Methodological Approaches to Native American Narrative and the Role of Performance

Abstract

ed until one is left with a seemingly irreconcilable pair-which is then mediated by a third term presented in the narrative that serves to invert the original binary. Thus, mythical thought serves to provide a logical model capable of overcoming contradictions. Livi-Strauss, particularly, focuses on the recurrent structures of the narratives and thus ignores or downplays the particularities of specific performances by individual performers. All of the theorists and methods reviewed thus far-Schoolcraft's psychogenic evolutionism, Boas' cultural anthropology, and Livi-Strauss' structural anthropology-involve constructing and then analyzing them on the basis of oral theories of meaning. These scholars were primarily interested in, first, discovering emergent patterns in Native discourse through documentation and, 118 American Indian Quarterly/Winter 1997/Vol. 21(1) This content downloaded from 157.55.39.120 on Mon, 05 Sep 2016 06:19:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Role of Performance secondly, relating those patterns to the mental processes of Native peoples by speculating on the functions of mythic narratives within Native cultures. Thus they are equally considered the founders of both translation theory and myth theory of Native stories. Their influences on contemporary translation theory are apparent in the work of such scholars as Dennis Tedlock, Dell Hymes, and Larry Evers. Tedlock, Hymes and Evers limit themselves to linguistic and ethnographic research programs that result in an ethnopoetics of native texts (Tedlock 1983:4). Performance figures prominently in the work of these ethnographers of performance, but as a problem to be solved by codifying verbal and non-verbal behaviors in writing rather than as a guiding metaphor through which they approach the literatures of Native Americans. Their research is not under indictment here-they make possible the reading/hearing of Native by non-Native people and their work also takes performance as the object of inquiry. The structuralist-social scientific scholars, including Schoolcraft, Boas, and LUvi-Strauss, collected narratives that would perhaps otherwise be lost to today's scholars. Their methods, though, in many ways occluded the object of their investigation. They did not fully acknowledge translator biases, and they failed to recognize that the telling of the tale to a collaborator or amanuensis constituted a performance. There is no particular focus on the role of performance in the tales told or on performance in the lifeways of the people. Archetypal-Mythic Criticism While Schoolcraft, Boas and LUvi-Strauss each produced critical essays on myths and their cultural implications, the contemporary body of literature focusing on myths and archetypes in Native American narratives is significantly larger and more complex. These scholars examine mythic characters (Radin 1956), types (Feldman 1965), themes (Lowie 1908; Waterman 1914; Dundes 1984), values (Spencer 1957), cultural functions of myths (Jacobs 1959, 1985; Stern 1956a; 1956b; 1956c), relationships between myth and religion (Allen 1974; Ramsey 1977), and archetypes (Jung 1956; Sevillano 1986). While these terms of analysis are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, they help serve as categories to examine selected critical readings. Archetypal and myth critics assume that understanding the relationship between myth and cultures is critical. While myth perpetuates culture, explains spiritual and material phenomena (paralogisms), and offers cosmogonic narratives (frames for Native American worldviews), when these scholars attempt to explain how myths change, adapt, and expand, a focus on performance emerges. The procedures of these scholars initially involved analysis of previously collected myths/stories-an interpretive ethnography of extant material. For example, Radin, a Boasian disciple, examines translated versions of trickster myths among the Winnebagos of Wisconsin and Nebraska as well as Assiniboine and Tlingit tribes. He compares these tribal tricksters with several other trickster cycles. American Indian Quarterly/Winter 1997/Vol. 21(1) 119 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.120 on Mon, 05 Sep 2016 06:19:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms