Factionalism as argumentation: a case study of the indigenous communication practices of Jemez Pueblo.

• Author: Littlefield, Robert S.

Argumentation, as western societies know it, has its roots in ancient Greece and became the foundation of contemporary democratic processes (Amossy, 2002; Aune, 1999; Braet, 2004; Schiappa, 1992; Timmerman, 1993; Wenzel, 1990). There is no question that Greco-Roman perspectives influenced how argumentation has been studied and practiced in western societies for over two thousand years. (1) Contemporary studies of argumentation and debate reflect these underlying assumptions. For example, argumentation provides knowledge (Bruschke, 2004; Buchanan, 2001; Crable, 1982), argumentation takes form (Arthos, 2003; Chichi, 2002; Gilbert, 2002; Warnick & Kline, 1992), and argumentation functions in society (Hauser & Benoit-Barne, 2002; Hicks, 2002; Jovicic, 2004; Sproule, 2002; Welsh, 2002). As we can see clearly by looking at nonwestern examples of argumentation, the Greco-Roman influence shapes the standards by which "we evaluate arguments from any perspective" (Wenzel, 1990, p. 19).

These Greco-Roman perspectives commonly are used as the basis for comparative studies involving nonwestern cultures, particularly Asian and Native American societies. Scholars have described Asian cultures, paying particular attention to early forms of debate and describing western influences on their argumentation (Branham, 1994; Garrett, 1993, 1994; Jensen, 1992; Yang, 2002). Noncommunication studies have explored the sociological and historical aspects of Native American societies, including limited discussions of communication styles, comparing them with those of western cultures (Berkhofer, 1965; Fordham, 1993; Furniss, 2004; Sachs, 2002). Of particular interest have been the rhetorical traditions of specific Native American groups (Carson, 2002; Einhorn, 2000; Garroutte, 2003; Lubbers, 1994; Perhnutter, 1989; Robyn, 2002; Sanchez, 2001; Wilkins, 2002).

While no studies have examined argumentation and debate styles among Native American societies specifically, a few have explored consensus-building and conflict management. For the most part, these studies have contrasted a western model or perspective with the practices of a Native American society. Sachs, Harris, Morris, and Hunt (1999) broadly discussed how colonialism disrupted the ability of American Indians to make collective decisions and negotiate with the U.S. government. Harris, Sachs, and Broome (2002) studied the impact of the Tribal Issues Management System on traditional ways of building consensus among the Comanches. Knoll (2004) explained efforts by the Common Ground project to train Pueblo tribal leaders to use western conflict resolution techniques. Pinto (2000) discussed the melding of the traditional peacemaker process and the Anglo judicial system into the current mediation model used by the Navajo nation. Lyons (2000) argued that Native Americans are victims of rhetorical imperialism, resulting in adaptive behavior by Native Americans who choose to use western and traditional forms of argument. Only Running Wolf and Richard (2003) examine an indigenous rhetorical practice--the talking circle as a procedural tool to share information, educate, respect viewpoints, and resolve conflict.

Nonwestern forms and practices of argumentation not only have not received the same attention as Greco-Roman models, but also are devalued when examined from western perspectives. Our own examination found that factionalism existed in Jemez Pueblo as a legitimate form of argumentation prior to the arrival of Europeans in the "New World." Yet, the lack of scholarly attention to factionalism as a communication practice suggests that this form of decision-making is viewed as inconsequential. This study examines factionalism--an indigenous form of argumentation used in Jemez Pueblo of New Mexico--as one such nonwestern form of decision making, and addresses the research question: How does an understanding of factionalism contribute to contemporary argumentation theory and practice? We believe that the answers to this question will assist our understanding of the complexities of human communication and promote greater appreciation for systematic and rigorous argumentation practices of nonwestern cultures.

METHOD

No study of Pueblo people can be undertaken without an understanding of the importance of secrecy within Pueblo societies. Secrecy is the invisible backdrop against which all Pueblo people act when they impart knowledge to any outsider. This commitment to secrecy hampered research efforts to study the Jemez in the past and continues today (Ellis, 1961; Parsons, 1925). Secrecy is not only a product of past and present intervention by the various Hispanic and American intruders in Jemez affairs; it serves as a way to protect the Jemez from a cultural take over by outsiders. No one person owns all of the ritual knowledge of the Jemez. Bits and pieces of ceremonial lore and performance are distributed to those who have been initiated into a number of ritual and/or ceremonial organizations. The very distribution of secret ritual is directed against the acquisition of too much power in the hands of any one individual or group. Knowledge--especially ritual lore--is power and by definition is a secret not to be shared. Secrecy is a function of Jemez reality and must be understood as a component in the study of the process of factionalism, i.e., the ways it develops, the issues involved, the form it takes, the people included, and the time required for solution.

Precisely because of this secrecy, this study relied on nontraditional sources of information gathered through interviews, observations, informal and conversational interviews, quotations, and other personal communication (Patton, 2002), rather than the more traditionally recognized artifacts--texts and published records (2)-used by western scholars to study argumentation. Reliance on governmental documents and records was, for the most part, unreliable due to the inherent secrecy of the Jemez and their distrust of non-Jemez authority. In addition, the inclination of Jemez people not to turn to secular authorities for assistance, not to report problems to outsiders, and not to document their disagreements would have precluded us from completing this study using traditional methods.

The socio-structural linkages of Jemez were equally important in securing information lot a discussion of factionalism; for it is on this web of potential alliances that factionalism operates. Jemez culture is an intricate mosaic with a myriad of crosscutting ties. The divisions of clans, moieties, and societies intersect continuously so that no two Jemez have exactly the same affiliations. The complexity and cross-cutting nature of Jemez culture is thus its own safeguard, in that it deters permanent rifts in the social structure. This is not to suggest that all facets of Jemez life are so interconnected. They do experience discontinuity as well as disorganization. Jemez is not characterized by some sort of utopian tranquility, nor is it on the road to collapse. The problem in interpreting Jemez social structure is that it is both atomistic and integrated, both broken threads and an interconnected whole. At Jemez, shared religious beliefs and a network of personal ties overcome the tendency toward divisiveness. Jemez social organization involves numerous societies, clans, and moieties, but also religious, economic, and political affiliations, public and private ties (Ball, 1990). The issues around which dissonance arises are numerous, partly because the Jemez socio-political structure enables challenges by those who are not in power to those who are.

Understanding and using these linkages permitted us to access diverse viewpoints within the Pueblo. The examples of factionalism presented here were collected via participant-observation by the second author, who spent several years living near and within the Jemez Pueblo. As a member of a joint anthropological/archaeological study of Spanish Americans of the Rio Puerco Valley of New Mexico, led by Cynthia Irwin-Williams (Eastern New Mexico University) and M. Estellie Smith (State University of New York Brockport), from 1975-1977, she discovered that much of the data about the Rio Puerco Valley was stored at the Catholic rectory at Jemez Pueblo. After an initial failed attempt to gain permission to conduct research at the Jemez, a subsequent request was granted in 1983 by the governor of the Pueblo. (3)

A case study approach is used to examine factionalism in Jemez Pueblo because it enables us to identify unique characteristics within the complexity of a single case, examine these characteristics within the context of the case, and compare them with other findings (Patton, 2002). A case study includes a system of action, many possible analyses from different perspectives, an understanding of the actors and the interactions between them, and a focus on meaning versus place. A researcher must rely on the literature and experience, both being equally important. Through a case study, one can better understand and appreciate the texture and intricacy of argument writ large. As Feagin, Oruin, and Sjoberg (1991) argued, the case study is an ideal methodology when a holistic, indepth investigation is needed; it is appropriate particularly when situated practice is examined. Case studies rely on multiple sources of data and, as Tellis (1997a, 1997b) contended, give voice to the powerless and the voiceless. The methodology of the case study approach is not simplistic and employs archival records, interviews, direct observation and participant interaction. Case studies are always personal and research directed; and yes, this is a limitation.

Jemez Pueblo is an amalgam of indigenous and European political forms. (4) For the present study, the key informants comprised a core of seven families and included two and three generations. The informants lived in different sections of the Pueblo; belonged to...