Re-inscribing Mythopoetic Vision in Native American Studies

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, act 1, scene 5

Occasionally when I am teaching I find students whose narrow way of approaching a subject restrict their ability to see the problem from another perspective. When this happens I take a silver dollar from my pocket and ask the student to close one eye. I then hold the coin a few inches from the open eye and ask, "What do you see?" The answer is of course a silver dollar. I then hold the coin a few yards away from the student and tell him to open both eyes. I again ask what do you see and the response is again a coin. I ask again and I get the same reply. I then inquire if he cannot see the table, his classmates, out the window, or a number of other things. The answer is that of course the student could see all those things if asked or pointed out. I then make my point. All that the student could see or was interested in seeing was that upon which he focused. His focus caused him to be blind to the world around him. Occasionally, when approaching literary criticism our focus can often be limited due to the questions that are asked and the choice of methodology. As a result, our commitment to one perspective limits our ability to see the rest of the world.

Rudolf Otto, in The Idea of the Holy, makes a similar observation. He claims those modern students who pursue research in religion all fall victim to an inability to think outside the realm of rational thought. ¹ This failure to see other perspectives causes them to not recognize the value of the supra-rational. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, in The Savage in Judaism, agrees that "certain kinds of questions are asked rather than others, that particular types of comparisons are considered fruitful while others are treated as uninteresting or irrelevant, and that certain methods are adopted to answer questions interpreters deem important." ²

Referring again to my experience with students, their limited perspective causes them to have a limited understanding of Native American myth complexes. Responses by students fall into two general categories. The first category consists of comments made about the myth's words. An interpretation of this sort is concerned with logos. The second category concerns itself with the function of the myth in society or, in other words, the myth's ritual aspects.

Comments begin with statements made about the "beauty" of the myth. Most often comments such as these are referring to the natural elements in the complex. A point is made regarding the respect for nature found in the text. They notice how the human characters refer to animals, plants, and Mother Earth and conclude that Native Americans have a reverence for all of nature. Beauty is also found in the animation of animals, plants, and the earth. Attention is focused on the Native American belief that every thing is alive and many complementary comments are made about the animism in the stories.

Others look for meaning by searching for symbols and motifs. Unknowingly, many apply a Jungian interpretation and search for recognizable symbols by drawing from their collective conscience for meaning. Colors are scrutinized for their meaning—red is for passion, white is for purity, blue is for mystery, and so forth.

Still other students try to draw comparisons. This approach is common as students strive to understand non-Western perceptions of reality created by myth complexes. Rhetorical comparisons are made. Myths are categorized as poems, epics, or songs. Comparing archetypes is yet another approach. These comparisons generally come from the Judeo-Christian or Greek traditions. From this perspective, students notice similarities between creation myths. Commonly, when a flood sequence is encountered, students comment, "This is just like Noah's ark...