Complicating Democracy by Clarifying the Diné Community

• In Event: Knowledge Keepers as Public Intellects: Indigenous Perspectives Toward Nation Building and Democracy

Abstract

In attempts to Americanize indigenous peoples in the U.S., Western schooling was the means that targeted communal ways of living. It was believed that failure to civilize indigenous people was a lack of attack on the tribal way of life which was contrary to the ideals of America and individualism. Theoretically, assimilated indigenous people would become a part of mainstream capitalistic America. Within this brief history, one can sense the incongruity that problematizes democracy within indigenous communities and it sets the context for this presentation which will contribute points of discussion to the overarching questions of the session as we consider: What are the intersections of democracy and sovereignty/nation building for Indigenous education, communities and research? Can they co-exist in these spaces? The answers to these questions are dependent upon goals of the research projects, positioning of participants and their knowledges, and understandings and established frameworks within research methodologies. These issues are complex because goals were created outside of indigenous communities, knowledges and frameworks. Democracy as a goal for education and research is complicated due to the same reasons. This presentation addresses three points of discussion based on the objectives of the session through a description of a research project that sought out effective partnerships between school and community to promote academic success for Diné youth.

First, the meaning of academic success can be an issue that problematizes democracy and having it as a goal for education. Within the research project, identifying and theorizing effective partnerships became complex because “academic success” became secondary as Diné youth claimed that supporting the whole child was more important. This meant addressing issues of identity and respect and it could be argued that a goal of indigenous education would be to support the whole child by working towards communal goals of indigenization and nation building contrary to a mainstream definition of “academic success”. The child needs to know their place (identity) and to know that they are contributing (and respected as such).

Second, the definition of “community” was identified in conjunction with the Diné community and youth participants. To understand what the Diné community currently was, a definition of the Diné community was established as a foundation to build effective partnerships. To identify a framework, various community members were asked what they believed was a Diné philosophy of community and the response was always k’é (simply translated into its alleged English meaning, is family). The Diné community was positioned as the intellectuals in this case who led the research.

Third, framing the research project through an indigenous methodology was vital to understanding the realities and experiences of the Diné youth and community. K’é was established as a Diné philosophy of community through a description of a ceremony that was created by the Holy People to ensure the existence of the Diné. The frameworks necessary to understand the realities and theorize the futures of indigenous communities are found within the languages, songs, and ceremonies of the people, and the people who know this are the knowledge keepers and intellectuals.

Author

• Hollie Anderson Kulago, Elmira College