Seeing with a Native Eye

Paper #1

SW585 – Fall, 2008

Esperanza D

            “Seeing with the Native Eye” by Barre Toelken is an article that attempts to make the connection between a Navajo way of viewing one’s world to the way modern society has conditioned us to view and interpret things.  He explains that each individual, depending on what culture and society they come from and identify with, are conditioned to see things in ways that are meaningful to them and give purpose to what they already know.  He infers the reason why one person of one culture interprets something as one way and a person of a completely different culture explains that same thing with a totally different concept, it is not because they are unwilling to see the others’ point of view.  It is because they actually cannot see it, because they were not “programmed” to do so. (Toelken, 2001, p. 53)

            Joe Schriver, the author of Human Behavior and the Social Environment eludes to this idea of different ways of thinking, or paradigms, as he labels it.  It is clear that Schriver favors the paradigm which is open to examining various beliefs and ways of thought.  This paradigm is labeled an Alternative/Possible Paradigm. (Shriver, 2004, p. 56)  Toelken’s article fits well with this paradigm, which embraces qualitative methods. (Shriver, 2004, p. 63)  Toelken uses this method for the basis of his article by using first hand interactions with the population he wishes to draw conclusions on, the Navajos.  This is opposed to the Traditional Paradigm which views a scientific and quantitative method as the most important way to draw conclusions about society. (Shriver, 2004, p. 48)

            Navajos are a Native American tribe, a tribe in which Toelken became rather familiar with, living as an adopted son for two years. (Toelken, 2001, p. 51)  He is careful to mention that although he does know a great deal about Navajo culture from his adopted family, he realizes not all Native cultures view the world the same way Navajos do, however he attempts to draw conclusions on some similarities in thought they might share in viewing the world. (Toelken, 2001, p. 50)  “Recognition of diversity and difference” is a key element in an alternative paradigm and Toelken’s article clearly demonstrates that through his use of Navajo culture, White culture, and even various Native tribes and Pueblos. (Shriver, 2004, p. 73)

            The alternative paradigm also allows room for spirituality as a vital resource, or actually as a necessity “to incorporate understanding of spirituality.” (Shriver, 2004, p. 61)   Toelken does just that.  He tells us, “the Navajos would say that there is probably nothing that can be called clearly non-religious.” (Toelken, 2001. p. 51)  Spirituality is incorporated in every aspect of the Navajo culture, all the way to weaving a rug.  Toelken’s adopted sister was an expert weaver who incorporated spirituality in every strand she wove, every “design” she made and every “concept” she was trying to convey with her artwork.  She used resources from the earth to create her dyes and materials needed for weaving.  He mentions that Whites may see her artwork as linear lines, geometrical patterns and a series of planned patterns.  (Toelken, 2001, p. 56) In fact, that wasn’t so.  His sister, instead, saw “a back-and-forth movement” in her rugs and spun something one way, then unpins it the opposite way after.  (Toelken, 2001, p. 56) 

            The idea behind her weavings is also part of a bigger way of thinking for Navajos, which is a non-linear, or even a circular way of thinking. (Toelken, 2001, p. 55) Our modern society has conditioned us to believe that linear patterns are ideal.  This falls in line with the traditional paradigm which greatly favors neat data, compiling that data into graphs, and pinpointing a societal problem with X, Y, and Z. (Shriver, 2004, p. 47) Navajo thinking, however, takes a completely different approach.  For them, logic doesn’t mean putting things in categorical order and forcing control over natural occurrences.  Navajo logic would center more around a circular way of thinking that involves meeting in circles, circular hogans, and most often, dancing in circles as well. (Toelken, 2001, p. 55) 

            Toelken explains how his adopted father explains a hogan ritual “was to make sure that people always live properly oriented to the world of nature.” (Toelken, 2001, p. 58)  One could see this as interconnectedness between a human being and nature itself.  The alternative paradigms recognize the usefulness in incorporating the ideals of smaller cultures into theory as “a holistic perspective [that] is useful and appropriate for social work with its concern for human behavior in the context of the larger environment.” (Shriver, 2004, p. 79)  We can gain a lot of knowledge by connecting with other cultures on a personal level that will grow to our understanding as human beings.  We can even incorporate that knowledge into our own ways of thinking and solving social problems that exist in our own culture.

            Toelken recalls a conversation held with his adopted father concerning the “outside world” as it pertained to the Navajo reservation.  Toelken goes into the conversation with more of a traditional paradigm mindset which favors patriarchy, Whiteness and empirical evidence.  The traditional paradigm does not leave room for qualitative or interpersonal relatedness.  It is based on facts and the scientific method. (Shriver, 2004, p. 48) Toelken’s goal was to familiarize his father with life outside the reservation, a world of buildings, straight lines, and categorical thinking.  His way of lessening this shock was to show his father a picture of the Empire State Building. (Toelken, 2001, p. 52)

            His father’s Native eye had been conditioned so that it was impossible to see the usefulness in linear buildings and closely compacted quarters.  Naturally, his father’s first inclination is to ask a question that would be of use to him, a Navajo.  “How many sheep does it hold?” he asks, referring to the building. (Toelken, 2001, p. 52)  Toelken tried showing his father how big a sheep would be in comparison to the building itself but it was no use, the father had no desire to hear it.  Toelken proceeded another time to show him the same building; however, he mentioned the bathrooms inside the building.  His father was taken aback that one would do such a thing inside!  He was even more discontent to hear there was a special room for such a thing.  (Toelken, 2001, p. 53)

            What we can take back from these ideals when working with clients is that not every individual comes from the same place of ideals that we do.  We can be more empathetic and understanding if one comes from another with a lifestyle surrounding livestock and nature rather than offices and high technology.  We can begin to try and work on a level that relates to real situations in our clients lives rather than pushing our own ideals on them. 

            Years later is when Toelken began to value these beliefs, those of which he once saw as backwards thinking or caveman ideals. (Toelken, 2001, p. 52)  By incorporating these values and ideals into his own paradigm he gained valuable knowledge and insight he never thought of before.  “Through the door of diversity we can enter worlds offering vastly differing and rich ways of thinking about the world and the individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities and nations that make it up.” (Shriver, 2004, p. 79)  We can richly enhance our ways of thinking if we begin to embrace thoughts not common to our own. 

            If one goes into a research assignment with only a traditional way of thinking, they are denying their study and themselves a wonderful opportunity to see things from a different perspective with possible diverse values and worlds of knowledge never conceived by the modern world.  Although “Seeing with the Native Eye” is not directly written by a Native person, it offers vital insight in the world of Navajo thinking, and possibly even other Native Americans as well.

References:

Schriver, J. (2004) “Human Behavior And The Social Environment: Shifting Paradigms in Essential Knowledge for Social Work Practice” University of Arkansas – Fayetteville, pp. 44-82.

Toelken, B. (2001) “Seeing with the Native Eye: How Many Sheep Will It Hold?” In Melendez, A.G. et al. (eds.), The Multicultural Southwest: A Reader.  Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, pp. 50-59.