The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal...
Transcript of The Influence of Language on Culture and Identity: Resurgence of the Quechan Native American Tribal...
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
ii
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
iii
Dedication
To the beautiful women in my life:
Becky, Mom, Hannah, and Emily
for a lifetime of support, encouragement and
love
iv
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.
v
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.”
vi
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
vii
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.
viii
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
ix
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
x
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
xi
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
xii
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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,
10
“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
11
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.
12
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.
13
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
14
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).
15
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
16
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).
17
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
18
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.
19
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
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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.
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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).
38
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:
39
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
40
(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,
41
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—
42
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
43
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.
44
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
45
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.
46
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
47
‘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
48
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
49
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
50
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”
51
(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.
52
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
53
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
54
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.
55
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
56
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.
57
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
58
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?
59
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
60
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
61
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
62
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
63
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
64
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
65
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
66
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.
67
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
68
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.
69
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,
70
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
Pseudonym
Age Gender Ethnicity Years
Speaking
Quechan
Location of
Interview
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
71
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
72
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.
73
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
74
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
(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.
CULTDYN
Not static
Moving
Evolving
CULTCONST
Relational
Erikson’s Identity: (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
IDENTDYN
Not static
Moving
Evolving
Bourdieu’s Language: (1991) perspective of language and
symbolic power which suggested that power determines the
language that is used.
Bourdieu’s Habitus: (1991) a set of dispositions which
incline agents to act and react in certain ways; defined as
inculcation or mundane early childhood experiences, the
process of inculcation turns typical and repeatable events
LANGINCUL
Childhood
habits
Assumption
LANGSYMPOWER
Control
Authority
75
into what Schein (1985) would label as level three culture or
basic assumptions; Habitus also labeled as structured,
durable generative, and transposable.
Bourdieu’s Symbolic Power: (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; 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.
Limiting
Recognized
as legitimate
World view
change
Magical
Command
communicati
on
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
76
Code Description Count
ETIC Codes
CULTDYN
Not static, moving, evolving creation of culture;
(dynamic culture)
54
CULTCONST Relational construction of culture; (constructed
culture)
123
IDENTDYN Not static, moving, and evolving identity;
(evolving identity)
60
LANGINCUL Childhood habits, assumptions; (language
inculcation)
23
LANGSYMPOWER Control, authority, limiting, recognized as
legitimate, world view change, magical,
command communication; (symbolic power
control of language)
43
EMIC Codes
FAMILYINF Living with extended family, loose connection
with parents, familial controls; (familial
influence on language)
33
FAMILYPOSITION Sequence of family position; youngest, oldest,
middle, cousin (sequence of family positioning)
3
IDENTCONST Teaching others a language, challenging use of
language; (construction of identity)
134
CULTFEAR Fear of showing culture, hiding culture; (fear of
showing culture)
12
CULTCOURAGE Willingness to show culture, presentation of
culture (no fear of showing culture)
21
CULTSYMBOLS Creation of cultural symbols, teaching others
how to create cultural symbols; (creation of
cultural symbols)
31
STATUS Self acknowledge status, hierarchy;
(acknowledgement of status)
44
IDENTPERCEPTION Perception of self identity (self proclaimed
understanding of identity)
9
CULTPERCEPTION Perception of Quechan culture (from within
tribe)
24
SOCIALPERCEPTIO
N
Perception of larger society (from within tribe)
15
LANGDYN Acknowledgement that Quechan language 6
77
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”.
78
Table 4-4
Language
a) How long
have you
spoken the
Quechan
language?
“ as a child that’s the only language I knew is my language”
“ we couldn’t talk Indian when I was going to school”
“ no talking Indian they tell us that”
“ all get together and start talking Indian”
“ 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
79
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?”
80
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
your earliest
recollection
of speaking
Quechan?
Can you
elaborate on
the first
experience?
“when I began to talk when I was 5 or 4 … 4 or 5 fluently
Quechan”
“we slept on the ground”
“Conversation with my grandfather I could hear her talking with
my grandmother in Indian”
“My aunt taught me spoke to me in our language”
“she started teaching me and the way she taught me was the
face, the ear, the nose, the mouth, the eye”
“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
81
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
experiences
do you
recall
growing up
where the
Quechan
language
was used in
your home?
Can you
elaborate on
that
experience?
“my grandparents and my mom, my aunts would all talk
Quechan – that’s all I heard”
“I never [spoke] English really”
“It was a natural thing because when I would talk Indian to my
sisters they would correct me”
“They wouldn’t understand me”
“And [all] I’d ever known was Quechan, my language”
“They spoke it fluently and it was good to hear”
“It was all the family together at the table and it was good
feeling you know. Cause we were all together”
“Well when they wanted me to do something they say, “come
here”, in Indian “ku’theek!””
“My grandmother raised me, ‘cause my mom was working”
“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”
82
“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
experience(s
) do / did
you enjoy
most about
using the
Quechan
Language?
What
experience(s
) did you
like the
least?
“I enjoyed it [speaking Quechan] because it was the only way I
learned to talk”
“I could communicate with grandma and grandpa. They don’t
speak English – well my grandfather did”
“I wish I could go back and talk my language again but I can’t
because I have it in my head no, I got whipped by it no, no
talking Quechan”
“You can’t have this unless you speak it in English”
“I wish I could communicate with them [the elders] more in
Quechan”
“The least was being called a “ku’neel” that’s black you know”
“I am what I am, it’s nothing can change me”
“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
83
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
feelings do
you have
surrounding
the use of
the Quechan
language in
“Its hurtful you know, not right. You know racist.”
“if they talk Indian to me, I have to answer them in Indian”
“But as I grew older, I could really speak it good then”
“I use my Quechan everyday, everyday I sit in here and I’m
talking to myself in Quechan”
“I feel bad, they don’t understand but I’m talking to them
because I know they’re Quechan’s and I remind them, you are a
84
the
community?
Quechan”
“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
85
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
appreciated
by your
family for
using the
Quechan
language?
Please
elaborate.
Do you have
an example?
“my kids wish I did talk more Quechan.”
“The little I do know I try to teach them. They appreciate it, they
appreciate what they know”
“there’s some that they are some words that she can’t say and I’m
proud that I can help her”
“She’s trying. It makes me feel good”
“No I do not [feel appreciated for using Quechan]”
“it was kinda hurtful”
“[they thought] I’m a fluent speaker because, since I’ve been
here, I’m still learning. I’m learning”
“they’re real proud of me that I can speak it [Quechan] you
know”
“if I hear somebody speaking, among each other the Quechan
86
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
appreciated
by the
community
for using the
Quechan
language?
Please
elaborate.
Do you have
an example?
“[Community] They talk to me in both English and Indian. And
I can answer them back with English.”
“some people, no not really”
“It shocks people when they say something[in Quechan] and I
answer them in English”
“Cocopah lady and she was talking about me and she turned
around and I say said I know you are talking about me and she
turned around she said “you do?” and said yes”
“yes and no …. they say you follow your father’s blood, well, I
didn’t. I follow my mother’s blood”
“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
87
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
88
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
describe
yourself as part
of the tribe?
“I’m proud of it”
“I’m just proud being what I am, a Quechan”
“I’m not so proud that I can’t come right out and speak it
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
89
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
tribal members
describe you?
“I get along with everybody”
“I don’t know. Oh heavens, I get along with everybody … I
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
90
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
expectations
around Quechan
language use do
you have for
yourself?
“happy with where I am right now”
“I can get by with my people”
“I used to talk when I was small. They know I was raised
by Quechan”
“I never taught them [my kids], cause they didn’t want to
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
91
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”
92
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
elder, how you
do feel other
tribal members
see you in the
status as a
recognized and
respected elder?
“Well right now I think a lot of them like it when I go to
them and ask for information on words”
“cause I’m still learning”
“I’m not ashamed to ask for it [help]”
“You know, proud Quechan Indian”
“they were really proud of me”
“I never thought about because I’m just me, and I don’t
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”
93
“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
tribal members
describe your
use of the
Quechan
language?
“A lot of them wish I would know more (laugh), a lot of
them”
“They respect who I am and that I can know my language”
“Some of them would say not enough”
“all I hear from the committee is say, teach it verbally, not
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
94
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
item(s) shows
your tribal
affiliation? Why
have you
selected and
kept this
item(s)? (ex.
“I have done a lot of beadwork for our tribe”
“Dressmaking which I’m still learning”
“My first Indian dress. Which is lopsided but I still have it
and some beaded necklaces that I have and kept. Gourds
too”
“I learned by myself was sewing”
“When I sew, that was kinda hard but I learned it. How to
95
family or tribal
artifact)
do it, I had to.”
“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
96
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
know that you
are a Quechan
language
speaker? (ex.
Speaking at
tribal events?)
“very few, very few have elders know that [I am a Quechan
speaker]”
“I think a few [Elders] get annoyed with me when I can t
answer them back”
“[others know I am a Quechan speaker] Well the majority
that I’ve been teaching we’re on the list”
“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.
97
c) How do you feel
non-tribal
members ‘see’
the Quechan
culture? Can
you cite some
examples of
how people see
the tribe?
“very few [Winter visitors] are interested in our tradition
and our language”
“And I’m proud to say we are making a dictionary. I’m very
proud of it. It’s for our language for non-Indians to see it.
We do know our own language. Its kept forever, I hope.”
“He wanted to be Quechan.”
“I see them envious of something different, and some are
scared”
“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
98
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
Quechan
language
preservation
affect Quechan
culture? What
part will you
play in this
preservation?
“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”
“I think that was wrong, very wrong for our people to be
told not to speak our language. We lost something there.
Our generation gap lost something that was very important
to us”
“I want it to go on. To pass on. Everything, tradition,
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
99
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.”
100
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
101
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
102
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”
103
“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
shared
experiences of
using a
forbidden
language?
“ we couldn’t talk Indian when I was
going to school”
“cause we didn’t want the rest of the
people to know what we were talking
about”
“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”
“the hardest part was trying to relate
my own self to them you know”
“I experienced that, they, whacked
me you know … grabbed me here
and slapped me about 5 times”
“you learn the white man way, you’ll,
you’ll survive”
CULTDYN (15)
CULTCONST (42)
IDENTDYN (33)
LANGINC (21)
LANGSYMPOWER (26)
FAMILYINF (30)
FAMILYPOSITION (3)
IDENTCONST (58)
CULTFEAR (8)
CULTCOURAGE (3)
CULTSYMBOLS (4)
STATUS (13)
IDENTPERCEPTION (1)
CULTPERCEPTION (9)
SOCIALPERCPETION
(4)
LANGDYN (4)
2.How does
being able and
encouraged to
speak the
Quechan
native
language
affect how
tribal
members see
“We still exist, and they think they
wiped us out, no we’re still here”
“Your identity, you don’t know,
you’ve lost it when you went to
school and started learning English”
“they describe me as a speaker, a
fluent speaker. They know I have
knowledge of the language, and they
respect that”
“You have taught us many things that
CULTDYN (15)
CULTCONST (36)
IDENTDYN (20)
LANGINC (1)
LANGSYMPOWER (7)
FAMILYINF (1)
IDENTCONST (40)
CULTFEAR (2)
CULTCOURAGE (13)
CULTSYMBOLS (13)
104
their identity? we [Elders] did not know” STATUS (23)
IDENTPERCEPTION
(10)
3.How do tribal
members see
their culture
differently
now that the
language can
be taught and
publicly
spoken?
“I sing songs, I talk about them and
do demonstrations. I have classes at
my home”
“And I’m proud to say we are making
a dictionary. I’m very proud of it. It’s
for our language for non-Indians to
see it. We do know our own
language. Its kept forever, I hope.”
“the culture is who we are, our
culture, that’s’ the story of us”
“I’m very prejudiced, I’m stingy with
my 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”
CULTDYN (15)
CULTCONST (31)
IDENTDYN (5)
LANGINC (1)
LANGSYMPOWER (5)
IDENTCONST (22)
CULTCOURAGE (4)
CULTSYMBOLS (11)
STATUS (6)
IDENTPERCEPTION
(11)
CULTPERCEPTION
(11)
SOCIALPERCPETION
(7)
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
105
1st Cycle Coding 2
nd Cycle
Initial and In Vivo
Coding Samples
Emergent Themes Major
Findings /
Conclusions
“How does speaking the native language affect one's sense of culture and identity?”
Lan
guag
e
“ we couldn’t talk Indian when
I was going to school”; the
first language
“cause we didn’t want the rest
of the people to know what we
were talking about”
“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 experienced that, they,
whacked me you know …
grabbed me here and slapped
me about 5 times”
“you learn the white man way,
you’ll, you’ll survive”;
concepts are English
Current language use and
social reality for tribal
elders is based partially on
history
Recognition of survival is
key to elders
understanding of reality
and may suggest a
constructed reality formed
largely on historically
captured documents and
literature originated by
non-Quechan people
Language
means
Survival
Historically
Based Reality
Iden
tity
“We still exist, and they think
they wiped us out, no we’re
still here”; they recognize me
“Your identity, you don’t
know, you’ve lost it when you
went to school and started
learning English”
“they describe me as a
speaker, a fluent speaker.
They know I have knowledge
of the language, and they
respect that”; respected
“You have taught us many
things that we [Elders] did not
know”; I’m just me
Elders show affective
behaviors toward passing
down the Quechan
language
Social acknowledgement
of life and skills to offer
younger tribal members
may indicate identity
reformation
Identity
formation is
continuous
Identity
Reconstruction
106
Cult
ure
“I sing songs, I talk about
them and do demonstrations. I
have classes at my home”
“And I’m proud to say we are
making a dictionary. I’m very
proud of it. It’s for our
language for non-Indians to
see it. We do know our own
language. It’s kept forever”
“the culture is who we are, our
culture, that’s the story of us”;
ceremony
“I’m very prejudiced, I’m
stingy with my culture”; they
look down on us
“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”
Activities noted by elders
may indicate a cultural
construction based on
closely held tribal
knowledge
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
Culture is
individually
focused
Cultural
Realignment
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
“How does speaking
the native language
affect one's sense of
culture and
identity?”
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
107
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
108
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.
109
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.
110
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
111
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:
112
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.
113
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
114
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
115
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
116
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
117
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.
118
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
119
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
120
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
121
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
122
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.
123
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
124
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.
125
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.
126
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
127
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.
128
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
129
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
130
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
131
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
132
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
133
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
134
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
135
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
136
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.”
137
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:
138
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.
139
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.
140
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.
141
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.
142
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.
143
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.
144
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.
145
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.
146
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
147
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
148
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.
149
(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;
150
(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;
151
(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—
152
(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.
153
Appendix B - Introduction Letter to Participants
Paul Sheffield
3517 Robins Way
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(757) 879-8872
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
154
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:
155
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.
156
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]
157
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?)
158
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]
159
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.
160
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
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):
161
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: / /