Volume 20 Number 1
October 1980

THIS study attempts to demonstrate that 1) there may be culturally specific ways of processing information, and 2) processing through different hemispheres in the brain may be a result of how one perceives the world in which one lives. It focuses on the Native American Indian - specifically the Navajo tribe and the similarities it shares with the Chinese population. A comparison will be made between these two groups and the Anglo American culture.

Addressed first are the differences in functioning between the right and left cerebral hemispheres. In the typical right-handed person, the left hemisphere is dominant. Its main function appears to be the translation of perceptions into logical, semantic and phonetic representations of reality, and the communication with the outside world on the basis of this logical, analytical coding of the surrounding world. It is competent for all that has to do with language (i.e.: grammar, syntax, semantics) and thus also with reading, writing and generally, digital communication. It is referred to as the verbal or major hemisphere. As a result of its specialization, the left hemisphere runs the danger of not seeing the forest for the trees (see Note 1).

The function of the right hemisphere is very different. It is highly specialized in the holistic grasping of complex relationships, patterns, configurations, and structures. The right hemisphere not only masters the perception and recognition of a gestalt from the most diverse angles and consequent relative distortions, but it may manage to perceive and recognize the totality from a very small portion of the latter.’ There is a strong likelihood that the right hemisphere is competent for the construction of logical classes and therefore for the formation of concepts two abilities without which our perception of reality would be a kaleidoscopic chaos. The right hemisphere is considerably better equipped than the left in cognititive abilities necessary for the perception of complex spatial configurations. It possesses a more or less consolidated world image (see Note 3).

Although the focus has been on the specialization of each hemisphere, during different mental tasks, one hemisphere is only relatively more active than the other. The brain regions do not make an all-or-nothing contribution to mental operations. Each brain region makes an average contribution to practically every operation, but these contributions are graded, each region more involved on the average in some operations than in others (see Note 4). Under conditions of normal integration, the lead is taken, by that hemisphere which, as a result of its specialization, is more competent to cope with a given situation.

For the Chinese, the development of language was very different from that which evolved in the West (see Note 5). Many of the words could be used as nouns, adjectives or verbs. Their sequence was determined not so much by grammatical rules as by the emotional content of the sentence. The classical Chinese word was very different from an abstract sign representing a clearly delineated concept. It was rather a sound symbol which had strong suggestive powers bringing to mind an indeterminate complex of pictorial images and emotions. The intent of the speaker was not so much to express an intellectual idea, but rather to affect and influence the listener. The written character was not just an abstract sign, but was an organic pattern - a "gestalt" which preserved the full complex of images and the suggestive power of the mind (see Note 6).

The Navajo culture has preferred to use myths and story telling to pass on the history of their people from one generation to the other rather than the written word. In an article by Kathryn Polacca (see Note 7) she gives an example of expressing differences of opinions:

How can one tell there is a reluctance to cooperate? Usually, no one will come right out and say: No, we don’t believe in this: there is a better way. Someone who is really interested and who perhaps understands the feelings of all concerned may start to tell a story. In the story the person will try to show the non-Navajo what the people are thinking and feeling. He may do this for his own people as well. It sometimes takes careful interpreting to get the point. A person who is aware of this indirect way of expressing an opinion can profit well by listening for the message.

Statements clothed in the form of myths, metaphors, symbols, poetic images, similes and allegories, which are right hemispherically oriented, are not uncommon for either culture. Mythical language is much less restricted by left hemispheric attributes of logic and common sense. Because it is full of magic and paradoxical situations, rich in suggestive images, and never precise, messages can be conveyed in many forms (see Note 8).

Both the Chinese and the Navajo cultures stress unity and harmony. Two of the most important characteristics of the Eastern world view are the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things, and the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness (see Note 9).

In Carl Gorman’s article (see Note 10, "Navajo Theory of Disease and Healing Practices," he states:

In the same article Gorman quotes Dr. Robert Bergman, psychiatrist with the Indian Health Service, in stating that the dominant white culture has something to learn from the Navajo people. One of these things is the unity of all aspects of culture" (see Note 11).

Does one’s perception of the world and the way in which one processes information regarding these perceptions influence the way one behaves and adapts to the world around him? Daniel G. Freedman, author of "Ethnic Differences in Babies," found striking differences in temperament and behavior among babies only 48 hours old from different ethnic groups. Dr. Freedman compared Chinese and Caucasian babies and found they behaved like two different breeds. Caucasian babies cried more easily, and once started, were harder to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed. In a maneuver called the "defense reaction" by neurologists, the baby’s nose is briefly pressed with a cloth. Most Caucasian and Black babies fought this maneuver by immediately turning away or by swiping at the cloth. This is reported in most Western pediatric textbooks as the "normal" and expected response. The average Chinese baby in the study simply lay on his back and breathed through his mouth, "accepting" the cloth without fight. Many other tests were done and it appeared that Chinese babies were simply more amenable and adaptable to the machinations of the examiners and that the Caucasian babies were registering annoyance and complaint.

In 1969, Freedman’s experimenters arranged to work among the Navajo tribe in Tuba City, Arizona, on the reservation. After two months, they had tested 36 Navajo newborns. These babies outdid the Chinese, showing even more calmness and adaptability than found among the Oriental babies. Among Navajo babies crying was rare, the limb movements were reduced, and calming was almost immediate.

It is Freedman’s contention that perhaps Navajo and Chinese newborns are so much alike because the Navajo were part of a relatively recent emigration from Asia. Their language group is called Athabaskan after a lake in Canada. Although most of the Athabaskan immigrants from Asia settled along the Pacific coast of Canada, the Navajo and Apache contingents went on to their present location in about 1200 A.D. Even today, a significant number of words in Athabaskan and Chinese appear to have the same meaning. If one looks back several thousand years into the written records of Sino-Tibetan, the number of similar words makes clear the common origin of these widely separated peoples.

In another study by John Callaghan, a student and colleague of Freedman’s, 15 Navajo and 19 Anglo mothers and their young infants (all under six months) were studied. Each mother was asked to "get the attention of the baby." The Navajo babies showed greater passivity than the Caucasian babies. Caucasian mothers spoke to their babies continually, using linguistic forms appropriate for someone who understands language. Their babies responded by moving their arms and their legs. The Navajo mothers were silent, using their eyes to attract their babies’ gaze. The relatively immobile infants responded by merely gazing back. Besides keeping up the steady stream of chatter, Caucasian mothers shifted the baby’s position more, whereas the Navajo mother used only subtle shifts.

As a result of the intense stimulation by the Caucasian mothers, the babies frequently turned their heads away as if to moderate the intensity of the encounter. Consequently, eye contact among Caucasian pairs was of shorter duration (half that of the Navajo), but more frequent. The Caucasian infants turned both toward and away from the mother with far greater frequency than did the Navajo infants. The Navajo mothers and their infants engaged in relatively stoical, quiet and steady encounters." Here we have infants from 48 hours to six months old who are learning to communicate by different means: the Caucasian by verbal stimuli and the Navajo through the use of visual stimuli.

Numerous studies indicate that the Navajo child displays above average visual discrimination and fine motor coordination as well as excellent spatial configuration. Gesell Developmental Tests showed the children’s ability to represent their reality and perceptions of their environment in a more cognitively superior manner than the Anglo child of the same age. Vera P. John states in her article (see Note 13), "Indian children of the Southwest are visual in their approaches to their world." Mrs. Anita Pfeiffer, principal of the Rough Rock Demonstration School, found her pupils to be precocious in their prereading skills. They display above average visual discrimination and fine motor coordination. Teachers have sometimes noticed that five-year old Indian children use scissors as well as third graders and that their preschool Indian children understand how to use modeling materials and show other evidence of fine motor coordination (Feldman and Dittman, 1970). It appears that Navajo children approach their world visually and by quiet persistent exploration.

The following studies indicate excellent visual discrimination on the part of the Navajo child. Collier’s use of photography in evaluating Navajos (1967) suggests that they excel at tasks requiring fine visual discrimination. Coombs/Coleman found that Navajo children excelled in spelling (visual imagery), while Anglos of the same age excelled in vocabulary (verbal). Indian Education Research Project (Havighurst, 1957), Rough Rock Demonstration School (John, 1972), and government-sponsored Indian surveys (e.g. Coombs 1958) indicate that Indian children learn more rapidly through imitation and direct visual and tactile experiences than through verbal processes.

The studies discussed thus far seem to indicate that 1) the Navajo perceives the world more holistically than the Anglo; 2) the Navajo excels in visual and spatial configuration; and 3) that his verbalizations tend to be more indirect, metaphoric, mythological in nature as a means of communicating information. The above characteristics, based on the specific functioning of each cerebral hemisphere as described previously, are right hemisphere functions.

The following is a pilot investigation that has demonstrated and given support to the notion that Navajos do, in fact, process language in what would normally be considered the minor cerebral hemisphere (right hemisphere). The study, "Cerebral Speech Lateralization in the Native American Navajo," Scott, et al., found that Navajo subjects demonstrated a left ear (right cerebral hemisphere) advantage compared to the traditional right ear effect found in the Anglo subjects. Typically, verbal stimuli are reported with greater accuracy when projected to the left cerebral hemisphere. Several investigators have suggested, however, that abstract and concrete nouns may be processed differently. The right cerebral hemisphere may have some processing capacity for concrete nouns which have a greater degree of potential imagery.

The investigation points out that there may be other populations in which language lateralization differs relative to our current understanding of neuropsychological asymmetries. There is limited evidence that lateralization for language in the Native American Hopi differs more dramatically than would be expected." The investigators found (in other tests) a significant right cerebral hemisphere specialization for language process in Hopi Indian children. The present study was to expand understanding of lateralization of function to include another group of Native Americans - the Navajo Indian. As predicted, when employing a dichotic listening task, Navajo subjects would recognize a significantly greater number of dichotic stimuli presented to the left ear (right cerebral hemisphere dominance) as opposed to their matched Anglo subjects who would demonstrate the typical right ear advantage (left cerebral dominance) on a dichotic task. Based on the results presented, it seems reasonable to tentatively conclude that differences may exist to the lateral processing of dichotic stimuli in Navajo and Anglo subjects." This investigation was completed as a pilot study, and its results are reported as offering tentative support for the differences in language processing.

Jerome Bruner, author of Learning and Thinking, points out that sheer, brute learning, the accumulation of information, is not enough as far as a true learning process is concerned. He states that generic learning, the kind of learning that permits us to cross the barrier into thinking, is not being taught in our public schools today." When the generic has been grasped, it is then that we are able to recognize the new problems we encounter as exemplars of old principles we have mastered. Once over the barrier, we are able to benefit from what William James called "the electric sense of analogy."

There are two interesting features of generic learning, organization and manipulation. If we are to use our past learning, we must organize it in such a way that it is no longer bound to the specific situation in which it occurred." With the information we now have that perhaps different cultures process information through the right hemisphere, a characteristic of which is its "unbounded potential," we need to study if this method of processing enhances our learning and, perhaps, our thinking ability.

According to Bruner, our public school system inhibits progress across the barrier from learning to thinking through the "passivity of knowledge getting" sitting and listening to lectures. The emphasis is upon gaining and storing information in the form in which it is presented (see Note 19).

Lincoln Steffens in his Autobiography complains that upon his graduation from the University of California, his teachers had taught him only of the known and how to commit it to mind. They had done little to instruct him in the art of approaching the unknown; the ability to think for oneself (see Note 20).

There is evidence now that the Navajo learns more effectively from doing, perceives his world visually, and perhaps processes information through the more creative, intuitive right hemisphere. What is our educational system doing to him? He is forced to learn through a process that perhaps is not conducive for him to achieve his maximum potential. We are perhaps stifling a natural creative process by subjecting him to listen rather than see, to dissect, break down, and analyze information without seeing its relevance and association to other aspects of life. We need to take a closer look at our educational system; not merely what is being taught, but how and for what purposes.

It is time we became sensitive to the differences in the way other cultures teach their young and try to incorporate some of their effective methods into our teaching styles. What we are giving our children is knowledge, and knowledge is not enough. Knowledge must be transformed into wisdom. Those who have possessed wisdom have been the Teachers of Men and the Directors of Culture. Those who have possessed only knowledge have been the war-lords of nations and the creators of Dark Ages (see Note 22).

1. Paul Watzlawick, Language of Change. New York: Basic Books, 1978, p. 22.

2. Ibid., p. 23.

3. Ibid., p. 25.

4. Daniel Golesman, "Split-Brain Psychology: Fad of the Year," Psychology Today, October, 1977.

5. Fritjof Capra, The Too of Physics. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala Publications, Inc., 1977, p. 93.

6. Ibid., p. 94.

7. Kathryn Polacca, "Ways of Working with the Navajo Who Have Not Learned the White Man’s Ways," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, October, 1962, pp. 6-16.

8. Capra, op. cit., p. 29.

9. Ibid., p. 11.

10. Carl N. Gorman, "Navajo Disease and Healing Practices," unpublished article submitted as part of grant proposal.

11. Ibid.

12. Daniel G. Freedman, "Ethnic Differences in Babies," Human Nature Magazine, January, 1979. (Article expanded from Human Sociobiology, Free Press.)

13. Vera P. John, "Styles of Learning - Styles of Teaching: Reflections on the Education of Navajo Children," Functions of Language in the Classroom. Ed. by C.B. Cazden, V.P. John, D. Hymes. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972.

14. Dorothea Leighton and Clyde Kluckhohn, Children of the People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948.

15. Steve Scott, G.W. Hynd, Lester Hunt and Wendy Weed, "Cerebral Speech Lateralization in the Native American Navajo," Neuropsychologic, Vol. 12, p. 89-92, Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1979.

16. Ibid.

17. Jerome S. Bruner, "Learning and Thinking," Learning and Instruction. Ed. by Merlin C. Wittrock. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. This paper was presented to the Massachusetts Council on Teacher Education, February 13, 1958. It appears in Harvard Educational Review, 1959, 29, 184-188. Copyright 1959 by President and Fellows of Harvard College

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. W. Y. Evans, The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, Oxford Press, 1973.

22. Paul Watzlawick, op. cit., p. 34.