The Peoplehood Matrix: A New Theory for American Indian Literature

In recent years several scholars and writers have advanced ideas in an attempt to develop a unifying theory for American Indian studies, but none are as widely applicable as the Peoplehood Matrix, as advanced by Tom Holm, J. Diane Pearson, and Ben Chavis.¹ Valuable and useful as a general theory, it also works well as a specialized theory for the analysis of American Indian literature. Although we applaud Holm, Pearson, and Chavis's efforts and support the development of research methodologies and critical theory in American Indian studies, the aim of this essay is to set forth a hermeneutic for use in the study of American Indian literature. In their article Holm, Pearson, and Chavis identify four interdependent, interpenetrating components that communities of Indian people share—language, sacred history, place or territory, and ceremonial cycle—which all, in one form or another, highlight aspects of American Indian literature.

The need for a more comprehensive theoretical approach is highlighted by the underrepresentation of Native literary analysis in scholarly journals, both in American literature and American Indian/Native studies.² All too often scholars working in the field of literary studies tend to neglect or even seriously misrepresent important aspects of Native epistemology and culture in deference to theoretical perspectives emanating from Western paradigms, or what Gerald Vizenor refers to as the "manifest manners in the literature of dominance."³ Even works produced by Native literary scholars who have aimed at formulating critical theories for the analysis of American Indian literature, tend to address only one or two of the areas outlined in Holm's Peoplehood Matrix, and as a result of their isolation from the other interrelated aspects, these ideas seem to be less clearly articulated and focused. A theoretical approach, then, centered on the Peoplehood Matrix is useful because it addresses these shortcomings in terms that are relevant and useful to Native peoples and communities, while at the same time making an important contribution to the fields of American Indian and literary studies by providing a valuable methodological tool for scholars working with texts produced by Native authors. For example, the critic Jace Weaver in his work, That the People Might Live, advocates for a centrality concept of "communitism," a neologism "formed by a combination of the words as 'community' and 'activism.'"⁴ Inherent in this argument Weaver makes is the important point about distinctions between different tribal people, which also highlights the insufficiency of such generalized terms as Native American or American Indian. Although individual tribal self-identification is always an important consideration to keep in mind when analyzing texts produced by Native writers, he seems to be neglecting the fact that many people, whether identifying themselves as Seneca, Seminole, Diné, Miwok, or some other Native Nation, may also identify themselves as part of a greater community of Native people. Another problem with the conception of communitism is that it could be construed as essentialist insofar as it does not properly address issues such as crossblood⁵ people and Indians who live off the reservation, especially those concentrated in urban areas. One could also argue that his preference for tribal identification, although useful in many cases, can also be misleading and arbitrary since among the Diné, to use one example, one's primary identification is expressed based upon the clan affiliation of one's mother, rather than the broader tribal identification. To use a different analogy, few would claim that it is inaccurate to refer to William Faulkner as a Mississippi writer, but to define him specifically and only as such while ignoring his concurrent standing as a Southern writer and as an American writer would tend to limit rather than enlarge the importance and relevance of his literary production. Such problems continue to be of considerable concern to Native writers trying to break through the literary glass ceiling and balance the need for producing literature valuable to their own communities with the need for wider popular appeal among the reading public. Further, Weaver goes on to suggest that the unifying factor or the tool to access...