Julian DeMann 5/13/17

The Literary Epistemology

The current paradigm falls perilously close to the provincial methodology of conventional,

conservative history. To study exclusively the accounts of white males is to suffer from the

plague of presentism. Too often we accept the most accessible historical record, prioritizing

expedited learning over an accurate and liberalizing education. But such is the trap of the

Western Canon; history is written by the winners, and the winners, since the inception of white

hegemony, tend to have white skin. Limiting ones own humanistic education to the tragic

confines of the white narrative ignores the fundamental purpose of studying the human

experience: the expansion of worldview and the growth of empathetic connection.

Just as the proverbial butterfly may flap its wings in the east and create a storm in the west, we

too have the power to change and shape our world. But to do so requires a deeper understanding

of our brothers and sisters affairs. Yet to reach such a Foucaultian state is a difficult

undertaking in itself, and endemic to that passage is a strict adherence to the traditional canon.

The Western Canon is explicit in its message: Great Books are written by dead white men.

This line of thinking lacks any true pedagogical value. For a curriculum to claim that it

adequately teaches American Literature, it must teach it in its totality. Subscribing to the

stringent demands of the Western Canon force both student and teacher to ignore entire

subgenres within American Literature. Thus, while the task is impossible at face value (it is
unreasonable to expect a holistic American Literature curriculum to fit in the short school year),

it becomes even more preposterous when the separatist guidelines of the Canon are followed.

Then the question becomes one regarding an appropriate course of action. Gerald Graff, an

epistemologist, gives a simple and intuitive answer to this difficult question in his book Beyond

the Culture Wars1:

It is not that non-Western courses are inherently separatist, as so many charge, but that the established

curriculum is separatist, with each subject and course being island with little regular connection to other

subjects and courses. It is important to bring heretofore excluded cultures into the curriculum, but unless

they are put in dialogue with traditional courses, students will continue to struggle with a disconnected

curriculum, and suspicion and resentment will continue to increase.

Graff brings up something paramount to the discussion of the intended contents of an American

Literature course. He observes that books which lie outside of the realm of the Western Canon

often serve to disenfranchise their readers and cause confusion when coupled with works more

traditional to the study of the American Experience. A problem like this is critical as Dr.

Immordino-Yang, a neuroscientist at USC, finds empirically that It is literally neurobiologically

impossible to think deeply about things that you dont care about2. To adjust for this issue,

Graff proposes a basic solution; he advocates for an inclusive curriculum to be introduced in

1
Graff, Gerald. Beyond the culture wars: how teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. New York: W. W. Norton, 1993. Print.
Page 13.
2
Pankaj Mishra And Daniel Mendelsohn. "How Would a Book Like Harold Blooms Western Canon Be Received Today?."nytimes.com 23
Mar. 2014. Web. 4 May 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/books/review/how-would-a-book-like-harold-blooms-western-canon-be-received-today.html>
such a way that it interacts with the rest of the studiesthe codification must be intuitive, and it

must capture the emotions of the reader. Here is where Tracks fails.

First and foremost, a book has the civic responsibility to be interestingif it does not engage its

reader it has failed its primordial function: to be read. Erdrichs novel is an unfortunate exemplar

of a book which collapses unto itself. Perhaps it is that the Native American experience is

intrinsically too alien for a group of educated, privileged whites, but it is more likely that Erdrich

herself is unsuccessful in reaching a group of people. In speaking with my classmates, I have

discovered that her novel, for reasons we will explore in depth later, has the tendency to

disenfranchise its readers. While many books have this particular issue, Tracks is acutely

egregious in its polarization. Take, for example, Erdrichs brash inclusion of magical realism in

her narrative. In one strange and nuanced scene, Pauline takes control of another womans body

to force certain, involuntary actions. This particular scene erodes the legitimacy of Paulines

narration (seeing as it comes from the perspective of Pauline herself), and leaves Erdrichs

audience, myself included, wildly confused.

The failure of Tracks does not disqualify all Native American texts, but rather it does uniquely

disqualify itself. However, there is something more to be said about the idiosyncrasies of

American Indian texts. Arnold Krupat of University of Chicago explains that Native American

literature is, if it is to be historically accurate, an oral literature. Alternative measure of

literature (such as oral literature) do not fit into the modern western paradigm of the conceptual

literature. Therefore, Native American oral narratives are theoretically incompatible with
traditional western texts, hence the aggressive actions of early American colonists in relation to

Native American history3. Susan Hegeman of Duke corroborates that while traditional Native

American works are functionally inaccessible, there have been other works, such as Tracks,

which seek some level of modernity to effectively create an equilibrium between the two

competing structures of literature: legitimacy and accessibility4. But Tracks serves as an

ineffective compromise between these two polar standards. When authenticity is forgone in favor

of accessibility we lose accuracy; when accessibility is forgone in favor of authenticity we tend

to lose engagement. A compromise, or at least the one which we have seen, leaves us

empty-handed, standing clueless without merit.

Ellisons novel, Invisible Man, is a shining exemplar of a text that manages a to create a

successful dialogue between the traditional canon and alternative experiences. In his book,

Ellison molds a world modeled on our own, and uses his effective rhetoric to provide someone

like mea privileged white malewith the opportunity to see through a lens which temporarily

corrects my distorted vision of white bias. When I read Invisible Man, I become immersed within

the story, trapped within the mind of the narrator with only two small windows (eyes) through

which to see out of. These eyes are crystal clear, and I am given a stunning view of the world

through Ellisons perspective, but Tracks seems to lack the same intricacies that make Invisible

Man both great and beautiful. To complete the metaphor, Tracks shows a beautiful world, but

3
Krupat,Arnold.NativeAmericanLiteratureandtheCanon.CriticalInquiry,vol.10,no.1,1983,pp.145171.,
www.jstor.org/stable/1343410.
4
Hegeman,Susan.NativeAmericanTextsandtheProblemofAuthenticity.AmericanQuarterly,vol.41,no.2,1989,pp.265283.,
www.jstor.org/stable/2713025.
does so behind the cover of cataracts. Erdrichs writing choices, especially in her decision to

choose Pauline as a narrator, tend to muddle the significance of her message.

As a half-white, half-native woman, Pauline is the physical embodiment of the eternal dichotomy

between a culture vying for survival and the parasitic race trying to destroy it. For centuries

before the events of Tracks, the sovereignty of Native Americans had been constantly challenged

by white colonists. Thus conflict booned to the bane of both parties, and, as we all know, history

has unanimously declared a winner. With that in consideration, Tracks has a wonderful

opportunity to use Pauline as a mean to explore said conflict. Instead of carefully articulating the

dichotomy within Pauline, Erdrich perplexingly chooses to create an oddly sexual gossip girl

who may or may not be insane. This understandably detracts from the significance of

AmericanNative American tensions. It could, perhaps, be inferred that this internal

contradiction is the cause of Paulines madness, but that connection is far too speculative to be

considered anything beyond conjecture. Dedicating half of the novel to Pauline perspective

leaves us a tragedy: we are given a story with immense capacity that is capped by its lack of

communicative capability. Quite ironic for a novel.

I cannot, for various reasons which I shall make clear, point to a single moment that exposes

Paulines issue as a narrator. Her problem does not appear sporadically, but rather it is the lack of

story arc and character developmentthrough the eyes of Paulinethat persistently plague her

narration. For a solution, I point to a novel that principally explores the absurdity of human

nature: As I Lay Dying (where every character is like a juiced-up Pauline). Faulkner writes a
novel that, while complex, manages to maintain a level of consistency and clarity that cannot be

found in Paulines chapters. Cashs stoic loyalty, Vardaman's hysterical naivete, Anses collected

evil, and Dewey Dells artificial selflessness are all premier examples of madness explored

sensibly. However contradictory, As I Lay Dying serves to prove that insanity and absurdity can

have moments of shocking clarity, and it is these pivotal instants which define the novel, and the

message which it intends to convey.

Ultimately I suggest that this whole insanity debacle be avoided in its entirety. Instead Erdrich

ought to create a multilayered character whom shall serve as the physical and mental

embodiment of the Native and American clash. In this, Erdrich would have forged a narrator

strong enough to withstand the power of message that he or she expresses.

In conclusion, I find Native American texts are of particular importance for predominantly white

classroomsespecially today when the echos of white authoritarianism grow ever more

potentfor they teach the origin of the white identity itself. As James Baldwin explains, white

was not an ethnicity until Norwegians from Norway, Italians from Italy, Englishmen from

England, etc., sailed across the atlantic to massacre the American Indians5. In learning about

Native American culture and struggles, weif you are white, that isalso learn about the

foundation of our own culture, and the odious platform on which it proudly stands.

5
Baldwin,James.""OnBeingWhite...AndOtherLies"."TheCrossofRedemption:UncollectedWritings(1984):1-3.Web.10May2017.