Intercultural Communications in the Baffin Region, 1950 to 1975

Summary

Intercultural communications is a term devised by scholars across various disciplines to describe successful methods that allow individuals from two cultures to communicate with one other. It aims to exchange information across cultural lines in a meaningful and unambiguous way, and in a manner that leads to mutual respect and minimal misunderstands and conflict. Without this special effort, we tend to attribute the meaning of messages based on our own culture, rather than on the culture of the person communicating with us, whether the messages are verbal, through writing or through non-verbal signals.

This paper focuses on the barriers to intercultural communication that existed between Inuit and Qallunaat from 1950 to 1975. It considers specific events in the history of Qallunaat–Inuit relations, including stories told to the Commission, to understand more about the differences between a candid and guarded communication and their impact on personal experiences and government policy.

The ability of Inuit and Qallunaat to communicate effectively was challenged by a lack of a common language, by profound cultural differences based on distinct worldviews and experiences, and by the reality that Inuit initially saw little benefit to improving communications with Qallunaat. Inuit believed, based on numerous individual experiences, that very few Qallunaat cared enough to learn Inuktitut or understand Inuit culture. Inuit, however, learned English, more often than not by necessity or through formal schooling, work or when sent south for tuberculosis treatments and other healthcare. Inuit had little power to make Qallunaat listen and were also less inclined, due to cultural norms, to challenge assumptions and opinions expressed by the dominant group. Added to this was the enormous importance attached to written records and arguments by Qallunaat and the equally important value placed on oral knowledge by Inuit.

In his careful review of exploration accounts, W.C.E. Rasing, author of “Too many people”: Order and Nonconformity in Iglulingmiut Social Process (1994), mentioned numerous cultural differences identified by the earliest European explorers that continued to be relevant to Rasing’s own study in the 1980s of the effects of western judicial theory on Inuit relations with each other and within the justice system. He noted that observant Europeans were struck by the level of social control and self-control evident among Inuit. The explorers tried to describe the Inuit worldview, in which humans could not be separated from the spirits, taboos, animals, land, sea and skies that dictated the rhythm of life. They also commented on the interdependence of men and women and distinguished between altruistic generosity and reciprocal sharing to ensure survival of the group.

In her recent article “Ilira”, published in Native Journal, Pond Inlet author Rachel A. Qitsualik eloquently explains other features of Inuit culture that were and are still often misunderstood, including the importance of ilira (an overwhelming sense that it is important to yield to the other person) in the psychological make-up of Inuit. Among the many differences is the fact that traditional Inuit held “silence and respect as twin virtues.” Respect for the isuma (the capacity to think and reason) was also fundamental. Inuit were reticent to make verbal demands on others because they believed that “each individual would willingly carry out his duties to every other.”

The Inuit worldview, even after a century and a half of trading and contact, had not changed when the federal government turned its attention more fully to the Arctic with the construction of the Distance Early Warning (DEW) Line in the 1950s. The Qallunaat worldview, however, had become even more entrenched in a positivist, rationale philosophy that emphasized planning and control from the cradle to the grave and placed great emphasis on the future, rather than on the present.

The police officers, government administrators and bureaucrats charged with modernizing the Baffin Region in the 1950s and 1960s made few attempts to fully understand Inuit culture or even the Inuit language. In high-minded language they spoke knowingly of the fact that silence and quiet agreement did not mean that an Inuk fully understood, let alone agreed with a proposition. On the other hand, they ignored opportunities to bridge cultural and linguistic divides. Their efforts were generally limited to translating rules and information into Inuktitut with varying levels of effectiveness. RCMP officers gave translation roles to special constables who had a partial understanding of English and no experience with western justice; Inuit children were expected to translate complicated documents for their parents; and publications were produced in Inuktitut to teach Inuit how to mimic Canadian habits related to dress, personal hygiene, table manners, etc. More substantial, albeit unevenly executed, attempts to support the exchange of information and opinions were made in creating housing authorities, hamlet councils and early co-operative ventures.

Some officials went a little further by providing Inuit with opportunities to speak to senior officials. For various reasons, including astute assessments of the wisdom of challenging authorities in public venues, Inuit generally avoided participation in government-organized forums. More damaging to Inuit, however, were education programs – residential schools, day schools and experimental programs than sent selected Inuit children south for schooling – designed to create cultural intermediaries between Inuit and Qallunaat.

Inuit responded to messages from Qallunaat at an individual level, depending on circumstances and on the sex, age, position and linguistic capabilities of each party. While Canadians had long used a representative bureaucracy to communicate collective messages and put their beliefs into action, Inuit had to wait until 1971 for an effective organization – Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) – to begin representing collective Inuit voices about the present and the future. Throughout the period, however, Qallunaat demonstrated a sense of cultural superiority and a belief that their role was to shepherd Inuit through difficult times. The patronizing position of Qallunaat, interspersed with actions that showed either hostility or indifference to Inuit culture, made it very difficult to engage in meaningful dialogues about government policies, reforms of the justice system, effective policing, allocation of resources, etc.