BOOK REVIEW

Karen Gourd

University of Washington

McLaughlin, Daniel. (1992). When literacy empowers: Navajo language in print. Albuquerque: University of Mexico Press.

When Literacy Empowers: Navajo Language in Print by Daniel McLaughlin is a critical ethnography of Mesa Valley¹, a Navajo community that had developed and experienced the effects of a bilingual/biliterate/bicultural/bicognitive educational program. At the time of the study, the first students completing all thirteen years in the program had just graduated. Through the course of the study, McLaughlin asks critical questions to more fully understand the issues related to the "special diglossia" described in Spolsky and Irvine (1982).

This is not a "how to do bilingual education" nor a "why do bilingual education" book. Rather it is a thorough investigation of complex issues that undergird the controversy surrounding bilingual education in indigenous, traditionally non-literate cultures. The issues, however, are not unrelated to the discussion of the teaching of native language literacy skills prior to teaching English literacy skills to children who come from homes where English is not the home language. McLaughlin's sociopolitical perspective offers support for native language literacy and compliments the academic perspective of the work of Diaz, Moll, and Mehan (1986).

The book is written in a warm, straight-forward style, often relying on long, reflective quotes from members of the community. The writing style makes it easy to read, yet, When Literacy Empowers is very much a critical and theoretical discussion.

Within the book, McLaughlin explores alternative explanations to the diglossia that Spolsky and Irvine (1982) observed on the Navajo reservation. Diglossia, the use of different languages for different purposes, according to Spolsky and Irvine (1982), accounts for the different uses of Navajo and English on the Navajo Reservation. Spolsky and Irvine accept a functionalist explanation that Navajo is the preferred language of spoken communication while English is the preferred language for written communication because English literacy is important for economic and educational success. Literacy, if it is to be accomplished, is only useful when operating within "foreign" institutions like school and church. From this position, it follows that English literacy appropriately dominates literacy efforts in the Navajo community.

The explanation that function serves as the central criteria for language choice has come under attack as simplistic and ignorant of the socio-historical contexts of the minority language² users (Auerbach, 1986; Newmeyer, 1986; Pennycook, 1995; Tollefson, 1991). Pennycook (1995) describes this functional explanation as stressing "choice and the usefulness of English" (p. 37). The functional explanation makes it appear as Pennycook (1995) states, "that the global spread of English is natural ... an accidental by-product of global forces" (p. 37). Uncovering issues of language choice and usefulness, only hinted at by the Spolsky and Irvine explanation of the specialized diglossia as natural, neutral, and beneficial to Navajos, is the basis for McLaughlin's research questions.

McLaughlin does not deny the importance of English literacy to the Navajo community. However, he is committed to a thorough investigation and explanation of what influences the language choices Navajos make. He talked with residents of Mesa Valley and observed them in their natural spaces recording data for a period of two years. The book contains extracts of conversation with a wide-range of individual members of the community: educators, the trader, council representatives, students, the pastor, and school board members. These quotes allow readers to hear and interpret the voices of the community members. The individuals interviewed had already given much thought to literacy because of the long-term development of the bilingual/biliterate/bicultural/bicognitive school program and the process of contracting with the United States government for local control over the reservation school (a move away from the model of control held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs). The personal testimonies of community members who witnessed Mesa Valley become bilingual/biliterate provide a transition between McLaughlin's ethnographic and critical investigation of the institutions and the conditions that "prompt individuals to use English or Navajo writing" (p. 20).

Ideally, readers will walk away from this book with an understanding of the importance of indigenous literacy. They will understand that Navajos use their English literacy more than their Navajo literacy because there are far fewer opportunities to use their Navajo literacy due to the imposition of rules, regulations, and funding practices initiated through government procedures and societal practices off the reservation. They will understand that Navajos do use Navajo for writing and reading when they have choices, which given the present political, economic, and educational arena, means when they are communicating with themselves, with family members or with close friends (e.g., when making lists, writing personal notes, or reading for leisure). Readers will understand that Navajos' apparent choice for English print is not a statement that Navajo literacy is not adequate or appropriate but that English is the language of power and control. Navajos choices are limited even if they appear to be making choices. For example, when they were asked to fill out McLaughlin's literacy questionnaire either in Navajo or English, most respondents chose English. When asked about their choice, they explained they could do the form more quickly in English. Eventhough they might have preferred to do it in Navajo, time constraints and the structure of the school day dictated their language choice.

With this revelation, readers might be tempted to accept the functional explanation of English literacy dominance. However, McLaughlin reveals that criteria employed to decide whether it is useful to write and read in Navajo must include the individual's own purpose. Individuals write in Navajo not for economic or political action but for personal reasons - literacy for empowerment at a personal level. Many Navajos choose to write in Navajo even when they have literacy skills in English. McLaughlin points out that literacy communication at the chapter house and the trading post is generally in English because these institutions in this community are the links to life off the reservation and are either operated by non-Indians or are operated based on policy set by non-Indians. McLaughlin concludes that diglossia exists when literacy is introduced by the alien culture. When literacy is adopted under such conditions, the written language of the alien culture is preferred. However, when the literacy movement comes from the inside - from the indigenous community as in the church and the bilingual program in the locally operated, Mesa Valley contracted school - literacy is part of the indigenization (not just an alien import) and legitimizes their Navajoness. In church and school, individuals in this community have taken a personal stand to use Navajo print as a way to legitimize the Navajoness of the members.

The value of preserving the indigenous culture by continuing to teach the young about their culture in their language helps to bridge the divide between the White world and the reservation, and the bonds guided and encouraged to form, do more than preserve the language and culture. These bonds give strength to the individuals who leave the reservation and face the racism of the English monolingual world. These individuals can (as Maria, a graduate of the K-12 bilingual/bicultural/biliterate/ bicognitive Navajo/English program, does) give concrete meaning to the idealized phrase "empowerment through indigenous literacy. "Navajos" can decide what is good for us (Navajos). We cannot let others decide for us anymore. They know what they want--not what we need" (Maria quoted in McLaughlin, p. 167).

McLaughlin offers concrete evidence as support for his claims that native language literacy is a source of empowerment for the Navajo community. For example, he states, "an immediate effect of Navajo instruction has been to place Navajos in positions of academic authority" (pp. 16-17). The schools are seen as less alien and more local people are inclined to become involved. The economic purpose for learning English over Navajo is mediated when jobs (teaching) are available in Navajo. Once the local people have control of the schools, they can dictate (socially engineer) functions for Navajo literacy such as requiring all graduating speeches to be written in Navajo as well as English.

Despite the quality exhibited in this work, I offer some minor criticisms. McLaughlin uses jargon specific terms, which he does not define initially. Sometimes his language is common to critical theorists but uncommon to practitioners (e.g. hegemony, readers as subjects and objects). Sometimes the terms are specific to Native American communities (e.g. chapter house, trader, contracted school), and sometimes the language comes from linguistics (e.g. functional/structural analysis). Additional endnote references, a tool McLaughlin skillfully employs at times, would aid the readers unfamiliar with some of the vocabulary.

Some of the quotes from the community members, although interesting, did not appear to warrant the attention they received. More than a page is spent quoting Jack Strock as he tells about his youth and work experience prior to becoming the trader at Mesa Valley. The fact that Jack (not of Navajo heritage) communicates with monolingual Navajos is significant, but sharing so much of his life prior to Mesa Valley seemed out of place in an investigation of the Navajo community.

There is another important aspect of McLaughlin's work that should not go unnoted. McLaughlin's combining of ethnographic research with critical analysis, initially appearing as two unlikely bedfellows, makes When Literacy Empowers an important methodological work. Critical educators (e.g. Apple, 1990; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985; Freire, 1970/1992; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Freire & Macedo, 1995; hooks, 1994; Lather, 1986; Shor, 1980/1987; Shor, 1992; Shor & Freire, 1987) write with voices of passion that challenge and analyze every thought and action. They use words like "oppression," "power," "authority," and "empowerment" as they seek to incite rebellion that will lead to restructuring of the educational system. On the other hand, the traditional role of the ethnographer, as a dispassionate observer who describes and reports without analyzing or attempting to affect the indigenous people, contrasts sharply with the image of critical theorists. Yet McLaughlin competently maintains the methodological integrity of both ethnographic and critical approaches. He lists the tenets of recent ethnographers, as the need (a) to provide "thick descriptions" while reducing data; (b) to give a feel for the conditions of the field while explaining how the researcher came to know; and (c) to risk unraveling the complexities of the data, leaving safety behind. McLaughlin successfully accomplishes these goals in When Literacy Empowers. In addition, McLaughlin's interpretation of ethnographic tenets provides a good-fit with a critical investigation - one that in the words of Lather (1986) "would allow us not only to understand the maldistribution of power and resources underlying our society but also to change that maldistribution to help create a more equal world." (p. 258).

McLaughlin's study just might move some individuals to understand the Navajo community members as more than victims. He captures the essence of their empowerment when he states, "the basic idea is that the individual is both subject and object of ideology and power, fundamentally limited in situationally specific ways but nonetheless able to act upon the world" (p. 19). The Mesa Valley community McLaughlin describes has acted. It is now up to the rest of the world to recognize and learn from their efforts.

References

Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. [Return]

Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1985). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal and radical debate over schooling. New York: Bergin & Garvey. [Return]

Auerbach, E. R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two steps backward? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 411-429. [Return]

Diaz, S., Moll, L. C., & Mehan, H. (1986). Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In B. E. 0. California State Department (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority student (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. [Return]

Freire, P. (1970/1992). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. [Return]

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey. [Return]

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. P. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 377-402. [Return]

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practices of freedom. New York: Routledge. [Return]

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277. [Return]

Newmeyer, F. J. (1986). The politics of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Return]

Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/the world in English. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and Inequality in Language Education (pp. 34-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Return]

Shor, I. (1980/1987). Critical teaching & everyday life. Chicago: Chicago University Press. [Return]

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Return]

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). Liberatory pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. New York: Bergin & Garvey. [Return]

Spolsky, B. & Irvine, P. (1982). Sociolinguistic aspects of the acceptance of literacy in the vernacular. In F. B. Farkin & J. Omstein-Galicia (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact: Spanish, English, and Native American languages. New York: Teachers College Press. [Return]

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman. [Return]

Notes

¹This is a pseudonym used by McLaughlin.

²Minority language is used to mean a language of less status in the location under discussion rather than as an indicator of the number of people who speak the language. For example, Spanish in the U.S. is considered a minority language even though there are increasingly large numbers of speakers of Spanish worldwide. In Mexico, Spanish would not be considered a minority status language.