Story Luminary Phyllis (Jack) Webstad and the Storywork of the Orange Shirt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article makes an important contribution to our knowledge of the power of storytelling. 

I have a few small suggestions:

1) In places quotes are overused- paragraph 2 of section 6

2) Section 4 paragraph 4 should begin with a word rather than a number: Twenty-two

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article is well structured and clearly written.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your editorial input. I have corrected para 2 of section 6 (now para 1 of section 5) so that the quote is better contextualized within paragraph text. I've also reworded the sentence that begins with "22," so as to not begin a sentence with a number. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is moving and clearly deeply committed to the issues of Indigenous persecution and oppression in Canadian history. The article importantly highlights the key work of Phyllis (Jack) Webstad and the Orange Shirt movement. However, precisely because of the importance and sensitivity of these issues, the article falls short in uncritically accepting the ideas around 'story-telling' and its 'power' that have been extensively questioned and critiqued in, for instance, writings about the Holocaust. It has been pointed out repeatedly by scholars and theorists of Indigeneity that uncritically adopting Colonial accounts of story-telling usually allows oppression to mask lack of action and change by hiding behind 'story-telling'. Similarly, Colonial definitions of 'story' often oppress or distort Indigenous definitions or ideas about 'story'. The very idea that stories have 'power' is in this article expressed in very standardised, Western, liberal ways: assuming models of reading that rely, for instance, on Christian, Evangelical models of Biblical texts and power. This is bitterly ironic in terms of the Christian narratives of the Residential Schools. Finally, as many writers on the Holocaust have noted, assuming that immense suffering can be somehow 'experienced' or 'understood' by others through reading carries with it all kinds of dangerous potential consequences, most of all that the suffering is minimised through the idea that it can be somehow understood and shared by others. Even within Children's Literature as a narrower field, this point has also been made by a leading critic such as Peter Hunt, who argued that a problem of Children's Literature is that the structures of the novels often in the end resolve and therefore minimise the very suffering that they describe previously. I am not saying that there are clear answers to these very complex and painful issues and questions, but that the article needs to be more aware that there are such questions and issues, in order that its important points can be discussed in a more rigorous way that honours the complexity and pain of the history and the difficulty of somehow engaging in any way adequately with it.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and intelligent editorial feedback. I have revised the paper substantively to address your concerns and do think the result is a richer and more nuanced paper. 

I originally conceived this paper as a case study looking at Webstad's work through an interpretive lens. I do think it's a better fit to examine it through a critical lens, and I have adapted the paper accordingly. 

One of the tensions I experienced while revising was a sense that the research doesn't fit neatly into any particular field or discipline, and I have expounded upon that, choosing to describe rather than resolve that tension. 

Major additions to the paper include a Literature Review section and a 

I agree that uncritically adopting Colonial accounts of story-telling could allow oppression to mask lack of action and change, and have worked to address that, especially in the new section 8. Symbolic Transformation Through Counter-Storytelling and new section 9. Narrative Theory and National Storytelling and new section 10. Refusing "The End." I better contextualize Webstad's story work within a critical tradition, raising questions about the appearance of transformation and change blocking meaningful action and change. I also draw from scholarship about South Africa's TRC and point to examples of healing narratives blocking meaningful change, but ultimately conclude that symbolic change matters in this context, not as an end-point, but as a starting place.

I have made structural changes to the paper to emphasize that Webstad's story work refuses endings or to end in a way that counters colonial narratives and calls for ongoing change.

I have clarified in which ways Webstad's work wields power, and hope it is clear that it is within an Indigenous (Shushwap in particular) tradition and adding insight from Cherokee scholar Daniel Heath Justice. 

I have added 14 academic citations, especially keeping your recommendations to take a more critical approach. 

I will add Peter Hunt to my reading list. Refusing to resolve is an important concept and an important way to understand Webstad's work. I appreciate this insight. 

Creating a more rigorous discussion that honours the complexity of the trauma of Indigenous schools was my goal in these major revisions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay is clearly written and explained.  I would recommend a revision to better contextualize what the author is saying about the Orange Shirt movement and Webstad, which I believe would make the article richer and more nuanced.  Right now, it's kind of a simple, standalone presentation of an example. It's a bit on the short side and could use more analysis of what the Orange shirt movement did/does, why it was/is effective, and why that story.  There must have been others that could have been taken up.  Why that one?  

To make the essay an excellent and more useful contribution to settler colonial studies, I would recommend the following: 

1. Contextualize the Orange Shirt movement with other settler colonial reconciliation movements, like the Sorry Movement in Australia.  Do settler colonial countries (and descendants of settlers) need a symbol to be motivated to get beyond their denial?  Do they need a personal story in order to point to a wrong-doer, who is not them?  Why do we see this story and this symbol being taken up by Canadians at this time?  What cultural, political, and sociological work does it perform? 

2. Contextualize Webstad with other symbolic figures of reconciliation movements, who also became larger than life and had their stories taken up by the culture as a touchstone (for actions that weren't really hidden, in fact).  Nelson Mandella's Long Walk to Freedom, his story of apartheid and reconciliation, would make an interesting comparison, as would Sally Morgan's My Place (for Australia).  Both are personal narratives that supposedly point out to a culture that claims to not understand the horrors of settlement before hearing these stories (I may be overeggerating here, but it does seem like the personal story is an important part of mobilizing a culture, getting people past their own guilt and shame, and motivating acts of reconciliation).  What is it about the one person that can be held up as an example that is important? All of these stories have (sort of) happy endings, in that they show someone overcoming oppression.  Why is that an important narrative for the settler culture? What does that do for reconciliation? 

3. Do more analysis of the Orange shirt movement itself.  The essay is sort of laudatory with a "and they lived happily ever after" ending.  IS that what is happening?  Has reconciliation been achieved?  OR is it more complicated than this?  Has there been pushback from people who don't want to wear or recognize the orange shirt?  Why?  Is this an ongoing process? 

4. Work on the notes to add in more contextualizing research.  Scholars might not have discussed this particular case (in which case, you need to answer why.  Because of its newness? Because it's not worthy of scholarly attention?), but scholars have certainly discussed stories as part of reconciliation movements.  I realize this would not be a quick fix, but the section on storytelling needs to address what others have said, why personal stories are so important, why the culture in fact needs the personal story, the representative case of someone who was oppressed and overcame it. 

5. Also address at least in a note the vast scholarship on residential schools in Canada and elsewhere.  There might be something useful for your argument in some of those.  

I think with these additions, which will make the essay richer, the essay could be published.  

 

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and intelligent feedback. 

I have both doubled the length of my paper and the number of references.

Creating a more complex, critical, substantive argument was my goal in major revisions. 

I have added a literature review to better contextualize the paper with the humanities, especially pointing out how Webstad's story work doesn't really fit into a single academic discipline.

1. You pose some fascinating questions that I cannot adequately answer in this paper. I have added scholarship about South Africa's TRC, especially to address the relationship between national narrative and survivor stories. It was especially helpful to ask, "what cultural, political, and sociological work does it perform?" There is a new section 9. Narrative Theory and National Storytelling" that answers this question. 
2. I cannot adequately compare Webstad's work to Mandella's and Morgan's in this paper, but I would like to include this question in my new "Questions for Future Research" if that's okay with you
3. Yes, it's more complicated than "and they lived happily ever after." I do not want to give the impression that I think Canada has achieved truth and reconciliation since Webstad shared her story nationally. I do make this point early in the original sumbission (3rd paragraph of section 3) but it is obviously not emphasized enough. I have re-structured the paper so that "Refusing 'The End'" section emphasizes a starting place, not an ending place. 
4. I've added a "Literature Review" section that adds contextualizing research. Scholarship on Webstad in particular is very new, which gives me an interesting vantage as a researcher. 
5. I have added 15 scholarly references to this paper and those additions have deepened my inquiry and made my research more complex. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very happy with the very thoughtful and very helpful revisions made by the author in response to my initial review comments: the author has understood excellently what my main concerns were and has made extensive revisions and additions which nuance their argument considerably in relation to key questions of 'Truth and Reconciliation' and de/colonization. Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful editorial input. I value the ways in which you have made this a stronger, better paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine, but some grammatical errors have creeped in to the new sections. 

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and sharp editorial feedback. I have done a second major revision of this paper, highlighting new or altered text in yellow, as well as shortening some sections, especially the literature review section. 

Establishing that neither Webstad's story work nor the study of her story work "fit in" comfortably within colonial systems is important to the rewrite of this paper, as well as that her work is a starting place, not an ending place, so I tried to emphasize that in rewriting and restructuring this paper. Please consider this a research paper, not an essay. The methodology is historical analysis and literary analysis. This is defined in the abstract and introduction. Detailing how and when her work has grown and changed over time is the historical part, and the textual examples from her books and oral story work contribute to the literary analysis. 

As per your specific recommendations:  

• I have moved components of the literature review that you may have found tedious to footnotes and shortened that section
• I have repaired grammatical errors in the lit review section, e.g. "he" where it should read "the"
• I have worked on making the introduction more compelling, especially in terms of answering journalistic questions (who, what, when, where) for the reader and giving it a sense of immediacy. I like that it highlights the expectations placed on residential school survivors by TRCs and the difficulty associated with that from a survivor's point of view
• This research paper hinges on the assumption that critical attention to Webstad's storywork is important because the goals of Truth and Reconciliation are important
• I have moved the "Refusing The End" section nearer to the beginning, immediately following the new section "A Starting Place" to emphasize the relationship to resisting a sense of finality or done-ness in regards to social change
• That Webstad's initial story sparked a movement is emphasized structurally in the abstract and in the first paragraph of pg. 2
• That I predict more critical attention to Webstad's work is forthcoming and that we are at an interesting point in history to survey how it is being included in critical discourse is emphasized (see para. 6 pg. 2)
• I appreciate your recommendation to examine this story as part of TRC Canada, as understood within other problematic TRC movements, in this redraft I have included quotes from another scholar whose work is precisely that, being careful not to make claims I cannot support
• I have especially strengthened the conclusion section, answering questions posed in the abstract and introduction, including what are the consequences of taking Webstad seriously as an important storyteller who has developed new pedagogical tools for a country in need

In many ways the aim of this paper is simply to assert the importance of learning from Indigneous storytellers and also to test that assumption within the context of the goals of the TRC. I agree with you that it would be interesting to do a much larger comparitive case study of multiple Indigenous storytellers around the world and over decades, but that is simply not within the scope of this particular research project. I am sacrificing breadth and generalizability for depth with this particular case. Webstad's work is framed her as one data point among many that insists centering Indigenous voices matters. I've tried to clarify that in my rewrite without bloating the paper or being redundant. 

To respond to your earlier input, there are certainly people within Canada who resist the truth and reconciliation movement, making the claim that survivors lie for financial gain. I am intentionally refusing to "both sides" that argument in this paper, preferring to centre Indigenous voices and arguments. 

I do consider a "Questions for Further Research" section to be normal and expected in a research paper, but will defer to your editorial wisdom here and have cut it. 

Thank you! 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report on version #3 of “Story Luminary Phyllis (Jack) Webstad and the Storywork of 2 The Orange Shirt”

This is the third version of this essay that I have read, and I want to commend the author for their continued work on it. The introduction is much better, and the additions to the literature review are helpful.  I appreciate the reference to Regan’s book, and I would advise the author to add in a few sentences about others who have become important symbols for reconciliation movements elsewhere.  I think the author misunderstood when I recommended this in prior revisions.  I did not mean for the author to add in more than a few sentences or a paragraph and a note with recommendations for further reading. 

The fact is that much work has been done on similar cases with other countries, and not to acknowledge that work makes this author and this essay look naïve.  The author especially needs to acknowledge this prior scholarship, as well, in the “TRC is Storywork” section, since the title of the section seems to indicate that this situation of having someone’s story as part of TRC work in general is important, which it definitely is.  Again, a few sentences with a note of important sources would be useful there.  It might be that readers of this essay are interested in Canadian studies, but they might just as easily be global studies scholars or scholars of truth commissions or reconciliation movements, and acknowledging that this case is part of a global trend would strengthen the piece.

Otherwise, I recommend that the author do a careful proofread of the piece, since I noted some errors had crept into the revision.  I would also make sure that any paragraph has at least three sentences.  Some of the shorter paragraphs need development or combining. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Report on version #3 of “Story Luminary Phyllis (Jack) Webstad and the Storywork of 2 The Orange Shirt”

 

 

This is the third version of this essay that I have read, and I want to commend the author for their continued work on it. The introduction is much better, and the additions to the literature review are helpful.  I appreciate the reference to Regan’s book, and I would advise the author to add in a few sentences about others who have become important symbols for reconciliation movements elsewhere.  I think the author misunderstood when I recommended this in prior revisions.  I did not mean for the author to add in more than a few sentences or a paragraph and a note with recommendations for further reading. 

 

The fact is that much work has been done on similar cases with other countries, and not to acknowledge that work makes this author and this essay look naïve.  The author especially needs to acknowledge this prior scholarship, as well, in the “TRC is Storywork” section, since the title of the section seems to indicate that this situation of having someone’s story as part of TRC work in general is important, which it definitely is.  Again, a few sentences with a note of important sources would be useful there.  It might be that readers of this essay are interested in Canadian studies, but they might just as easily be global studies scholars or scholars of truth commissions or reconciliation movements, and acknowledging that this case is part of a global trend would strengthen the piece.

 

Otherwise, I recommend that the author do a careful proofread of the piece, since I noted some errors had crept into the revision.  I would also make sure that any paragraph has at least three sentences.  Some of the shorter paragraphs need development or combining. 

Author Response

Thank you for your advice and recommendations. I appreciate your contributions in making this a more critical and better contextualized argument.

I have added in a few sentences about others who are important symbols for reconciliation around the world, and some footnotes pointing to important, relevant scholarship in the "TRC is Storywork" section. 

I have done a careful proofread correcting 16 mechanical errors throughout,  and combined some shorter paragraphs with others. All paragraphs have at least three sentences.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf