Page 68 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 68
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
proof, but they signalize that the ‘delinking’ should pay attention to gen-
der specific aspects.10
Like for Mignolo, for the novelist Leslie Marmon Silko Marxism is
caught up the European imperialistic frame of mind. In Almanac of the
Dead (1991) she reflects on it throughout the novel with irony:
Marx had been inspired by reading about certain Native American com-
munal societies, though naturally as a European he had misunderstood a
great deal (Silko 1992, 519).11
Later she concedes:
But at least Engels and Marx had understood the earth belongs to no one.
No human, individuals or corporations, no cartel of nations, could ‘own’
the earth; it was the earth who possessed the humans and it was the earth
68 who disposed of them (Silko 1992, 749).
In this short passage, Silko outlines the complex conflict between Native
Americans and the European settlers. Although it is a problem of colo-
nialism, because the settlers occupied their land, it is ideological too, be-
cause it imposes the concept of land ownership, alien to their cultures.
This antagonism cannot be solved by substituting private property with
collective ownership. By stressing the problem of understanding, Silko
refers to the specific knowledge system that underlies such a relation be-
tween humans and the earth. Eva Cherniavsky notes:
in contrast to ethnonationalisms, and their sustaining rhetoric of cultur-
al purity, tribal knowledges in Alamanac of the Dead are avowedly impure,
non-organic, and non-innocent (Cherniavsky 2001, 111).
In her view, this puts the novel in opposition, or at least “in conversation
with the holistic strain of Native American literary criticism, which tends
to position Native American culture as the integrative other of Western
epistemology’s analytical protocols and its reduction of the earth’s liv-
ing totality to a series of inanimate component parts” (Cherniavsky 2001,
123). It is possible to agree that Silko is mocking the idea of a holistic epis-
temology, but there are two problems with Cherniavskys argument. First,
10 For further discussion cf. Lugones 2010.
11 Weaver, Womack and Warrior assume that Native American cultures inspired liter-
ary theory as well: “We know that Marx and Engels … quoted extensively from Lewis
Henry Morgan’s 1877 book about Iroquoian culture entitled Ancient Society. Given
the huge influences of Marxism on continental literary theory, it is not impossible to
imagine Native people having some bearing on the theoretical outpouring of the last
four decades” (119–120).
proof, but they signalize that the ‘delinking’ should pay attention to gen-
der specific aspects.10
Like for Mignolo, for the novelist Leslie Marmon Silko Marxism is
caught up the European imperialistic frame of mind. In Almanac of the
Dead (1991) she reflects on it throughout the novel with irony:
Marx had been inspired by reading about certain Native American com-
munal societies, though naturally as a European he had misunderstood a
great deal (Silko 1992, 519).11
Later she concedes:
But at least Engels and Marx had understood the earth belongs to no one.
No human, individuals or corporations, no cartel of nations, could ‘own’
the earth; it was the earth who possessed the humans and it was the earth
68 who disposed of them (Silko 1992, 749).
In this short passage, Silko outlines the complex conflict between Native
Americans and the European settlers. Although it is a problem of colo-
nialism, because the settlers occupied their land, it is ideological too, be-
cause it imposes the concept of land ownership, alien to their cultures.
This antagonism cannot be solved by substituting private property with
collective ownership. By stressing the problem of understanding, Silko
refers to the specific knowledge system that underlies such a relation be-
tween humans and the earth. Eva Cherniavsky notes:
in contrast to ethnonationalisms, and their sustaining rhetoric of cultur-
al purity, tribal knowledges in Alamanac of the Dead are avowedly impure,
non-organic, and non-innocent (Cherniavsky 2001, 111).
In her view, this puts the novel in opposition, or at least “in conversation
with the holistic strain of Native American literary criticism, which tends
to position Native American culture as the integrative other of Western
epistemology’s analytical protocols and its reduction of the earth’s liv-
ing totality to a series of inanimate component parts” (Cherniavsky 2001,
123). It is possible to agree that Silko is mocking the idea of a holistic epis-
temology, but there are two problems with Cherniavskys argument. First,
10 For further discussion cf. Lugones 2010.
11 Weaver, Womack and Warrior assume that Native American cultures inspired liter-
ary theory as well: “We know that Marx and Engels … quoted extensively from Lewis
Henry Morgan’s 1877 book about Iroquoian culture entitled Ancient Society. Given
the huge influences of Marxism on continental literary theory, it is not impossible to
imagine Native people having some bearing on the theoretical outpouring of the last
four decades” (119–120).
