Contemporary+Trends+in+American+Literature+Literature+Review

//__Introduction __// After reading some of Louise Erdrich’s short stories, I was enthralled by her craft and imagery that is steeped in her American Indian heritage, but even more curious as to her ability to also insert her American experience into her stories as well. Being an immigrant’s great-granddaughter, I too have grown up with the sense of preserving my great-grandmother’s Finnish heritage, which is also a part of my American experience. However, my great-grandmother’s experience – that of willing assimilation and immigration – is much different than Erdrich’s ancestors, and that is part of what sparked my interest. How can someone whose ancestors were forced to be “Americanized” and assimilate into a culture still have roots and faith in their colonizers, even after all of the broken promises and torture? I want to look deeper into this idea, but also at the influences the Americans – the colonizers – have had on contemporary, postmodern American Indian writers such as Louise Erdrich using the post-colonial theory to analyze her connection to her historical roots along with the “new” culture and to examine her “’writing back’” as a member of the formerly colonized natives of North America by looking at the post-colonial ideas present in the characters in her stories.
 * Living in the “Frontier Zone”: Utilizing Post-colonial Theory in Louise Erdrich’s “The Red Convertible,” “Saint Marie,” and “Satan: Highjacker of a Planet” **

//__Review of the Literature __// In an interview with Bill Moyers, Louise Erdrich explains living within the margins of Indian and American life in terms of her literature and her personal life, specifically her religious beliefs. Erdrich offers insight into her rationale for writing the way she does and how it is her “job to doubt” not only in terms of how it is a part of her writing voyage but as her human experience (Louise). Erdrich explains to Moyers the symbiotic relationship between the Ojibwa Indians and America through her explanation of her own connectedness in all aspects of her Indian and American self and also expands upon her beliefs about religion.

As Irene Vernon has discovered, religion and religious influence has also been a topic of post-colonial theory in Native American literature, and she examines and discusses Christianity’s influence on Native American literature in her article “The Claiming of Christ: Native American Postcolonial Discourses.” Although she does not deal directly with Erdrich’s work, the theories and ideas that she posits throughout her article apply to Erdrich’s fiction because of her similar situation to other authors, even William Apess, one of the first Christian Native writers. In her article, Vernon explains that in many examples of Native American Indian literature, “Christianity is presented as a means to survival and as a vehicle of adaptation, reflecting considered choices which do not necessarily imply rejection of Native spirituality or ‘Indianness’” (Vernon 76) which begs the postcolonial theory of double consciousness and dual identities that are present in Erdrich’s fiction.

Religion has often been associated with the colonization of the American Indians, and Jeana DelRosso examines Catholicism’s influence on contemporary fiction in her article “The Convent as Colonist: Catholicism in the Works of Contemporary Women Writers of the Americas.” DelRosso also explores how the writers “often living on the margins of dominant hegemonies themselves, not only cross the perimeters of nationhood but also explore, resist and negotiate the confines of American understandings of Catholicism, rereading the religion in terms of gender, class and ethnicity” (DelRosso 184). DelRosso dissects the works of North, Latin and South American female writers’ female characters using a feminist lens into the relationship that Catholicism holds with each of their fictional characters and posits that despite other critics’ theories of unknowing the “other side,” that cross-cultural writers “’know’ all the sides of the relationship between Catholicism and colonialism and ‘know’ that the intersection of these systems offer the young female figure the potential not of either/or but of both/and” (DelRosso 199).

Unlike DelRosso, Christopher Shannon does not see the merging of Catholicism and other religions or beliefs as a positive change in diverse American culture, but as a step backward into “individual self-deployment” (Shannon 1). Shannon posits that multiculturalism is an attack on culture itself, and that Catholicism is culture’s saving grace. In essence, Shannon believes that Catholicism is being seen as the “other” – the subjected and attacked – in terms of multiculturalism. In the end, Shannon argues that multiculturalism is the community’s mortal enemy, in that “secular alternatives have often reduced community to little more than a support group” (Shannon 9).

Post-colonial theory application to American Indian literature has been under much scrutiny, namely by writer and theorist Louis Owens. In the chapter “As If an Indian Were Really an Indian: Native American Voices and Postcolonial Theory” in his book //I Hear the Train: Reflections, Inventions, Refractions//, Owens argues for the creation, utilization and practice of a Native American literary theory for several reasons. One is because post-colonial theorists such as Edward Said and Homi Bhabha “dismiss the existence or value of Native American literature” (Owens 210). He asks the question how, then, “can we say that this type of literature be looked at through a post-colonial lens?” (Owens 210). Throughout the rest of this chapter, Owens challenges and disputes the use of post-colonial theory as a valid lens for interpreting and studying Native American literature because of its foundations in the colonizer’s hegemony. Owens posits that because of post-colonial theory, Native American Indian writers feel obligated to write from the perspective of the idea of what an Indian is to the colonizers and not from historical or cultural truth.

Despite Owens’ seemingly correct logic, Elivira Pulitano notes that Owens and other Native American theorists “self-consciously or not, take up stances similar to those articulated within the discourse of postcolonialism” (Pulitano 194). Pulitano uses Owens’ arguments and ideas to show that “whether we like it or not Native American Indian authors are already implicated within the dominant discourse of the metropolitan center” (Politano 200). The third chapter of her dissertation, which examines the work of Owens and Greg Sarris, Pulitano pushes for a Native American theory that makes room for the balance between Native and Western cultures; however, Pulitano realizes that this cannot be done without some sort of utilization of post-colonial theory, which is the focus of this argument.

Looking at Erdrich’s work, several theorists have looked into the margins in which the majority of Erdrich’s characters reside – between two worlds – Indian and American. In her article, “Postmodernism, Native American Literature and the Real: The Silko-Erdrich Controversy,” Susan Perez Castillo analyzes Leslie Silko’s critique of Erdrich’s novel //The Beet Queen// by looking at ideals of postmodern fiction and the validity and issues she has with Silko’s own opinions about Erdrich’s work. One of the main issues Castillo has with Silko’s critique is her inability to see how Silko herself uses postmodern ideals in her own writing, specifically the usage of “two widely divergent worlds” in her novel //Ceremony// (Castillo 5) as well as her attempt to reflect the reality of living amongst two cultures. By the end of the article, Castillo urges readers to look at both Silko and Erdrich for their rich and valuable description of “the emptiness and self-destructiveness which characterize much of contemporary reservation life” (Castillo 6).

Jamil Khader examines the work Erdrich completed with her late husband, Michael Dorris, //The Crown of Columbus//, to “investigate the dominant politics of identity in their attempts not only to abrogate all forms of essential, unified identities and dissolve the binary logic that generates them but also to celebrate difference, multiplicity, contingent identities, and the subject’s constant and complex negotiations of belonging to various, even antagonistic, collectives” (Khader 82). Throughout his article, Khader argues for the usage of postcolonial theory by “mixedblood” writers in order to look at how multiple identities are created in the “problematic space of displacement that postcolonial Nativeness occupies” (Khader 99).

Erdrich’s work has also been analyzed using Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic theory as in Karla Sander’s “A Healthy Balance: Religion, Identity, and Community in Louise Erdrich’s //Love Medicine//.” In her article, Sanders attempts to show the “cultural tension” that exists in //Love Medicine// by examining “the difficulty faced by Erdrich’s characters in reaching a balance between the spheres of past and present, personal and communal, private and public” (Sanders 1). Through her use of Kristeva’s mirror stage and the Symbolic order, Sanders also subconsciously discusses the double consciousness and double identity that many colonized groups experience, even in religious beliefs, after the colonizers, or the ideas of the colonizers, have faded. Sanders concludes that “being an American and a Native American are not diametrically opposed identities” supporting the theory of postcolonial double consciousness hidden amongst her own argument (Sanders 14).

//__Synthesis of the Literature __// Because of Louise Erdrich’s personal life, it’s valid and necessary to include her own thoughts and musings about her literature and her life in this argument, simply because she makes it so well known that she lives on the cusp of two different cultures. In essence, this lifestyle organically translates into her fiction through her characters and the conflicts and issues that they face on their own. It is impossible to look at a text through the post-colonial lens without looking at the social and historical context of the literature.

The “clash” of religion is obviously an inherent and noticeable piece of Erdrich’s three short stories that will be analyzed during this inquiry, and it’s important to understand the social, historical and ethnic context of religion’s perception because of its multicultural nature within the context of each of the three short stories. The work of DelRosso will be used to support the argument that Erdrich is writing with a double consciousness, which in turn is reflected in her characters. Shannon’s article will be debunked through the use of DelRosso’s claims and support in her workings with other “native” Americans, which lends the argument that her argument is also valid with American Indian literature. Vernon’s ideas will be used as supplements to support the argument of religious double consciousness in Erdrich’s stories via DelRosso’s claims.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Because of the complexity and vastness of the concept of post-colonial theory being applied to contemporary American Indian literature, this section will be discussed in two ways – disproving and supporting. Louis Owens is a primary interlocutor in the study and formation of Native American theory, and his ideas do not seem to meld with Erdrich’s “mixedblood” writing. Therefore, this essay will attempt to disprove his idea that American Indian Literature cannot be analyzed through a post-colonial lens by integrating the ideas of Politano, Castillo, Khader & Sanders and post-colonial theorists such as Bhabha and Said in order to support the double consciousness found within “The Red Convertible,” “Saint Marie,” and “Satan: Highjacker of a Planet.” Through the previous four writers, the stories and Erdrich’s life, Owens’ staunch perspective of American Indians writing about how American Indians are perceived by everyone else except American Indians will be derailed because of the contemporary American Indian authors “writing back” about the native culture that is still very much a part of their lives while also taking ownership of their American selves; therefore, American Indians are attempting to construct and shape their own individual literature, definitive from those Native Americans who still felt the pressure of the colonizers’ ideas and forced hegemony.

//__<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Conclusion __// <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The research that was done was all beneficial – none of the resources mentioned were of no or little value; rather, having several different perspectives to pull support from will be a significant advantage when tackling this contemporary argument, as well as being able to add significant analysis and apply theory to works that have not specifically been discussed amongst other scholars. The difficulty lies within choosing specific instances of double consciousness that are shared within the three chosen short stories, and focusing on dual religion and culture should help focus the broadness that post-colonial theory can create on its own. More research does need to be looked at in terms of Ojibwa history, especially during the time of “Americanization,” specifically Turtle Mountain. Also, a clearer understanding of Catholic culture and belief during the “Americanization” of the American Indians is needed in order to pinpoint certain instances of double consciousness with Erdrich’s Ojibwa beliefs.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 14.6667px; text-align: center;">Works Cited <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Castillo, Susan Perez. “Postmodernism, Native American Literature and the Real: The Silko-Erdrich Controversy.” Massachusetts Review 32.2 (1991): 285. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 16 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">DelRosso, Jeana. “The Convent as Colonist: Catholicism in the Works of Contemporary Women Writers of the Americas.” MELUS 26.3 (Fall 2001): 183-201. JSTOR. Web. 16 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Khader, Jamil. “Postcolonial Nativeness: Nomadism, Cultural Memory, and the Politics of Identity in Louise Erdrich’s and Michael Dorris’s //The Crown of Columbus//.” ARIEL 28.2 (April 1997): 81-101. ARIEL. Web. 16 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">“Louise Erdrich.” //The Journal.// Interview by Bill Moyers. PBS. 9 April 2010. Web. 20 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Owens, Louis. "As If an Indian Were Really an Indian: Native American Voices and Postcolonial Theory." //I Hear the Train: Reflections, Inventions, Refractions//. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 2001. 207-26. Print.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Pulitano, Elvira. "Chapter Three: Crossreading Texts, Identity, and Worldviews: TheDialogic Approach of Greg Sarris and Louis Owens." //Towards a Native American Critical Theory//. Albequerque: University of New Mexico, 2002. 150-219. Print.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Sanders, Karla. "A Healthy Balance: Religion, Identity, and Community in Louise Erdrich's //Love Medicine//.” //MELUS// 23.2 (n.d.): 129. //Gale: Academic OneFile// //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> (PowerSearch) //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">. EBSCO. Web. 20 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Shannon, Christopher. “Catholicism as the other.” //First Things: A Monthly Journal of// //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Religion and Public Life. //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">139(Jan 2004): 46(8). //Gale: Academic OneFile//. Web. 16 June 2011.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Vernon, Irene S. “The Claiming of Christ: Native American Postcolonial Discourses.” MELUS 24.2 (Summer 1999): 75-88. JSTOR. Web. 16 June 2011.