Royster and Respecting Other VOices

In her essay, "When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own," Jacqueline Jones Royster asks "How can we teach, engage in research, write about, and talk about boundaries with others, instead of for, about, and around them?...How do we demonstrate that we honor and respect the person talking...?" In the essay she recounts listening to colleagues discuss works over which she felt cultural ownership and she relates the "rage" she felt when others interpreted these works in a manner which she felt was pompous and ignorant. Royster argues that these colleagues used authoritative vcoices, and she describes this by employing Tillie Olsen's terminology "trespass vision," in which the critic relies on imagination or intellect to interpret, rather than "lived experience". She implies that in her case, her readings of African American literature/history are more credible - because she can culturally identify and has lived the experience. While it is true that her experience may give her insight (and I do think it does), I think that she sells other academics short by implying that they are only able to acess the simple story and entertaining tale rather than the multilayered richness which can be revealed by careful study and examination. I think she fails to recognize ideas and concepts which are universally accessible regardless of race, gender, culture or experience. And ften times commentary from outside of a group may prove to be more insightful than from those within, because there is a distance and ability to be honest - also the reader or critic may also be able to see a more broad or general impression, that those within the group are too close to be able to discern.

Royster argues that we need to incorporate "codes of behavior that can sustain more concretely notions of honor, respect and good manners across boundaries." She insists upon the idea that we should allow individual voices (like hers), but in questioning the credibility and value of other perspectives who are not culturally priveleged to a specific piece of literature isn't she continuing to be intolerant or disrespectful - only to the other group on the other side of the boundary? She believes that we should adopt a concept of "home training" essentially "doing unto others" and yet by priveleging the insight of any one group, isn't she discrediting or lessening the signifigance of what others add to the discourse? I agree that there should be a tolerance of different opinions and that there is room for diverse interpretation based upon culture and experience - this is what makes literature so rich and diverse, but I think it is the accusations and exclusionary elitism on all sides of the boundary which leave students feeling alienated and disheartened.