Fishman’s Shallow Approach of Understanding the Amish
“Upon hearing their frank replies to her book, she began to reconsider the purposes and methods of anthropology” (BRUNK Pages: xxi). In “The Villagers and the Anthropologist,” Nancy Scheper-Hughes documents the Villager’s culture through her own eyes. The Villagers responded to her book because they viewed themselves differently than the documentation portrayed. After reading the responses, Nancy Scheper-Hughes questioned what her main objective was in writing this document. In the end, “she revised her ideas about an anthropologist’s ethical obligations to the people she studies” (BRUNK Pages: xxi). In order to write an accurate documentation, Ann Fienup-Riordan decided to experience the Yup’ik Eskimo’s culture first hand. She surrendered to their culture while living on Nelson Island, and recovered when she traveled home and wrote about her experiences. Andrea Fishman also used these methods to understand the Fischer family in “Becoming Literate: A Lesson from the Amish.” Granted both authors had to temporarily forget their own beliefs and surrender to the new cultures, they each took different approaches. Although Ann Fienup-Riordan would approve of Fishman’s recovery and questioning of the current educators methods of teaching, she would not agree with Fishman’s shallow approach of surrendering to the Amish family.
In the introduction Brunk defines surrender as “[h]aving submitted for a while to someone else’s meanings in a text” (BRUNK Pages: xix). If you are reading a specific type of literature and you find yourself not agreeing with the author, then the stage of temporarily forgetting your beliefs and listening to what the author has to say would be surrendering. Fienup Riordan experienced the seal parties while surrendering to the Yup’ik culture when she stated, “[t]hey were very exciting and lots of fun, as not only was the meat and blubber of every man’s first-caught seal given away, but lots of other things as well. I was intrigued and waited eagerly for the parties to commence” (Fienup-Riordan Pages: 203). During this part of the story, Fienup-Riordan is learning about the annual seal parties that take place in the community. This tradition is not something that is normal to the author, but she temporarily submits to the new ideas and surrenders.
Brunk defines recovery as when “they step back, reconsider from their own perspective, and find ways to evaluate based on what they bring to the reading and what they know of the world” (BRUNK Pages: xix). During recovery of the seal parties Ann realizes that they were not just a generous gift of meat to the neighbors: “Also, it was significant that what they gave each other was raw meat, for the gift of raw meat was traditionally the exchange that marked the marriage relationship between a man and a woman” (Fienup-Riordan Pages: 204). After experiencing the seal parties she stepped back and evaluated what had happened. In the process of recovery, Ann connected the gift of meat and the relative attendance rule of the parties to marriage. The hosting family would not only pass out raw meat, which was a sign of marriage exchange, but also other family belongings. The fact that relatives were banned from attending the parties showed that the women, who were in attendance, could potentially provide a bride for the hosting family’s son. If not for her first hand experience of the seal parties Ann would have had trouble understanding the annual tradition and would not have been able to make these connections and accurately document the event.
Like Ann Fienup-Riordan, Andrea Fishman also had to surrender to her subject’s culture in order to fully understand their views on literacy. Instead of experiencing the culture first hand, she based her documentation on observations she had made of the Fischer family. All letters, coming or going from the Fischer family were written in the same format. The letters would start with greetings, followed by recent weather, family and community news, and ending with a philosophical or religious thought (Fishman Pages: 241). Andrea writes, “I’ve never seen anyone in the community instructed to write this way, but in the Fisher family, letters received and even letters written are often read out loud, and though this oral sharing is done for informative rather than instructive purposes, it provides an implicit model for everyone to follow” (Fishman Pages: 241). Fienup-Riordan would argue that it is hard to apply this observational knowledge to the whole community when author, Andrea Fishman, only observed the Fischer family. Since Fishman observed the Fischer family for a shorter period of time than Ann Fienup-Riordan experienced the Yup’ik, it is possible that this letter format was taught at an earlier period of time and the Amish adopted it as their way of writing. Ann would not agree with this less-in-depth approach of surrender because it may cause an inaccurate documentation of the average Amish family.
In the same way Andrea Fishman had to surrender and recover to the writing format of the Amish, she also had to use these methods to fully understand Eli, Jr.’s view of literacy. Fishman writes, “[s]o while Eli, Jr., like his siblings, is learning the necessity and the value of literacy, what literacy means to him and the ways in which he learns it may differ in both obvious and subtle ways from what it means and how it’s transmitted to many mainstream children…” (Fishman Pages: 239). Eli, Jr., like any other six year old child, is like a sponge in the way he observes others and sees their actions as the correct way of doing something. Eli, Sr. and Anna Fischer would sit down with their kids and they would all take turns reading the Bible aloud. When it came around to Eli. Jr.’s turn, one of his older siblings would read his part slowly and pause every few words. Eli would then repeat what his sibling had said, allowing him to participate in the family activity. Eli now had the misconception of being a reader when the author says, “[n]o one ever told him that telling isn’t the same as reading, even though they may look alike, so Eli always seemed like a reader to others and felt like a reader himself” (Fishman Pages: 241). Ann Fienup-Riordan would have a problem with this approach of understanding Eli, Jr.’s view of reading. Having only observed the child for a short period of time and not always being with him, she could have missed the conversation between Eli and his parents explaining that being able to read takes a lot more than just repeating what his siblings were saying to him. Although, in “Becoming Literate: A Lesson from the Amish” you, as a reader, get the feeling that Eli, Jr. thinks he can read like the rest of them; he might understand that it is a long process and will take a lot more work and understanding than what he is doing now.
Just as Eli, Jr., thought he could read, he also thought he could write like his parents and older siblings. All of the members of the Fischer family would write letters to friends and relatives and would always read incoming letters aloud to the rest of the family. Wanting to feel like a writer and fit in, Eli, Jr., asked if he could start writing letters. With no one telling him he wasn’t ready yet, he started to write letters the way he understood it. Eli would dictate what he wanted to say to one of his older siblings who would then write it down on a piece of paper. Eli would then copy the words in his own handwriting as if he had written it himself and would also draw pictures to go along with the letter. Not being told any different, Eli thought he could write like the rest of his family. Fienup-Riordan would argue that this observation of Eli, Jr., learning to write is inaccurate. He might have understood that what he was doing is not considered knowing how to write, and that it is just a start to learning the long complicated process. Because Fishman did not experience the Amish culture first hand, and only observed the culture for a short time, she might not have been observing Eli, Jr., when he learned that copying a letter is only the beginning to learning how to write like grownups.
Although Fishman used different methods of understanding the Amish than Fienup-Riordan used when she was experiencing the Yup’ik culture, their recovery and interpretation were very similar. Fienup-Riordan used her in-depth approach of experiencing the culture first hand. She did this in order to accurately document the Yup’ik culture, unlike Nancy Scheper-Hughes documented the Villagers in “The Villagers and the Anthropologist.” Taking this approach she avoided making any mistakes in her documentation and was not questioned by the Yup’ik for portraying them differently than they saw themselves. Andrea Fishman on the other hand, used an observational approach to understanding the Fischer family. Fienup-Riordan would argue that in doing this, there is a high chance of inaccurately documenting the group of study. Although this may be possible, Fishman recovered from her study and argued that although the Amish’s views on literacy may be different from yours and mine, it does not mean it is necessarily worse. Andrea writes, “[w]e need to realize that our roll may not be to prepare our students to enter mainstream society but, rather, to help them see what mainstream society offers and what it takes away, what they may gain by assimilating and what they may lose in that process” (Fishman Pages 247). Andrea is arguing that the job of current educators should not be to persuade students to enter mainstream society but allow the students to see what mainstream society has to offer and what it takes away from their current way of life. Fienup-Riordan would agree with this argument in the way that Fishman is questioning the current educators methods and not just ratifying, or agreeing, with their beliefs.
Due to her shallow observational approach of understanding the Fischer family, Fienup-Riordan would argue that Fishman may have inaccurately documented the Amish views of literacy. Seeing Andrea was only observing the Fischer family for a short period of time, she may have missed several of Eli’s interpretations of the way he was learning to read and write. Although Ann would disagree with her approach she would approve of her recovery and interpretation of her observations. Instead of ratifying with the current teaching methods, Andrea questioned the purpose of educators in the current school systems.