In thinking about the role of language and comprehension as it relates to my fieldwork, I want to start with a comment I heard last week hosted by the American Indian Law Program titled: Language Rights are Human Rights: Participating in the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. In the meeting an elected official reflected on how fundamental language differences impacted the lives of Indigenous Americans as they interacted with colonial Europeans. He specifically noted that European people have central to their language the subject and predicate, while the Shawnee people have the verb central to their language. The argument he goes on to make is that if language is an example of how we think and process, how can two different languages and cultures agree on say a Treaty? Does the Treaty, as written and signed, mean the same thing to the Europeans as it does to the Shawnee? His argument is no, it can’t possibly have the same meaning. While he stopped his argument here, my understanding is that the assumption made by the Europeans writing the Treaty was that the language was very clear, X means X, Y means Y. But what if you are saying X and Y is the message that is heard?
Extrapolating from this idea, it made me wonder: do I make the assumption that an audience, in either a theatrical production or a classroom setting, will fundamentally understand what is being said because the audience has chosen to be there? And even further, do we speak the same language, both literally and culturally? I saw both American Utopia and SIX on Broadway this spring. Both were delightful shows, are joyous, fun, and a bit rambunctious. They were essentially concerts that wove story through the music. In both locations, the demographic was primarily white, with SIX containing a much younger crowd than American Utopia’s predominantly middle age plus theatre goers. At both events there was a lot of singing along, it was clear who had spent 10’s and 100’s of hours listening again and again to the music of David Byrne (I am one of them) or the SIX soundtrack (my daughter Bea).
.jpeg)
Certainly, as educators, we need to be intentional: am I speaking a language that my students can understand? Does the material have a cultural connection to them or will it appear arbitrary or just plain confusing to them? Rabab Ghazoul, in a long conversation with Courtney J. Bodie, on the podcast Teaching Artistry makes the claim that she believes storytelling is innate. All humans have the desire to both hear and tell stories. It is here that we have an entry point for all students, regardless of background. It is here too she says that we can chip away at a colonized educational system by valuing the stories of all students in our room. It is also a way to connect to one another through a shared experience. It seems as if Rabab Ghazoul would support the notion that there are some “truths” that exist cross-culturally. We as humans care about stories and in that shared desire we can relate to one another’s experiences.
Educator Mauricio Salgado, also in conversation with professor Bodie, notes that balancing power is central to decolonizing education. He says that ‘naming it alone, we begin to break the power down.’ Reflecting on the idea that language and cultural norms can impact how we hear, I wonder: how do we ensure that even in the naming of a thing, that the language being used actually conveys the idea you intend to? Salgado talks about how as a child he watched his immigrant parents do Theatre of the Oppressed and Immersive theatre within other immigrant communities of a shared background. His parents would perform and then interview the audience to promote dialogue on subjects like domestic violence or mistreatment by employers. He noted that the power of the story was seeing yourself on stage and then being asked about it. Also because both men and women were a part of the dialogue, many men could hear things spoken that they might have trouble or resistance to articulating themselves. Salgado also noted that it is important to make art interactive and to relate to communities from differing backgrounds. Does his observation then answer Ghazoul’s question? Yes, storytelling is universal, but the story needs to relate to the audience, to speak the language that relates to their culture.
At the Face to Face Conference hosted by the Arts in Education Roundtable, I listened to artists talk about Sustaining Music, Dance, and Language in Himalayan and Colombian Culture. The artists expressed the need to have the subjects in schools, both to ensure that cultural heritage wasn’t lost and additionally to expose children with no cultural background in Himalayan or Colombian Culture to a rich musical and theatrical history. They appeared to rely on the language of dance and music as ideas that would connect the audience to the subject, all humans speak these languages, and therefore that is an entry point in the material.
In a roundabout way, I think the fieldwork taught me to value in education the things that are important to me as a person. Storytelling, music, and dance are all venues for connecting students to a deep understanding, of themselves, their peers, the world around them, and the world beyond them. It is important to ask though, how does this story work for this audience? Stories might be universally appealing but not every story will appeal universally. Know your audience, respect their traditions and values and ensure that those are present in a given lesson.
