FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2088763553> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2088763553 endingPage "44" @default.
• W2088763553 startingPage "26" @default.
• W2088763553 abstract "North America as Contact ZoneNative American Literary Nationalism and the Cross-Cultural Dilemma Christopher Taylor (bio) In Native American literary studies today there is a gap between the variety of criticism being produced and the metacritical debate about what Native literary criticism should look like. A review of recent issues of Studies in American Indian Literatures, for example, will discover a wide of variety of approaches, some relating literary works to tribally specific contexts, others demonstrating the utility of pan-Indian or pan-Indigenous approaches, and others suggesting a variety of ways in which Native literatures might be simultaneously related to both Native and non-Native contexts—or, indeed, suggesting that these contexts are themselves deeply connected. All of these approaches are, of course, joined by still other modes of criticism that make no overt claim about the relationship between a text and the cultures that produced it. At the same time, however, the metacritical debate about what Native literary study should look like has become polarized between theorists favoring an inward-facing nationalism and those insisting on an outward-facing cosmopolitanism. My aim in this article is to survey this polarization of the theoretical debate and, in so doing, to suggest a route toward a middle ground. Finding a theoretical justification for such a middle ground will help to provide a firmer grounding for criticism that sees modern Native and non-Native cultures as both distinguishable and historically entangled and that therefore rejects the unnecessary polarity of much of the metacritical debate in recent years. As I suggest through a reading of Sherman Alexie’s Reservation Blues (1995), a critical approach that sees North America as a field of overlapping sovereignties represents [End Page 26] the best method of connecting Native American literary texts to the cultural contexts from which they emerge. In some respects, the state of Native American literary theory today can be traced back to the identity politics of the early 1990s. In his 1992 presidential address to the Mid-America American Studies Association (later published in American Studies), Daniel Littlefield Jr. offered a tentative but largely positive evaluation of what he saw as a variety of movements seeking to restrict outside access to Native American cultural artifacts and to promote the training of Indigenous scholars (Littlefield 99). For Littlefield, this burgeoning nationalism posed obstacles for those studying Native cultures, but it also signaled a growth in the vitality of scholarship on and by Native peoples. In the following year’s volume of American Studies, Arnold Krupat responded to Littlefield, denouncing most restrictions on free inquiry and arguing that a scholar’s race and ethnicity have no bearing on the quality of her work. In prose that is at times quite heated, Krupat insists that Littlefield’s division of those studying Native literature into Native and non-Native groups represents an unnecessary and potentially harmful distraction from the ultimate goal of producing insightful work. Much of Littlefield and Krupat’s exchange focuses on the use of the pronouns we, us, and them, and to this extent the debate seems somewhat dated, marked by the identity politics of its time. This is not to suggest that the issues of race, identity, and culture they raise have been solved. However, in the years since this exchange was published, the terms of the debate have shifted from identity to methodology. The metacritical debate in Native American literary studies today does not focus so much on who is doing the studying as on the methods and skills that person brings to the study. Thus, for example, a Native American literary nationalist like Craig Womack is unlikely to declare that only Creek people should be allowed to study Creek culture; he is likely, however, to argue that a person studying Creek culture should take the time to learn the Creek language, and this requirement may impose a de facto barrier to non- Creek participation in Creek literature. Nonetheless, the emphasis in the debate has shifted away from identity and toward methods. [End Page 27] These methodological disputes are apparent in several recent attempts to map the field of Native American literary criticism. In Red on Red: Native American Literary Separatism..." @default.
• W2088763553 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2088763553 creator A5002105181 @default.
• W2088763553 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W2088763553 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2088763553 title "North America as Contact Zone: Native American Literary Nationalism and the Cross-Cultural Dilemma" @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1522351127 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1532159457 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1542375450 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1937215897 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1987025067 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W1992665401 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2011089981 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2020977384 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2022505409 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2036977822 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2044806922 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2077762932 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2101599481 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2129818586 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2312693334 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2334859872 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2522992386 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W2618917158 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W567372874 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W580060651 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W616188406 @default.
• W2088763553 cites W657507821 @default.
• W2088763553 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ail.2010.0015" @default.
• W2088763553 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2088763553 type Work @default.
• W2088763553 sameAs 2088763553 @default.
• W2088763553 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2088763553 countsByYear W20887635532015 @default.
• W2088763553 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2088763553 hasAuthorship W2088763553A5002105181 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C142932270 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C2777075199 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C521449643 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C55958113 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C95124753 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C107038049 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C111472728 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C124952713 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C136197465 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C138885662 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C142362112 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C142932270 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C144024400 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C154945302 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C17744445 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C18903297 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C199539241 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C2777075199 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C2778496695 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C41008148 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C521449643 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C55958113 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C7991579 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C86803240 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C94625758 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C95124753 @default.
• W2088763553 hasConceptScore W2088763553C95457728 @default.
• W2088763553 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2088763553 hasLocation W20887635531 @default.
• W2088763553 hasOpenAccess W2088763553 @default.
• W2088763553 hasPrimaryLocation W20887635531 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W1493515365 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2017884770 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2349823153 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2350852339 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2372246727 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2384591463 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2390179039 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2526876528 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W381505075 @default.
• W2088763553 hasRelatedWork W2281782606 @default.
• W2088763553 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2088763553 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2088763553 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2088763553 magId "2088763553" @default.

• next