Melissa Garza

Writing About the “Other”

Introduction

This semester I have had the privilege of reading several minority works from poetry to short story collections to novels.  While reading Song of Solomon written by Toni Morrison, I asked myself; Could this have been written by someone else of a different ethnicity?  This basic question has stuck with me throughout the semester.  As the class entered into a discussion on Maya Angelou’s poem, “Still I Rise”, I dared to verbalize my question to the class; “Could this poem have been as successful if it had been written by someone of a different ethnicity?”  Two students immediately declared that it could not have been written by anyone other than a black woman.  I persisted, and read the following passage to the class:

Out of the huts of history's shame

I rise

Up from a past that's rooted in pain

I rise

I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,

Welling and swelling I bear the tide.

Leaving behind nights of terror and fear

I rise

Into daybreak that's wondrously clear

I rise

Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,

I am the dream and the hope of the slave.

I rise (Angelou)

These words speak so clearly to everyone that a black woman is writing about the slave experience.  Am I the only one who can see deeper meaning in the words so carefully crafted by Maya Angelou?  After I finish my recitation, I again address the class:  “When I read this I see a woman who has been a victim of abuse.  ‘Up from a past that's rooted in pain.’  I see a woman who has had to bear more than most.  ‘Welling and swelling I bear the tide.’  A woman who can finally break free from the abuse of her mate.  ‘Leaving behind nights of terror and fear.  Into daybreak that's wondrously clear.’  Angelou’s words are powerful to say the least. This woman, this narrator, is leaving behind the darkness and walking in the light.  The powerful light is her second chance at happiness and a peaceful existence.  ‘I am the dream and the hope of the slave.’  There are many forms of slavery, but in this instance I believe Angelou is referring to all women who are still in abusive relationships -- regardless of color, ethnicity, or religion. These women who hope for something better, who dream of escaping their situations with their lives intact.  These are the “slaves” Angelou refers to.  By interpreting the poem for the class in this way, the voice of the poem changes for them.  They can then believe that anyone could have written it.  Did I just help change the way in which some people may interpret texts in the future?  Possibly.  What I know for sure is that that classroom experience has ignited in me a burning desire to find an answer to my question.  Can someone successfully write something about a different ethnic group or culture?

Begin Body Component

          My first source came to my attention quite unexpectedly.  While completing the weekly reading for Composition Theory, a course taught at the University of Houston Clear Lake by Dr. Cleotilde Diepenbrock, I stumbled upon an article written by Jacqueline Jones Royster.  In her article, “When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own”, Jones Royster discusses cross-boundary discourse.  She recognizes that:

When the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense

of order and rightness is disrupted.  In metaphoric fashion, these

“authorities” let me know, once again, that Columbus has discovered

America and claims it now, claims it still for a European crown (613).

I believe she expresses a very common feeling held by minorities.  The feeling of not being able to own the black experience or Mexican American experience or Native American experience, etc. without someone of European ancestry trying to claim it for themselves.  Just one more thing that the “white man” wants and feels entitled to take.  As a teacher, however, Jones Royster believes in the “principle of the right to inquiry and discovery” even though it affects her differently when that discovery “hits close to home (613).”  She isn’t concerned with the subject material as much as the fear that it will be mishandled by the “outsider”.  Having read her opinion thus far in her article, I understand that the response to someone who is writing from the outside looking in is that of mistrust.  How can someone who is not a part of the ethnic group or culture write sympathetically about that group or culture?

Jones Royster goes on to say that cross boundary discourse should be examined through a lens of subjectivity especially when evaluating the author’s authority to make meaning with regards to another group or culture.  She recognizes that the author’s point of view is just that…a point of view…an interpretation about the subject matter, and as such should not be viewed as purposefully harmful or unkind (613).  Jones Royster refers to such an author as the “Other”.  I personally do not like the label, but I can appreciate it none – the - less.  It can be simply put that by identifying with one group you automatically create “others”.

Illustrating “Other” is easy.  In a classroom, for example, if there are 11 female students and 10 male students and the females are identified as a group  then the males are automatically considered the “Other”, and vice versa.  If we further divide the females into those who are married and those who are not, we create another “Other”.  We can create additional “Others” by sexual preference, child rearing vs. non child rearing, favorite color, favorite food – the list can go on and on.  Like it or not we are all “Others”, and it does not matter what ethnicity, nationality or class we claim to belong to.  One of the famous sayings of Benjamin Franklin is, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. I submit that we can add “and we are all ‘Others’” as a third certainty. 

In dealing with “Others” Jones Royster declares the need to “set aside our misgivings…in the interest of the possibility of deeper understanding (615)”.  The need to preserve our communities/heritages is strong in all of us.  Jones Royster brings up a concept I have not heard since I was a small child.  The idea of “home training” is something my grandparents used to talk about.  Knowing how to act when you are in someone else’s home is called “home training”.  She mentions this, not because she feels we need a lesson on respecting the property of other people, but to illustrate the point of respecting points of view different from our own (614).  This applies not only to the “Other” who writes about a group different from himself, but also to the member of that group who is being written about.  Jones Royster goes on to say:

We must learn to have new faith in the advantage of sharing.  As

strangers, we must learn to treat the loved people and places of

“Others” with care and to understand that, when we do not act

respectfully and responsibly, we leave ourselves rightly open to

wrath (615).

There are some people who can straddle two groups.  Jones Royster refers to these people as hybrids.  Hybrid people can claim “right of history and development to move with dexterity across cultural boundaries (619).”  One such minority author is Sandra Cisneros who is one of the first Hispanic-American writers to achieve commercial success (Gradesaver).  She was born in Chicago, but spent her childhood moving back and forth between Mexico, where her father was born, and the United States, where her mother was born.  Although unpleasant memories of hardship and poverty persist for Cisneros, she has been able to use these childhood experiences to paint a picture of life for a Latina/Chicana who often times finds herself at odds with the dominant culture that she is a part of yet distinctly separate from.  Cisneros embraces many self-identifying labels including Hispanic, Mexican American, American, Female, Latina, and Chicana. Most of these labels are self explanatory, however the label of “Chicana” piqued my interest, and I wanted to know more regarding the origins of it.

Chicana, according to the Merriam- Webster dictionary, is an adjective which means:  “an American woman or girl of Mexican descent (Merriam-Webster Online).”  Wikipedia offers this tidbit: “The term, Chicana, seems to have resulted from a population shift of Mexican-Americans, which occurred in the 50’s, to the Chicago area.  Mexican-Americans that already lived in the Chicago area would refer to themselves as ‘Chicago-Mexicanos’ and eventually shortened to ‘Chicana’ (Wikipedia)."  These days, people who consider themselves American-Mexicans regardless of where they live, might refer to themselves as Chicano or Chicana.  This explains why Chicago born Cisneros would use the Chicana label, and identify some of her characters with similar labels.

 In her short story, “Never Marry a Mexican”, Cisneros uses the narrator, Clemencia, to describe the struggles of being a Mexican American who does not quite fit in with either culture.  Clemencia describes herself as an amphibian who belongs neither to the poor or the rich but can blend in with both classes (71).  Clemencia’s upbringing is not unlike Cisneros.  Both were raised by one immigrant parent and one American Mexican parent, and as such, the alienation, experienced by both, forces them to seek out a new way of belonging.  Clemencia achieves this through her art and Cisneros achieves it through her writing. Neither have married as they are both unwilling to give up the freedom to pursue their art.  In this way they both ignore gender rules and instead create a new form of existence.  Another short story that Cisneros uses to convey her feelings of being an outsider is “Woman Hollering Creek”.  In this story, we follow a Mexican woman, Cleófilas, who marries a Texan and moves to the state to begin a better life as an American.  What she discovers though is that her life is not better.  Only when she is escaping back to Mexico does she realize the true difference between herself and her American counterparts.  Felice, the woman who assists her in leaving her husband is unmarried, owns her own truck and makes her own money.  She continually helps women in situations similar to Cleófilas.  She answers to no man and whoops and hollers just because she can – not out of fear or pain, but out of joy.  This surprises Cleófilas who has spent more than a fair amount of time considering the name ‘Woman Hollering Creek’.  She has only been able to equate the name with the pain and suffering of a kindred spirit, and is surprised at the paradigm shift she experiences on her journey to freedom with Felice’s unexpected hollering.  I believe Cleófilas must have been hollering for joy on the inside knowing that she was finally escaping her abusive husband.

Cisneros examines several complex issues through her writing.  The feeling of alienation from both American and Mexican cultures is something she writes about frequently.  It is as if she is trying to reconcile the two cultures in her own life.  For those of us who are not in a position to straddle the two cultures, Cisneros gives each group a taste of the other.  The Spanish customs, the fluid Spanish language, the descriptions of various Spanish dishes are all lovingly presented.  Cisneros also shows us the limitation of gender roles, familial and cultural expectations, and lack of control over feminine destinies (Woman Hollering).  For those living in the Mexican culture she describes the opportunity available for women and the sense of hope that exists in the American culture. 

On writing her only novel, Caramelo, Cisneros not only wanted to tell the story of her father’s family, but claims that she had an additional purpose:

 It is her response to the xenophobia and violence she sees in

American culture.  With that in mind she… sent a copy to Laura

Bush, suggesting that she read it to the president.  "Maybe this

is my own peace protest.  I thought Bush needed to look at borders

and immigrants -- to help to mend the relationship between the

U.S. and Mexico, but also to look at America's relationship with

immigrants, since global immigration is our future (Benson)."

I added the above passage, not because it helps to answer my question of can someone successfully write something about a different ethnic group or culture?  I added it because Cisnero’s comment sheds light on the bigger picture of global immigration.  According to United Nations 2006 statistics, twenty percent of all immigrants live in the United States (Workpermit).  Given this staggering fact, I believe that more people will be writing about “Other” groups/cultures/etc., as a way to try and understand not just the world around us, but also our own communities.  It is one of the many reasons we take classes on minority literature or multicultural literature.  For some, the need to learn does not stop with reading, the need to learn will drive some to write about “Others”.  Jones Royster believes this can be accomplished by approaching the topic or subject matter with great respect and humility (615).  It also requires letting go of your own cultural biases which is hard for some to manage.

One does not need to look hard to find examples of writing about “Others” that are unsuccessful, unsympathetic and disrespectful.  These types of examples are abundant.  For me, all I had to do was look to the writing of a fellow UHCL student who took a creative writing class with me.  The class was structured as a workshop with each student having two or three short stories critiqued by the class.  The student, a high school English teacher, wrote a story about a group of her minority students.  In the story she tried to employ the students “voice”, a form of Ebonics she called it.  In the end, her story did not cast her in a very good light.  She came off as ignorant and bigoted, and the class, her audience, lost respect for her as a writer.  Given the nature of our society, surely there are authors who have successfully written about “Other” groups.  I once again turned to the internet to see what I could find. 

I stumbled upon an article written by Dr. Marlinda White-Kaulaity who is a member of the Diné (Navajo) Nation.  In her article, “The Voices of Power and the Power of Voices: Teaching with Native American Literature”, White-Kaulaity states her belief that “despite the fact that ethnic and minority communities can speak for themselves, too often someone else speaks for or about them.  Time and time again, this has happened with Native American people (9).”  She believes that Native Americans should speak for themselves because most non-Native American writers do not learn enough about the Native American culture and history to portray them accurately.  This, however, does not stop the non-Native American writer from publishing.  “In fact, Indians are the only Americans whose history has been set down almost exclusively by those who are not members of the group about which they are writing (9).”

White-Kaulaity goes on to stress the importance of having cross boundary knowledge, interaction, and experiences to learn how to live in an interdependent world.  This should begin in the classroom with students not only reading from the various white American and European authors, but also reading from the more than 250 indigenous Native American Nations (10).  This Native American voice is, for the most part, missing in our classrooms. 

One novel about Native Americans that existed for many years on school reading lists across the country is The Last of the Mohicans written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826.  Cooper is considered to be the first true American novelist.  Other than playing with local Indians when he was a child, Cooper has no ties to the Native American tribes he writes about.  Educators such as White-Kaulaity and Jones Royster call for respectful, knowledgeable, and careful treatment of the “Other”.  However, Cooper has written several books that include experiences with Native Americans without any obvious careful treatment of them, and yet he was highly successful and his works were well received.  In fact, the only criticism I could find on his works were from Mark Twain. Twain, in his essay, written in 1895, entitled, “Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses” criticized The Last of the Mohicans as not meeting the requirements to be considered romanticism (Wikipedia).  I am surprised that I could find no criticism of his portrayal of the Native American Indian.    

Americans, in Cooper’s day, who thought the Indians to be savages, were still very curious about them.  Combine that curiosity with Cooper’s love for nature, include a few whites so that the audience can relate to the story, and you have a successful text.  It did not take long for his collection of works to become American standards.  It seems like a simple formula, but I am not sure if the same formula would work if used today.

 Black Elk Speaks, written by John G. Neihardt is another Native American text not written by a Native American. Before Black Elk would share the story of his people he carried out a Native American ritual to adopt Neihardt as his son because the information he was to share was considered sacred knowledge that had never been shared with an “Other” (DeMallie 291).  In the end, in order to make the stories of Black Elk more palatable to the people who would read it, Neihardt created a more literary character out of Black Elk rather than just showing the historical Black Elk.  DeMallie goes on to say that readers of Black Elk Speaks have a visceral response to the text.  “The book speaks so eloquently about our common humanity and fulfills our desire, in Neihardt’s words, ‘to learn a little more in a world where so very little can be known’ (295).”  I find it interesting that Neihardt very clearly states that “the beginning and ending are mine; they are what he [Black Elk] would have said if he had been able (298).”  I do not know what to make of this statement.  Is Neihardt saying that Black Elk’s words are not good enough for the beginning and ending?  I have read that out of the entire interview the only parts that Neihardt did not change were the song lyrics (298).  Why did Neihardt feel it necessary to adjust Black Elk’s words?  Why did he underestimate his audience’s ability to understand Black Elk?  Neihardt says that “what was given me was expressed so that it could be understood by the white world (299).”  I believe that Neihardt was respectful of Black Elk as the “Other” but by taking poetic license, Neihardt denies the “white world” the most accurate truth.  DeMallie tells us that the first three decades after the book was published the majority of the audience were scholars.  It would not draw a mainstream audience until the sixties (295) where the desire to understand the “Other” reached an all time high with the advent of civil rights and flower power.

In some ways it is no different than today.  People are still curious about the “Other” -- anyone different from themselves.  This can easily be seen when we examine the country’s obsession with famous actors and actresses.  They represent a very high profile “Other” and our society is driven to want to know all about them.  From what they drive to who they’re dating to what they eat – even what they throw away.  Celebrities fire upon writers who publish unauthorized texts because as an “Other” they do not feel the writer shows enough respect when writing about them as the subjects.  The concept of “Other” is mind boggling as the breadth and scope of it is so large. 

Conclusion

At the beginning of this research journal I thought my question would be easy to answer. Yes! Someone can write successfully about another group.  After researching this idea of cross boundary discourse I still believe it can be done and I think it must be done.  I do not, however, believe it can be done easily.  Critics abound in the literary world and if the time is not invested in learning the subject matter well what is written will not hold up under scrutiny.

Writers who can be considered hybrids may have an easier time writing about the “Other” if they are a part of the “Other”. Examining the works of hybrid authors such as Sandra Cisneros leads me to question my own hybridity.  Can I be considered a hybrid who straddles two cultures?  My ancestral bloodline includes European English, Irish, and Scottish, as well as Native American Cherokee and Choctaw.  This is what makes up my DNA.  However, I was not raised as any one of these.  I was raised under the generic “middle class American” label – part of the great American melting pot as it were.  So, maybe I cannot write on these as a hybrid, but could I invest the time for quality research and write convincingly on these “Others”?  I believe that I can.  Maybe I am naïve, but the belief that I can do it is the first step.

          Is this the same belief that James Fenimore Cooper and John G. Neihardt started with?  Whatever their motivation both were able to successfully sell the “Other” to the masses.  Definitely the times they lived and wrote in are different from that of today. 

In Cooper’s time Native American Indians still lived among the European settlers.  Part of the acceptance of his work is due to the fact, I believe, that he discouraged interracial unions between the settlers and Native American Indians.  The ending of The Last of the Mohicans is tragic and illustrates how interracial unions are bound to fail.  This most certainly would have been a welcomed message at the time, and probably added to the success of Cooper’s novel on the “Other”.

Neihardt lived during a time when Native American Indians lived peacefully on reservations.  He began with only an interest to learn from Black Elk a “sense of what the Ghost Dance beliefs were like (DeMallie 290).”  What he soon discovered was that Black Elk was prepared to share so much more of his knowledge than just information concerning the Ghost Dance, and Black Elk Speaks grew from there.  As mentioned earlier, during the first three decades of its release, only scholars were interested in the text.  It was only after Black Elk Speaks drew a mainstream audience that scholars began analyzing and criticizing the text (DeMallie 295).  It is not until this time that Neihardt receives “white” criticism of being a white man writing for a white audience whose ideas and expectations are conformed to by Neihardt.  However, Vine Deloria, Jr., a Lakota scholar recognizes Black Elk Speaks as a religious classic and feels that it is of very little relevance whether the words belong solely to Black Elk or Neihardt (DeMallie 302).

This idea of writing about the “Other” is definitely not an easy idea. The texts examined for this research journal, were all well received due in large part to the prevailing ideas of the time. Cisneros is the one author examined who lives in both cultures even though it leaves her with feeling as if she is not a part of either one.  She is at all times an American Mexican, a Latina/Chicana, a feminist, a daughter, a sister and a friend.  The position she holds is unique, and lends her a credibility that is not easily come by.

At this point in my research I feel that I have enough supporting documentation to sufficiently encourage me to take the next step.  I have examined what works and what does not work, and have an understanding of what is needed for acceptance by the group being written about. The next step in my research should be an experiment. I should pick a subject/ “Other” group, research it fully and employ careful treatment in my writing. I believe that as long as I am respectful of the “Other” and am able to separate myself from the biases of my own culture I can write something that is well received by the “Other”, and will hopefully enlighten other groups to the beauties and/or interesting facts of the subject matter.

I appreciate having the flexibility to choose a project type that has enabled me to fully research an answer to my question.  Thank you.

Works Cited

Angelou, Maya. “Still I Rise.” Online Texts for Craig White's Literature          Courses.Ed. Craig White. Jan. 2010. April 15, 2010.          http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/texts/AfAm/afampoetry/angelourise.htm

Benson, Heidi. “Author traces the many paths of her father's story / Sandra          Cisneros' "Caramelo" a nine-year project”. SFGate.com. Ward Bushee.          October 25, 2002. April 15, 2010.

"chicano." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online.         16 April 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chicano

Cisneros, Sandra. “Never Marry a Mexican.” Woman Hollering Creek and Other Short Stories. 1992. New York. Vintage Books. Print. 68-83.

Cisneros, Sandra. “Woman Hollering Creek.” Woman Hollering Creek and Other Short Stories. 1992. New York. Vintage Books. Print. 43-56.

DeMallie, Raymond J. “John G. Neihardt and Nicholas Black Elk”. Black Elk          Speaks. New York. State University of New York Press. 2008. Print. 289-   316.

GradeSaver. *Biography of Sandra Cisneros | List of Works, Study Guides &          Essays*. GradeSaver, 15 April 2010 Web. 15 April 2010.          http://www.gradesaver.com/author/sandra-cisneros/.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. “When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own.” Cross Talk in Comp Theory. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Illinois. National Council of Teachers      of English. 2003. 611-622.

White-Kaulaity, Marlinda. “The Voices of Power and the Power of Voices:             Teaching with Native American Literature”. The Allen Review. (Fall 2006):          8-16.  Print.

Wikipedia contributors. "Chicano." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia,   The Free Encyclopedia, 9 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.          http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicano&oldid=355027152

Wikipedia contributors. "James Fenimore Cooper." Wikipedia, The Free          Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 15      Apr. 2010.

"Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories, Sandra Cisneros - Introduction."          Short Story Criticism. Ed. Joseph Palmisano Project Editor. Vol. 72. Gale  Cengage, 2004. eNotes.com. 2006. 15 Apr, 2010          http://www.enotes.com/short-story-criticism/woman-hollering-creek-and          other-stories-sandra

Workpermit. The US tops UN study on global immigration. Workpermit. 6 April   2006. Web. 16 April 2010.          http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_04_06/us/us_tops_un_study.htm