I really had to (.) let go of playing the
Learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
victim 198. >I didn't want to blame< the resident school 199. =>I didn't want to blame< my dad [00:11:59] 200. =>I didn't want to blame< the violence anymore 219. “but (.) walk walk anyways 220. Because lateral violence hh is a reality in our communities at the moment”
Helping others who suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.
The lines are moving and also, I think, somewhat familiar. From self-awareness to going forth with the message, Wayne’s narrative makes sustained contact with the personal story genre of 12-step programs. I’ve listed the major milestones here on the right. That the AA narrative has made its way to Cree country and back is not too surprising given the pervasiveness of the program and its missionary thrust. What is perhaps more interesting is the facility with which Wayne embeds a story of returning to tradition within its framework, a fairly striking example of cultural appropriation or, what is sometimes called, transculturation. Intergenerational Trauma Be this as it may, the inherent individualization of the AA story stands somewhat in contrast to an analysis of the intergenerational effects of Canada’s residential school system-what Wayne had promised at the outset. Indeed, lines 195 to 200, both in content and in poetic form, forcefully voice the opposite. Despite the early signposting, Wayne returns to the concept of intergenerational trauma just one other time, and in passing. Throughout the talk, Wayne remains firmly in the world of the concrete, offering few evaluative clauses that would help listeners make sense of the experiences he shares.
Nevertheless, Wayne manages, in quite an evocative way, to create a context of intergenerational continuity within which to tell his story of personal accountability and redemption. He achieves this in two ways. Narrative structure. The first way is through inter-narrative parallels. As I mentioned earlier, Wayne’s talk consisted of a series of well-chosen stories not only referencing but linking together three generations of male violence. The first tells of Wayne being abandoned by his father during a hunting trip at the age of 6. He then gives three consecutive stories his father told him about his childhood experiences with residential school. Both Wayne and his father are 6 years old in their respective story worlds and both stories tell of fatherly abandonment and loneliness. Following that, story 2a and story 3 link up again as both Wayne and his father witness their respective fathers enact violence towards their mothers. Stories 4-6 come to serve as the kind of final denouement as two generations of violence finds their way into Wayne’s own marriage. Table 2. Narrative
Most Reportable Event
Reported in Wayne’s voice 6-yr old Wayne abandoned by father during a hunting 1 trip 1 coda
Approx. Start Time
Lines
0min 31sec
10-39
2min 30sec
49-57
Building a shelter in the woods
Reported Father’s Stories Grandfather pouring hot porridge over grandmother 2a when Wayne’s 6-yr old father was taken to residential school. 2b
Wayne’s father’s missing mother’s Funeral
4min 02sec
58-72
2c
Wayne’s father’s abandonment on returning to home community
4min 40sec
73-90
Reported in Wayne’s voice 3
Childhood Wayne calls on his father to hit mother
5min 30sec
91-105
4
Wayne, as an adult, admits to not being able to control violent outbursts
7min 15sec
135-147
5
Spiritual visioning of Wayne’s deceased grandmother
9min 00sec
149-187
6
Community elder encouraging Wayne on his action
11m 15sec
188-228
Voicing Wayne’s Father. Before we move into the second way in which a context of intergenerational continuity is created, I want to play what I think is a remarkable 50s from the talk. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 5 58. 59.
at the same age 6 years old hh he was taken away from (.) his home he was telling me this he said I remember the day they they came to get me as we-- my mom hh had made (.) oatmeal and my dad was (.) drunk at that at that morning and hhh my mother hh asked us to come and sit around the table [00:03:00] and my all the porridge over .h my mom's head hot porridge .hh hot (.) oatmeal and we couldn't eat and I left hh to resident school Narrative 2b. Staying at the school for Mother’s funeral and during that t:ime hh they called me and said that my mom had passed ^away
This is, to be sure, a rather troubling passage. Interactionally, however, it is the opening bit of a rather stunning display of live heteroglossia, where Wayne reports in his Father’s voice a narrative his father had previously told him. While Wayne does periodically give orientating or matrix clauses (as in line 50), it becomes very difficult to discern the voice of Wayne from that of his father. As the transcripts show, there’s a pronoun shift, as expected. However, because Wayne is directly reporting to us a narrative he was told, both his and his animated father’s voice use the past tense, somewhat unusual in reported speech. Wayne also doesn’t shift his expressive intonation. And even as we seem to move into a new story at line 58, Wayne never breaks character.
Greg Urban has called such pronoun use de-quotative. As if on a stage, the “I” of the reported speaker no longer indexes that speaker but rather indexes the present animator embodying that character. For speakers, such use of “I”, Urban explains, is one of the primary ways they create a cultural context for the construction of the self. For the audience, however, the very difficulty of discriminating Wayne’s voice from his father’s performatively realizes the intergenerational continuity Wayne stated he would address at the beginning. Even if Wayne’s domestic abuse is never explicitly discussed in terms of intergenerational trauma, Wayne manages to evoke such intergenerational continuity both in the ways he stitches together parallel story structures as well as how he manages to enfold his father’s voice into his own. CONCLUSIONS Wayne was clearly cognizant of the precarity of his privileged speaking position. Late in the opening 13 minutes, in a reported conversation between himself and an elder, Wayne quotes the voice of imaginary detractors: “why is [he] talking? why is he walking? because of what he did to women [00:13:31] he has no ^right to do that” Wayne echoed some of this anxiety in our post-talk interview where he mentioned being particularly conscious of Aboriginal women in the audience. Wayne’s response to this delicate speaking task was to produce a complex braiding of discourse forms that allowed for multiple alignments, often simultaneously, within a single stretch of discourse. To close I want to highlight three points which I think follow:
-
First, intercultural talks in urban spaces like Montreal are more like triads than dyads, where “insiders” and “outsiders” are variously direct addressees or over-hearers and may shift these alignments over the course of the performance.
-
Second, if intercultural contact zones like the public talk are “highly indeterminate,” as Pratt and many others have described them, it may not necessarily be due to the difficulty in accessing foreign symbolic or communicative forms. In my analysis, Wayne “borrows” cultural discourse forms – the AA story genre -- to do important intra-cultural work. While, at the same time, he draws on Aboriginal story conventions to speak across cultures. Wayne’s communicative criss-crossing adds yet another layer of complexity to intercultural contact zones and further adds to the dismantling of notions of integral cultures in latemodernity.
-
Finally, if contact zones are complex, I don’t think they are intractable. Intercultural contact zones do not arise out of nowhere, but have their own histories and purposes. Cultural contact is not something that happens to us, but something we do. In Canada, the public reckoning of Aboriginal hardships is done, over and over again. While Wayne obviously shouldn’t be taken as representative of Aboriginal public speakers, his talk does reveal the difficult work involved in discussing for outsiders troublesome issues that pertain back home. Far from indeterminate, this is a regularity seemingly built into Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal interaction in Canada.
The anthropological task of today, it seems to me, is to attempt to work out the work of Wayne and other brave speakers who labour in these cross-cultural contact zones. Many thanks.
REFERENCES Merlan, F. (2014). Recent rituals of Indigenous recognition in Australia: Welcome to country. American Anthropologist, 116(2), 296-309. Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33-40. Webster, A. K. (2010). “Tséyi' first, because Navajo language was here before contact”: On intercultural performances, metasemiotic stereotypes, and the dynamics of place. Semiotica, 181(1-4), 149-178. doi: 10.1515/semi.2010.040
