In "The joy of reading and writing: Superman and Me", I chose to answer the above mentioned question.
I think the danger of being smart lies in the culture where one is from. My own assumption is that groups of people will start to agree on the same idea's, even if its wrong. Lemming effect possibly? Cultures of people will always look down on, or think less of people who don't have the same lifestyle as them. For instance, some cultures elevate man's status, and look down on women. Some cultures elevate those with money, and look down on those without.
I think if you put these two together, you'll get a dominant culture that doesn't believe the sub-culture was created equally. And if you allow the sub-culture to get ideas or freedoms, or allow them access to the same lifestyle, the dominate culture might feel threatened, and might try to restrict the sub-cultures access to being considered an equal.
Specifically from this reading, the subjects are Reservation Kids. I think I can safely assume that many US Indian Reservations live in extreme poverty, in secluded areas, with limited access to jobs and equal education. I think the dominate culture in the US, white men, (Communication between Cultures; Samovar, Porter & McDaniel) are afraid of smart indians who could live and work alongside them, and enjoy the same things in life.
If a sub-culture showed signs of being "smart",they could be subjected to discrimination and/or threats. Are they being smart by playing dumb? Or does that just harm them further?
Hi Carrie,
ReplyDeleteYour ending questions are intriguing and have me thinking. On one level it is smart to "play dumb." In the context of schooling, it's safer and less harmful for students if they simply refuse to engage; the rationale is that since they never engaged or even tried, the fact that they failed isn't a reflection at all on their abilities, just the fact they didn't try. I still see this happening today. To fail after never trying makes the failing easier to take.
However, on the other hand, choosing to "play dumb" fulfills the stereotype and makes students complicit in their oppression. It may "keep them under the radar", but it will also maintain the status quo.
It seems like awareness of the forces at work, namely the systems of oppression one finds oneself in and the prevailing beliefs, is a necessary first step in change, but this kind of consciousness takes maturity to develop.
In the case of Alexie, his ability to challenge the stereotypes started small; the love of reading was instilled in him from his father. It's amazing to think that something so little can later bring about profound change, both individually and systemically.
Thanks for your insights!
Take care,
Lauren