The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal Language

By Ron Sheffield

B.A. in Business Management, May 2000, Malone College M.A. in Human Resource Development, May 2008, The George Washington University

A Dissertation Submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

May 19, 2013

Dissertation directed by:

Michael Marquardt Professor of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certifies that Ron Sheffield has passed the Final Examination for the degree of

Doctor of Education as of February 28, 2013. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal Language

Ron Sheffield

Dissertation Research Committee

Michael Marquardt, Professor of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs, Dissertation Director

Amy Miller, Independent Consultant and Linguist, Committee Member

Pascal Etzol, Professor of Research Finance and Entrepreneurship, Ecole des Dirigeants et Créateurs d'Entreprise, Committee Member

ii

Dedication

To the beautiful women in my life:

Becky, Mom, Hannah, and Emily for a lifetime of support, encouragement and

love

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank those that have come before me and those that will follow: mom for absorbing more than 160 years of pain in one lifetime so that my brother and I could feel a few moments of real freedom, my daughter Hannah for bravery, my daughter

Emily for peace, my brother Danny for a strong heart, and mostly for the person that makes up the mortar of my soul – my wife Becky for enlightenment through the softest of touch.

Dr. Margaret Gorman for making me think when I simply didn’t want to, Dr.

Marilyn Wesner for believing in me, Dr. Ellen Scully-Russ for questioning the core of my thoughts with a smile, Dr. Amy Miller for bravery as she inches closer to my people,

Dr. David Schwandt for shining a bright light on the particles of life, Dr. Clyde Croswell for knowing and meaning, Dr. Liz Davis for cultural intelligence, Dr. Laraine Warner for a helping hand, Dr. Nancy Berger for support, Dr. Pascal Etzol for perspective, Dr. Maria

Cseh for illustrating the art of a question, and Dr. Michael Marquardt for practical leadership.

Aunt Diane for strength greater than any person I’ll ever know, my tribe for trusting me to share their hearts – the Quechan way, my favorite cousin Georgie for fighting when no one else would, Deborah Schroeder for authenticity like none other,

Edie Williams for blazing a walk-able trail, Ron Piontek for illuminating a bigger world,

David Rude for sharing his reality, Michael Huntsman for real friendship, Todd Aadland for clarity in a sea of ambiguity, Rayna Madero for drive, unnamed Macon College professor for discouraging me from attending college, and for every human that actually believes we are all given a fair shot in life from the start – keep reading.

iv

The Quechan live well through my mom’s final thoughts when I asked her about interviewing our tribe she declared, “Be careful what you ask and be prepared to hear nothing.”

v

Abstract

The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal Language

This study examined the common essence of language restriction and then resurgence among Quechan Native American elders. The data suggests that Quechan elders’ sense of culture and identity was influenced by speaking the native language.

Bourdieu’s work on language and power were supported as socially constructed means of communication. Findings from this study provided empirical support for Hatch’s

Cultural Dynamics model. Erikson’s work on identity was also supported with additional suggestions made to expand his final stage of psychosocial development for the Quechan

Native American.

This research primarily focused on the individual level of analysis and provided practical application for the constructs of language, culture, and identity. In addition, this research also provided theoretical contributions for identity while embracing the existing body of knowledge. The research question, “How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity?”was addressed through ten interviews with elders of the Quechan Native American Tribe.

Three distinct findings emerged from data gathered in this research. The first major finding indicated that language is a means of survival for the Quechan elders who forms much of their current reality on historical knowledge. The second finding suggests that the identity of Quechan elders is under reconstruction through the resurgence of the Quechan language and subsequent legitimization of that linguistic symbol. Lastly, the Quechan elders may be realigning their individual view of culture

vi

based on a combination of long-standing tribal knowledge and documentation presented by the dominant culture.

This study suggests a need to draw stronger theoretical connections between the constructs of identity and culture. On the individual level of analysis, culture and identity form and reform constantly to emerge as new entities. However, as this research has suggested, the individual may greatly influence the group’s fundamental ideas of culture and identity.

vii

Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Abstract ...... vi

List of Figures ...... xi

List of Tables ...... xii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Overview ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 3

Purpose and Research Question ...... 4

Statement of Potential Significance ...... 5

Conceptual Framework ...... 7

Summary of Methodology ...... 10

Limitations ...... 12

Definition of Key Terms ...... 13

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 15

Introduction ...... 15

Description and Critique of Scholarly Literature ...... 15

Language ...... 15

Culture ...... 29

Identity ...... 40

Inferences for Study ...... 54

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 57

Overview ...... 57 viii

Theoretical Perspective ...... 57

Research Questions ...... 58

Methodology ...... 59

Research Design ...... 60

Data Collection and Population ...... 61

Interviews ...... 62

Verification Procedures ...... 63

Subjectivity Statement ...... 64

Data Analysis and Interpretation ...... 65

Human Participants and Ethics Precautions ...... 67

Chapter 4: Results ...... 69

Context of Study ...... 69

Participants ...... 70

Findings ...... 75

Language ...... 77

Identity ...... 87

Culture ...... 94

Emergent Findings and Themes ...... 102

Themes ...... 107

Emergent Theme 1 ...... 107

Emergent Theme 2 ...... 107

Emergent Theme 3 ...... 108

Emergent Theme 4 ...... 109

ix

Emergent Theme 5 ...... 110

Emergent Theme 6 ...... 111

Summary of Chapter ...... 111

Chapter 5: Interpretations, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... 113

Discussions of the Conclusions ...... 116

Conclusion 1 ...... 116

Conclusion 2 ...... 118

Conclusion 3 ...... 122

Contributions and Recommendations ...... 126

Contributions to Theory ...... 126

Recommendations for Practice ...... 128

Recommendations for Future Research ...... 131

Summary ...... 135

References ...... 137

Appendix A: Native American Languages Act of 1990 ...... 146

Appendix B: Introduction Letter to Participants ...... 153

Appendix C: Interview Protocol ...... 156

Appendix D: Research Consent Form ...... 159

x

List of Figures

1.1 Conceptual Framework ...... 7

2.1 Ravasi and Schultz ...... 18

2.2 Schein’s Levels of Organizational Culture ...... 31

2.3 Hatch’s Cultural Dynamics Model ...... 32

2.4 Erikson’s Eight Stages of Man ...... 45

5.1 Proposed Enhancement to Erikson’s Model ...... 122

5.2 Enhancement to Cultural Dynamics Model ...... 126

xi

List of Tables

3.1 Moustakas (1994) Sequential Process ...... 66

4.1 Attribute Table of Research Participants ...... 70

4.2 Bridge to Theory Summary ...... 74

4.3 Descriptive Coding Summary ...... 75

4.4 Language ...... 78

4.5 Identity ...... 88

4.6 Culture ...... 94

4.7 Additional Responses ...... 100

4.8 Coding Results by Sub-Question ...... 103

4.9 First and Second Cycle Coding Results ...... 104

4.10 Emergent Themes ...... 106

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview

While documenting the existence of Native American tribes in the lower

Colorado region of the United States, A. Kroeber (1920) noted a group of indigenous people who called themselves Kwichyana or Kuchiana. He suggested that their tribal member count was about 3,000 at the time. This group, now referred to as the Quechan

Native American Tribe, is one of many militarily conquered indigenous groups native to the southwestern part of the United States. Pronounced “Kwatsáan”, as late as 1965 the tribe was recognized as having maintained portions of their cultural identity in spite of over several hundred years of struggle (Stewart, 1965). In order to keep its culture alive, the Quechan people maintained sections of their tribal identity with shared language through stories and songs. As a testament to the strength of language, many researchers recognize it as a key ingredient of culture. Berger and Luckmann (1966) agreed that,

“language is the most important sign system of human society” (p. 36). They also suggested that a common understanding of language is necessary for the most basic understanding of everyday human life.

According to Cordasco (1969), the enactment of the Bilingual Education Act of

1968, as part of the Civil Rights Act, recognized that bi-lingual children had been

“neglected by American schools” (Cordasco, 1969, p. 75). Passing of the Act ensured that seventy-seven public school agencies in twenty-seven states were allowed to submit requests for funding under the Act. This request was allowed based on analysis that determined where a high amount of bi-lingual children resided. The Act proposed to

“cultivate in this child his ancestral pride, to reinforce (not destroy) the language he

1

natively speaks, to cultivate his inherent strengths, to give him the sense of personal identification essential to social maturation” (Cordasco, 1969, p. 75). The government made efforts at that time to begin preservation efforts focused on maintaining the cultural roots of bi-lingual children. Years later, the United States Government continued its efforts in clarifying the unique conservation needs of the Native American.

In 1990, the United States Government recognized the necessity to preserve indigenous languages and cultures: that year, Congress passed the Native American

Languages Act. Chang (2005) noted that, at that time, Congress had recognized there was no clear Federal policy on the treatment of Native American Languages, “which has often led to acts of suppression and extermination of Native American languages and culture” (Chang, 2005, p. 226). An extract from the Act illustrates the Congressional recognition of preserving Native cultural languages (note: the complete text is at

Appendix A):

The traditional languages of native Americans are an

integral part of their cultures and identities and form the

basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of

Native American cultures, literatures, histories, religions,

political institutions, and values

When a culture loses its language, the dominant culture has reign to re-interpret the subordinate language as it sees fit (Bourdieu, 1991). This act of interpretation is recognized as symbolic power and present when another group attempts or succeeds at eradicating a culture’s language. Bourdieu also argued “the relations of communication par excellence – linguistic exchanges – are also relations of symbolic power in which the

2

power relations between speakers or their respective groups are actualized” (p. 37). This form of power is present as relationships between those persons’ or groups exercising power and those realizing the same power take place (Bourdieu, 1991).

Statement of the Problem

The Quechan Native American tribe was militarily conquered in 1852 (Forbes,

1965) and shortly afterward a systematic effort was made by the United States

Government to stop tribal members from speaking their native language (Morgan, 1889).

Regardless, for more than one hundred years the Quechan tribal members continued to speak, teach, and use their native language among the tribe. Today, some tribal elders know English as a second language because they were raised in homes where the

Quechan language was the sole language spoken. The United States Government’s passage of the Native American Languages Act (1990) allowed indigenous tribes to begin publically teaching, speaking, and writing down their native languages (Title 1, United

States Code, 1990).

Since at least 1852, the Quechan tribe and its people have managed to keep their language alive by hiding its teaching and use. This acquiescent form of survival could have affected tribal member identity, the result of which is partially illuminated today as high levels of poverty. For example, Lee (2007) explained that students attending school near the Navajo reservation referred to other students whose primary language was

Navajo in a derogatory manner. She also explained that the more rural Navajo speaking people were synonymously understood as those tribal members living in poverty.

According to the 2000 United States Census, the Quechan Native American Tribe is comprised of 2,146 members (U.S. Census, 2003). This is a fractional number when

3

compared to the Census records that state 1,895,160 Americans indicated that they are

Native American (US Census, 2003). The Quechan Tribe shares many of the socio- economic woes experienced by other tribes across the country. The poverty rate on the

45,000 acre Quechan Reservation, according to the 2008 Southern California

Association of Government Report, was 34% of the 2,378 population updated by the report. The impact of tribal poverty is understood best when compared to the state and local levels, as described below.

Hale (1992) noted that language loss in the modern period “is part of a much larger process of loss of cultural and intellectual diversity in which politically dominant languages and cultures simply overwhelm indigenous local languages and cultures, placing them in a condition which can only be described as embattled.” (p. 1). According to the Southern California Association of Government’s (2008) report, California’s poverty rate in 2000 was 14.2%, while the state of Arizona’s was 13.9%. By contrast, the poverty rate for the city bordering the reservation, Yuma Arizona, was 14.7%.

Additionally, 34% of the reservation’s population falls below the poverty line established by the United States government. While it is not reasonable to suggest that one event caused this level of poverty, the forbidden use and looming loss of a culture’s language could influence changes to its culture and identity.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain greater understanding of the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity. If common spoken language was suppressed within a group, organization, or tribe the understood meaning of its individual and collective identity

4

would likely be different. This study explored the shared phenomenon experienced by tribal members as their native language, once predominantly used for communication among the tribe, was restricted from use – and how subsequent resurgence of the native language influences its member’s culture and identity. To gain greater understanding of this phenomenon, the constructs of language, culture, and identity were utilized to observe this developmental course.

In order to gain greater understanding of the enabling influence that the 1990 resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity, the shared lived phenomenological experiences of several tribal members’ were examined. It was not well understood what influence a legitimate native language had on tribal member’s identity and sense of. This study sought greater clarity of that phenomenon.

This study’s overarching research question: How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity? Additional questions that complement the primary research question are:

1. What are the shared experiences of using a forbidden language?

2. How does being able and encouraged to speak the Quechan native language

affect how tribal members see their identity?

3. How do tribal members see their culture differently now that the language can be

taught and publicly spoken?

Statement of Potential Significance

Culture can show its presence in many ways within an organization. Jargon, stories, language, how people dress, the layout of architecture, and even humor are forms of culture (Martin, 2002). As Martin described, language is one of several ways to

5

identify culture. The significance of this qualitative study contributes on two levels: theoretical and practical. On the theoretical level, the presence or suppression of a common language influences member’s ideas of culture and identity. The phenomenological research of this study employed interviews focused on describing what all participants have in common, as they experience the phenomenon of native language reintroduction or legitimization into the culture. While much of the Quechan Native language is certain to have been changed or lost over time, the foundation of the language has survived. By gaining greater understanding of this influence, contributions can be made to the theoretical mainstream. Gaining greater understanding of the influence that language resurgence has on tribal culture may provide a new lens focused on member culture and identity.

Practically, greater understanding of the influence that language has on culture and identity could provide greater applicable education possibilities for organizations experiencing language suppression and then resurgence as it seeks to maintain and form identity. Katz and Kahn’s (1966) open systems theory focuses on the relationship between environment and structure. The Quechan tribe would have operated as an open system seeking input from the internal and external environments, and when a restriction was placed on its native and common language, its structural integrity would likely have been compromised. An indigenous tribe, as with any other open system, seeks to import energy from the environment to sustain itself (Katz & Kahn, 1966). If common language was suppressed within a group, implications from this research could provide new perspectives for an organization’s survival and understanding of collective experience surrounding language, culture, and identity. The spoken word is extremely powerful in

6

meaning and according to Talcott Parsons “creates a handle upon which to hang the experience” (Bluth, 1982, p. 6). If experiences were unable to have a word or symbol attached to them, tribal members and groups may lose some of the foundational tools required for the construction of meaning. Sense making is required when a life-altering experience occurs (Weick, 1992) such as the restriction of a common language. Weick also suggested that the process of sense making is usually caused by an extreme event and those persons seeking to make sense of that situation are often afraid to tell others out of fear that no one will believe their story.

Conceptual Framework

This research study was designed to examine tribal member’s culture and identity as native language resurgence occurred within the culture. Figure 1.1 illustrates the conceptual framework with the three central constructs of language, culture, and identity.

Figure 1.1

Conceptual Framework

The 1990 Native American Languages Act helped to publically legitimize the teaching and use of the Quechan Native language. This research utilizes the theoretical

7

lens constructed by Bourdieu (1991), which suggested that power determines the language that is used. The construct of culture focused on the work of Hatch (1993) who built upon Schein’s (1985) elements of culture by developing a dynamic culture model suggesting culture is not a single item but rather is formed using an interpretivist lens where culture is constructed in dynamic relationships. Identity is viewed through the lens of Erikson (1950), who suggested that at no single moment in time is identity whole, but rather an ongoing perspective that constantly changes throughout the life of a human.

Tribal members gather shared meaning with individual and collective experiences, both around and within the boundaries of their common language. Sense making is required when language is used to construct meaning, when language is suppressed, and once again as it is reintroduced as legitimate.

Language. Bourdieu (1991) suggested that linguistic theory, according to both

Chomsky and Saussure are adequate in that they position directly with the speaker- listener relationship. He also suggested few have challenged this perspective on language to date. Bourdieu suggests that language is the result of economic and social power. His perspective on language was based on market conditioning and the value of the language considered by the dominant party of the time. According to Bourdieu the dominant party, among all others within the community, required one mode of expression. This imposition forced the legitimate language upon everyone. He continued by suggesting it was the force that had to be unified to support an economic marketplace that he termed was the result of a “linguistic community” (p. 46).

Another group also recognizes this force or dominance as well. Hatch (1997) positioned that feminists understood and recognized this exercised force. Hatch

8

suggested that “feminists recognize a new dimension of power stretched between two poles of action: action that is produced as the result of pressure from those in positions of authority and action that is undertaken through one’s own authority” (p. 292). This recognition of power forms a key element to build upon Hatch’s cultural dynamics theory and its recognition that culture is an interpretive product formed from voluntary or dominant relationships (Hatch, 1993). Culture is explained further, below.

Culture. Hatch (1997) explained the idea of culture through the lens of power by stating, “it is through this structuring of communication, relationship, and information that top management is provided the legitimate authority to use organizational power to set goals, make decisions and direct activities” (p. 283). Hatch’s (1993) position of culture extended beyond Schein’s portrayal of cultural elements. Schein’s (1985) levels were labeled: level 1 (known as artifacts) which are visible and assume physical space in the environment, level 2 (values) which include core beliefs and are testable within the environment, and level 3 (basic underlying assumptions) which are ideas within the culture that become completely taken-for-granted as reality within a cultural group. She proclaimed that culture is dynamic and should include symbols with Schein’s elements, and proposed that culture should be less centrally focused and more relational (1993).

Hatch (1993) suggested that relationships are the focus of her Cultural Dynamics Model.

This foundation of relational culture provides a key element in the continuously evolving perspective of Erikson’s view on identity, discussed in the next section.

Identity. Erikson, according to Hoare (2012), “developed distaste for his concept of identity because it was so frequently misused” (p. 1). His ideas on identity included a perpetual development stream where at no specific time would someone be able to say,

9

“this is who I am” (Erikson, 1950). To do so, in Erikson’s eyes, meant that the person had stopped being a person and his attentiveness to growth had completely stopped

(1950). His developmental perspectives are grounded in psychoanalytic theory, but he rejects the Freudian notion that personality is fixed by early childhood experiences alone, and extends the stages of human development to adolescence, adulthood, and old age. He recognizes the influences of culture and history and refuses to be confined by the reductionistic analyses and strict rules of interpretation (Slater, 2003).

Summary of Methodology

This study used a qualitative phenomenological research approach to gain greater understanding of the lived and shared experiences of the Quechan Native American

Tribe. According to Creswell (2007), phenomenological research describes the collective understanding for several individuals regarding a lived shared experience of a concept or a phenomenon. Like Creswell, Moustakas (1994) supported phenomenological research by suggesting that it provides a catalyst for understanding, the generation of new knowledge, and phenomena are the building blocks of human science. This was achieved by understanding the shared experiences of what and how the phenomenon was experienced (Moustakas, 1994). Description of the phenomenon alone is not sufficient; a researcher using the phenomenological method seeks to make an interpretation of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007).

This research inculcated a theoretical perspective of interpretivism, which is embedded in the foundation of symbolic interactionism (Crotty, 1998). While the researcher provided epoche or bracketing based on Moustakas (1994) transcendental phenomenology, according to Van Manen (1990) bracketing is not possible to employ as

10

part of an interpretive study. Therefore, the researcher bracketed only the experience surrounding language restriction, legitimization, and attempted to bind any preconceived perceptions. According to Moustakas (1994), bracketing is required when using a phenomenological research method. While this method is the first step in phenomenological reduction where the researcher sets aside, as much as possible, any preconceived experiences about the research body, it was not entirely possible in this research. A subjectivity statement was used to provide a clear focus on the researcher’s involvement and interpretations.

Population. The researcher selected ten Quechan tribal elders, typically adults beyond the age of 60, who experienced the Quechan language used in their home prior to the 1990 Act. Five tribal members selected were female and five were male. None of the selected participants was required to speak fluent Quechan; however, all of those interviewed were chosen from elders who use basic and commonly used conversational

Quechan words while fluently recognizing the language when used around them.

Data Collection and Analysis. All interviews were conducted on the Quechan

Native American reservation in Winterhaven, California. To analyze the results of the interviews, coding of each interview was conducted and analyzed. Data gathered through structured interviews were used to understand the individual experiences of each tribal member. As Geertz (1973) described, “Behavior must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through the flow of behavior – or more precisely, social action – that cultural forms find articulation” (p. 17). Thick description, described by Geertz

(1973) as, “culture is richly portrayed by those experiencing it” (p. 27) was used to capture the common experience.

11

Limitations

The basic assumption of this study was that language influences culture and identity at the individual level of analysis. This study searched for the influences that language has on culture and identity of the Quechan Native American Tribal members.

The research disregarded the causes and effects of other cultural elements suggested by

Schein (1985) as basic underlying assumptions and artifacts. In addition, this study did not attempt to gain an understanding of non-Quechan people and their perspectives of the influence language had on the culture and identity of the tribe. Using Crotty’s (1998) epistemological perceptive of constructionism, whereby meaning is constructed through interaction between subject and object, this study assumed that meaning will be changed through language resurgence and legitimization. Meaning will be reconstructed as language influences culture and identity of the tribal members. The following limitations are present within the research study:

1. Researcher Involvement: the researcher is a member of the Quechan Tribe. Based

on Crotty’s (1998) definition, a theoretical perspective of interpretivism (1998)

will be used and with a foundation of Mead’s symbolic interactionism, according

to Van Manen (1990) bracketing is not possible to employ as part of an

interpretive study. However, bracketing occurred regarding the experiences of

language legitimization because the researcher does not speak fluent Quechan and

is not a tribal elder. Therefore, the researcher provided in Chapter 3 a subjectivity

statement acknowledging this limitation and followed prescribed methodology,

method, and research rigor to provide empirical implications.

12

2. Quechan Language: another critical limitation is the use of a single Native

American tribe who speak the Quechan Native language. Their experiences

allowed for implications to be made but are not promoted as generalizable beyond

the study for that tribe.

3. Phenomenology: the use of phenomenology itself has some limitations.

According to Maxwell (2005), while this type of research is internally

generalizable, suggesting generalizations can be made about the internal group

itself, they are not externally generalizable. He suggested that phenomenological

research may provide “an account of a setting or population that is illuminating as

an extreme case or ideal type” (p. 115).

Delimitation

The research was delimited by interviewing only Quechan Native American

Tribal Members who have lived in homes where the Quechan language was used daily.

Ten participants were selected from within the Quechan Tribal elder population. Of the selected participants, five were male and five were female. All interviews were conducted on the Quechan Native American Tribal reservation land located in

Winterhaven, California.

Definition of Key Terms

 Culture – “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behavior

acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of

human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts: the essential core of

culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and

especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be

13

considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further

action” (A. Kroeber & Kluckholn, 1952, p. 181).

 Identity – the accrued (human) confidence that the inner sameness and continuity

prepared in the past are matched by the sameness and continuity of one’s meaning

for others, as evidenced in the tangible promise of a career (Erikson, 1950, p.

261,); in this research noted as individual identity of Quechan tribal members.

 Language - "Language is the learned system of arbitrary vocal symbols, by

means of which human beings, as members of a society, interact and

communicate in terms of their culture" (Trager, 1972).

 Native Language – symbolic interactions as relations of communication

implying cognition and recognition (Bourdieu, 1991); language spoken by

participants known as Quechan.

 Quechan Native American Tribe - located in Winterhaven, California, an

indigenous tribal nation consisting of, according to the Southern California

Association of Governments Report (2008), 2,378 tribal members. For this

research, the Quechan Tribe may also be referred to as ‘Yuma’ based on the

proximity of the city Yuma, Arizona which lies immediately across the Colorado

River from the tribal reservation.

 Tribe – a social division within a traditional society consisting of a group of

interlinked families or communities sharing a common culture and dialect (New

World Encyclopedia, 2009).

14

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The first section of this chapter provides a scholarly critique of the literature on language, culture, and identity. Sources of language literature emanate from Bourdieu’s

1991 work on language and symbolic power (1991). This illuminates Bourdieu’s radical humanist perspective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) that suggests power defines what language exists for a community (Bourdieu, 1991). The construct of culture focuses on the work of Hatch (1993) as she extended and built upon Schein’s (1985) elements of culture by developing a dynamic culture model. Finally, the identity construct surrounds the seminal work of Erikson’s (1950) theory of identity.

The purpose of conducting a scholarly critique of the literature is to gain greater understanding of the relationship that language has on culture and identity. Indices used while searching The George Washington University library system include queries into databases such as: JSTOR, ABI Inform, PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Academic Search

Complete. Queries used to gather and review scholarly literature within these databases included search criteria of language, culture, and identity. To hone the literature, three additional indices were used which were Native American, influences, and Quechan.

Description and Critique of Scholarly Literature

Language

Bourdieu’s (1991) work on language and symbolic power suggested that language was socially constructed. His novel approach suggested that language was neither statically held nor genetic in nature; rather, it was generatively developed, based on history, and evolved due to social construction (1991). While Bourdieu’s work on

15

language gave credence to sociological language interaction, making sense of the social interaction was required. As suggested by Schwandt and Marquardt (2000), a traditional approach to sense making, bounded by psychology and sociology, leaves the practitioner with only partial understanding of the value of sense making as an essential foundation for human learning. In order to understand the fundamentals of the society surrounding human kind, sense must be made of the condition.

Sensemaking of Language. Weick’s (1992) introduction to sense making suggested that making sense of a situation is needed most when humans experience a life event that they have difficulty understanding. This difficult event is usually extreme and those seeking to make sense of the situation are afraid to tell others out of fear that no one will believe their story. The suppression and resurgence of speaking the Quechan Tribal language would fit this criterion of a life-changing event for both individual members and tribal society. To elaborate the need for making sense of this life-changing phenomenon,

Weick’s ideas connect strongly with Meads’ (1934) symbolic interactionism:

Because symbolic interactionism derives from the work of Mead,

and because Mead was adamant that mind and self arise and

develop within the social process, to use the images of symbolic

interactionism is to insure that one remains alert to the ways in

which people actively shape each other's meanings and sense

making processes” (Weick, 1995, p. 41).

Weick (1995) went on to suggest that sense making requires discourse, talk, and conversation “because this is how a great deal of social contact is mediated” (p. 41).

16

Based on his seminal ideas on sense making, the forced suppression and subsequent lack of a commonly used language would alter tribal member’s identity.

According to Weick (1995), words and their uses matter to a larger group or collective before they matter to ones’ self. He illuminated Mead’s idea that the mind is preceded by society (Weick, 1995). However, as important as words are to sense making, Weick (1995) stated that they fail to elicit description due to the continuous behaviors exercised by subjects. Words matter and the sharing of those words suggest a collective form of understanding. Ravasi and Schultz (2006) used sense making to form criteria that helped explain collective or organizational identity.

Both the institutional and collective perspectives are identified as theoretical elements used to form Ravasi and Schultz’s (2006) organization threats model to identity.

The social actor’s hold a shared understanding or a “set of emotionally laden, stable, and enduring self-descriptions or characterizations” (p. 435). The collective perspective or social constructionist view suggest “organizational identity resides in shared interpretive schemes that members collectively construct in order to provide meaning to their experience” (p. 435). As illustrated in figure 2.1, “you need both to allow for organization identities to arise from sense making and sense giving through which members periodically reconstruct shared understanding and revise formal claims of what the organization stands for” (p. 436).

Figure 2.1

Ravasi and Shultz (2006) Identity Threats Model

17

Note: Adapted from “Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture” by Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M., Academy of Management Journal, 2006, pp. 433-458.

While language is used to connect culture and identity within this research, sense making provides an additional lens between the constructs of culture and identity.

Language forms the communication glue between tribal members: by speaking a common language, the tribe facilitated meaning-making as it continuously reformed individual member’s culture and identity.

As Silverman (1970) discussed his ideas on action theory, he identifies four attributes. Silverman’s steps include: a) action evolves out of meanings that define social reality; b) shared orientation becomes institutionalized and is socially sustained by continual reaffirmation of action; c) meaning, and subsequent action, are changeable through social interaction; and most importantly for this research; d) social reality is defined through language, and this language helps to provide categories which allows people to distinguish specific experiences. While action theory is not the focus of this research, item number four suggests a strong relationship between language and meaning.

18

Language and Habitus. Bourdieu (1991) formed his theories on the ideas of habitus (1991). Habitus is defined by the editor, John B. Thompson, of Bourdieu’s 1991 work as, “a set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways” (p.

12). These dispositions are formed first by a process noted as inculcation. Defined as mundane early childhood experiences, the process of inculcation turns typical and repeatable events into what Schein (1985) would label as level three culture or basic assumptions.

Beyond inculcation, Bourdieu’s (1991) foundation of habitus is labeled as structured, durable generative, and transposable. Constructed by the economically dominant community, habitus forms the ingrained abilities of the individual that is based partially on individual history and the current social setting. Bourdieu suggested that childhood experience and the social environment constructed to form a connection that individuals associated with unique words and symbols. These specific words and symbols helped to create reality within a community. The use or non-use of these words or symbols indicates the exhibition of a larger community based power. This power, known as symbolic power to Bourdieu, was stated to be that “invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it” (p. 164).

According to Bourdieu (1991), symbolic power is a power that must be recognized as legitimate by those surrounding it and it is this power that has the ability to change the vision of one’s world. This is an equivalent force much like that of a physical or economic force that by an almost magical power is used by those in control and ultimately accepted by those who submit to it. This form of power carries with it the

19

ability to alter society while forging a new transformative community armed with the ability to command communication.

Habermas (1981) theory of communicative action suggests that language is the repository of the cultural values and norms of the language community to which it pertained. Language provided structure to individual consciousness. Rationality was expressed through language while collective thought was formed as individuals shared language between one another. This form of shared language allowed for the exchange and sequential construction of experiences among those sharing a common language.

This shared language, if considered the initial language learned by the speaker is labeled as native language . From this basis, Habermas suggested that language forged social relationships by building a common experiential base for those that shared a common language (1981). Habermas, like Vygotsky, was not the only seminal theorist that believed language was communal and impacted relationships and meaning.

Vygotsky’s (1986) work on the psychology of children exemplified the importance of language and development of the individual. While his work helped to explain individual development with the use of native language, his research served to provide another key attribute. Vygotsky believed that foreign languages - those not native to the speaker - could be best learned by using the native language as a foundation

(1986). While the new language may have been learned best by utilizing the native language as a foundation, this assumes there is a choice to learning the foreign language and that the speaker chooses to learn the language.

Native American Language. Reyner (1992) stated that in 1816, Thomas J.

McKenney was appointed superintendent of Indian Trade. By 1822, there were fourteen

20

Native schools intended to civilize and make the Native productive. In the latter part of the 19th century, Thomas J. Morgan was appointed as Commissioner of Indian Affairs and he served in office from 1889 to 1893. His intentions were clearly on behalf of the

Government regarding language. He stated that the Government would devise and implement an education program structured as a system intended to convert Natives into

American citizens. He held the position that teaching of the English language was principal in order to meet this critical need. This created the on-reservation and off- reservation schoolhouses commonly known as boarding schools of the time (Reyner,

1992).

Lawrence (2006) stated that boarding schools were intended to mold the Native into civility by promoting the English language and the Christian religion. It was the preference of government leaders to send Native children away from their parents to school in hopes that distance and a governmental managed industrial form of education would allow the Natives to assimilate. Missionary schools were also established at the time to strongly promote religious alignment with Christianity and civility. Christian schools, along with government run schools, were required to follow Federal Policies of the time such as English-only instruction and served to completely disregard tribal values

(Coleman, 1999). Conquering of the Native American was persistent from military dominance through the forced adoption of the European form of civility.

Bourdieu’s (1991) work on language and symbolic power suggests that only when building a nation does it become “indispensible to forge a standard language” (p. 48).

Bourdieu’s words were used literally, as the “discovered land” of what is now called the

United States was militarily conquered and settled by early Europeans. As indigenous

21

languages seek to remain alive, there are currently greater than 6,900 known living languages in the world and half of those could be extinct within one hundred years

(Hinton, 2001). For the Native American populace, there are 154 indigenous American languages that are still spoken within the United States and it is estimated by Estes (1999) that by the year 2050 only twenty of those languages will still be spoken. Peacock’s

(2006) words resonate as he proclaims, “Native American languages, like Native

American people, are truly imperiled, but they have not vanished” (p. 147).

Erikson (1950) visited the Dakota Native Americans in 1942. As he studied the development of children on the reservation, he noted that “the language usually taught first is the old Indian one” (p. 157). He stated that the development of children was not rushed and basic functions of communications were not forced.

A great attempt was made to force Native Americans to stop speaking their language immediately with the introduction of Europeans and this force had a significant impact on the indigenous people of the land. As stated by Gover (2000), then Assistant

Secretary of Indian Affairs:

[T]his agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages . . . and

made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the

Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children

entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally,

psychologically, physically, and spiritually. Even in this era of self

determination, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs is at long last

serving as an advocate for Indian people in an atmosphere of

mutual respect, the legacy of these misdeeds haunts us. The trauma

22

of shame, fear and anger has passed from one generation to the

next, and manifests itself in . . . rampant alcoholism, drug abuse . .

. domestic violence, suicides . . . and violent death at the hands of

one another. So many of these maladies suffered today in Indian

country result from the failures of this agency. Poverty, ignorance,

and disease have been the product of this agency’s work.

Native language, even from the agency that forcibly removed its use from the indigenous people of the United States, was recognized as affecting both culture and the identity of the Native American.

Fishman (1991) studied language and developed eight stages of language loss by researching linguistic communities that were losing their language. At Stage one the language is used by higher levels of government and within higher education. Stage one is where language loss is most easily corrected. It is at Stage two where the language is used within local government and in mass media within the community. At Stage three, the language is used in places of business and by their employees in less specialized areas of work. At Stage four, the language is required and taught at the elementary schools at this level. At Stage five the language is used largely throughout the community, and at

Stage six there is some intergenerational cross usage of the language. At Stage seven, only elders continue to speak the language. At Stage eight, the most threatened languages, only a few of the elders spoke the language, and the language was on the verge of extinction. As will be shown in this study, it appears that the Quechan tribe is at

State seven. The challenge of finding elder or non-elder tribal speakers is exacerbated by the fact that some Native Americans do not see the value of documenting their native

23

language. As stated by Leap (1981), some tribes still refuse to participate in the process of documenting or sharing their ancestral language with non-tribal members.

Quechan Language. According to Morgan (1889), the United States

Government made a systematic effort to stop tribal members from speaking their native language. He believed that by forcing Native children to learn only English, it would better prepare them for the vocational opportunities available to them once out of school.

His ideas were extended as he stated, “ample provision should also be made for that general literacy culture which the experience of the white race has shown to be the very essence of education” (p. 95).

Bee (1981) stated that during the earliest part of the nineteenth century, the United

States Government considered indigenous people as foreigners. He also stated that while some Anglos of the time were in favor of “protracted extermination of the indigenous tribes”, most Americans did not support this method (p. 14). Instead, most favored the idea of placing Native people on dedicated land lots divided among the tribal members.

Bee proclaims that it was the collective hopes of most Anglos that, by learning the Anglo ways of civilization, Natives would eventually stop practicing their tribal ways. United

States Government leaders believed that Native people would both, biologically and culturally, be absorbed into American society over time, effectively removing the

Government’s perceived Indian problem.

By 1871, according to Bee (1981), all treaty making with Native tribes had stopped and the status of Indians was neither that of a foreigner nor that of a constitutionally protected citizen. Policy makers of the time believed by breaking up and assigning individual owners lands masses divided into smaller lots, this would “give the

24

Indians a taste of the pride of individual ownership” (p. 16). It seemed this attempt to force self-sufficiency upon the Native was not conducive to merging the cultures. Bee states that Natives were “divested of the symbols of their former distinctiveness, including language, dress, ritual, and any tribal cohesiveness that might be spurred by encouraging the authority of local Indian leaders” (p. 17).

In 1883, the United States Government officially formed the Quechan reservation on the east side of the Colorado River (Bee, 1981). In 1884, the Quechan tribe requested that the reservation be moved to the west side of the Colorado River and the Government agreed. This effectively moved the Quechan Reservation to the California side of the

Colorado River. Two years later in 1886, the Fort Yuma boarding school was established and the Catholic Church was awarded the contract of its administration.

Bee (1981) stated that although the Fort Yuma boarding school was eventually transformed into a day school in 1932, during the time of its operation, students were taught the basics of a European style education. Boys were taught vocational skills such as carpentry, tinsmithing, and shoemaking. Girls were taught ironing, cooking, and washing. He also points out that students were “discouraged from speaking their native tongue and taught to use English” (p. 20). This began the first wholesale effort made by the United States Government to restrict the Quechan language from being spoken by tribal children.

Bee (1981) noted that Quechan parents learned of violence in the schools and began hearing stories of “brutal punishment being inflicted on disobedient children by the schools staff” (p. 21). When this was realized, Quechan families began removing their children from the schools. The school superintendent at the time wrote to the

25

Commissioner of Indian Affairs and recommended that the tribe make certain that Native children attended school. Amelia Caster’s account, captured by Halpern and presented within Hinton (1984), shed light on what it was like to attend a boarding school and live away from home. She recounted:

…they also brought in some children from Somerton [town near

Winterhaven]. They brought [children of the] southern division of

the tribe, and a certain one, his hair was long and they clipped his

hair, and he cried…in the old days that’s what they did, a person

had long hair, and they grabbed him and cut it off until, now when

the white men’s hair is long, at last the Quechan are going back

again; if their hair is long again, is there any way they are going to

clip it again, at last?

When we were in school as children we didn’t go

anywhere. We went there and stayed and stayed and stayed …

when they entered us in school, we were there and stayed there

until finally when summer came on, at last we went back [home]

again.

Caster also spoke of boy that continuously ran away from the school. She narrated what happened when he was caught:

…they caught him and brought him and stood him up in the center

of the dining room, they locked really big irons onto the poor boy’s

leg, and there he stood, where he used to stand. He stood there

until [he said,] “All right, then, they’ll see that I do nothing but

26

keep running away.” At last when he got old they gave up on him,

and he stayed around here [home].

According to Langdon’s (1997) biography of Halpern, he (Halpern) studied under

A. Kroeber at the University of California in 1935. Although this time in history represented a challenge for many groups, the State of California allotted funds to help

Californians. As a result of this allotment, Native American tribes benefitted. This was labeled as the California State Emergency Relief Administration and included funding designed to teach Native Americans how to document their language and to their traditional literature. Halpern worked first with Natives on the Yuma [Quechan] Indian

Reservation and would again return in 1938 to continue his documentation of tribal languages and literature. The results of the work would culminate in his Ph.D. dissertation with the University of Chicago in 1947. This research began an effort to capture the history and language of the Quechan people. While this effort was supported by the State of California, it would be many years later before the Federal government would recognize the legitimacy of Native languages, which this research study focuses on due to the dominance of the United States Government. The effort to document these traditions was not always met with positive reinforcement.

K. Kroeber (1992) suggests some resentment exists against anthropologists on behalf of Native Americans to learn about their heritage through scientists. The Quechan tribe is no different, as evidenced by their frequent display of disdain and dismay as researchers attempt to document tribal rituals and native language. In 1913, Dixon and

A. Kroeber (1913) attempted to define families within and around California for Native

American languages based on sounds and phonetics. The result of this categorization

27

was the synthesis of five language families:; Penutian, Hokan, Ritwan, Iskoman, and

Yuki (1913). The Yuman (Quechan) language was classified as a Hokan language.

Among the notes taken by the researchers, they stated that the Hokan languages were quite splintered and there ‘is very little known’ about the Yuman part of the Hokan language family (p. 652).

Challenges have existed for many researchers as they have attempted to document and ultimately make sense of Native American languages. As noted in Miller’s (1990) linguistic research of two sisters belonging to the Jamul Band of Mission Indians near

San Diego, California, although the two speakers shared a common language, the language between them varied greatly. Littlebear (2004) added to this challenge by describing what the Navajo Native American felt about leaving behind the native language by proclaiming, “embedded in this language are the lessons that guide our daily lives. We cannot leave behind the essence of our being” (p. 20).

As with many other languages, the Quechan spoken language has changed over time. Bee (1963) noted that terminology used among the tribe was changing at the time.

Such words as uncle and cousin were being used in English to show kinship. He also stated that many young tribal members were unable to speak the Quechan native language fluently. Their children, he added, were being raised with an “almost entirely exclusive exposure to English” (p. 216). Bee pointed out that use of the Quechan language was reserved for conversations held between the tribal members and the recognized elders. This change in Quechan spoken communication suggested that it was being replaced by the English language.

28

Quechan tribal language has shifted over time as well. McCarty (2006) recognized that the social movement away from and replacement of the native language by a more dominant language over time, as a language shift. “Both language loss and language shift refer to linguistic, educational, and social-political issues that are central to indigenous self-determination” (McCarty, 2006, p. 32). The Quechan tribe’s language has shifted over time and the tribe has struggled to keep its language alive.

Culture

Franz Boas (1901) attempted to explain “the differences of the mental life of man in various stages of culture” (p. 282). In his work titled Mind of the Primitive Man, he made the following statement that this research uses as part of its foundational mortar:

We can trace the gradual broadening of the feeling of fellowship

during the advance of civilization. The feeling of fellowship in the

horde expands to the feeling of unity of the tribe, to a recognition

of bonds established by a neighborhood of habitat, and further on

to the feeling of fellowship among members of nations. This seems

to be the limit of the ethical concept of fellowship of man which

we have reached at the present time. When we analyze the strong

feeling of nationality which is so potent at the present time, we

recognize that it consists largely in the idea of the preeminence of

that community whose member we happen to be, --- in the

preeminent value of its language, of its customs and of its

traditions, and in the belief that it is right to preserve its

29

peculiarities and to impose them upon the rest of the world (Boas,

1901, p. 288.)

Boas completed this seminal work by structuring culture as an expression of the achievements of the mind. He summarized by pointing out that culture was not of the

“expression of organization of the minds constituting the community” (p. 289) and that these minds may in “no way differ from the minds of a community occupying a much more advanced stage of culture” (p. 289).

A. Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952) described culture from a relational perspective.

Their definition of culture is used to assist in framing this research. According to A.

Kroeber and Kluckholn, “culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts: the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further action” (p. 181). Both A. Kroeber and Kluckholn spent many years researching Native American groups and their perspectives on culture.

Organizational Culture. Culture can show its presence in many ways within an organization. Jargon, stories, language, how employees dress, the layout of architecture, and even humor are forms of culture (Martin, 2002). These outward displays of culture may certainly influence the patterns and ways organizations operate. Schein (1985) defined three levels of culture that included; level 1 (known as artifacts) which are visible and assume physical space in the environment, level 2 (values) which include core beliefs

30

and are testable within the environment, and level 3 (basic underlying assumptions) which are ideas within the culture that become completely taken-for-granted as reality within a cultural group. As illustrated in Figure 2-2, Schein places the levels in a serial pattern.

Figure 2-2

Schein’s Levels of Organizational Culture

Note: Adapted from Organizational culture and leadership by Schein, E., 1985, Copyright 1985 by Jossey-Bass Publications.

Hatch (1993) expanded upon Schein’s levels by adding symbols as shown in

Figure 2-3. Her addition of symbols to Schein’s model allowed for the “accommodation of Schein’s theory and symbolic-interpretive perspectives” (Hatch, 1993, p. 660).

Furthermore, Hatch placed the elements of culture, located within Schein’s model, plus the addition of symbols, to be less centrally focused and more relational. She suggested that relationships are the focus of her model as illustrated in Cultural Dynamics Model illustrated in Figure 2-3, below.

Figure 2-3

Hatch’s Cultural Dynamics Model 31

Note: Adapted from “The dynamics of organizational culture” by Hatch, M.J., Academy of Management Journal, 1993, pp. 657-693.

Hatch also suggested that by moving the focus away from the individual elements, the idea of culture moves from static to dynamic. As an attempt to more fully understand and appreciate the dynamic perspective, a review of Hatch’s Cultural

Dynamic Model is required.

While the model suggested by Hatch (1993) sought to enhance Schein’s model, she advocated that four processes serve to provide linkage between Schein’s elements.

These processes are labeled as manifestation, realization, symbolization, and interpretation. Each process is dynamic and may occur simultaneously within the culture.

This is important to understand since her dynamic model suggests that none of the processes stated can operate independently of the other. Hatch expanded upon the dynamic applicability of the elements by providing processes for each that create connections with the others.

Hatch (1993) used Schein’s (1985) three levels of culture to build upon by suggesting a combination with more symbolic-interpretive processes (p. 658).

Additionally, Hatch introduced the concept of dynamism into Schein’s model by first

32

adding symbols as a fourth recognized cultural element and then adding four relationships between the elements. It is with one specific process Hatch labeled as symbolization, which has relevance for this research. Hatch defined symbolization as

“culturally contextualized meaning creation via the prospective use of objects, words, and actions” (p. 673). The objects, words, and actions are translated (e.g., through communication) into “symbols, the dynamic constellation of which constitutes the symbolic field of culture.” (p. 673). Words, according to Hatch, are translated into symbols that are then ultimately given meaning by the organization (or tribe in this research). If the organization has recognized words that are removed or forbidden from daily use, meaning-making would be influenced - and thereby culture would be influenced.

Researchers search for various ways to explain the details of an organization’s culture. Martin (2002) segmented basic theoretical assumptions in three ways. She suggested that culture can be operationalized by categorization of some basic cultural perspectives. To allow more focused attention or perspective on where to look for these cultural effects, Martin (2002) suggested three theoretical views on culture labeled integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. The following few paragraphs define what Martin states on the theoretical views of culture.

The integration perspective includes manifestations of culture that have mutually consistent interpretations (Martin, 2002). This perspective excludes ambiguity. General consensus is assumed to be present. Within this perspective variations from consensus and consistency are seen as problems for the organization. If the organization has cultural

33

manifestations that are inconsistently interpreted, the perspective is according to Martin, labeled as differentiation.

The differentiation perspective views inconsistencies within the organization as expected and even desirable. Martin (2002) explained that subcultures form with mutually agreed clarity and this collective understanding may be limited only to that subculture. As she described, as “an island in a sea of ambiguity”, differences may exist between various subcultures. These collective understandings may not even be present between the subculture and executive leadership where greater differences may be present.

The final perspective that Martin (2002) described is fragmentation. This perspective places ambiguity at the core of culture and states clarity is issue specific while consensus is transient. From within this perspective, ambiguity is seen as normal and should be an expected part of organizational life. Unlike integration which assumes there to be no ambiguity and differentiation that accommodates ambiguity between subcultures, the fragmentation perspective looks for paradoxical relationships. Based on

Martin’s perspectives and the research completed within the boundaries of this study, the fragmentation perspective is used as the theoretical lens while incorporating Meyerson’s definition of culture to apply Hatch’s dynamic linking process.

Native American Culture. According to K. Kroeber (1992),

The history of white-Indian relations may be divided Gallically, if

crudely, into three phases. From about the middle of October 1492

to about the middle of the nineteenth century was a period

predominantly of conquest and destruction of native peoples. The

34

next century may be described as the ethnological period, for in it

there were significant efforts to assure the survival, at least in the

form of documentary records, of Indian cultures. Around the middle

of this century, a resurgence began first in Native American

populations then in pride, self-awareness, and assertion of red

cultures as distinctively different from those of white society. This

resurgence has been steadily accelerating, and it seems inevitable

that American Indians will play an increasingly important role in

this country's life during the twenty-first century (p. 2).

Since the uninvited insurgence of Europeans onto Native lands, the culture of indigenous tribes has been changing. According to Castellano (2002), development of an indigenous groups’ knowledge is a community based, trans-generational endeavor,

“acquired through careful observation by many people over long periods of time” (pp.

23-24). K. Kroeber (1992) also suggested that this was “a process of duplicitous genocide, including the use of biological warfare-the deliberate infecting of Indians with diseases to which they were not immune” (p. 3).

Temporal aspects of Native American culture exist in many forms and can serve to function as reminders of ritualistic Native traditions. For example, Trippel (1889) noted that the Quechan Natives often celebrated feasts with song and games. These celebratory events could last several days while the crops were gathered. In modern times, these social gatherings known as pow-wows can also include tribal dances, activities, and songs (Schweigman, 2011). Sweat lodge ceremonies provide a cleansing tradition where tribal songs and rituals often play a part with drumming groups. These

35

musical events are presented very often with singing in the language of the specific tribe.

Culture between tribes can vary and can be considered as subcultures (Schwing, 2008).

However, there appears to be one common cultural practice that bridges many Native

American tribes: health, to a Native American, is spiritually and physically connected to nature (Schwing, 2008). This perspective suggests a connection between the physical elements that surround the body and the unseen presence of the spiritual world.

This research endeavored to add to the culture literature by gaining a greater understanding of individual culture and identity changes resulting from native language legitimization. The recognition of individual culture and identity changes could build upon Hatch’s and others dynamic view of culture. Hatch (1993) suggested future enhancements to her model by arguing the addition of both image and identity to give more focus on the dynamic nature of culture.

Quechan Culture. Forbes (1965) consolidated the works of many to form a single book titled, Warriors of the Colorado. According to Forbes (1965), Fort Yuma was erected in 1852 and the Quechan nation was placed nearby on a land reserved for the tribe by United States Government. Recognized as a militarily conquered people, they have survived and the Quechans have retained portions of their tribal identity.

According to Schaefer (1994), the lower Colorado region was inhabited by the

Native Americans at least 10,000 years ago. This is supported with early “prehistoric remains of this region, defined by the Paleoindian, Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and

Ethnohistoric periods” (p. 62). Harrington’s (1908) early accounts of Quechan people include the creation ceremony, as told by Tsuyukweráu, a Quechan story teller whose

36

English name was Joe Homer, which describes how Quechan Natives believe they were first created. Harrington (1908) summarized the story as:

The religion of the Yuma, like that of the other tribes of the Central

Group, is based on revelations received in dreams. Dreaming is

declared to be more real than waking. Every individual "can dream

vivid dreams;" and whatever is dreamed is believed either to have

once happened or to be about to happen. Only a few men, however,

dream proficiently and professionally. These are known as

"dreamers" (sumátc). They have power to reach in their dreams the

ceremonial house on the summit of Avikwaamé, a gigantic flat-

topped mountain thirty miles north of Needles, California, called

" Ghost Mountain" by the whites. There the dreamer finds

everything as it was in the mythic past. There he receives

instruction from Kumastamxo, the younger of the two great gods of

the Yuma. All singing and dancing ceremonies are taught by

Kumastamxo and his assistants on the top of that mountain, and

the dreamer of such a ceremony is bidden to teach the others

who are to participate. The various practices for curing the sick

may be learned there, and there only. Thus, "doctor" (kwasidhé)

and “dreamer" (sumátc) are synonymous. When a man dreams

myths, he usually dreams his way first to the top of that mountain,

and there perceives with his senses everything which is narrated in

the myth” (p. 326).

37

Another example of the continued Quechan belief system was presented by Forde

(1931) as he explained the Quechan connection with the owl as one of “reverence and awe” (p. 180). The tribe believes that the souls of the dead can present themselves as owls to the living and that the hooting of an owl signifies the presence of a dead soul.

This soul may be in search of a living companion. Some Quechan believe that the death of a person, immediately following the visit of an owl, can be attributed to the owl taking the living soul. This interpretation serves to explain how portions of Quechan culture hold elements of spirituality that are embedded within individual identity.

Miller and Bryant (2012 ) provided a modern scientific perspective of how people came to populate North America. Of note is that Miller’s co-author, Bryant, is a

Quechan elder. According to Miller and Bryant (2012), “the creation myth is central to

Quechan literature and culture. It tells how the people came into existence and explains the origin of their environment and their oldest traditions” (p. ii). An excerpt from Miller and Bryant (2012) gives more detail on how George Bryant explained the story:

38

Miller and Bryant (2012) explained that while Homer’s version of the creation story is slightly different to that of Bryant’s. They pointed out that it is this very difference that serves to add vibrancy to the Quechan literature. This literature serves to illuminate the continuing and dynamic culture of the Quechan people.

Forde (1931) extended the story of the Quechan by documenting the Kar’úk or tribal mourning ceremony. The Quechan Natives once widely believed that they, along with the Cocopa, Maricopa, and Kamya Natives, were created on the sacred mountain called Avikwaamé by the God Kukumat. This mountain is referred to today as Newberry

Mountain located near Needles, California (Forbes, 1965). The Quechan fought invaders from the east, believed also to be a band of Quechan. Although they lost the fight, they gained spiritual strength from the battle (Forbes, 1965). It is also believed that Kwikumat died and the mourning of his death began the mourning ceremony. According to Forde

39

(1931), this ritual is called Kar’úk and is held to celebrate his death. This celebration was held annually by the Quechan people to honor the dead and was attended by all tribal members (Bee, 1963). Forde points out that he was invited to attend a Kar’úk ceremony and found there to be a lack of defined roles for the leaders and attendees surrounding needed tasks. He proclaimed that “this vagueness as to the time and preparation for the

Kar’úk is in harmony with the general anarchy of the Yuma organization” (p. 223).

As Native American tribes have continued the struggle to keep their rituals alive and their land away from further absorption by the United States Government, sacred ritual ceremonies are being used to preserve and protect Native lands. The Kar’úk, for the Quechan Native people has been, and continues to be, a key event within its culture

(Yablon, 2004). Quechan people “for thousands of years have undertaken spiritual pilgrimages to these sites and conducted religious ceremonies known as Kar’úk, in which they have cremated their dead and assisted in bringing them to the next world” (p. 1623).

The culture of the Quechan Native American tribe dates back far beyond historic records. As chronicled above, a few glimpses of a past culture that was strong, independent, and vibrant continue today. However, these images carry with them constructed meaning influenced by a dominant power and internalized pressures. To understand the individual characteristics of the Quechan people, a deeper review of the literature on identity is required.

Identity

According to Erikson (1950), identity is an accumulative process: at no single moment in time is identity whole, but rather it is an ongoing perspective which constantly changes throughout the life of a human. During his work with childhood development,

40

Erikson suggested that identity changes over time. He suggested that any response to the question “who am I?” suggests that a single definition exists and this “would end the process of becoming itself” (Erikson & Newton, 1973, p. 109). As Erikson studied youth and childhood development, Hoare (2012) pointed out that “youth announce their solidarity via a shared language and dress to conform to like-minded peers. Such conformity helps them overcome what, to Erikson, was an inordinate self-awareness” (p.

8). Language assists in overcoming inordinate self-awareness (Hoare, 2012). This symbolic interaction with others serves to form the earliest ideas of what Mead (1934) defined as symbolic interactionism.

As Erikson (1950) developed his theory of identity, the foundational premise of identity can be linked to the work of Mead (1934). Mead believed that symbolic interactionism whereby symbols such as language were used to interact with others to form biological ideals that in turn helped to form identity. As Erikson developed his perspective on identity and its subjective development during adolescence, he formed the

“eight ages of man” suggesting that this view of man as an individual and their relationship to the external environment gave credence to the development of man.

Hoare (2012) pointed out that while Erikson’s work on identity was significant,

[he]developed a distaste for his concept of identity because it was

so frequently misused. He held that identity development is not at

an “achievement” or an unalterable accomplishment. He was

concerned that certain dimensions of identity had been

systematically excluded. To Erikson, three essential dimensions—

41

the unconscious, negatives, and society—were studiously

ignored.” (p.1)

Therefore, a review of Erikson’s eight ages of man is required to give exposure to the stages of human development.

Erikson’s Stages of Man. The first stage of Erikson’s (1950, 1963) eight ages of man is labeled “Trust versus Mistrust”, and it in this stage between the ages of birth and

1.5 years old where the infant interacts with the world orally. It is labeled as the trust stage because it is this period of human life where a human learns to request attention and food by way of crying. The caregiver will respond or not to the sounds from the child and this forms the basis of trust or mistrust within the infant.

Erikson’s (1950, 1963) second stage of human development, between the ages of

18 months and three years old , is labeled as “Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt.” This stage in childhood development is formed as a child learns muscular and personal control. It is this stage that children become less dependent on others for survival and begin learning more bodily self-control, walking skills, and communication with others.

It is this stage where language and meaning making take their greatest leap for the development of a human being. This growing sense of self-control, independence, and autonomy form future basis that define confidence. Subsequently, the seminal work of

Erikson (1950) states that it is in this early childhood period when a person learns to communicate with others as he seeks to continue the formation of his identity.

The third stage of development is “Initiative versus Guilt” (Erikson, 1950, 1963).

Within this stage between the ages of 3 to 6 years of age, children begin to exert control and power over their environment. Social functions, such as play, allow for outlets and

42

experimentation of this power. Success in this stage allows children to feel as though they can lead peers and have confidence with the external world. The opposite is true if a child fails within this stage, at which time he will begin exhibiting feelings of both guilt and shame.

Erikson’s (1950, 1963) fourth stage, “Industry versus Inferiority”, development from the ages of 6 to 12 allows the child to begin “gaining recognition by producing things” and “develops a sense of industry” (Erikson, year, p. 259). According Erikson,

“in all cultures, at this stage, children receive some systemic instruction” (p. 259).

However, he pointed out that his research on American Indians suggested that they did not learn exclusively from a designated system, but rather from adults and older children not necessarily appointed as special teachers. It is this stage that Erikson suggested that the “fundamentals of technology” (p. 259) are developed as the use of tools and weapons are used in a mimicking form of adults.

The fifth stage of Erikson’s (1950) “eight ages of man” is “Identity versus Role

Confusion.” During adolescence humans learn to explore different roles of the self while

“fighting battles within themselves” (p. 261) from earlier childhood. At this stage, the ego identity is formed and as Erikson pointed out, is equal to a greater sum of collective childhood experiences. During this time, adolescents tend to form groups or become clannish. This formation or grouping can serve to isolate those around by skin color, cultural background, or even dress. This can serve to help adolescents through a tough period or growth and can also serve to test fidelity of individuals within a group. He stated that this especially perverse testing can have appeal to some cultural types such as

“feudal, agrarian, tribal, or national” (p. 262) who are facing loss of their group identity.

43

Erikson’s (1950) sixth stage is “Intimacy versus Isolation” and within this stage of early adulthood, humans begin to explore their relationships with others. In this stage, the young adult seeks to merge his identity with others. He is prepared for intimacy and seeks to forge close relationships with others. It is at this stage that both the mind and the body work in tandem with one another. During this stage, if failure occurs for the individual to acquire the proper self of himself, he may ultimately experience “character problems” (p. 266) and have problems with acquiring his cultural style of “sexual selection, cooperation, and competition” (p. 266).

Stage seven (Erikson, 1950, 1963), known as “Generativity versus Stagnation” or middle adulthood between the ages of 35 and 60, is this time of life whereby the adult shares knowledge with the younger generation. This stage represents the period where

“mature man needs to be needed” (p. 266) and as Slater (2003) points out, “the survival of the human species depends on the willingness of parents to take care of children” (p.

57). Society supports this time for the adult and benefits from this period as much as the adult himself. Erikson surmised that within this stage should be included both

“productivity and creativity” (Erikson, 1950, p. 267) of the adult.

The final stage of Erikson’s (1950) “eight ages of man” is “Ego Integrity versus

Despair.” Known also as late adulthood, this stage of life focuses on life’s accomplishments and lost opportunities. During this period, man either fears death based on what he did not succeed in or acceptance because he did succeed at accomplishing.

Erikson argues that different cultures require that, “each individual, to become a mature adult, must to a sufficient degree develop all the ego qualities mentioned, so that a wise

44

Indian, a true gentleman, and a mature peasant share and recognize in one another the final stage of integrity” (p. 269).

In summary, Erikson (1968) viewed the development of man in a sequential form based on life years. His work with Native Americans challenged a “true gentleman’s” view of individuation as a key developmental stage within human development. This challenge lingered as his 1968 work suggested that there is a general assumption within many theories of identity development that suggests very little racial-ethnic identity development occurs before adolescence. To summarize, Erikson’s eight stages are illustrated at Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4

Erikson’s Eight Stages of Man

Note: Adapted from Childhood and Society by Erikson, E. H., Copyright 1950 by W. W, Norton Publications.

45

Mead (1934) labeled human language as imitation and suggested that it is more than just the feedback of sound. He proposed that both the sender and receiver of language were individually influenced while this imitation process transpired. According to Blumer (1969), Mead’s symbolic interactionism is defined as the “presentation of gestures and as a response to the meaning of those gestures” (p. 9). Blumer described

Mead’s formation by suggesting that as a human both sends and receives information, the receiver is required to make meaning of the intended gesture. Once both parties achieve the same meaning, understanding has occurred. As Mead’s interpreted thoughts by

Blumer suggest, understanding occurs once both sender and receiver agree on the meaning the gestures implied. If verbal communication were removed from the sender and receiver, one of Mead’s two forms of social interaction would be lacking.

Blumer’s (1969) interpretation of Mead’s symbolic interactionism suggested two definitions that included both the application of symbols and discussion of gestures.

Blumer renamed each as non-symbolic interaction and symbolic interaction. Non- symbolic interactions were those actions that were only reactionary where the receiver of the gesture sought only to mimic the sender. Blumer’s symbolic interaction implied that the act was being interpreted. While Blumer sought to gain greater understanding and build upon Mead’s writings, Denzin (1992) suggested that according to the interactionist language has been viewed as a window into a person’s life. The observed criticality of meaning and language suggests that Mead’s individual symbolic interactionism has an influence on the individual identity and culture of tribal members.

According to Blumer (1969), Mead acknowledges that group action is formed by the general structure of many individuals’ actions. By examining and then aligning the

46

‘what and why’ others in a group intend to act, individuals seek to make meaning with similar actions. In order for an individual to assume the role of another, he must ‘take the role’ of others. Role assumption can be that of an individual or group which Mead labeled as ‘the generalized other’. Mead suggests that an individual forms his own actions based on the interpretation of others actions. He asserted that this basic interpretation serves to act as the fundamental form of “group action in human society”

(Mead, 1934, p. 82). The identification of group action in society suggests a need for a dynamic lens that views identity from an interpretive and more dynamic perspective.

Native American Identity. Littlebear (1999) pointed out that the spiritual relevance embedded in language is very important to American Indians. Spirituality can be embraced to help give young Native Americans a sense of belonging, importance, and most importantly a sense of identity. Erikson’s (1950) work with the Sioux provided a unique view into the life of childhood identity and how culture helped to form childhood development. His view of primitive identity evolution was synthesized as he proclaimed that the Sioux’s image of man started and ended with their idea of a strong tribe. In our civilization the “image of a man is expanding” (p. 237). This process of individuation, as

Erikson described it, suggests the expansion into regions, nations, and continents was a means for “European man to seek economic and emotional safety in the form of new conquests” (p. 237). On the other hand, the primitive man “has a direct relationship with the sources and means of production” (p. 237). As “extensions of the human body” (p.

237), children not only take part in technical quests but also in magical (spiritual) endeavors. He noted that the expansion of civilizations has made it “impossible for

47

children to include in their ego-synthesis more than segments of society which are relevant to their existence” (p. 237).

Identity, according to Erikson, moves and perpetually forms during life.

However, Erikson (1968) did suggest an interesting idea regarding the development of racially-ethnic children. His assumptions linked many underlying theories of identity development to a basic understanding that very little racial-ethnic identity development occurs before adolescence. Ideas on Native American identity suggest varying perspectives on how the indigenous communities view identity.

Reardon and Tallbear (2012) note that the concept of whiteness has long held a strong attachment to property. Whiteness, according to Reardon and Tallbear, “figures as a rational civilizing project that creates symbolic and material value of use to all humanity” (p. S234.). This view suggested that whiteness “brings good things to all” (p.

S234). By positioning the view of whiteness in this way, Reardon and Tallbear argue that its assigned a value. As illustrated in the United States Declaration of Independence

(1776), Native people were viewed as savage deterrents to the acquisition of land by whites:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has

endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the

merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an

undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Reardon suggested that it was the concept of whiteness and its linkage to property that perpetuated the belief of “native peoples as incapable of developing the modern industrial state and its productive citizen, the property owning individual” (p. S235). It was this

48

belief in property ownership, previously found within European culture and the basic assumptions by white Americans of implied justice, which founded the idea that whiteness was permanently connected to property. This relationship, according to

Reardon, gave the rights to those possessing whiteness to control the legal meaning of group identity for indigenous people and other minority groups.

Sanders (1973) noted that Native Americans had suffered damage to their identity, literature, and religion. Eastman (1902), a Sioux Native, gave some detail of the

Native identity by sharing that Natives were unable to consider themselves superior to the animals around them, and that all among the tribe knew of their tribal creation stories and the history of their people. Eastman described the Native identity as one that was taught generosity and was expected to honor the poor among the tribe.

Quechan Identity. Bean (1992) synthesized a common view of California

Native Americans in 1992 as:

“There linger in the popular mind to this day many

misconceptions about the Indians of California - misconceptions

that they were a "simple" people, who gained their sustenance by

"digging" for tubers and were so egalitarian that chiefs had little

more power than anyone else; that they lacked any elaborate

technology and did not alter their natural environment; that they

rarely went to war; and that they are no longer a part of the

California landscape. These views, although incorrect, are seen so

often in the popular literature dealing with the Indians of California

49

that they have made it difficult for an accurate picture presented by

anthropologists, historians” (p. 303).

Taking lead from A. Kroeber’s work with the California tribes, Bean (1992) noted that while many tribal units had different forms of governing structures “the Mohave and

Yuma peoples living along the Colorado River developed true state systems. There, political unity was managed by a central authority” (p. 318).

Forbes (1998) challenged this widely accepted view many times by stating during his talks on “greatness of the indigenous mind” (p. 12) the following:

I have given many talks around the country on the theme of the

greatness of the indigenous mind. I have said that historically

Indians were a philosopher-people, a race of seekers after wisdom.

Perhaps no group of people anywhere as so universally valued

wisdom. One of the greatest aspects of this wisdom is, in my

opinion, the respect shown for self-determination both for

individuals and for collectivities.” (p. 12).

Continued research on the identity of the Quechan Native is narrow. Molesky-

Poz’s (1993) research on the reconstruction of personal and cultural identities of Native

Americans suggested that “as students are confronted with Native American telling of their histories and traditional and contemporary life ways, they face a deconstruction of their own worldviews” (p. 611). She advocated that by writing down the stories shared from generation to the next generation of Natives, “this articulation parallels a natural process of students' identity reconstruction as they complete a final stage of adolescence”

50

(p. 611). Her work with David Jackson, a Quechan Native born off the reservation in

1971, solicited the following response:

Like the white dove in a flock of brown doves, he was different.

But like the white dove, he was accepted as their equal. His hair

was as red as the sun. His eyes were as green as the algae on the

canal banks, and his skin was as white as the cotton in the fields.

He contains blood from the original Quechan, but his body is

cursed by the white man. Twenty years ago on the 14 day of

January in the year 1971, David Jackson was one of the first of

many Quechan children to be born off the reservation. The poor

health conditions of the local tribal hospital forced many to seek

medical attention at the new county hospital in Yuma, Arizona.

David was not born on the Quechan earth, but on the white

concrete. I have always understood that I look different from the

Traditional Quechan ... [David said] I never felt that I was not

accepted by family and their friends. Sometimes I feel left out of

spiritual and cultural experiences because I was not born on the

reservation or even lived on the reservation for a long period of

time” ( p. 615).

Erikson (1950) suggested that the identity formation of indigenous people forms with a basic understanding of the physical and spiritual world surrounding each tribal member. This duality can be viewed in the assignment of names within the Quechan tribe.

51

As previously noted, a few researchers have attempted to document and even understand the words used within Native tribes. Forbes (1931) studied the Quechan tribes in an effort to determine family lineage where possible. His findings in 1931 when questioning Quechan Natives as to why there was an absence of a sib (family) lineage name attached to people received a constant reply of “it’s just a name” (p. 145). Instead of the use of family lineage names, popular among many places around the world,

Quechan family names were of “totemic plants or animals” (Bee, 1963, p. 217). Sib lineage within the Quechan tribe served to form specific functions within the community

(Bee, 1963). These functions allowed for the continuation of the tribes sustenance by performing skills handed down by the fathers (Bee, 1963). By 1931, Forde reported that the young Quechan’s had all but stopped using the totemic family names within their community.

According to Bee (1963), familial respect was garnered based on age. This was true as long as the elder was mentally healthy enough to warrant the role of teacher. It was noted in Bee’s research that Quechan family members without the influence of older tribal members around them tended to be in trouble much of the time. While older

Quechan’s identity evolved into that of a respected elder as time progressed, men and women had specific roles within the tribe prior to reaching this age.

The father, according to Forde (1931), “cut his child's umbilical cord with a stone knife and underwent food taboos during the postnatal period” (p. 159). Bee (1963) observed that the father was expected to love his children but not become too close to them in case he was killed in a war expedition. The mother was expected to know both the skills or warfare and agriculture so that in the event of the father’s death, she could

52

raise the male child to be a warrior. Like that of a male, as the female aged in Quechan society, respect given to her was more pronounced as she aged and even served to trump that of a younger mother. Influence of the grandmother, because of the amount of time spent with the children, was significant. Recent research by Archuleta (2006) when gathering details from Native women and their sources of familial information supports this long-standing position within the Quechan tribe. Interviewed by Archuletta in 1996,

Yvonne Lamore-Choate (Quechan/Mojave Native) describes her grandmother as her

"rock, the one stable person in [her] life [she] could depend on” (p. 95).

Marriage and family practices, according to Bee (1963), included monogamous unions and polygyny. This form of polygamy is recognized as the practice of a man having more than one recognized partner. Bee suggested that the Quechan practice of serial monogamy and polygyny was uncomfortable for Europeans. Until 1941, common law marriages were accepted and after this date, legal marriages were required of tribal people to foster a lineage of land settlements from one generation to the next. The act of this dominant power served to change Quechan identity as it pertained to the family unit.

Until this point, children were taken care of by the mother’s family if the parents were unable to rear the children. As of 1941, Quechan families started to place children into foster homes instead of taking care of children as a unit as they had for thousands of years.

Identity, from the perspective of Erikson (1950), is formed over time. While many points in tribal life earmark significant events, the evolutionary process of Quechan identity formation can be witnessed in their current governing presence. From an early understanding of the Quechan ideas of governance, Bean (1992) stated that “the Mohave

53

and Yuma peoples living along the Colorado River developed true state systems” (p.

318). Within the Quechan tribe, a primary form of authority managed political unity.

Quechan identity, through the evolution of the tribe, is further recognized by the early assignment of totemic plant or animal names to the young in lieu of family names (Bee,

1963). Identity of the Quechan people is a cumulative state whereby the tribe seeks to remain alive while maintaining teaching and learning. Bee (1990) documented what one veteran Quechan politician stated regarding the constant revolving door or tribal leadership,

We Quechan’s try to get somebody to do better by tearing him

down-criticizing him. You whites, you try to get somebody to do

better by making him feel good, by praising him.

Inferences for Study

The literature cited in the chapter suggests that language has influence on culture and identity. As illustrated from the review of literature on the primary constructs of language, culture, and identity, implication can be made that the legitimization of language matters to the Quechan Native American Tribal people and how they see their culture and identity. This research added to the body of knowledge for the constructs outlined by including a tribal perspective of language suppression and subsequent influences on individual culture and identity.

Empirical work by Jensen, Malcom, Phelps, and Stoker (2002) on language and power relationships suggested that change within the boundaries of language usage should include the feminist perspective in future research. They stated that language used by males and females suggest different value streams outlining the idea of community.

54

These gender differences are important to note and while gender is not the focus of this research, the feminist perspective aligned closely with Hatch (1993) and Bourdieu’s

(1991) perspective on power add a different lens to the existing literature. The work by

Jensen et.al. (2002) aligned closely with Bourdieu’s perspective on power and view that language was a generative experience.

Hatch’s (1993) extension of Schein’s (1985) elements of culture suggested,

“culture rather than nature influences realization” (p. 686). She goes to state that the culture wheel illustrated in Figure 2-3 moves in both directions simultaneously representing “two wheels of interconnected processes, one moving forward, and one moving backward with reference to the standard concept of time” (p. 686). Hatch positioned the forward wheel as one constructing the physical world and the reverse flowing wheel as one representative of those processes constructing the “historical context from which members draw the meaning that imbues their lives and their geographies with significance” (p. 686). Hatch refused to distinguish individuals from their culture and it is from this position that she suggested future research expand the cultural dynamics model to include image and identity.

Regarding identity, Hoare’s (2012) extension of Erikson (1950, 1963, 1968), suggested that more research should be conducted that is focused on descriptive research, observational research, and case studies. Hoare (2012) offered that in future studies, identity should be “seen in its complete, undiminished nature” (p. 15). The phenomenological style of this research study searched for a common essence by seeking to understand if language has an influence on individual culture and identity. Collected

55

descriptive interviews of Quechan Native American elders added to a greater understanding of individual identity.

In summary, this research used language, as viewed from the sociological power- dominated perspective of Bourdieu (1990), to suggest a restrictive coalescent environment merges out of the need to survive. This is complimentary of Hatch’s (1993) interpretive perspective on culture and its dynamically creative emergence through human life. Both of these perspectives align with Erikson’ (1950) view of identity that suggests at no single moment is there a complete individual identity. The growth of identity is organic and ever-changing. According to both Hatch and Erikson and when placed within the structure of a power (Bourdieu, 1990) that dominates the integral tool used for meaning-making, this study asserts that the Quechan people change.

56

Chapter 3: Methodology

Overview

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain greater understanding of the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity. If a common language is suppressed and then legitimized, meaning of its’ individuals culture and identity would likely change. This study explored the shared phenomenon experienced by tribal members as their native language, once predominantly used for communication among the tribe, was restricted from use and then was reintroduced as a legitimate form of communication. To gain greater understanding of this phenomenon, the constructs of language, culture, and identity were utilized to observe this developmental course.

Creswell (2007) described a phenomenology as capturing the essence of an experience by studying several individuals that have a shared experience. Van Manen

(1997) added to this perspective by suggesting phenomenology “aims at a gaining a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of our everyday experiences” (p. 9). He attributed the science as one that provides insight that brings humankind closer to the world. In order make meaning of language resurgence, this research is using the Crotty’s

(1998) epistemological perspective of constructionism as a way of the looking at the world and making sense of it. In subscribing to this perspective, meaning is not discovered; rather, meaning is constructed. The object-subject forms a relationship which come together to form meaning (Crotty, 1998).

Theoretical Perspective

57

An interpretivist theoretical perspective, based on Crotty’s (1998) definition, seeks “culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life world”

(p. 67). This perspective is embedded in the foundation of symbolic interactionism.

Bourdieu’s (1991) perspective of language and symbolic power utilizes the theoretical lens constructed by Bourdieu, which suggests power determines the language that is used.

Culture, within the confines of the research, focuses on the work of Hatch (1993) as she reformulated Schein’s (1985) elements of culture to become actively created by developing a dynamic culture model, which argues that culture is not a single item and is instead formed using an interpretivist lens where culture is constructed in dynamic relationships. Identity is viewed through the lens of Erikson (1950 et. seq.), who proffered that at no single moment in time is identity whole, but rather an ongoing perspective that constantly changes throughout the life of a human. Tribal members gather shared meaning with individual and collective experiences, both around and within the boundaries of their common language. Sense making is required when language is used to construct meaning, then language is suppressed, and once again is reintroduced as legitimate.

Research Questions

The primary research question was: How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity? The sub-questions were:

1. What are the shared experiences of using a forbidden language?

2. How does being able and encouraged to speak the Quechan native language

affect how tribal members see their identity?

58

3. How do tribal members see their culture differently now that the language can be

taught and publicly spoken?

Methodology

Moustakas (1994) suggested phenomenological research provides a catalyst for understanding, the generation of new knowledge, and that phenomena are the building blocks of human science. He suggested that this was achieved by understanding the shared experiences of what and how the phenomenon was experienced. Description of the phenomenon alone is not sufficient; a researcher using the phenomenological method seeks to make an interpretation of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007).

Creswell’s approach to data analysis will be utilized for this phenomenological research study. He suggested that data analysis begin with significant statements, meaning units, textual and structural description, and description of the essence.

Moustakas’s (1994) stated the reporting structure includes: an introduction of the problem; research procedures (included in this study as phenomenology, assumptions, data collection, analysis, outcomes); significant statements; meanings of statements; themes of meanings; and a robust description of the phenomenon studied.

This study used a qualitative phenomenological research approach to gain greater understanding of the lived and shared experiences of the Quechan Native American

Tribe. According to Creswell (2007), phenomenological research “describes the meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” (p. 57).

Like Creswell, Moustakas (1994) supported phenomenological research by suggesting that it provides a catalyst for understanding, the generation of new knowledge, and phenomena are the building blocks of human science. This was achieved by

59

understanding the shared experiences of what and how the phenomenon was experienced.

Description of the phenomenon alone is not sufficient; a researcher using the phenomenological method seeks to make an interpretation of the phenomenon (Creswell,

2007).

This research assumed, based on Crotty’s (1998) definition, a theoretical perspective of interpretivism which is embedded in the foundation of symbolic interactionism. This perspective suggests that meaning is not discovered, but rather is constructed and in this perspective the object-subject forms a relationship which come together to form meaning. This research study suggests that the legitimization of the

Quechan Native language influences culture and identity. Meaning was constructed as tribal members could now use a once forbidden language publically and without social recourse by the dominant society.

While interpretation was provided by the researcher, according to Van Manen

(1990) bracketing is not possible to employ as part of an interpretive study. Therefore, the researcher noted and attempted to bind any preconceived perceptions. However, according to Moustakas (1994), bracketing is required when using a transcendental phenomenological research method. While this method is the first step in phenomenological reduction in which the researcher sets aside any preconceived experiences about the research, only the experiences of language restriction and then legitimization were bracketed for this research. In addition, a subjectivity statement was used to provide a clear focus on the researcher’s involvement and interpretations.

Research Design. The study aimed at understanding the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language has on its member’s culture and identity. The

60

researcher sought to gain knowledge around the phenomenon of native language legitimization and its influence on both individual culture and identity. The understood meaning of individual culture and identity would likely change for tribal members. This study explored the shared phenomenon experienced by tribal members as their native language, once predominantly used for communication among the tribe, was restricted from use. To gain greater understanding of this phenomenon, the constructs of language, culture, and identity were utilized to observe this developmental course. The researcher desired to gain the common shared essence of the experience as language was reintroduced into the tribe as a safe and legal means of interaction. Through purposeful sampling (Maxwell, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994), the researcher set boundaries around time and participants to be studied.

Data Collection and Population. As described in Chapter 2, literature on language tends to focus on the linguistics and phonetics of the words used within a community of people. Sociological construction of meaning and the resurgence of a once suppressed language by a dominant culture provided the platform of this research. On rare occasion in recorded history, an entire culture has been systematically conquered and forced to stop speaking their native language. The Quechan Native Tribe was one of many indigenous groups to the United States that were forced to stop using and speaking their native language. Elders of this tribe were chosen as participants due their respected stature within the tribe and based on their familial history of being in a home where the

Quechan was used in everyday communication.

Based on Creswell’s (2007) reference to Polkinghorne (1989), phenomenological research should have a minimum of five participants. The researcher selected ten

61

Quechan tribal elders who experienced the Quechan language used in their home prior to the 1990 Act. These tribal members were full-blooded Quechan Native American and grew up in homes that used the Quechan language daily. The study interviewed ten tribal members. Five tribal members selected were female and five were male; this equitable distribution promoted a purposeful selection strategy. The small number of Quechan

Native American tribal elders reflect the sampling number of participants alive today.

The number of tribal members, like many other indigenous tribes, has been reduced in size over the years.

The following criteria were used to select participants: a) Quechan Native; b) hold elder status within the tribe; this will assure that the tribal members had time during childhood to be raised in homes, which used the Quechan Native language prior to 1990.

Additionally, Quechan tribal elders are granted a higher level of respect among tribal members and are more likely to share cultural details due to this recognition; c) gender distribution; and d) they should understand basic and commonly used conversational

Quechan words while fluently recognizing the language when used around them. All interviews were conducted on the Quechan Native American reservation in Winterhaven,

California. Also, all participants were solicited by telephone and then by letter. Each participant is a fully recognized member of the Quechan Native Tribe.

Interviews. Data was collected using interviews as the primary technique. All participants were notified in advance and were sent notices of the scheduled interview.

The researcher carefully explained the purpose of the study, what was expected of the participant, and the confidentiality standards that were adhered to once the data was captured. The introduction letter and research study overview are at Appendix B. The

62

interviews were structured in nature and followed a sequential list of questions for each person. In gaining understanding of the influence that language may have on culture and identity, the researcher gave ample time for each question to be answered. The essence of the experience (Creswell, 2007) evolved during the period of adding information to the responses already given. As suggested by Creswell, data was collected primarily through interviews. In support of the interviews, observations were also captured as part of the data collection activities. As suggested by Creswell (2007), to provide a consistent guide for the researcher, an interview protocol (see Appendix C) was created to assist in the process of interviewing.

The site selected to conduct interviews was on the tribe’s reservation land in

Winterhaven, California located near Yuma, Arizona. Interviews were individually conducted and assurance was made to destroy all video and audio recordings once coding was completed.

Verification Procedures

The focus of this phenomenological study was to understand the essence of an experience by researching several individuals who have a shared experience (Creswell,

2007). For this type of research, Creswell suggested two types of trustworthiness techniques. In this study, four verification procedures were used – a subjectivity statement (provided in the following section), thick rich descriptions, peer reviews, and member checking. On-site interviews were conducted over a period of twenty consecutive days on the Quechan Native American Reservation in Winterhaven,

California. The researcher lived intermittently on the reservation during the first few years of his life and has since visited many times prior to this research study. Reliability

63

was promoted by the gathering of field notes during the research. Creswell (2007) suggested field notes as a reliability method. As suggested by Maxwell (2005), field journaling was used as a form of a sensemaking device which allowed for subjective reactions to research situations. This included the recording and subsequent transcription of interviews.

Subjectivity Statement. It is important to note that I am a member of the

Quechan tribe. This is important to understand due to the nature of a qualitative study. It is impossible for bias not to enter into the research; however, I made every attempt to remain open while gathering the necessary information to be analyzed. As a member of the Quechan Native American Tribe, I speak only a minimal amount of the Quechan language. My experiences are limited to forty-four years of life with brief intervals of living on the reservation.

Moustakas (1994) suggests that while epoche may never be reached, it is critical that the researcher go through the actions of bracketing any known biases. As an adult, I have not lived fulltime on the Quechan reservation at any point. As a toddler, I spent several months with my family on the reservation as my mother sought to assure that I was aware of the Quechan ways of life. As a teenager, I only visited the reservation three times and was only partially aware of any tribal communal activities.

My mother taught me our tribal tradition of beadwork from the age of four.

Typically taught only to the females of our tribe, my brother and I did not have any sisters. My mother spoke Quechan and was proud of her ability to know our language.

While I was taught many of our tribal beliefs, traditions, and perspectives while living off the reservation, my mom did not want me to learn our language so that I would have a

64

chance at mixing into the dominant culture. This enabled me to gather information while bracketing the Quechan language from the research.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

A pilot interview was held with a non-elder Quechan tribal member to validate the interview protocol. The initial analysis allowed the researcher to add probing questions and further hone the key interview questions. Member checking took place by allowing the participants interviewed to confirm their interpretation of the results gathered. However, member checking was not performed in a typical manner for a qualitative study. All elders declined to see or review the transcribed information. All participants were asked if they would like to review transcribed information for member checking and only one indicated a desire to see the transcription. Once the researcher returned with the transcribed information, the elder decided not to review the information and proclaimed, “the moment has passed and I have shared with you what you need to know”.

Two peer researchers, unfamiliar with the study, acted as peer reviewers of the data analysis process. This peer review was not considered typical by standard researcher rigor due to the lack of tribal peers to review data analysis. The researcher also took field notes to describe the environment during the interview and utilized additional data sources to secure data triangulation. Confidentiality was ensured by asking the participants to read and sign consent forms (see Appendix D) before the interview.

Research interviews were conducted with the ten elder members of the Quechan

Native American tribe who experienced the acceptance of their native language with the implementation of the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (Appendix A). Coding

65

was used to provide empirical evidence suggesting influence of language on culture and identity at the individual level. Specifically, Saldana’s (2009) coding methods as being particularly conducive to a phenomenological study were employed to code this research.

Retrospective interpretation of historical events surrounding the essence of the experience of language were analyzed using the attribute, initial, descriptive, in vivo, and thematic coding techniques. This research focuses on the individual level with minimal perspectives on the societal level of analysis.

Phenomenology, from the perspective of Moustakas (1994), is described as the process that captures the essence of the experience and then synthesizes the essence of individual experiences into a collective description of the phenomenon being studied.

For the purpose of this study, Creswell’s (2007) style of data analysis for phenomenology was followed in tandem with using the Moustakas (1994) presentation of the methods to illustrate the collected essence from the interviews. The Moustakas sequential approach is itemized in Table 3-1, below.

Table 3-1

Moustakas (1994) Sequential Process

Step 1 Describe researcher's experience with phenomena (subjectivity statement).

Step 2 Develop a list of significant statements.

Step 3 Group significant statements into meaning units or themes.

Step 4 Write textural description using verbatim examples.

66

Step 5 Write a structural description of how the experience happened.

Step 6 Write a composite description combining textural and structural descriptions to create the essence of the experience.

As described by Moustakas (1994), a transcendental phenomenological research method entails data analysis of transcribed interviews and epoche or bracketing . While bracketing is the first step in phenomenological reduction where the researcher sets aside any preconceived experiences about the research, only the experiences of language restriction and then legitimization were bracketed for this research. However, according to Van Manen (1990), bracketing is not possible to employ as part of an interpretive study. Based on this, a subjectivity statement was used to provide a clear focus on the researcher’s involvement and interpretations. Moustakas (1994) suggested then developing a list of significant statements "that provide an understanding of how the participants experienced the phenomenon" (p. 61) and analyze them horizontally giving equal weight to all statements. Next, meaning units were established which were clustered into themes designed to eliminate repetitive statements or repeating phrases.

The themes produced were used to create descriptions of the experience. Finally, a composite description was written to represent the "essential, invariant structure (or essence)" (p. 62) that characterized the common experiences of all the participants.

Human Participants and Ethics Precautions

The study was reviewed by the Internal Review Board (IRB) committee of The

George Washington University and was initiated once the researcher obtained formal approval from the committee. The researcher fully explained to each study participant

67

the goal of the study. Each participant was asked to complete and sign a consent form.

Participation in the study was on a voluntary basis. Appropriate IRB approval forms, located as appendices, were provided to participants. The researcher ensured confidentiality of all information gathered by creating pseudonyms for each participant.

The name of any specific participant was not revealed. A final publication copy of this study and any subsequent related publications was provided to the interviewees to review to ensure that its confidentiality has been protected. The researcher also signed a confidentiality agreement creating a binding agreement between him and the participant ensuring confidentiality of the gathered data. Study participants confirmed their agreement by signing a consent form. The technique of member checking enabled the researcher to ensure appropriate interpretation of the data. Data interpretation was cross- checked by peer reviewers.

68

Chapter 4: Results

The primary question presented in this research is: How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity? and the sub-questions asked were 1)

What are the shared experiences of using a forbidden language?, 2) How does being able and encouraged to speak the Quechan native language affect how tribal members see their identity?, and 3) How do tribal members see their culture differently now that the language can be taught and publicly spoken? Chapter 4 presents the findings of research completed by interviewing ten elders of the Quechan Native American Tribe on the

Quechan Native American Reservation in Winterhaven, California.

Chapter 4 includes a contextual overview of the research study and also includes a summative description of the participants, location, and coding methodology. Chapter 4 then describes the coding during the research which includes an attribute table of the participants, a bridge to theory summary of etic and emic codes, descriptive coding summary including counts of each code as they appeared within the data, in vivo codes used for each construct including a summary, and a presentation of the emergent findings.

Context of Study

Research Site. The data gathered for this study was compiled on the Quechan

Native American Reservation in Winterhaven, California. Home to the Quechan Tribe and surrounded by the Colorado River, the reservation sits on 45,000 acres spread across both California and Arizona (Southern, 2008). The climate is dry and used largely for growing vegetables irrigated from the Colorado River. The terrain is flat and the roads are mostly dirt connecting each home on the reservation. For the first time since 1852,

69

fences are being erected that surround farming land to keep animals from eating the vegetation. Interviews were conducted either at the home of the elder or at the Tribal

Senior Center where the elders congregate on a daily basis.

Participants

Coding. Saldana’s (2009) coding methods were employed to code this research.

Retrospective interpretation of historical events surrounding the essence of the experience of language was analyzed using the attribute, descriptive, in vivo, and thematic coding techniques. In order to explain the general themes produced from the research, explanation is required surrounding details of the individuals and an explanation of how coding was connected to theory.

Population. There were ten interview participants interviewed as part of this research study. All participants were members of the Quechan Native American Tribe and recognized as elders within the tribe. Five members were male between the ages of sixty-six and seventy-six. Five members were female between the ages of sixty-four and ninety-nine years of age. Table 4.1, as Saldana (2009) recommended, includes the attributes of the research participants and is immediately followed by more detail on each participant.

Table 4-1

Attribute Table of Research Participants

Participant Age Gender Ethnicity Years Location of Pseudonym Speaking Interview Quechan Elder A 64 Female Native American 64 Quechan Reservation Elder B 66 Female Native American 66 Quechan Reservation Elder C 99 Female Native American 99 Quechan Reservation Elder D 72 Female Native American 72 Quechan Reservation Elder E 72 Female Native American 72 Quechan Reservation

70

Elder F 76 Male Native American 76 Quechan Reservation Elder G 72 Male Native American 72 Quechan Reservation Elder H 66 Male Native American 66 Quechan Reservation Elder I 70 Male Native American 70 Quechan Reservation Elder J 66 Male Native American 66 Quechan Reservation

Elder A spent her life on the Quechan reservation and considered herself to be very knowledgeable of the Quechan culture. Although she did not claim to be a fluent

Quechan speaker, she understood the spoken words of the language with fluency. Elder

A acknowledged a lifetime of struggle once the interview ended. She stated that her commitment to the Quechan people was very high and she considers herself to be one of the last remaining culturally knowledgeable tribal members.

Elder B was in poor health during the interview and awaiting surgery in the coming days. She had spent her entire life on the reservation and did not consider herself a fluent Quechan speaker. Elder B placed emphasis on many of the tribal members not accepting her during her lifetime. In addition, she considered herself very knowledgeable of tribal culture.

Elder C is the oldest living Quechan at ninety-nine years of age. She spent the majority of her life on the reservation and has always spoken fluent Quechan. As her first language, Quechan was the only language used in her home for a large portion of her young life. Elder C is considered to be the most honored among the Quechan tribe due to her gender and age. She continues to educate the tribal people and is recognized among the tribe as its wisest leader.

Elder D is a Quechan language teacher for the tribe. She was an interpreter for the tribe at a very early age. She acknowledged punishment for speaking Quechan once formal schooling began. Elder D considered herself fortunate to learn English and this

71

skill provided her the ability to sell beadwork to white people visiting Yuma. She considers the Quechan language to be the largest portion of her identity. This has enabled her to make a constant effort to keep the language alive within the community.

Elder E is a Quechan language teacher for the tribe, and often represents the tribe in community functions. She is very proud that she is full-blooded Quechan and acknowledged that her family has a long history of supporting the needs of the community. Elder E stated that her parents taught her the cultural ways of the tribe and gave examples of past ceremonies celebrated by the Quechan. She was one of the few tribal members to attempt enrollment into college when she was young.

Elder F is one of the oldest males within the Quechan tribe. He was raised in part by the Cocopah tribe located near the Quechan tribal reservation. Considered part of the

Quechan tribe, Elder F acknowledged dual influence between two separate tribes. He explained that he was not able to speak the Quechan or Cocopah language because there was no one to teach him. Although he understands simple Quechan and Cocopah words, he acknowledged that he is not fluent in either language.

Elder G is a formally recognized tribal leader. He described his personal experiences with Halpern and his influences on tribal songs. Elder G acknowledges the changing meanings of songs over time and he discusses the resistance of some tribal members to explain song meanings even when they understand the intended meaning.

Elder G spoke about teaching the Quechan language, and gave a brief explanation of tribal creation meaning through songs. As a formal leader within the tribe, Elder G gave examples of his involvement with several ceremonial activities.

72

Elder H is both an informal and formally recognized Quechan tribal leader. His position in the community is prominent among the tribe. Elder H describes having spoken Quechan all of his life and most memories are most prominent around the age of four. He explained that his command of the Quechan language made him one of the only tribal members able to speak fluently with other elders. Elder H stated that many modern spoken Quechan words are only slang versions of the true pronunciation.

Elder I is a well-known elder among the tribe. He explained that when he started school, very few Quechan natives could speak English. He stated that the tribal members had to learn English from this point. He continued by explaining that seventy years ago the dominant culture stopped beating tribal members for speaking the Quechan language and practicing the culture. Elder I also explained that the dominant culture, and in some cases Catholic leaders, treated the Quechan children very badly. In the words of Elder I,

“they were very cruel, under the pretense of educating us, they were very cruel.”

Elder J lived most of his life away from the Quechan reservation. He is a well known artist among Native people and has practiced art in some form for many years.

Elder J acknowledged that his mother was from another tribe and she never spoke to the children in her native language. His feelings about the Quechan language are about preservation. He explained that the United States Government is waiting on the tribe’s

“Indian-ness” to be gone so that they can take the last of the land. Elder J stated that his fluency of the Quechan language was foreign with the exception of basic terms.

Theory (Etic) and Inductive (Emic) Codes for Bridging Constructs and Data

The constructs used to understand this phenomenon were language, culture, and identity. Bourdieu’s (1991) perspectives of language and symbolic power were utilized

73

as a dominant theoretical lens. Bourdieu suggests that power determines the language that is used. The construct of culture focused on the work of Hatch (1993) as she built upon Schein’s (1985) elements of culture by developing a dynamic culture model that asserted culture is not a single item but rather is formed using an interpretivist lens where culture is constructed in dynamic relationships. The identity construct was viewed through the lens of Erikson (1950) as he suggested that at no single moment in time is identity whole, but rather an ongoing perspective that constantly changes throughout the life of a human. Emic codes, as defined by Creswell (2007), are a working set of rules that incorporates the views of the participants. Etic codes refer to those rules or patterns taken from theory and included by the researcher. Etic codes were used by the researcher as illustrated in Table 4-2 as a bridge between the construct theories.

Table 4-2

Bridge to Theory Summary

Theory Code (ETIC) Hatch’s Culture: Hatch (1993) as she built upon Schein’s CULTDYN (1985) elements of culture by developing a dynamic culture  Not static model that asserted culture is not a single item but rather is  Moving formed using an interpretivist lens where culture is  Evolving constructed in dynamic relationships. CULTCONST  Relational Erikson’s Identity: (1950) as he suggested that at no single IDENTDYN moment in time is identity whole, but rather an ongoing  Not static perspective that constantly changes throughout the life of a  Moving human  Evolving Bourdieu’s Language: (1991) perspective of language and LANGINCUL symbolic power which suggested that power determines the  Childhood language that is used. habits  Assumption Bourdieu’s Habitus: (1991) a set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways; defined as LANGSYMPOWER inculcation or mundane early childhood experiences, the  Control process of inculcation turns typical and repeatable events  Authority 74

into what Schein (1985) would label as level three culture or  Limiting basic assumptions; Habitus also labeled as structured,  Recognized durable generative, and transposable. as legitimate  World view Bourdieu’s Symbolic Power: (1991) symbolic power is a change power that must be recognized as legitimate by those  Magical surrounding it and it is this power that has the ability to  Command change the vision of one’s world; an equivalent force much communicati like that of a physical or economic force that by an almost on “magical power” is used by those in power and ultimately accepted by those who submit to it. This form of power carries with it the ability to alter society while forging a new transformative community armed with the ability to command communication.

Findings

The findings in chapter 4 will be presented from a macro to micro perspective.

From attribute, descriptive, in vivo, and thematic coding techniques, the data will be presented to illuminate emergent themes.

Descriptive Coding

The purpose of descriptive coding according to Saldana (2009) is to “summarize in a word or short phrase the basic topic of passage of qualitative data” (p. 70). This coding objective is to discover the essence of experience in a phenomenon. A summary of the descriptive codes that emerged from the interviews is illustrated in Table 4-3. This table illustrates the descriptive coding results with occurrence values placed next to each code. The occurrence value shown indicates how many times the etic code appeared in the final coding results. Emic codes were added to this table as the initial and descriptive coding details emerged during Saldana’s (2009) suggested first cycle coding.

Table 4-3

Descriptive Coding Summary

75

Code Description Count ETIC Codes CULTDYN Not static, moving, evolving creation of culture; 54 (dynamic culture) CULTCONST Relational construction of culture; (constructed 123 culture) IDENTDYN Not static, moving, and evolving identity; 60 (evolving identity) LANGINCUL Childhood habits, assumptions; (language 23 inculcation)

LANGSYMPOWER Control, authority, limiting, recognized as 43 legitimate, world view change, magical, command communication; (symbolic power control of language)

EMIC Codes FAMILYINF Living with extended family, loose connection 33 with parents, familial controls; (familial influence on language)

FAMILYPOSITION Sequence of family position; youngest, oldest, 3 middle, cousin (sequence of family positioning)

IDENTCONST Teaching others a language, challenging use of 134 language; (construction of identity)

CULTFEAR Fear of showing culture, hiding culture; (fear of 12 showing culture)

CULTCOURAGE Willingness to show culture, presentation of 21 culture (no fear of showing culture) CULTSYMBOLS Creation of cultural symbols, teaching others 31 how to create cultural symbols; (creation of cultural symbols) STATUS Self acknowledge status, hierarchy; 44 (acknowledgement of status) IDENTPERCEPTION Perception of self identity (self proclaimed 9 understanding of identity) CULTPERCEPTION Perception of Quechan culture (from within 24 tribe)

SOCIALPERCEPTIO Perception of larger society (from within tribe) 15 N LANGDYN Acknowledgement that Quechan language 6

76

changes over time (from within tribe)

Language

In vivo coding was included in Tables 4-4 through 4-7 for each question. Each in vivo code used was presented here to illustrate the context and thick, rich description provided for each question. The questions and responses presented follow the constructs of language, identity, and culture. A summary paragraph precedes the in vivo coding for each question. The objective of this paragraph is to provide a summative review of the research data.

There were seven language-related questions with associated in vivo coding within Table 4-4. Each question presented was designed around the construct of language and each was asked in a sequential manner of the participants. For each question, the presented in vivo coding was not exhaustive of all interview responses.

Only the coding used for the research was summarized below.

The first question of each participant asked was, “How long have you spoken the

Quechan language?” The summary of in vivo responses resulted in the following: 9 out of the 10 elders were largely unaware of when then began speaking English and stopped using Quechan as their primary language and the elders acknowledged that the Quechan language played a significant role in their home life at an early age. A few of the elders referenced positive feelings when recalling times speaking the Quechan language. One positive example of speaking Quechan was, “language, the songs were always part of my life … I felt good”.

77

Table 4-4

Language

a) How long  “ as a child that’s the only language I knew is my language” have you  “ we couldn’t talk Indian when I was going to school” spoken the  “ no talking Indian they tell us that” Quechan  “ all get together and start talking Indian” language?  “ don’t know whether I was speaking or picking up the right word to talk like I’m talking now”  “ I can’t let go of the Indian language because my mom didn’t understand the other language”  “we try to keep up both languages going among us, among the family.”  “ all my life”  “ don’t remember when I first, you know, understand, that I’m talking a certain language”  “I learned from my grandparents, that that’s all they spoke”  “I didn’t know that was a different language they were speaking”  “I’m a twin too by the way, there’s two of us, so we were there, for some reason, my dad would more or less favor him”  “ that was my first lesson”  “ went to school that there was another language, the English language”  “ they say across the river, white people on that side you know”  “ the English language, you know, I wasn’t curious, strange but, as long as I communicated with my classmates at home”  “ I don’t know when we started picking up the English language”  “ I spoke Quechan at home”  “I married into another tribe in (name) county, and she was part of the (name) I guess, (name) whatever, but she didn’t speak the language either. So she only spoke English, and she couldn’t understand mine so we spoke English all the time”  “we picked up where we left off and continued our life together but we speak Quechan everyday”  “[Quechan language] that’s constantly with me, all the time and I don’t forget it”  “ I enjoy the Quechan language, mainly because, it’s clear, to the point. There’s no if’s or but’s or in-betweens, it’s either this or that and so I understood that”  “ English it’s not, it’s so many variations and translation, interpretation, you name it, it just means a lot of things 78

different and I said it’s, it’s terrible”  “ the whole community at that time was speaking Quechan”  “I always grew up with Elders around me”  “ the language, the songs were always part of my life, has always been”  “ language, the songs were always part of my life … I felt good”  “Elders were very, very straightforward. Sit down, don’t say anything you know, let the Elders talk”  “respect, learn how to respect them. I still do that today, I respect a lot of people and, people in authority”  “ for some reason they can understand it, but they don’t want to speak it, feel shame or whatever”  “I learned a lot from them, just the way they were, the values that they kept, the standards of the family and responsibility, and all of that was taught to me by my Elders. I use that today, and I’m very happy for that”  “ for awhile there I didn’t speak it as a young child, I didn’t speak it because I didn’t hear it very much”  “ lived with our aunt, and I don’t remember speaking the language then, but when I went back with my mother, I believe I was four or five, then I started to hear her speak to us”  “ first word I remember speaking was saying mother to her and that was in [in thyahm], in Quechan”  “ All my life”  “ Quechan language was the only language spoken in my household at that time”  “ My grandfather couldn’t speak English … a lot of the Quechan spoke Spanish, as we do the English language today”  “Their second language was Spanish and so, so they would speak to us in the Quechan language”  “ Since I was a child I guess, I’d hear, I’d hear my grandmother talking to her brother and her sister-in-law”  “ My understanding of language then was very simple, very simplistic you know, just objects mainly and I never learned the ability to conduct a conversation with anybody. My understanding of language was basically English”  “ my own native language is, is very foreign”  “ that has been a real interest to me as an artist, the concept of understanding some kind-of visual image or describing it”

The second question on language asked of the Quechan elders was, “What is your earliest recollection of speaking Quechan? Can you elaborate on the first experience?”

79

Collectively, the elders exhibited very little recognition of speaking a different language than English. Quechan, for most elders, was their native language and it was this language that was used to help form the earliest foundations of reality. Later, as English was forced upon them, the elders explained an understanding of speaking differently. b) What is  “when I began to talk when I was 5 or 4 … 4 or 5 fluently your earliest Quechan” recollection  “we slept on the ground” of speaking  “Conversation with my grandfather I could hear her talking with Quechan? my grandmother in Indian” Can you  “My aunt taught me spoke to me in our language” elaborate on  “she started teaching me and the way she taught me was the the first face, the ear, the nose, the mouth, the eye” experience?  “I speak Quechan and English”  “Up there at the school, I’m the oldest one so I am the it.”  “when I was [pause] five years old”  “We weren’t allowed to speak Quechan”  “I was interpreter here”  “Being young, I wasn’t really punished then, until later on as I got into different classes, as I start growing, but, that’s how I remember using my Quechan language”  “Probably when I was three, you know ‘cause babies are small right?”  “but I didn’t know I was speaking Quechan”  “when I was old enough to know what I was, when I was speaking that, my language”  “I guess I was about six, seven”  “People that I grew up with, they’re all gone”  “I speak it, to this day I speak”  “mispronouncing some words but, I want to say thank the Lord, most of the old timers are all gone, they’re not around to correct you”  “nowadays that I’m older, I’m an elder, I like to do, say a few words”  “they’d stand there for what seemed like an hour you know and talk about what, what it is, is a eulogy, you know they, they talk on and on and now days, even Quechan language is, they’re teaching them all over again”  “No because it was just routine”  “The only time I use Quechan was when me and my cousin were sitting in the bar … you start talking Quechan, which me and my cousin did, nobody understands you, nobody 80

understands the Quechan language”  “cause we didn’t want the rest of the people to know what we were talking about”  “My father was very sick … He was lying on the bed and she was sitting in a chair talking to him, but that’s probably my earliest recognition of the language itself”

The third question asked of the Quechan elders was, “What experiences do you recall growing up where the Quechan language was used in your home? Can you elaborate on that experience? The elders expressed recognition that a division was occurring within their homes and community. One elder’s response to this question illuminated an economic recognition that the dominant power supported English as the chosen language for trade. c) What  “my grandparents and my mom, my aunts would all talk experiences Quechan – that’s all I heard” do you  “I never [spoke] English really” recall  “It was a natural thing because when I would talk Indian to my growing up sisters they would correct me” where the  “They wouldn’t understand me” Quechan  “And [all] I’d ever known was Quechan, my language” language  “They spoke it fluently and it was good to hear” was used in  “It was all the family together at the table and it was good your home? feeling you know. Cause we were all together” Can you  “Well when they wanted me to do something they say, “come elaborate on here”, in Indian “ku’theek!”” that  “My grandmother raised me, ‘cause my mom was working” experience?  “I learned to speak English. So I was fortunate”  “we sold the most because I spoke English and I’d tell them the price (laugh) they were, oh look at that little Indian girl”  “I had to do whatever they tell me to do growing up you know like if they tell me to”  “they don’t speak no other language but Quechan”  “she walking, she’s walking, and to this day they believe that, the day my grandfather died, because he cared for me so much, in my condition, he gave me his brain, he gave me his strength, he gave me his spirit, and the strength of the legs I got from him”  “I have a spirit of my grandfather” 81

 “your grandpa healed you. My grand-, your grandfather was a medicine person too”  “[Quechan] I had no idea, no knowledge of them because I was little, I didn’t know”  “[In school] the language we always spoke was English”  “[Native] they was told you can’t speak this language here”

The fourth question asked regarding language was, “What experience(s) do / did you enjoy most about using the Quechan Language? What experience(s) did you like the least?” The elders spoke collectively of connection with their elders as younger tribal members. Several of the elders described strong connections with family while remembering specific Quechan language experiences. d) What  “I enjoyed it [speaking Quechan] because it was the only way I experience(s learned to talk” ) do / did  “I could communicate with grandma and grandpa. They don’t you enjoy speak English – well my grandfather did” most about  “I wish I could go back and talk my language again but I can’t using the because I have it in my head no, I got whipped by it no, no Quechan talking Quechan” Language?  “You can’t have this unless you speak it in English” What  “I wish I could communicate with them [the elders] more in experience(s Quechan” ) did you  “The least was being called a “ku’neel” that’s black you know” like the  “I am what I am, it’s nothing can change me” least?  “I really had to speak the other language [English] because I was going to school up there”  “Nobody taught me how and nobody would help me either. I put Indian and the other kind of language together (English) and I had a hard time. But I made it. That’s why I’m speaking with you now.”  “I enjoy speaking my language because others don’t understand it”  “I got the ruler over my hands for speaking my language, in the third grade, or fourth grade”  “I couldn’t think, and the way the white man said, I understood his words, I know what he wanted”  “he wants our land, ‘cause he wants to build a house”  “they don’t want us to live in our old mud houses anymore”  “I found out through the bureau that you people have ten acres 82

each”  “I turned around and I said to the Elders, sub-division”  “if we live in a sub-division (inaudible 26:20), I said he’s going to take care of us”  “I don’t want to come back 20 years from now and saying I have no house no more, or no land because I signed it away to you”  “let’s give it a try one Elder said. It doesn’t hurt to try but if it doesn’t work good then we can always tell them to leave”  “the, the language is died out almost completely”  “The younger kids now days, they don’t understand, they don’t want to learn either you know, all English”  “there’s a mixed marriages too and there’s Hispanics and half- Hispanic and Blacks and whatnot”  “I understand what that person over there, especially a senior to me is telling me”  “I feel good seeing you, I feel good talking to you”  “the hardest part was trying to relate my own self to them you know”  “everything we use [say in Quechan] today is slang”  “they would dance, and they did all these dances and they would sing all these songs that are not sung today at all, but I, but I remember these, and it was an enjoyable time, and just people having a good time and not very much English spoken”

The fifth question asked of the elders was, “What feelings do you have surrounding the use of the Quechan language in the community? The elders expressed sadness around speaking the native language while many acknowledged frustration. For many of the elders, the experience of speaking Quechan in the community was not very positive or productive. A common experience of individual identity and cultural conflict was evoked from this question. e) What  “Its hurtful you know, not right. You know racist.” feelings do  “if they talk Indian to me, I have to answer them in Indian” you have  “But as I grew older, I could really speak it good then” surrounding  “I use my Quechan everyday, everyday I sit in here and I’m the use of talking to myself in Quechan” the Quechan  “I feel bad, they don’t understand but I’m talking to them language in because I know they’re Quechan’s and I remind them, you are a 83

the Quechan” community?  “With my kids, I did the same, with my grandchildren, I say it Quechan, then I say it in English”  “, I wish I could say I have good feelings about it”  “We always communicate in our tongue”  “we have really nobody to talk to once we leave the center”  “it’s my fault too, they said we didn’t sit down and teach them the language, we just kept the language to ourselves”  “we didn’t want them to lose the English language, ‘cause if they come speaking our language, they’re not going to be able to speak English”  “to wipe away our language in the beginning, that’s why they took our Elders to the BIA school, because it’s all about language”  “out of 3600 [tribal members], we have 85 known speakers, left … forty are fluent”  “I’d say 15-20, I wouldn’t put it that, 15-20 can still communicate with the Elders but, answer in English. They will not answer in Quechan”  “Elders know what you’re saying, but I have to talk to them in simple terms, in the layman’s terms. I can’t use big words that the white man uses”  “The interpretation was different from the Quechan to the English, English to Quechan so, in order to be an interpreter, of the language, you have to speak fluent, both English and Quechan, and that’s where I’m at today”  “I’m just like an old grown kid”  “It has to do with singing, singing the old”  “I was raised without a father”  “when I was growing up, they [stepfathers] never beat me, they never raised a hand or beat me”  “I experienced that, they, whacked me you know … grabbed me here and slapped me about 5 times”  “he banged my head on the wall, about five, ten times, a good thing he didn’t split my head open or anything”  “he let me off the hook then but, as a result, the end of the school year, I was booted out”  “you learn the white man way, you’ll, you’ll survive”  “I started there, eighth grade, but I didn’t graduate”  “I actually graduated from there [Yuma boarding school], the eighth grade”  “I wish more people spoke it [Quechan]”  “I’m just wasting my time and think like you know, try to talk to that person but, and then again I get, I get kind-of upset because somebody my age, should know how to speak to me [in 84

Quechan]”  “they’re afraid to speak, they’re afraid to speak to me because mistakes, they don’t want to be corrected”  “being who I am and what I am, I think that they, should take the criticism”  “the Quechan language is dying out with our children but, our culture is not”  “Our children still know our culture, and of the two I say, okay, that’s good enough for me”  “They don’t speak the language, oh okay, I’ll give them that, but they better not forget our culture”  “I recognize it [the Quechan culture]. That’s a big part. I recognize what I see, in the Native American or the Quechan way”  “the more language disappears, you know we’re going to lose our Indian-ness, and that, that I think the government would like us to lose our Indian-ness so that, that they could take over our land”

The sixth question asked of the elders was, “Do you feel appreciated by your family for using the Quechan language? Please elaborate. Do you have an example?

The elders described a common experience of others desiring them to speak more

Quechan. Individual identity construction was apparent as elders expressed various feelings of pleasure, disappointment, and conflict when asked about being appreciated for speaking Quechan. f) Do you feel  “my kids wish I did talk more Quechan.” appreciated  “The little I do know I try to teach them. They appreciate it, they by your appreciate what they know” family for  “there’s some that they are some words that she can’t say and I’m using the proud that I can help her” Quechan  “She’s trying. It makes me feel good” language?  “No I do not [feel appreciated for using Quechan]” Please  “it was kinda hurtful” elaborate.  “[they thought] I’m a fluent speaker because, since I’ve been Do you have here, I’m still learning. I’m learning” an example?  “they’re real proud of me that I can speak it [Quechan] you know”  “if I hear somebody speaking, among each other the Quechan 85

language, I, I am happy to hear that, and I, I should say, I’m glad you’re both learning to speak Quechan and communicating Quechan because it makes me happy”  “[appreciated for speaking Quechan] well someone has to”  “well someone has to”  “They want me to speak more”  “No, I don’t feel that I’m appreciated or not appreciated or not accepted or anything, it just, it’s just everyday life”  “I don’t completely understand all the songs or the language or whatever but, you know that’s probably as close as I’ll get to it”

The seventh and final question asked of the Quechan elders on language was, “Do you feel appreciated by the community for using the Quechan language? Please elaborate. Do you have an example?” When asked this question, a common expression of identity arose from the elders. They recognized from the community’s responses that many were recognized as Quechan. In addition, several of the elders referred to changing traditions and expressed some discontent. g) Do you feel  “[Community] They talk to me in both English and Indian. And appreciated I can answer them back with English.” by the  “some people, no not really” community  “It shocks people when they say something[in Quechan] and I for using the answer them in English” Quechan  “Cocopah lady and she was talking about me and she turned language? around and I say said I know you are talking about me and she Please turned around she said “you do?” and said yes” elaborate.  “yes and no …. they say you follow your father’s blood, well, I Do you have didn’t. I follow my mother’s blood” an example?  “My belief, my way, my culture, all that is it, and I go, my grandfather, my parents way, so you’re laughing at my grandparents”  “they can’t be or say the things we say and do, so I, I try to look at it that way but, I’m just me”  “Here we go, popularity, I don’t know … he’s an FBI agent yeah, he showed his ID, and I didn’t do it (laugh). I would have said I plead the fifth amendment you know but I, anyway, I came out there and I said, he asked me point blank, do you, do you need a job? Do you want a job? A good job”  “was standing ten feet tall when I graduated and, and I came 86

back I was, it seemed like I was disillusioned”  “that’s still the feeling that the younger people have for us elders that speak the language”  “really speak the language the way it’s supposed to be and so, the feeling is good there”  “in our custom ways, or traditions, it’s the men that do a lot of talking, not the women”  “Funerals they’re not supposed to do that [talk], just the men do that. But I’ve seen them do that too so, it’s changing”  “the community appreciates I think what we’re doing because what I do you know, that I try to talk to them”  “I don’t know if they’re really appreciative as to me speaking to them”  “I’ve gotten teased about it because I don’t understand”

Identity

There were five questions associated with identity and presented as in vivo coding within Table 4-5. Each question presented was designed around the construct of identity and each was asked in a sequential manner of the participants. For each question, the presented in vivo coding was not exhaustive of all interview responses. Only the coding used for the research was summarized below.

The first question of each participant asked was, “How do you describe yourself as part of the tribe?” The elders shared a common feeling of pride in being recognized as part of the Quechan Tribe and many shared a common recognition of living in two different worlds simultaneously. One elder described her position within the tribe when she proclaimed, “I wanted to go [to the Smithsonian Native American Indian museum opening] but I couldn’t go ‘cause I wasn’t nobody but just a tribal member”. This statement referred to her younger status as an elder. Older elders assume a more authoritative role within the tribe. An elder may feel like ‘nobody’ when compared to the

87

older elders within the tribe. There was also a common theme of Quechan identity construction from both the individual and the group level of analysis.

Table 4-5

Identity

a. How do you  “I’m proud of it” describe  “I’m just proud being what I am, a Quechan” yourself as part  “I’m not so proud that I can’t come right out and speak it of the tribe? fluently to them [in Quechan]”  “I like you know, participate. I used to dance, I always dance and I knew the traditional way cause I was taught by my grandma”  “Stupid (laughing). Well I feel that way sometimes when I can’t think fast enough to whenever I have to say to them, I’m not stupid”  “I’m a true Quechan. I chose to be a Quechan”  “When I was young, I would ask my elders, did you do pottery and they giggled, yeah I wished I had really paid attention, I didn’t”  “My cousin does pottery up in (name) he was well known and I asked him. He showed me what to do, what not to do”  “that was asked to me, how do you feel as an Indian, and I said well, I speak it, I live it, I lived it when we didn’t have no running water, no electricity”  “I’m a Quechan and they know it”  “I have to blend in with society today, modern society”  “I have to make adjustment to two worlds, the Indian world and the non-Indian world but you know, I can still say, the number one thing stands over me is the Indian world, my heart is Indian, I’ll never change that”  “I wanted to go [to the Smithsonian opening] but I couldn’t go ‘cause I wasn’t nobody but just a tribal member”  “We still exist, and they think they wiped us out, no we’re still here”  “it’s [being Quechan] inside me but, outside I’m showing a different image”  “there are people that come to me for like advice, you know.”  “I’ll tell them what they can do and can’t do. Turn yourself in, tell them, you know”  “a little bit more of a higher stature than a normal person”  “they see me as part of the elders, that are supposed to have

88

wisdom (laugh), they’re supposed to be above all kinds of things”  “I describe myself as a person that’s needed here”  “We were taught [Quechan culture] by somebody who is, took the time, and taught us how to do this and, and so that’s what we’ve been doing”  “I do what most people would kind-of think as barbaric, which they all think. I, we dig a hole to cremate the body”  “we’re all river tribes and we still do it the old way [funeral ceremony]”  “No I can’t describe myself in the community. I’m a part of this group, a part of that group, and I will do anything in my power to help my tribal members”  “you asked me, am I appreciated, no. I appreciate my, my people, it’s the other way around”  “well I’m in, I’m enrolled in the tribe so, that makes me a, a Quechan”

The second question asked of the Quechan elders pertaining to identity was,

“How do other tribal members describe you?” The elders shared a common feeling of acknowledgement regarding Quechan identity. Most elders interviewed presented an individualistic perspective when answering this question. However, many also shared a common perception of being respected by other tribal members.

b. How do other  “I get along with everybody” tribal members  “I don’t know. Oh heavens, I get along with everybody … I describe you? really do regret not talking fluently. I really do. I really am disappointed in having them make us talk English in that era. I really am. I wish I could talk.”  “I don’t care”  “if you think you know so much about Quechan, the words, and I’m not saying it right, then come up here and teach, teach me, teach me”  “The real Indian”  “I said because she speaks, she understands the language a bit (inaudible 41:14) I was angry I said what do you mean, I am a Quechan, I said I am the Indian.”  “They know I’m fluent in my language”  “but you are not the leaders, we are. The elders are before 89

you, so what we have to say, you have to listen to us because you don’t know where we come from, who we are, you don’t know you’re, your identity.”  “Your identity, you don’t know, you’ve lost it when you went to school and started learning English”  “I had to arrest some of them … I’d say respected, respected, respected, respectable”  “[the Elders] respect in there, at their level, they respect me”  “some people say I’m a mean person”  “I don’t know how they feel about me you know, other than being needed within the tribe”  “go down the street and ask the first ten people you run across”  “I think as an artist I’ve, probably become part reclusive and very secretive”

The third question asked was, “What expectations around Quechan language use do you have for yourself?” The elders shared a desire to teach younger tribal members their knowledge. This included language and cultural knowledge that was taught to them as children. Some of the elders expressed a division between what they felt a Quechan should be and what they had become as tribal members.

c. What  “happy with where I am right now” expectations  “I can get by with my people” around Quechan  “I used to talk when I was small. They know I was raised language use do by Quechan” you have for  “I never taught them [my kids], cause they didn’t want to yourself? learn. So I just let them speak English”  “prove to them that you’re Quechan, live by it, and learn Quechan”  “lay awake at night sometimes thinking, what shall I do to bring them in”  “they describe me as a speaker, a fluent speaker. They know I have knowledge of the language, and they respect that”  “before I say anything, to say it’s so, I will go to another … that are older than me”  “you have the knowledge, not us, we’re learning from you too she said, one of the elders”  “You have taught us many things that we [Elders] did not

90

know”  “I’d like to teach what I know”  “it’s more or less handed down by the river people”  “we don’t sing it your way”  “the Quechan’s had always had their own language until the non-Indians started coming over here”  “They [Spaniards] say “café”, “café” so Quechan’s adopted that, their coffee is now referred to as café, same as Spanish”  “our language [Quechan] does have other races language that’s incorporated”  “the language, more or less kind-of died, I always say, at a certain age, and to me that would probably be in the early ‘50’s. It died and we never revived it”  “the language needs to be revived from that point on just say from here on out”  “nobody has taken that initial step to do it”  “yeah that language needs to be a little bit more, in our day, in our age, excuse me, with new words and to at least keep it alive in today’s world”  “I believe I should learn more”  “he’s more fluently in the language, you know and so, he’s the one I go to”  “None, I just speak it as I see it or, and that’s it”  “the Quechan language is, is a hard language to learn, even for our own Quechan children”  “You can learn a foreign language, but you can’t learn your own language, that’s how I see it, but they know our culture, and I’ll take that”  “At one time I thought I wanted to learn it, but I, I [pause] I decided later that I, I didn’t think it made any difference at all because I really didn’t have anybody to converse”  “produce very fine, definitive Indian native art is because they’ve integrated their, their whole thought process, concept is Indian”  “there hasn’t been that kind of western influence on them”  “They’ve been making art for thousands of years and didn’t have any kind-of, any kind-of philosoc-, philosophical attachment to it, other than it was utilitarian in some kind-of way”  “I’m an Indian but, you know I’m more westernized than I am Indian”

91

The fourth question asked of the Quechan elders was, “As as a tribal elder, how do you feel other tribal members see you in the status as a recognized and respected elder?” The elders collectively expressed a feeling of pride when asked how other tribal members see them. This feeling was followed by many elders with descriptions of tribal culture and examples of their knowledge sharing. In addition, Quechan tribal elders expressed a general feeling of contentment for their self-recognized identity.

d. As as a tribal  “Well right now I think a lot of them like it when I go to elder, how you them and ask for information on words” do feel other  “cause I’m still learning” tribal members  “I’m not ashamed to ask for it [help]” see you in the  “You know, proud Quechan Indian” status as a  “they were really proud of me” recognized and  “I never thought about because I’m just me, and I don’t respected elder? look around to see what people think of me”  “All I know is that I exist”  “I’m already ahead of that race”  “if you move too fast without thinking and doing things, you could fall and trip and hurt yourself.”  “I’m going to live for thousands of years”  “I know when the time is right I’ll do, if it is not right I will not do it”  “I’m respected, they don’t go as far as flipping me off now”  “They’re a filthy rich tribe… respect, I get respect”  “Majority of them feel like I have accomplished a lot and when I say something I know what I’m talking about and, they respect it.”  “since I’m older, I’ve been involved in a lot of these things that’s happened”  “The reason being, since I’m older, I’ve been involved in a lot of these things that’s happened, and I’ll talk specifically about sacred sites. Sacred sites, to us, are sacred because it holds a lot of artifacts and other resources that belong to our ancestors”  “Don’t touch it, don’t do anything with it, leave it alone … we’re not going to let anything like that happen, and protecting our interests, our beliefs, our history.”  “they’ll throw me in the pictures, the newspaper and all that so, seeing that, you feel like well, maybe we should listen to him more” 92

 “when I use my language, all those people that understand it, appreciate that. All of those that don’t, I don’t know how they feel, but they know we’re saying something (laugh), but they never did ask me, please translate or whatever you know, they just, okay”  “I’m just who I am you know”  “I know what I am and what I do and, and how, especially how I am so, I don’t care what you think of me, I know myself”  “I don’t try to hide nothing, I’m just who I am … take it or leave it, you know what I mean?”  “I’ve thought, you know, about success and what that all means and that’s, that’s kind-of an a-, Americanized goal … I really don’t think I’m very successful actually”  “I felt like just a house painter more or less and you know you just do what people want you to do and that’s it. So it kind-of destroyed the idea of any, any real creativity for me … I learned how to make baskets, I learned how to process clay and all of this kind-of primitive stuff, it was a very good experience as an artist”

The fifth and final question about identity asked of the Quechan elders was, “How would tribal members describe your use of the Quechan language?” The Quechan elders interviewed shared a common feeling of both respect and disassociation from the tribal community. Several expressed a desire to hold knowledge of the language close and in the form they were accustomed to knowing. Identity construction was prevalent during responses to this question as several elders sought to move away from any question of conflict from other tribal members regarding language knowledge.

e. How would  “A lot of them wish I would know more (laugh), a lot of tribal members them” describe your  “They respect who I am and that I can know my language” use of the  “Some of them would say not enough” Quechan  “all I hear from the committee is say, teach it verbally, not language? in paper”  “They feel that the words I use in speaking my language, they know that what I speak is what I learned from my parents … Is your parents full-blood Quechan, and I said no

93

my parents are part (different tribe)”  “if you think I’m wrong you can teach your children the way you think yours is right”  “Just leave me alone and let me speak what I have to say”  “They’ve never heard of me [speak Quechan].”  “they look at me and say you know, I can talk to him, and he’ll talk to me in the language”

Culture

There were four questions associated with culture and presented as in vivo coding within Table 4-6. Each question presented was designed around the construct of culture and each was asked in a sequential manner of the participants. For each question, the presented in vivo coding was not exhaustive of all interview responses. Only the coding used for the research was summarized below.

The first question of each participant asked was, “What physical item(s) shows your tribal affiliation? Why have you selected and kept this item(s)? (ex. family or tribal artifact)” Few elders described having specific items related to being Quechan.

However, many elders reflected on what specific items and events connected them to the

Quechan culture. Dressmaking, beadwork, and facial tattoos were some examples the elders used to describe tribal affiliation. Also, one elder noted that the ritual Ka’ruk ceremony played a role in tribal affiliation for the Quechan.

Table 4-6

Culture a) What physical  “I have done a lot of beadwork for our tribe” item(s) shows  “Dressmaking which I’m still learning” your tribal  “My first Indian dress. Which is lopsided but I still have it affiliation? Why and some beaded necklaces that I have and kept. Gourds have you too” selected and  “I learned by myself was sewing” kept this  “When I sew, that was kinda hard but I learned it. How to item(s)? (ex. 94

family or tribal do it, I had to.” artifact)  “I sew dresses, ribbon dress, diamond dress for a happy occasion”  “we had a stove, it was made out of rocks, about this long, that wide, and they had a big steel on top of it that was the grill”  “our last Ka’ruk we had down here by the house and I sat underneath the arbor with her, I was thirteen years old, and all the people, different tribes were standing there watching us”  “my status you know like, I’m proud, I’m very proud, I don’t walk like this, slouch, or, I stand straight, and I walk tall”  “I make my own gourds”  “[Ka’ ruk] I put on the paint as they say, it’s special made red material that they take, you put it on your face”  “only a person, a strong person can use that eagle feather”  “when they uncovered a lot of our graves out here, we did a ceremony, and because we’ve never done that before in the past, …. It’s off the reservation then what do you do? So, I didn’t know either, … I went to sleep, I woke up and I knew the answer”  “it’s important to know the word, the correct version of the words and pronunciation so that, you know they say you can say a lot of things that doesn’t mean that he hears you”  “I could say that the physical item I have on me is, is my height”  “I’m big boned like a Quechan member”  “you take one look at me, you know I’m Indian”  “in old days, men and women had facial tattoos that were pretty faded when I was [pause] I remember as a child, probably about 5 years old, my grandmother still had her chin tattoos, and some men did too, they would have tattooed foreheads or tattoos on their cheeks, that kind-of thing”

The second question about culture asked of the Quechan elders was, “How do others know that you are a Quechan language speaker? (e.g. Speaking at tribal events?)

The elders interviewed expressed two distinctly differing views on how others knew they spoke the Quechan language. One view was more subdued and internally focused regarding others knowledge; conversely, another view was more public. The more public 95

perspective was more common among the elders interviewed. Those elders expressed a defined perspective of their identity as a Quechan speaker and made assumptions that others knew due to witnessed experiences. b) How do others  “very few, very few have elders know that [I am a Quechan know that you speaker]” are a Quechan  “I think a few [Elders] get annoyed with me when I can t language answer them back” speaker? (ex.  “[others know I am a Quechan speaker] Well the majority Speaking at that I’ve been teaching we’re on the list” tribal events?)  “there’s only 72 [fluent Quechan] speakers.”  “I have to wait ‘til they [Elders] tell me to sit down, then I would, and that’s my strong way of respecting them, you know, that’s how I am”  “they know I teach here, they know I’m teaching the [Quechan] language”  “I no building, nothing like this, I taught under the tree, the escape tree”  “I went to funerals to sing, California, Arizona, Nevada, all, and I always say that, the short prayer in my Quechan language”  “I sing songs, I talk about them and do demonstrations. I have classes at my home”  “I say a little bit of it and then I translate it in English. So at least they know what I’m saying”  “They don’t [know I’m Quechan speaker] , they just know I’m Quechan period”  “I’m Quechan, we don’t have to wear a sign that says we’re Quechan, they just know we are”  “Native Americans recognize each other”

The third question asked of the Quechan elders regarding the construct of culture was, “How do you feel non-tribal members ‘see’ the Quechan culture? Can you cite some examples of how people see the tribe?” Tribal elders expressed varying views on this question. Collectively, the interviewees expressed recognition that others see the

Quechan as something different from their own culture. In addition, some of the elders expressed concern of being judged as different or even “barbaric” as one elder described. 96

c) How do you feel  “very few [Winter visitors] are interested in our tradition non-tribal and our language” members ‘see’  “And I’m proud to say we are making a dictionary. I’m very the Quechan proud of it. It’s for our language for non-Indians to see it. culture? Can We do know our own language. Its kept forever, I hope.” you cite some  “He wanted to be Quechan.” examples of  “I see them envious of something different, and some are how people see scared” the tribe?  “even one lady said to me, oh I like that, how can I join your club (laugh) and I’m going (laugh), and I’m going oh my God (laugh) it stunned me like, ahh”  “Oh (sigh) they think we’re crazy I think (laugh).”  “the culture is who we are, our culture, that’s’ the story of us”  “[Culture is] it is language too, that’s part of it, and traditions and customs and ways of our life. The whole total thing of being Quechan.”  “Quechans are not going to live, they’re going to die because the new Quechans, the new generation, I don’t see them speaking Quechan, I don’t see them dressing proud of our Indian ways, they’re dressing the white man way.”  “They’re spirit is lost, they don’t know who they are.”  “Their blood is thinning out, well they’re already thinned out ‘cause there’s no Quechan blood in them, that’s’ why. That’s what my elder told me”  “Everyone of the new people are fat”  “In the beginning we were to take care of the earth, take care of the environment. We forgot, now it looks like trash out there”  “non-Indians, they have this perception “of what an Indian is to begin with because of Hollywood”  “see us as people that are backward or whatever but advance to still way back somewhere and they kind-of look down on us as second-class citizens and they still feel the same way”  “every time I go somewhere, they kind-of like, first of all the look at you, see your appearance, then they judge you by that. So that’s why I say why go somewhere I’ll put my tie on, I’ll fit in with the crowd”  “people will more or less accept you and see you as someone that’s on their level, or they won’t, depending on how you conduct yourself”  “it’s a way of trying to live in this world, away from how my beliefs, that they’re still there but, how do you emulate these non-Indians that you know, so that they feel like hey, he’s like one of us, he’s brown-skinned but he speaks the

97

same”  “I learn a lot and I say wow, if I wasn’t an Indian, if I was out there, I wonder what I’d be today, you know?”  “the cremation part, they see it as being barbaric people”  “there’s still prejudice in (name) and you know it’s, it’s not very open, but it is, and I know that they’re, they’ve kind-of frowned upon us, looked down on us for being who we are”  “I’m very prejudiced, I’m stingy with my culture”  “I’ve been prejudiced against, it rubbed off on me, and I admit that”  “children are educated in a more western American sensibility, that the exclusion of tribal culture and affiliation is kind-of relegated to the, relegated as secondary”

The final question asked of the Quechan elders on culture was, “How will

Quechan language preservation affect Quechan culture? What part will you play in this preservation?” The Quechan elders held a common view from their responses to this question. The elders described a slow death of the Quechan people and culture.

However, as one elder described, “the culture is more there than the language itself” and it’s this expression that suggests that although the elders recognize the eventual end of the

Quechan language, the culture can remain. d) How will  “I want it [Quechan language] to be kept so bad. I want, I Quechan wish all of these younger kids would learn it now and pass language it on” preservation  “I think that was wrong, very wrong for our people to be affect Quechan told not to speak our language. We lost something there. culture? What Our generation gap lost something that was very important part will you to us” play in this  “I want it to go on. To pass on. Everything, tradition, preservation? culture, the language mostly. That’s all we have left to be proud of, who we are, what we are.”  “I feel were losing our language. We may try to bring it back like the English. But were trying, but it’s still gonna be lost”  “English you know, living in the white man’s world I’ll say that’s what they did. “  “I have to speak it cause there are little children around and

98

they don’t know how to speak both languages.”  “When they’re angry they do [talk back in Quechan]”  “the language goes together with the culture.”  “Without it [Quechan language] you, you just won’t be complete, you won’t be complete.”  “all that [culture and language] has to click together and a circle and to fulfill closure”  “what the government told us to do, is speak English, that killed us.”  “They want to kill us, they don’t want to see no more reservations, they don’t want to see no more Indians”  “I will die as a Quechan because it’s in my blood. I will live forever”  “Some of us our proud of being Natives don’t say Indians”  “They’re [young Quechan] so influenced by the predominant society that they forget the basic teachings that I learned.”  “the language is the most important part of it because, a lot of these things that we say, it’s not written, you won’t find it anywhere, it’s passed on orally”  “I’ve done some [Quechan language] classes at elementary school, (name) Natives, non-Indians, well non-Indians picked it up quicker than the Quechans. I said why is that, I said it’s because the Quechans were kind-of ashamed to talk about it. Somehow it made them feel in some way.”  “I think we can do more just to change the way our younger kids are living. Get back into what we believe in and our values are much more, better than the white man’s”  “We’re losing all of our languages, our ceremonies, everything that was taught”  “We don’t do ceremonies no more, and eventually we will die because our blood quantum is going out to the point where great-grandchildren are no longer eligible to be enrolled and pretty soon it’s just going to fade away.”  “blood quantum. That’s what’s killing us I said you know. So, it’s not a Quechan concept or anything, it’s a white man’s. Why would we follow that? They dictate to us, now we’re saying, we’ll follow it”  “the language itself is, is something that needs to be really seriously taken, you know and preserving it, and today, like I said earlier, it’s not being taken seriously.”  “The English language will prevail, you know, as they say, that’s what’s going to happen”  “It won’t because it goes hand-in-hand. The culture is more there than the language itself.”

99

Other/Miscellaneous Data

The following table is a continuation of in vivo codes containing coding results when Quechan elders were asked if they would like to add any additional information at the end of the interview. From Table 4-7 emerges a few common themes that suggest a need for identity recognition among tribal elders. Responses to this question included specific events by the elders that included ritual songs, perceived failure by the dominant culture, and even physical abuse. Elder recalled early memories of boarding school treatment and attempts to restrict Quechan language and culture. Such an example from one of the elders was well stated as, “it was ’49 but let’s say since 1950, seventy years ago, they stopped beating us from speaking our Quechan language, or stopped beating us from, from following our culture.” The elders appeared to be proud of holding the remaining pieces of Quechan cultural knowledge close, and prouder yet of sharing this knowledge with only a select few.

Table 4-7

Additional Responses

Anything to add?  “I know that the time has come where you have to go forward, move forward. But that does not mean we have to stop talking our language and doing our traditions.”  “I want them to allow us to go on. I want to go on. I still got more to learn myself.”  “I’m very sad about our culture and our Indian language. We’re losing it, we really are and it’s sad to see that go.”  “The children have to learn [Quechan language]”  “[When I was a little girl, I remember] Being whipped (laughing).”  “[Went to Yuma Boarding School] I don’t know about 10. Cause they took me up there when I was ten. I remember”  “We would wear our shoes off underneath and the next day we would have a big hole. I just got the shoes too and I

100

couldn’t get any to the following month. But they weren’t that mean though. That’s was my fault.”  “Well, they already know everything about us. Its right up there at the school.”  “[What would you like others to know about the tribe] I want them to know I had a friend.”  “little boy was running, he was pretending to be a pony, but okay they played that, and then they played another role, get up, you drunk, I told you to look for work, don’t put this in that thing (laugh) you big drunk, you don’t go to work, all you like to do is drink”  “Nobody can see through my eyes what I can see, or feel what I feel”  “my degree of [Quechan] blood is 4/4ths, very proud of that because I grew-up speaking my language from the beginning”  “I’m really proud because my dad and my mom, they raised us up”  “My dad was born I think in 1910. So when he was 7 years, from 1910, 1917 was the last tattoo ceremony”  “My dad was my mentor, my grandpa was my mentor, my mother’s my mentor.”  “they told me that I wasn’t college material, you know what I mean, academically, because I had failed my SAT test, which I had to take for college entrance.”  “I know now that the information I share with you, is going to help you or someone else”  “she’s an Elder, and she, they have limitations on their knowledge of what they can share and do”  “[Quechan Elders] they’re happy doing simple things in the English way but, you know, it’s lost a lot of their identity has been lost, through the changes that they were asked to make”  “it changes through the time when people record it and it’s sometimes, it doesn’t make sense so they assume things, they put it in there”  “[When questioned] they know, but for some reason, they don’t just say this is what it means.”  “he’s the master singer, you know he sang them and from, I don’t know whenever, learned it but, he says, this is what it means, but the next few songs, doesn’t mean anything.”  “most songs refer to certain animals. Bat seems to be the, creature that is mentioned. Coyote is another one”  “How do you cope with that? How do you, you can reconcile with your life and keep on going. Songs will give

101

you that; this is how you do these things”  “the songs are sung in that fashion and when someone comes in, at the remains there, you start singing about that life, all the way through, you finish it out, and that’s it.”  “The song ends, now you’re on the other side. You begin a new life. It’s not, it doesn’t end, your life, your spirit.”  “the bird songs is about and, it’s really brief, and, but we think about it and say yeah, I guess, most of us have gone through that and, the songs come from The Creator”  “songs give you strength, they make you feel better and that’s why I say the song belong to everybody, not the singer.”  “I wish our tribe would go back to the way it was, you know like for instance, our tribal older people did everything with us on their own, with their hands, their mind, whatever they had”  “I’m proud to be who I am and I’m proud to say that I have built my own home”  “The white man taught me how to be who I am, and I’ve used those, those skills”  “I was in a color of my own there you know, I was just ah, how do you say it, I was just, I stood, I stood out, like a sore thumb”  “when I first started, none of the Quechan children could speak English fluently”  “probably my generation is the last that can speak it, can speak Quechan”  “it was ’49 but let’s say since 1950, seventy years ago, they stopped beating us from speaking our Quechan language, or stopped beating us from, from following our culture but yes, I do know that they did do that. They beat the children, they tortured the children, they, they were cruel, you know, under the pretense of educating us; they were very cruel, real cruel. Now, in some cases it was even the Catholic religion that was cruel, you know. They would beat children. You can’t do that.”  “we just don’t touch. Well they forced, some of the students, not me but some of the students back then, to dance with their cousins, and that was a strictly no-no. Number one, you don’t touch anybody, let alone your own cousin, that was almost incest, that was not allowed but, in the Quechan culture.”  “I look for that [segregation]. Now if you’re not looking for it, you’re not going to catch it, but I look for it, I look for that. I myself am very segregated, you know what I mean? I like Quechan’s and that’s it” 102

 “I think in, they should know the Creation Myth, and where we came from and how we got here”  “we really belong here you know, we weren’t moved from reservation to reservation but we really did live here”

Emergent Findings and Themes

The primary question presented in this research: How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity? Table 4-8 reflects alignment of the coding results with each question.

Table 4-8

Coding Results by Sub-Question

Sub-Questions Sample of In Vivo Code Descriptive Coding 1.What are the  “ we couldn’t talk Indian when I was CULTDYN (15) shared going to school” CULTCONST (42) experiences of  “cause we didn’t want the rest of the IDENTDYN (33) using a people to know what we were talking LANGINC (21) forbidden about” LANGSYMPOWER (26) language?  “we sold the most because I spoke FAMILYINF (30) English and I’d tell them the price FAMILYPOSITION (3) (laugh) they were, oh look at that IDENTCONST (58) little Indian girl” CULTFEAR (8)  “the hardest part was trying to relate CULTCOURAGE (3) my own self to them you know” CULTSYMBOLS (4)  “I experienced that, they, whacked STATUS (13) me you know … grabbed me here IDENTPERCEPTION (1) and slapped me about 5 times” CULTPERCEPTION (9)  “you learn the white man way, you’ll, SOCIALPERCPETION you’ll survive” (4) LANGDYN (4) 2.How does  “We still exist, and they think they CULTDYN (15) being able and wiped us out, no we’re still here” CULTCONST (36) encouraged to  “Your identity, you don’t know, IDENTDYN (20) speak the you’ve lost it when you went to LANGINC (1) Quechan school and started learning English” LANGSYMPOWER (7) native  “they describe me as a speaker, a FAMILYINF (1) language fluent speaker. They know I have IDENTCONST (40) affect how knowledge of the language, and they CULTFEAR (2) tribal respect that” CULTCOURAGE (13) members see  “You have taught us many things that CULTSYMBOLS (13) 103

their identity? we [Elders] did not know” STATUS (23) IDENTPERCEPTION (10) 3.How do tribal  “I sing songs, I talk about them and CULTDYN (15) members see do demonstrations. I have classes at CULTCONST (31) their culture my home” IDENTDYN (5) differently  “And I’m proud to say we are making LANGINC (1) now that the a dictionary. I’m very proud of it. It’s LANGSYMPOWER (5) language can for our language for non-Indians to IDENTCONST (22) be taught and see it. We do know our own CULTCOURAGE (4) publicly language. Its kept forever, I hope.” CULTSYMBOLS (11) spoken?  “the culture is who we are, our STATUS (6) culture, that’s’ the story of us” IDENTPERCEPTION  “I’m very prejudiced, I’m stingy with (11) my culture” CULTPERCEPTION  “children are educated in a more (11) western American sensibility, that the SOCIALPERCPETION exclusion of tribal culture and (7) affiliation is kind-of relegated to the, relegated as secondary”

Findings included a synthesis of initial, in vivo, descriptive, and pattern coding.

Table 4-9, which begins on the next page, reflects a summary of the research completed during this study and attempts to illustrate the flow of coding rigor building toward thematic description. Words are bolded in the initial and in vivo coding column to reflect the importance the researcher found during the construct based questions for language, identity, and culture. The first block represents language, the second block identity, and the third block of codes represents the culture construct. This table also includes second cycle coding results, which include pattern coding and emergent themes.

Each theme is given a detailed explanation following the table summary presented.

Table 4-9

First and Second Cycle Coding Results

104

1st Cycle Coding 2nd Cycle Initial and In Vivo Emergent Themes Major Coding Samples Findings / Conclusions “How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity?”

 “ we couldn’t talk Indian when  Current language use and I was going to school”; the social reality for tribal first language elders is based partially on  “cause we didn’t want the rest history of the people to know what we were talking about”  Recognition of survival is  “we sold the most because I key to elders Language spoke English and I’d tell understanding of reality means them the price (laugh) they and may suggest a Survival were, oh look at that little constructed reality formed

Language Indian girl” largely on historically Historically  “I experienced that, they, captured documents and Based Reality whacked me you know … literature originated by grabbed me here and slapped non-Quechan people me about 5 times”  “you learn the white man way, you’ll, you’ll survive”; concepts are English  “We still exist, and they think  Elders show affective they wiped us out, no we’re behaviors toward passing still here”; they recognize me down the Quechan  “Your identity, you don’t language know, you’ve lost it when you Identity went to school and started  Social acknowledgement formation is learning English” of life and skills to offer continuous  “they describe me as a younger tribal members

Identity may indicate identity speaker, a fluent speaker. Identity reformation They know I have knowledge Reconstruction of the language, and they respect that”; respected  “You have taught us many things that we [Elders] did not know”; I’m just me

105

 “I sing songs, I talk about  Activities noted by elders them and do demonstrations. I may indicate a cultural have classes at my home” construction based on  “And I’m proud to say we are closely held tribal making a dictionary. I’m very knowledge proud of it. It’s for our language for non-Indians to  Some tribal customs see it. We do know our own remain relevant today; Culture is

language. It’s kept forever” removal or restriction of individually  “the culture is who we are, our language may have altered focused culture, that’s the story of us”; tribal culture but did not

Culture ceremony remove it; this may Cultural indicate a cultural  “I’m very prejudiced, I’m Realignment stingy with my culture”; they disruption and subsequent look down on us formation of culture  “children are educated in a more western American sensibility, that the exclusion of tribal culture and affiliation is kind-of relegated to the, relegated as secondary”

To fully illustrate the research findings, Table 4-10 encased the primary question with resulting themes:

Table 4-10: Emergent Themes

Research Question Emergent Themes 1. Current language use and social reality for tribal elders are based partially on history

“How does speaking 2. Recognition of survival was key to elders’ understanding of reality and would suggest a the native language constructed reality formed partly on historically affect one's sense of captured documents and literature originated by non- Quechan people culture and 3. Elders showed affective behaviors toward passing down identity?” the Quechan language

4. Social acknowledgement of the Quechan Tribes’ continued existence and the skills offered to younger tribal members may indicate identity reformation

106

5. Activities noted by elders indicated a cultural construction based on closely held tribal knowledge

6. Some tribal customs remain relevant today; removal or restriction of language may have altered tribal culture but did not remove it; this may indicate a cultural disruption and subsequent formation of culture

Themes

Emergent Theme 1: Current language use and social reality for tribal elders are based partially on history.

Power exercised by the United States Government and interpreted as historical social experiences by the Quechan elders may suggest a current reality based partially on historical events. Most of the Quechan elders described a period of time when the

Quechan language was no longer used in daily life. English had replaced the core symbol and those elders did not recall an instance of having been taught how to speak English.

Additionally, the recognition of continued survival of the Quechan Tribe by the elders may suggest a common understanding of reality. Collectively, the elders interviewed described the Quechan language as something that was taken from them.

The oldest tribal elder described an example of this restriction as she stated, “no talking

Indian they tell us that”. Adherence to English for the Quechan elder was then described as something that was required for basic survival.

Emergent Theme 2: Recognition of survival was key to elders’ understanding of reality and would suggest a constructed reality formed partly on historically captured documents and literature originated by non-Quechan people.

Collectively the Quechan elders interviewed suggested that, “you learn the white man way, you’ll, you’ll survive.” The removal of the Quechan language during a

107

formative period of life may have required the elder to seek other paths for understanding the Quechan way of life. As described by one elder, one song in particular was lost for most of his life time. The return of one researcher to the reservation brought recordings that he had made from years ago. As the elders listened to the researcher sing the song and to the recording he had brought, they recognized the song from their elders. With this experience, one of the current elders listening to this learned how to sing the song.

When questioned a few years later about what the song meant, the elder described a version that was not understood by the interviewer. According to the elder, the song had been recorded and reinterpreted by a non-Quechan and therefore the meaning had been lost. Although to the elder that learned the song, this was not the case and the song is now repeated as a pure form of Quechan ritual during some ceremonies.

Today, the Quechan elders rely partially on what was written about their culture, songs, and history to understand who they are as a people. Erikson (1950, 1963) suggested in his ‘Eight Ages of Man’ that during the third stage of development -

“Initiative versus Guilt”, between the ages of 3 to 6 years of age children begin to exert control and power over their environment. The Quechan language was restricted from the elders interviewed between the ages of 3 to 6 years. This restriction influenced the sharing of information between family members. As one elder explained, “we couldn’t talk Indian when I was going to school.” This set the stage for the Quechan elder to continue searching for reality, identity, and culture for many years.

Emergent Theme 3: Elders showed affective behaviors toward passing down the

Quechan language.

108

Elders show affective behaviors toward passing down the Quechan language. To become an elder in the Quechan Tribe is considered an honor and with that level of social recognition comes responsibility. The Quechan elders indicate a desire and current willingness to share information with the younger generation. As stated by one of the elders, “I want it [Quechan language] to be kept so bad. I want, I wish all of these younger kids would learn it now and pass it on”. This desire is tempered by an on-going distrust for non-tribal members. As described by one elder, “the more language disappears, you know we’re going to lose our Indian-ness, and that, that I think the government would like us to lose our Indian-ness so that, that they could take over our land”.

Along with a historically based reality and current permission by the United

States Government to allow formal teaching and documentation of the language, the

Quechan are sharing the common experience of language legitimization by the Federal

Government for the first time since 1852. The Quechan language can be publically shared, spoken, and taught so that this key symbol can be shared with future generations of tribal members. The current national recognition of the 1990 Native American

Languages Act, when aligned with global information sharing, may have positioned the

Quechan to reconstruct their individual identity from both historically well-hidden traditions and long-standing versions of tribal literature.

Emergent Theme 4: Social acknowledgement of the Quechan Tribes’ continued existence and the skills offered to younger tribal members may indicate identity reformation.

109

The elders collectively spoke of the Quechan’s continued existence. As one elder described, “we still exist, and they think they wiped us out, no we’re still here.” The

Quechan elders believe it is an accomplishment for the tribe to continue to exist and function as a unit after much struggle. Many elders suggested that their identity had even been lost, as one elder stated, “your identity, you don’t know, you’ve lost it when you went to school and started learning English.” The elders also suggested several times that the younger tribal members showed them respect for knowing the language and culture. Several of the elders interviewed explained that they were teaching the tribe how to speak Quechan. Although not a function of this research, it is unlikely that many, if any, non-elder Quechan are fluent in the tribal language at this time. As one elder stated,

“they recognize me” when asked about his identity among the tribe as a Quechan speaker.

Emergent Theme 5: Activities noted by elders indicated a cultural construction based on closely held tribal knowledge.

Quechan elders actively shared knowledge with younger tribal members through song and rituals. As explained by one elder, “I sing songs, I talk about them and do demonstrations. I have classes at my home.” This elder reflects similar sentiments with a large majority of the elders interviewed. Most elders felt as one described, “the culture is who we are, our culture, that’s the story of us.” These collective feelings of culture provided the elders a platform from which to share closely held knowledge with other tribal members. This form of cultural construction is mirrored throughout the words of all of the elders interviewed. The need to share culture with other tribal members is

110

important, and by sharing native language in a more public forum, the Quechan elder is able to construct culture through a unique lens.

Emergent Theme 6: Some tribal customs remain relevant today; removal or restriction of language may have altered tribal culture but did not remove it; this may indicate a cultural disruption and subsequent formation of culture.

Some tribal customs remain relevant today and tribal elders note that some rituals are no longer practiced. The elders indicate pride in having participated in a few of the now-extinct traditions. Statements such as, “my dad was born I think in 1910. So when he was 7 years, from 1910, 1917 was the last tattoo ceremony” and “our last Ka’ruk we had down here by the house and I sat underneath the arbor with her, I was thirteen years old, and all the people, different tribes were standing there watching us” suggest the

Quechan elders acknowledge a differently practiced form of culture. Removal or restriction of the Quechan language may have altered tribal traditions but did not eradicate the culture.

Summary of Chapter

For this phenomenological research study, data was collected through ten interviews with Quechan Native American elders. The study employed interviews focused on describing what essence all participants shared, as they experienced the phenomenon of native language reintroduction or legitimization into tribal culture. Based on Saldana (2009), coding techniques employed included the suggested use of attribute, initial, in-vivo, descriptive, and thematic coding. Data was then analyzed using interview results and from this analysis emerged six common themes. These findings suggested individual identity and culture were influenced in the following ways:

111

1. Current language use and social reality for tribal elders are based partially on history.

2. Recognition of survival was key to elders’ understanding of reality and would suggest

a constructed reality formed partly on historically captured documents and literature

originated by non-Quechan people.

3. Elders showed affective behaviors toward passing down the Quechan language.

4. Social acknowledgement of the Quechan Tribes’ continued existence and the skills

offered to younger tribal members may indicate identity reformation.

5. Activities noted by elders indicated a cultural construction based on closely held

tribal knowledge.

6. Some tribal customs remain relevant today; removal or restriction of language may

have altered tribal culture but did not remove it; this may indicate a cultural

disruption and subsequent formation of culture.

In summary, the six key findings from this research attempted to explain the influence of a dominant culture restricting and then legitimizing native language use from the Quechan Native Americans. Elders within this tribe shared a common theme of recognizing the Quechan language as a symbol connecting the tribal unit and culture.

112

Chapter 5: Interpretations, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain greater understanding of the influence that resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its members’ culture and identity. This study explored the shared phenomenon experienced by tribal members as their native language, once predominantly used for communication among the tribe, was restricted from use, and then later legitimized by the dominant culture. The constructs of language, culture, and identity provided a framework for this research study.

The shared experiences of ten tribal elders were examined to gain greater understanding of the influence that the Native American Languages Act of 1990 had on individual identity and culture. The research question stated was: “How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity?”

Additional sub-questions that complement the primary research question were:

1. What are the shared experiences of using a forbidden language?

2. How does being able and encouraged to speak the Quechan native language

affect how tribal members see their identity?

3. How do tribal members see their culture differently now that the language can be

taught and publicly spoken?

Six themes emerged to form three major findings from this research. The first theme of ‘current language use and social reality for tribal elders are based partially on history’ emerged as elders commonly used historically based social experiences to explain the current use and status of the Quechan language. This power exercised by the

United States Government emerged vividly as most of the Quechan elders interviewed

113

described a period of time when the Quechan language was no longer used in daily life.

The Quechan language was forcibly restricted and English had replaced this core symbol.

This introduces the second theme, ‘recognition of survival was key to elders’ understanding of reality and would suggest a constructed reality formed partly on historically captured documents and literature originated by non-Quechan people.’

Several elders interviewed did not recall an instance of having been taught how to speak

English. However, the elders understood that survival meant learning the English language. This recognition was best illustrated in the words of one elder, “you learn the white man way, you’ll, you’ll survive.” Collectively, themes one and two merged to form the first major finding: language means survival for the Quechan elder who forms much of current reality on historical knowledge.

The third theme that emerged from this research study is ‘elders showed affective behaviors toward passing down the Quechan language’, which in other words indicates that the Quechan elders indicated a desire and willingness to share information with the younger generation. Although, this desire is tempered by an on-going distrust for non- tribal members, the elders realized that for the first time in their lifetime the Quechan language is considered legitimate by the dominant power. The fourth theme emerged as

‘social acknowledgement of the Quechan Tribes’ continued existence and the skills offered to younger tribal members may indicate identity reformation’. As the elders collectively spoke of the Quechan’s continued existence, many of them stated that the younger tribal members gave the elders respect for knowing the language and culture.

Themes numbered three and four merged to form the second major finding: identity formation is continuous and the Quechan elder may be in the midst of reconstructing their

114

individual identity and thereby greatly influencing tribal identity due to their recognized status as an elder. This is illustrated best in the words of one elder who stated, “they recognize me.”

The fifth emergent theme of ‘activities noted by elders indicated a cultural construction based on closely held tribal knowledge’ suggests as one elder stated, “the culture is who we are, our culture, that’s the story of us.” These collective feelings of culture provided the elders a platform from which to share closely held knowledge with other tribal members. With the introduction of the Quechan language as now legitimate, the Quechan elder is able to construct individual culture with a worldview supportive and not restrictive of publically speaking Quechan. The sixth and final emergent theme stated as ‘removal or restriction of language may have altered tribal culture but did not remove it; this may indicate a cultural disruption and subsequent formation of culture’ suggests that the Quechan culture will remain beyond what was lost when language was forcibly restricted from the tribe. Current language resurgence suggests that removal or restriction of the Quechan language may have altered tribal traditions, but did not eradicate tribal culture. The fifth and sixth themes merge to form the third and final major conclusion: culture is individually focused for the Quechan elder and through language legitimization, the culture itself may be realigning.

There are two cycles of coding recommended by Saldana (1990). They are labeled as first cycle and second cycle coding. During the first cycle of coding, data is themed to include emergent ideas from the research results. During this phase, data is categorized for collective understanding. The second cycle of coding is not always required; however, the purpose of this stage is to develop a sense of theme or theoretical

115

organization from the first cycle coding activities. Themeing the data, according to

Saldana (2009), is a “phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and/or what it means” (p. 139). Saldana (2009) also described themes to be “ideas as descriptions of behavior within a culture, explanations of why something happened, iconic statements, and morals from participant stories” (p. 139). The six emergent themes from this research study converged and were presented as three conclusions or major findings. Van Manen (1990) proposed that themes are used to “capture the phenomenon that the researcher is trying to understand” (p. 87). This collection of themes, however, is not necessarily meant for “systemic analysis” (p. 91). Themeing of the data, according to Saldana (2009), is more appropriate for interview based and participant-generated review.

Discussion of the Conclusions

Conclusion 1: Language means survival for the Quechan elder who form much of current reality on historical knowledge.

The dominant power controls much of what the Quechan elders know as current reality. Documentation about Native American Tribes exists largely from the early writing of settlers during expeditions of North America. Very little is written about the

Quechan and although much of what the tribe believes today is based on closely held tradition, much of the cultural traditions have certainly been lost or rewritten over time.

Bourdieu (1990) suggested that when a culture loses its language, the dominant culture has reign to re-interpret the subordinate language as it sees fit. This act of interpretation is recognized as symbolic power and is present when another group attempts or succeeds at eradicating a culture’s language. Bourdieu (1990) also argued, “the relations of

116

communication par excellence – linguistic exchanges – are also relations of symbolic power in which the power relations between speakers or their respective groups are actualized” (p. 37). This form of power is present as relationships between those persons or groups exercising power and those realizing the same power take place (Bourdieu,

1991). The Quechan had little choice but to learn English to survive. As described by

Elder D when selling goods to visitors, “we sold the most because I spoke English and I’d tell them the price (laugh) they were, oh look at that little Indian girl.” This statement may partially explain the surprising reason that the Quechan elders’ choose not to teach younger tribal members the Quechan language. In addition, the research study supported

Bourdieu’s (1990, 1991) theory of language and symbolic power.

Bourdieu (1991) formed his theories of language and symbolic power on the idea of habitus, or by what Thompson (1991) interpreted Bourdieu to mean, “a set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways” (p. 12). According to

Bourdieu, symbolic power is a power that must be recognized as legitimate by those surrounding it and it is this power that has the ability to change the vision of one’s world.

This is an equivalent force much like that of a physical or economic force that by an almost magical power is used by those in power and ultimately accepted by those who submit to it. This form of power carries with it the ability to alter society while forging a new transformative community armed with the ability to command communication. The

Quechan recognized this power and as illustrated by Elder D, survival meant following the altered societal structure placed by the dominant power.

117

Conclusion 2: Identity formation is continuous and the Quechan elder may be in the midst of reconstructing their individual identity and thereby greatly influencing tribal identity due to their recognized status as an elder.

Erikson’s (1950) views on identity included a perpetual development stream where at no specific time would someone be able to say, “this is who I am.” To do so, in

Erikson’s eyes, meant that the person had stopped being a person and his or her attentiveness to growth had completely stopped. Quechan identity has likely never stopped changing; however, their identity as individuals has not been allowed to organically emerge from internal sources. An example of this is the designation of tribal leaders once recognized with legitimate power and then moving into a position of referent power by caring knowledge of the Quechan language.

According to Slater (2003), Erikson recognized the influences of culture and history and refused to be confined by the reductionistic analyses and strict rules of interpretation. In the eyes of Erikson, the Quechan identity continues and this research suggests that their identity may have been placed on a new path.

Identity, as suggested by Hoare’s (2012) extension of Erikson, suggests that more research should be conducted that is focused on descriptive research, observational research, and case studies. She offered that in future studies, identity should be “seen in its complete, undiminished nature” (p. 15). This research of the Quechan Native

American tribal elders meets Hoare’s suggestion for descriptive and observational research. The Quechan people have remained fairly isolated from the influences of the dominant culture when compared to many other culturally decimated groups. As suggested by Stewart (1965), the tribe was recognized as having maintained portions of

118

their cultural identity in spite of over several hundred years of struggle. While this research made no attempt to document closely held tribal culture, elders verbally recognized that in order to keep the culture alive, the Quechan people must maintain portions of their tribal identity with shared language.

At the individual level of analysis, Erikson (1950, 1963) suggested in his ‘Eight

Ages of Man’ that during the third stage of development or “Initiative versus Guilt” stage, between the ages of 3 to 6 years of age children begin to exert control and power over their environment. Social functions, such as play, allow for outlets and experimentation of this power. Success in this stage allows children to feel as though they can lead peers and have confidence with the external world. The opposite is true if a child fails within this stage, at which time he will begin exhibiting feelings of both guilt and shame. It was this stage where 9 out of 10 tribal elders interviewed recalled speaking only Quechan and many recognized that shortly after this age did they begin communicating in English. Erikson suggested that identity is a continuous individual process through life. Quechan elders experienced a phenomenon uncommon to life in

North America since the onset of early invaders. Most of the Quechan elders interviewed spoke Quechan as a first language and were eventually forced to learn the English language during a critical time of development.

There is a strong connection for the Quechan between the two stages of “ego integrity versus despair” where mature adults may reflect on what they have contributed to the community and “initiative versus guilt” where children were unable to exert power or control over their environment (Erikson, 1950). Erikson suggested during his work with the Dakota Native Americans in 1942 “the language usually taught first is the old

119

Indian one” (p. 157). He stated that the development of children was not rushed and basic functions of communications were not forced. The English language was forced onto Quechan children and it is possible that confidence with the external world was not achieved for many Quechan people due to this act of force and restriction.

Table 5-1 is a proposed expansion of Erikson’s model, to include a parallel stage with “ego integrity versus despair” that includes “reflection versus action.” Erikson

(1950) suggested that during the final stage of life, humans reflect on what they have offered society. However, he focused largely on the settling of one’s life as a final ideal of who that person once was. Erikson fails to elaborate that at this stage of life people can offer action in support of those in earlier stages. While a new stage for Erikson’s psychosocial development framework is not proposed, more choices for the final stage of maturity beyond “ego integrity and despair” reconciliation are advocated. Beyond reflection alone, action may be taken from those within this stage of life. If fostered by the dominant culture, this group may serve to add more than just integrity or despair to the collective environment.

The Quechan elder is revered and even honored as a leader in many ways. It’s through this respect that the Quechan are able to provide a platform for the tribal elder to have a voice and even share that voice with teachings for the good of the group. Erikson

(1950) also explained that during this stage, a life reflected upon would lead the mature person to feel integrity or despair dependent upon earlier life expectations and eventual contributions. Quechan culture supports and promotes the elders to share their life experiences. This unique circumstance of language resurgence allows the elder to reflect

120

and even publically act (teach) upon a once forbidden symbol that may reshape the

Quechan individual identity.

Parham (2012) suggested, “the ethnogenesis, or process of distinct cultural development and identity formation for Pacific north-west Native Americans was tied to the process of resisting Anglo encroachment. As they pushed to retain lands and traditions, Native Americans in the Pacific north-west defined themselves, not so much in opposition to colonial forces or immigrating whites, but in their ability to survive and adapt to changing circumstances.” (p. 450). The Quechan people are entering a new era of identity formation that includes the Quechan language. The individual tribal member may seek to understand a different version of his or her identity as the Quechan language resurges as legitimate and the number of tribal members grow in number.

Erikson’s (1950) final stage of development labeled as “ego integrity versus despair”, known also as late adulthood, focuses on life’s accomplishments and lost opportunities. According to Erikson, during this period man either fears death based on what he did not succeed in or acceptance because he did succeed at accomplishing during his lifetime. The Quechan may be seeking to reconstruct their identity instead of revisiting Erikson’s stage three as he suggested must occur for a healthy adult.

During this stage, according to Erikson labeled as “initiative versus guilt”, and between the ages of 3 to 6 years of age (1963) where children begin to exert control and power over their environment. Social functions, such as play, allow for outlets and experimentation of this power. Success in this stage allows children to feel as though they can lead peers and have confidence with the external world. The opposite is true if a child fails within this stage, at which time he will begin exhibiting feelings of both guilt

121

and shame. Many Quechan were not allowed to fully prosper in this stage as the key symbol of language was taken away from them as a legitimate means to make meaning.

Contrary to Erikson’s argument that different cultures require, “each individual, to become a mature adult, must to a sufficient degree, develop all the ego qualities mentioned, so that a wise Indian, a true gentleman, and a mature peasant share and recognize in one another the final stage of integrity” (p. 269), the Quechan may be reconstructing their individual identities that include edited versions of a once restricted language merged with adapted tales of Anglo influence. Figure 5-1 below provides a proposed enhancement to Erikson’s eight stages of man theory.

Figure 5-1

Proposed Enhancement to Erikson’s Model

Conclusion 3: Culture is individually focused for the Quechan elder and through language legitimization, the culture itself may be realigning. 122

Hatch (1993) suggested that relationships are the focus of her Cultural Dynamics

Model. This foundation of relational culture provides a key element in the continuously evolving perspective of Erikson’s view on identity. She proffered that words are translated into symbols that are then ultimately given meaning by the organization

(synonymous with tribe in this research). If the Quechan Tribe has recognized words that were removed or forbidden from daily use and reintroduced as legitimate 138 years later, meaning making would be influenced and thereby culture would be influenced. The

Quechan culture may be realigning, or adapting to the dominant culture and thereby adding empirical evidence for the Cultural Dynamics Model (Hatch, 1993).

Findings on culture were supportive of current theory but also added new information in the form of empirical data for Hatch’s (1993) Cultural Dynamics Model.

The Quechan culture may be realigning and results of this cultural shift could be adding empirical evidence for the Cultural Dynamics Model. Data gathered during this research supports Hatch’s model and goes further to suggest that, for the Quechan Native

American Tribe, assumptions about what reality is may be changing and thereby changing the culture into a newly formed entity. Figure 5–2 illustrates empirical support for the Cultural Dynamics Model.

Empirical evidence for Hatch’s (1993) Cultural Dynamics model included symbolization, interpretation, manifestation, and realization. Symbolization from

Hatch’s perspective suggested that prospective symbolization “links an artifacts objective form and literal meaning to experiences that lie beyond the literal domain” (p. 670). She continued to suggest that retrospective symbolization includes those artifacts that are reflected upon that hold meaning greater than the intended material form. The research

123

gave evidence of both prospective and retrospective symbolization through reflection and proclamation of new meaning through artifacts.

The concept of interpretation from the prospective mode, according to Hatch

(1993), suggests that it “maintains or challenges basic assumptions” (p. 675), while the retrospective mode “reconstructs the meaning of symbols via feedback” (p. 675). This study yielded prospective and retrospective interpretation from tribal elders as illustrated in Figure 5-2. The symbols used by the Quechan elders were molded and then remolded by “existing ways of understanding” (p. 675) within tribal culture.

Hatch (1993) suggested that the process of manifestation can occur in two ways: proactively, whereby processes “influence values” and “through retroactive processes that influence assumptions via retroactive value recognition” (p. 662). The Quechan are changing both individually and collectively as illuminated by this research study. The elders continue to evolve through proactive and retroactive manifestation.

Additionally, Hatch’s (1993) final stage of her Cultural Dynamic Model proposed that realization brings about artifacts. These are the very artifacts that Schein (1985) suggested were the “most tangible aspects of culture” (Hatch, p. 665). Her perspective on proactive realization suggested that this process “gives substance to expectations revealed by the manifestation process” (p. 666). The retroactive perspective of realization may serve to realign values over time. Those items once viewed as unacceptable may become acceptable over time. Quechan elders are realigning values with language as a group. The value assigned to speaking the Quechan language was once determined to be wrong and is now viewed as legitimate by the Quechan and the

United Stated Government.

124

The Quechan people, like many cultures, have likely been reinterpreting their own culture for many years. According to Parham (2012), recent historians gained greater understanding of Native social policy including wage labor activities that contributed to the general idea of Native Americans as an unproductive culture. Policies of the time suggested that “one who did not work was not considered a productive member of society. So the myth of the unproductive Indian, relying on handouts from the Bureau of

Indian Affairs instead of the sweat of his or her own brow was born” (p. 450). Parham

(2012) contended that Natives of the Northwest were able to adapt to European man’s encroachment through “oral tales and folklore” (p. 448). This adaptation of a group of

Northern United States indigenous people suggests an integrated survival pattern that could be woven into tribal culture.

As illustrated in Figure 5-2 below, the Quechan have provided data for Hatch’s

(1993) Cultural Dynamics Model by providing individual perspectives from the members of the decision making body who are almost singularly influential over group cultural meaning making. Elders within the Quechan tribe are revered as those most worthy of interpreting tribal language, history, and future direction. As this research illuminated, the Quechan elder uses a collection of historical values to help form both collective and individually derived basic assumptions. Since the elder defines what the tribe understands as a basic assumption, the individual is providing proactive manifestation to impact shared values. Hatch’s (1993) dynamic culture model, built upon Schein’s (1985) elements of culture, suggested that culture is not a single item but rather is formed using an interpretivist lens where culture is constructed in dynamic relationships. Very little written history is documented about the Quechan and none about the Quechan individual.

125

The individual tribal member may be developing an inclusive culture largely independent of a modern concept, which seeks to divide the individual from the group. Figure 5-2 below illustrates the enhancement to Hatch’s (1993) Cultural Dynamics Model, as suggested by this study.

Figure 5-2

Enhancement to Cultural Dynamics Model

Contributions and Recommendations

Contributions to Theory

This research provided evidence to support Hatch’s (1993) Cultural Dynamics

Model and suggested an extension to Erikson’s (1950) stages of psychosocial development. However, future recommendations for theory research could include an extension of Hatch’s dynamic model to include culturally undisturbed environments.

Such a group could mature the evidence and possibly challenge information captured to date. Additionally, implications for theory research on identity could include human

126

beings unable to outwardly express the use of an artifact, values, basic assumptions, or symbols. Such a study could evolve a theoretical understanding independent of outward measurement of any kind and give new meaning to individual identity and culture.

Erikson’s (1950) early work with the Sioux suggested that their lives provided a unique view into the life of childhood identity. His view of primitive identity evolution was summarized as “their image of man begins and ends with their idea of a strong

Yurok or Sioux [tribe]. In our civilization the image of a man is expanding” (p. 237).

This process of individuation as Erikson described it, suggested the “expansion into

‘regions, nations, and continents’ was a means for European man to seek ‘economic and emotional safety’ in the form of new conquests” (p. 237). The Quechan are considered

‘primitive man’ according to Erikson and by his words “have a direct relationship with the sources and means of production” (p. 237). Erikson also states that as “extensions of the human body” (p. 237), children not only take part in technical quests but also in magical (spiritual) endeavors. He also noted that the “expansion of civilizations has made it impossible for children to include in their ego-synthesis more than segments of society which are relevant to their existence” (p. 237).

Erikson (1950) also suggested that as European man sought to gain regions, nations, and continents, he was in the process of individuating. Erikson’s thoughts on this for European man could be examined further to gain greater understanding of how

European man is currently individuating. Land expansion for European man has slowed since the formation of the United States. Further implications for theory research could include the merging of indigenous identity formation with European man to incorporate a new lens that includes a slowed progression of new conquests for either.

127

Recommendations for Practice

The interdisciplinary approach of human & organizational learning (HOL) seeks to gain greater understanding of individual and group influence on organizations. HOL fuses both theoretically framed critical thinking with empirically underpinned applications. This research study can improve the practice of HOL in at least five distinct ways. Results of this study could serve to:

 Provide greater insight into Native Americans perception of social awareness and

time: greater insight into the organizational and social awareness of indigenous

groups.

 Redefine what organization means: provide a new lens forged to view the

organization as more than either a sum of its individuals or an emergent singular

entity.

 Uncover hidden knowledge: add knowledge to the field of adult learning focused

on cultural groups previously unwilling to share critical nuances of their culture.

 Gain understanding of identity impacts on a child when restricting first language:

provide insight into the effects of removing the first language from a child

between the ages of 3 to 6; understand the influence of a novel language.

 Define female and male identity differences within indigenous cultures: gain

greater understanding of identity differences and changes for indigenous cultural

groups as a dominant culture guides life further and further away from a nomadic

existence.

Greater insight into Native Americans Perception of Social Awareness.

Cultures have existed for thousands of years on this land (long before 1492) and defining

128

intellect with a number two pencil and a bubble sheet while seated at a classroom desk is shortsighted. Native Americans may be aware of their social existence in a very different way from those of a newly planted culture. A deeper understanding of Native Americans may serve to help the dominant culture by gaining greater comprehension of what it means to restrict or annihilate various ways of life. Surface symbols exist today that represent Native American cultures and many of these serve to lessen the indigenous to that of an icon proudly standing in defiance upon land he or she cannot actually own. A greater understanding of social awareness from the perspective of indigenous people could help to both foster social healing and serve to strengthen the core diversity of thought within the United States of America.

Time also presents a unique dilemma for the Quechan elder. The concept of time is not the same when compared with the dominant cultures’ definition of time. The moment an interaction occurs for the Quechan elder, the information shared during that moment is defined only during that moment and at that intersection of time. Future reference to that interaction is fleeting to the Quechan elder and serves only to satisfy the dominant cultures need to reinterpret or redefine. Awareness of this concept of time could illuminate new views on how various cultures view interactions with others.

Redefine What Organization Means. The word organization to indigenous tribes may mean something very different from what scholars and practitioners understand today. As this research study has illuminated, elders within the Quechan

Tribe serve to create and redefine the organizational understanding of reality at the individual level. This statement conflicts with most current literature on individual and organizational research. It is possible that in our current search for explanatory theory

129

tempered with an almost unquenchable need to place hierarchy within every facet of business, the literature has neglected to look at one of the oldest surviving cultures of this land. The Quechan formed an ‘organization’ to offer both groups, their own and the dominant culture, one product: survival of the Quechan people. Gaining greater understanding of what organizing means to various cultures may provide a more succinctly holistic definition of organization.

Uncover Hidden Knowledge. Gaining greater insight into the identity and cultural perceptions of Native Americans could shed light on what academic achievement means for indigenous populations. This information could foster new perspectives and lenses for adult learning. As revealed through this research, the Quechan elder holds past perceived injustices close to his or her identity. A greater understanding of indigenous youth may help the practitioner and scholar to better understand where focus can be applied that would support greater intellectual achievement promoted by the dominant culture. This understanding could redefine the definition of testing, intellect, and even knowing for the greater good.

Arguably, this information could serve to give organizations knowledge that could help them sustain during times of involuntary or voluntary mergers or acquisitions.

By gaining a greater understanding of how and why individual cultures hide critical knowledge, the practitioner could be better suited to help foster an environment amenable to information sharing. Such at atmosphere may shed new light on survival techniques and practices for an organization.

Identity Impacts on a Child when Restricting First Language. Disrupting a child between the ages of three and six from speaking their native language may

130

influence their identity. Practically, a greater understanding of this influence may serve to help practitioners and scholars to better understand individual identity formation for children. As children gain or lose confidence during this time, support of the child’s first language or evolving novel language may provide a completely different identity formation. Novel language evolves from the intense interactions of leaders (Barrett,

Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995). As this research study has shown, language does influence individual culture and identity of Quechan Native American elders. Each elder had his or her native language restricted between these ages. A child’s identity, regardless of race, may be influenced when removing or restricting a child from daily use of this key symbol.

Define Female and Male Identity Differences within Indigenous Cultures.

Gaining greater understanding of identity differences within indigenous groups may provide meaningful insight into the individual cultural settings of minority groups.

Women among the Quechan are powerful when viewed as a tribal elder. However, many years of physical and emotional abuse have occurred for the women of this tribe. The silence practiced by the tribe, and perhaps many others , have provided a shield of protection to preserve tribal culture. However, that very shield has served as a cage for

Quechan women: a cage that is no less weak or destructive than the one European man placed around each reservation. A greater understanding of female and male identity within a silent culture could give counselors and educators new tools. These tools could be used to unlock more than four hundred years of mistrust and serve to help all people that have lived in fear and have never known the feeling or meaning of freedom.

Recommendations for Future Research

131

This research focused on the three constructs of language, culture, and identity.

Data obtained was collected from elders of the Quechan Native American Tribe through structured interviews. Participants were offered the opportunity to add additional information at the of each interview. The three major conclusions that emerged warrant further study and have implications for future research.

Identity of the Physically Silent. One of the conclusions of this research study was that the individual identities of Quechan elders were constantly changing and evolving. This supported the work of Erikson (1950 et. seq.) and also provided insight into the influence that language legitimization had on individual culture and identity. A study examining the individual identity and culture of persons unable to show outward physical signs of identity or culture could add to the literature by gaining greater understanding of identity. Such quantitative research could be conducted with the use of neuroscience tools and techniques. A study of that research orientation may challenge the ideas of individual identity and serve to provide a population of the vulnerably silent with a voice.

Merging of the Native with European Identity. Erikson’s (1950) views on identity formation of primitive man suggested a localized perspective. According to

Erikson, this point of view conflicts with European man’s idea on identity which he suggests are partially grounded in new conquests. A qualitative study of Native

Americans working within the United States Federal Government could provide information on how indigenous identity formation has possibly merged with European man’s ideas on identity. Additional research with non-Native subordinates or superiors

132

within this setting could also provide information on how these merged forms of identity manifests themselves within the environment.

Uncovering Hidden Information. The Quechan elder shares limited information with non-tribal members. This realization suggests a need to conduct a mixed methods research study formed to gain insight into the process of learning for indigenous people. Vygotsky (1978) proclaimed that human development is a collective learning process formed through thinking, language, and symbols that promote higher learning. Vygotsky’s work assumes the basic functions of thinking, language, and symbols are present when learning takes place. Cultures may lack both recognized symbols and language to fulfill this core requirement. A mixed methods study to discover and then quantify those areas lacking in this collective process between various cultural groups would enable greater understanding of the learning process between cultures.

Native Language Restriction of Children. A key finding in this study was that language restriction and subsequent legitimization did influence individual perspectives of culture and identity. According to Fishman (1991), stage seven (out of eight stages in total) of language loss is present in cultures where only the elders speak the native language. The Quechan are at stage seven and this restriction of a key symbol, among other social nuances, has fostered a culture heavily dependent on the dominant culture.

Quantitative or case study research designed to understand the differences between culture with uninterrupted language development and those with restricted language use could add to the literature on language and human development. Such a study aimed at

133

exploring collective social settings and group dependence would illuminate a greater understanding on societal growth.

Quantitative research for indigenous silent cultures is rarely welcomed as a means for sharing information. As this research has yielded, the Native elder cared first about knowing the researcher as part of the tribe. Only when trust was established did the elders share any real information. As tribes witness positive outcomes from qualitative research, the need for quantitative research comes into focus. Variation among a larger set of the population may allow the researcher to more fully understand social challenges as viewed by the tribe.

Identity of younger Native Americans is important to understand. With indigenous languages becoming extinct each year and cultures ceasing to practice thousand year old rituals, this population will choose to carry on or release these tribal practices. Social issues dominate the current Native American life style. These issues, among many, include above average poverty to increasing numbers of suicides. The young Native carries with her the weight of knowing how to appear relevant within the current social landscape and knowing how to understand what it means when her tribe says, “you belong”.

Many Native Americans remain and what lifestyle exists today is certainly different from what it was before European man arrived. A greater understanding of how

Native tribes view their individual culture and identity could serve to help many.

Regardless of the geographic location, cultures have all undergone war, genocide, and rebuilding when possible. Future research should include understanding ideas of

134

belonging and knowing from the perspective of many indigenous tribes. This knowledge could serve to give new insight into social awareness.

Vulnerable populations have subgroups that are overlooked. Those groups within indigenous tribes have lived in silence for many generations and have learned by their families to remain silent in order to live. The Quechan Tribe operates as a quiet matriarchy in which the females make decisions and influence communal activities significantly. However, these same women are often products of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse at the hands of tribal men. Future studies of these populations would allow scholars new insight into what reality is for the vulnerably silent. Women, children, the sick, and the weak have little to no voice from within these groups. Future research could provide applicable means to understand and treat those among us that have lived in fear for generations.

Summary

The importance and significance of this research study reaches well beyond the conclusions captured within this document. The Quechan Native American, like all other indigenous people to this land, had their culture and way of life brutally stripped from them. Only recently, has the dominant power reflected on this treatment and sought to pacify more than several hundred years of genocide. However, these signs of support are usually tempered with a tone of “now use this to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” Only when the dominant culture seeks to truly know the Quechan can they understand what it means to say that freedom is not free. The Quechan elders are just beginning to know what it is like to have their young ask them “who am I?” One of the oldest among the elders interviewed asked the researcher before sitting down, “who is

135

your grandmother? grandfather? great grandmother and great grandfather?” The researcher answered his questions and was promptly told by the elder, “you belong, I’ll teach you, because you belong.”

Indigenous people have only shared a tiny amount of information with non-tribal members about their culture. This small amount of information has been readily absorbed by the dominant power and spread throughout the land in various forms.

Regardless of the political spin associated with any indigenous word, many rivers, towns, groups, counties, and people carry with them a name originated from a perseverant culture. The dominant power killed thousands of indigenous people out of fear and a relentless lust to individuate. That same fear pushed the Quechan into a place where survival became the only goal. Today, the Quechan elder is experiencing a phenomenon that he or she has never before witnessed. Through the Native American Languages Act of 1990 and after many years of being called and considered a foreigner on her own land, the United States Federal Government euphemistically said to the Quechan, “you belong.”

136

References

Archuleta, E. (2006). "I give you back": Indigenous women writing to survive. Studies in

American Indian Literatures, 18(4), 88-114.

Barrett, F., Thomas G. & Hocevar S. (1995). The central role of discourse in change: A

social perspective. Journal of Behavioral Science, 31(3).

Bean, L. J. (1992). Indians of California: Diverse and complex peoples. California

History, 71(3, Indians of California), 302-323.

Bee, R. L. (1963). Changes in Yuma social organization. Ethnology, 2(2), 207-227.

Bee, R.L. (1981). Crosscurrents along the Colorado: The impact of government policy on

the Quechan Indians. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Bee, R. L. (1990). The predicament of the Native American leader: A second

look. Human Organization, 49(1)

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City,

NY: Doubleday & Company.

Blumer H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism, perspective and method. London, England:

Prentice Hall Incorporated.

Bluth, B. J. (1982). Parsons’ general theory of action. Granada Hills, CA: NBS.

Boas, F. (1901). The mind of primitive man. Science, 13(321), 281-289.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis:

137

Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing

Company.

Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In Dei, G. J. S.,

Hall, B. L., & Rosenberg, D. G. (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts:

Multiple readings of our world (21-35). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Chang, E. K., Chávez-Silverman, S., Hill, R., Jackson, L., Lugo-Ortiz, A., McHenry, E.,

& Torres-Saillant, S. A. (2005). Statement on Native American languages in the

college and university curriculum: MLA committee on the literatures of people of

color in the United States and Canada.

Coleman, M. C. (1999). The responses of American Indian children and Irish children to

the school, 1850s-1920s: A comparative study in cross-cultural

education. American Indian Quarterly, 23(3/4), 83-112.

Cordasco, F. (1969). The bilingual education act. The Phi Delta Kappan, 51(2), 75.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.

Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Dixon, R. B. & Kroeber, A. L. (1913). New linguistic families in California. American

Anthropologist, 15(4), 647-655.

Eastman, C. A. (1902). Indian Boyhood. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.

138

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth, and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H., & Newton, H. P. (1973). In search of common ground. New York, NY:

Norton.

Estes, J. (1999). How many indigenous American languages are spoken in the United

States? By how many speakers? (AskNCBE No. 20). Washington, D.C.: George

Washington University, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Fishman, J.A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Buffalo, NY:

Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Forbes, J. D. (1998). Intellectual self-determination and sovereignty: Implications for

native studies and for native intellectuals. Wicazo Sa Review, 13(1), 11-23.

Forbes, J. D. (1965). Warriors of the Colorado: The Yumas of the Quechan Nation and

their neighbors. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Forde, C. D. 1931. Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 28: 84-287.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday, 1959.

Gover, K. (2000). Living water: A cooperative mapping project for Native communities

and language revitalization, a native language research initiative (Minneapolis:

Hearth of the Earth, 2003), 6 –7. United States Department of the Interior.

Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. Vol 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon press.

Hale, K., Krauss, M., Watahomigie, L. J., Yamamoto, A. Y., Craig, C., Jeanne, L. M., & England, N. C. (1992). Endangered languages. Language, 68(1), 1-42.

139

Harrington, J. P. (1908). A Yuma account of origins. The Journal of American Folklore, 21(82), 324-348.

Hatch, M.J., (1993) The dynamics of organizational culture. The Academy of

Management Review, 18(4), 657-693.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity

and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356-365.

Hinton, L. & Watahomigie, L. (1984). Spirit mountain: An anthology of Yuman story and

song. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Hinton, L. (2001). Language revitalization: An overview. In Hinton, L. & Hale, K.

(Eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 3-18). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hoare, C. (2012). Three missing dimensions in contemporary studies of identity: The

unconscious, negative attributes, and society. Journal of Theoretical and

Philosophical Psychology,doi:10.1037/a0026546

Jensen, A., Malcom, L., Phelps, F., &, Stoker, R. (2002). Changing patterns of thinking:

Individuals and organizations. Educational psychology in practice, 18(1).

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kroeber, K. (1992). American Indian persistence and resurgence. Boundary 2, 19(3),

1492-1992: American Indian Persistence and Resurgence), pp. 1-25.

Kroeber, A. L. (1920) Yuman tribes of the lower Colorado. University of California

Publications, 475-486.

Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and

definitions. New York: Vintage Books, Random House. 140

Langdon, M. (1992). Yuman plurals: From derivation to inflection to noun

agreement. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58(4), 405-424.

Lawrence, A. (2006). Unraveling the white man's burden: A critical microhistory of

federal Indian education policy implementation at Santa Clara pueblo, 1902--

1907. (Ph.D., Indiana University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Leap, W. (1981). American-Indian language maintenance. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 10, 209-236. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.10.100181.001233

Lee, T. S. (2007). If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all

schools: Navajo teenagers' experiences, choices, and demands regarding Navajo

language. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(1), 7-33.

Littlebear, R. (1999). Some rare and radical ideas for keeping indigenous languages

alive. In Reyhner, J., Cantoni, G., St. Clair, R., & Yazzie, E. P. (Eds.),

Revitalizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.

Littlebear, R. (2004). One man, two languages. Tribal College Journal, 15(3), 10-12.

Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCarty, T. L., Romero, M. E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the gift: Indigenous

youth counter-narratives on native language loss and revitalization. American

Indian Quarterly, 30(1), 28-48.

Medicine, B. (1988). Native American (Indian) women: A call for

research. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19(2), 86-92.

141

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of

new methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, A.W. 1990. A grammar of Jamul Diegueno. Ph.D. diss., University of California,

San Diego.

Miller, A.W & Bryant, G. (2012). Xiipúktan: Three Accounts of the origins of the

Quechan people, told or retold in the Quechan language by George Bryant.

Forthcoming.

Molesky-Poz, J. (1993). Reconstructing personal and cultural identities. American

Quarterly, 45(4), 611-620.

Morgan, T.J. (1889). Documents of United States Indian Policy, ed. Francis Paul Prucha

Supplemental Report on Indian Education. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska

Press.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

New World Encyclopedia. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tribe#Definition

Parham, V. (2012). These Indians are apparently well to do: The myth of capitalism

and Native American labor. International Review of Social History, 57(3),

Peacock, J. H. P. (2006). Lamenting language loss at the modern language

association. American Indian Quarterly, 30(1/2), 138-152.

142

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R.S. Valle & S.

Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenology perspectives in psychology (pp.41-60).

New York: Plenum Press.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats:

Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal,

49(3), 433-458.

Reardon, J., & TallBear, K. (2012). Your DNA is our history: Genomics, anthropology,

and the construction of whiteness as property. Current Anthropology, 53(S5, The

Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Histories,

National Styles, and International Networks), S233-S245.

Reyhner, J., & Eder, J. (1992). A history of Indian education. Billings: Eastern Montana

College.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Sanders, T. E. (1973). Tribal literature: Individual identity and the collective

unconscious. College Composition and Communication, 24(3), 256-266.

Schaefer, J. (1994). The challenge of archaeological research in the Colorado desert:

recent approaches and discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin

Anthropology, 16(1).

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, D. R., & Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning: From world-class

theories to global best practices. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

143

Schweigman, K., Soto, C., Wright, S., & Unger, J. (2011). The relevance of cultural

activities in ethnic identity among California Native American youth. Journal of

Psychoactive Drugs, 43(4), 343-348.

Schwing, L. J. (2008). Native American healing: A return to our past. Journal of

Consumer Health on the Internet, 12(1), 71-78.

Silverman, D. (1970). The theory of organizations: A sociological framework. (1st ed.).

New York: Basic Books.

Slater, C. L. (2003). Generativity versus stagnation: An elaboration of Erikson's adult

stage of human development. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 53-65.

Southern California Association of Governments, Winterhaven / Quechan Reservation

Rural Connector Final Report, July 2008.

Stewart, K. M. (1965). [Untitled]. Ethnohistory, 12(2), 187-188.

Trager, G. L. (1972) People talk In Language and Languages, 3-20

Trippel, E. J. (1889), The Yuma Indians. Overland Monthly, 561-584

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Characteristics of

American Indians and Alaska Natives by Tribe and Language: 2000, PHC-5,

Washington, DC, Government Printing Office 2003.

U.S. Declaration of Independence, (1776).

Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action

sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Walsh, J. P. & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management

Review.16(1), 67-91.

144

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yablon, M. (2004). Property rights and sacred sites: Federal regulatory responses to

American Indian religious claims on public land. The Yale Law Journal, 113(7),

1623-1662.

145

Appendix A - Native American Languages Act of 1990

PUBLIC LAW 101-477 - October. 30, 1990

TITLE I — NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES ACT

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the “Native American Languages Act”.

FINDINGS

SEC. 102. The Congress finds that—

(1) the status of the cultures and languages of native Americans is unique

and the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans

to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages;

(2) special status is accorded Native Americans in the United States, a status

that recognizes distinct cultural and political rights, including the right to

continue separate identities;

(3) the traditional languages of native Americans are an integral part of

their cultures and identities and form the basic medium for the transmission, and

thus survival, of Native American cultures, literatures, histories, religions, political institutions, and values;

(4) there is a widespread practice of treating Native Americans languages 146

as if they were anachronisms;

(5) there is a lack of clear, comprehensive, and consistent Federal policy on

treatment of Native American languages which has often resulted in acts of suppression and extermination of Native American languages and cultures;

(6) there is convincing evidence that student achievement and performance,

community and school pride, and educational opportunity is clearly and directly

tied to respect for, and support of, the first language of the child or student;

(7) it is clearly in the interests of the United States, individual States, and

territories to encourage the full academic and human potential achievements of

all students and citizens and to take steps to realize these ends;

(8) acts of suppression and extermination directed against Native American

languages and cultures are in conflict with the United States policy of self- determination for Native Americans;

(9) languages are the means of communication for the full range of human

experiences and are critical to the survival of cultural and political integrity of

any people; and

(10) language provides a direct and powerful means of promoting international 147

communication by people who share languages.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 103. For purposes of this title—

(1) The term “Native American” means an Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native

American Pacific Islander.

(2) The term “Indian” has the meaning given to such term under section

5351(4) of the Indian Education Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2651(4)).

(3) The term “Native Hawaiian” has the meaning given to such term by

section 4009 of Public Law 100-297 (20 U.S.C. 4909).

(4) The term “Native American Pacific Islander” means any descendent of

the aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific Ocean that is a territory or

possession of the United States.

(5) The terms “Indian tribe” and “tribal organization” have the respective

meaning given to each of such terms under section 4 of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

(6) The term “Native American language” means the historical, traditional

languages spoken by Native Americans. 148

(7) The term “traditional leaders” includes Native Americans who have special

expertise in Native American culture and Native American languages.

(8) The term “Indian reservation” has the same meaning given to the term

“reservation” under section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C.

1452).

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 104. It is the policy of the United States to—

(1) preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans

to use, practice, and develop Native American languages;

(2) allow exceptions to teacher certification requirements for Federal programs,

and programs funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government, for

instruction in Native American languages when such teacher certification requirements hinder the employment of qualified teachers who teach in Native

American languages, and to encourage State and territorial governments to make

similar exceptions;

149

(3) encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium

of instruction in order to encourage and support—

(A) Native American language survival,

(B) educational opportunity,

(C) increased student success and performance,

(D) increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and

history, and

(E) increased student and community pride;

(4) encourage State and local education programs to work with Native

American parents, educator, Indian tribes, and other Native American governing

bodies in the implementation of programs to put this policy into effect;

(5) recognize the right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing

bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in

all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior;

(6) fully recognize the inherent right of Indian tribes and other Native American

governing bodies, States, territories, and possessions of the United States to

take action on, and give official status to, their Native American languages for

the purpose of conducting their own business;

150

(7) support the granting of comparable proficiency achieved through course

work in a Native American language the same academic credit as comparable

proficiency achieved through course work in a foreign language, with recognition

of such Native American language proficiency by institutions of higher

education as fulfilling foreign language entrance or degree requirements; and

(8) encourage all institutions of elementary, secondary and higher education,

where appropriate, to include Native American languages in the curriculum

in the same manner as foreign languages and to grant proficiency in Native

American languages the same full academic credit as proficiency in foreign languages.

NO RESTRICTIONS

SEC. 105. The right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding, including publicly supported education programs.

EVALUATIONS

SEC. 106. (a) The President shall direct the heads of the various Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities to— 151

(1) Evaluate their policies and procedures in consultation with Indian tribes

and other Native American governing bodies as well as traditional leaders and

educators in order to determine and implement changes needed to bring the

policies and procedures into compliance with the provisions of this title;

(2) give the greatest effect possible in making such evaluations, absent a

clear specific Federal statutory requirement to the contrary, to the policies and

procedures which will give the broadest effect to the provisions of this title; and

(3) evaluate the laws which they administer and make recommendations to

the President on amendments needed to bring such laws into compliance with

the provisions of this title.

(b) By no later than the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of

this title, the President shall submit to the Congress a report containing recommendations

for amendments to Federal laws that are needed to bring such laws

into compliance with the provisions of this title.

USE OF ENGLISH

SEC. 107. Nothing in this title shall be construed as precluding the use of Federal funds to teach English to Native Americans.

Approved October 30, 1990.

152

Appendix B - Introduction Letter to Participants

Paul Sheffield 3517 Robins Way Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 (757) 879-8872 [email protected]

Dear Quechan Tribal Elder, As the grandson of Paul Anthony Palone and Lillian Carr, with love and respect to Josephine Palone, and the son of Sheila Marie Palone (Sheffield), I humbly ask for your help. I am a doctoral student with the George Washington University. My research is on the Quechan language’s influence on culture and identity since the very recent acceptance by the United Stated Federal Government as a legitimate language. I will be gathering information by conducting in person ‘one on one’ interviews and seeking to understand how or if the 1990 Native American Languages Act has altered your view of Quechan culture and identity. Please know that while I will be recording the interview, you will have full rights and privileges to stop the recording at any point. I will not publish any information that you do not wish published on our tribal culture, rituals, or history. The program I am currently in, “Executive Leadership Program”, is located at the George Washington University, in Washington, D.C. Prior to the interview, I will contact you to schedule a time and place for the interview. I look forward to learning from and meeting with you. Thank you,

Paul Sheffield

Enclosure: Study Overview

153

Research Study Overview The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity:

Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal Language

Problem addressed: The Quechan Native American tribe was militarily conquered in 1852 (Forbes, 1965) and shortly afterward a systematic effort was made by the United States Government to stop tribal members from speaking their native language (Morgan, 1889). Regardless, for more than one hundred years the Quechan tribal members continued to speak, teach, and use their native language among the tribe. Today, some tribal elders know English as a second language because they were raised in homes where the Quechan language was the sole language spoken. The United States government’s formal recognition of the Native American Languages Act of 1990 allowed indigenous tribes to begin publically teaching, speaking, and writing down their native languages (1990). For many years, the Quechan tribal members managed to keep their language alive by hiding its teaching and use.

Purpose of the study: The purpose of this phenomenological study is to gain greater understanding of the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity. If common language is suppressed from a group, organization, or tribe the understood meaning of its individual and collective identity would likely be different. This study will explore the shared phenomenon experienced by tribal members as their native language, once predominantly used for communication among the tribe, was restricted from use. To gain greater understanding of this phenomenon, the constructs of language, culture, and identity will be utilized to observe this developmental course.

Significance of the study: The significance of this qualitative study contributes on two levels: theoretical and practical. On the theoretical level, the presence or suppression of a common language influences member’s ideas of culture and identity. The phenomenological research of this study employed interviews focused on describing what all participants had in common, as they experienced the phenomenon of native language reintroduction or legitimization into the culture. While much of the Quechan language is certain to have been changed or lost over time, the foundation of the language survived. By gaining greater understanding of this influence, contributions can be made to the theoretical mainstream. Gaining greater understanding of the influence that language resurgence has on tribal culture may provide a new lens focused on member culture and identity.

Participants sought for the study and participant expectations: 154

The researcher selected ten Quechan tribal elders who experienced the Quechan language used in their home prior to the 1990 act. Five tribal members selected will be female and five will be male. None of the selected participants are required to speak fluent Quechan, however all of those interviewed are required to use basic and commonly used conversational Quechan words while fluently recognizing the language when used around them. All interviews will be conducted on the Quechan Native American reservation in Winterhaven California.

About the researcher: Paul Sheffield is a doctoral candidate at the George Washington University within the Executive Leadership Program. This program is part of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Paul has worked with the technology field for the last 20 years and has been fortunate to have worked for the Federal Reserve, the United States Armed Forces, and several private banking institutions.

155

Appendix C - Interview Protocol

Interviewee:

Date and Time:

Location of Interview:

First, let me being by thanking you participating in this research study. for agreeing to speak with me for the next hour. This interview will be digitally recorded for the purposes of gathering research data and future analysis for my dissertation. Your real name will not be used in any of the material. Additionally, you can stop the interview at any time for any reason.

I would like to remind you that everything we say is confidential. I will not talk to anyone within the Quechan Tribe about your responses. The only exception would be if you tell me about a minor that is being harmed. I am obligated to tell someone about this situation.

I want to hear about your ideas and experiences surrounding the Quechan Tribal language and how, if at all, they have influenced your perspective on culture and identity. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. If anytime you need, I will stop recording. Are you ready? [START RECORDER]

156

Interview:

II. Experience of being a Quechan Tribal Member while the native language was not recognized and then formally recognized by the United States Federal Government (Language) a. How long have you spoken the Quechan language? b. What is your earliest recollection of speaking Quechan? Can you elaborate on the first experience? c. What experiences do you recall growing up where the Quechan language was used in your home? Can you elaborate on that experience? d. What experience(s) do / did you enjoy most about using the Quechan Language? What experience(s) did you like the least? e. What feelings do you have surrounding the use of the Quechan language in the community? f. Do you feel appreciated by your family for using the Quechan language? Please elaborate. Do you have an example? g. Do you feel appreciated by the community for using the Quechan language? Please elaborate. Do you have an example? III. Social Perception of being a Quechan speaker (Identity) a. How do you describe yourself as part of the tribe? b. How do other tribal members describe you? c. What expectations around Quechan language use do you have for yourself? d. As a tribal elder, how do feel other tribal members see you in the status as a recognized and respected elder? e. How would tribal members describe your use of the Quechan language? IV. The Quechan setting (Culture) a. What physical item(s) shows your tribal affiliation? Why have you selected and kept this item(s)? (ex. family or tribal artifact) b. How do others know that you are a Quechan language speaker? (ex. Speaking at tribal events?)

157

c. How do you feel non-tribal members ‘see’ the Quechan culture? Can you cite some examples of how people see the tribe? d. How will Quechan language preservation affect Quechan culture? What part will you play in this preservation? Research Question: “How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity?” Sub Questions: 1. What are the shared experiences of using a forbidden language? 2. How does being able and encouraged to speak the Quechan native language affect how tribal members see their identity? 3. How do tribal members see their culture differently now that the language can be taught and publicly spoken?

Wrapping Up Interview: This was the last of my questions. Is there anything that you want to add to our conversation that I haven’t asked and you feel is important for me to know? [PAUSE FOR RESPONSE]. Thanks for listening to all of these questions and responding. I really do appreciate your willingness to help and support this research. Thank you again! [STOP RECORDER]

158

Appendix D - Research Consent Form

Principal Researcher: Paul Sheffield

Principal Investigator: Dr. Michael Marquardt

Research Title: The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal Language

Under the guidance of Principal Investigator, Dr. Michael Marquardt of The George Washington University, you are invited to participate in a research study that seeks to gain greater understanding of the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity. Your participation in this study requires one interview during which you will be asked questions about your perception of language, culture, and identity. The duration of the interview will be approximately 90 minutes each. With your permission, the interview will be digitally recorded and transcribed in order to capture and maintain an accurate record of our discussion. Your formal name will not be used or referred to on any documentation. On all transcripts and data analysis you will be referred to by a pseudonym.

This study will be conducted by the researcher, Paul Sheffield, a doctoral candidate at George Washington University. The interview will be conducted at a time and location that is mutually suitable. Approximately 10 (ten) participants will be interviewed for this study.

Risks and Benefits: This research will contribute to the understanding of the influence that the resurgence of the Quechan native language had on its member’s culture and identity. Participation in this study carries the same amount of risk that individuals will encounter during a usual meeting of colleagues.

Data Storage to Protect Confidentiality: Under no circumstances, whatsoever will you be identified by name in the course of this research study, or any publication thereof. Every effort will be made that all information provided by you will be treated as strictly confidential. All data will be coded and securely stored, and will be used for professional purposes only.

159

How the Results Will Be Used: This research study is to be submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at George Washington University, Washington, DC. The results of this study will be published as a dissertation. In addition, information may be used for educational purposes in professional presentations and/or publications.

Participant's Rights

 You have read and discussed the research description with the researcher. You have had the opportunity to ask questions about the purposes and procedures regarding this study.  My participation in the research is voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from participation at any time.  The researcher may withdraw me from the research at his professional discretion.  Any information derived from the research that personally identifies me will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate consent, except as specifically required by law.  If at any time you have questions regarding the research or my participation, you can contact the researcher, Paul Sheffield, who will answer my questions. The researcher's phone number is (757) 879-8872. You may also contact the researcher's faculty advisor, Dr. Michael Marquardt at (703) 726-3764.  If at any time you have comments or concerns regarding the conduct of the research, or questions about my rights as a research subject, you should contact the George Washington University Office of Human Research at (202) 994-2715 or [email protected].  You should receive a copy of this document.  Digital recording is part of this research. Only the principal researcher and the transcriptionist will have access to written and taped materials. Please check one:

( ) You consent to be audio taped.

( ) You DO NOT consent to be audio taped.

My signature indicates that you agree to participate in this study.

Participant's signature: Date: / /

Name (Please print):

160

Investigator's Verification of Explanation

I, Paul Sheffield, certify that I have carefully explained the purpose and nature or this research to ______(Participant's name). He/she has had the opportunity to discuss it with me in detail. You have answered all his/her questions and he/she has provided the affirmative agreement to participate in the research.

Researcher's signature: Date: / /

161