··6ii....WMhW&BR%W.'i

224 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC. SPRING 1994

irrigation-context examples were historic periods is also an important entirely consistent with the artifactual finding, not without relevance to con­ evidence from the open site excava­ temporary Hawaiian cultural prac­ tions. There is absolutely no basis for tices. Yet none of these or other major Anderson's claim that "many ofthe themes receive the slightest comment house sites, and the irrigation systems, from Anderson. Too bad. We are left were first occupied or constructed with the impression that an obsession prehistorically by people of undocu­ with radiocarbon dating, as demon­ mented identity." The only sites within strated by Anderson's work on New the study area occupied prehistorically Zealand moa-hunting sites, is the orga­ were the rockshelters, and the chronol­ nizing general perspective ofPacific ar­ ogy and sequence of their use is thor­ chaeology.

oughly documented in Chapter 2 PATRICK V. KIRCH (vol. 2). University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Beyond having to expend valuable journal space on such a detailed refuta­ MARSHALL SAHLINS tion ofAnderson's unjustified criti­ University ofChicago cisms, we are deeply disappointed that .. Anderson's review accords no mention " at all of several broad anthropological History and Tradition in Melanesian themes resulting from this collabora­ Anthropology, edited by James G. tive engagement of archaeology and Carrier. Studies in Melanesian Anthro­ historical ethnography. For example, pology 10. Berkeley: University of the analysis oflevels of surplus produc­ California Press, 1992. ISBN 0-520­ tion, and of the sociology of canal 07523-4, ix + 257 pp, notes, bibliogra­ hydraulics deriving from the irrigation phy, index. US$38. system study (wrongly attributed by Kame'eleihiwa's review to sole author­ A critique of the ethnographic enter­ ship by Spriggs-it was a collaboration prise, which may be dated for conven­ by Spriggs and Kirch), are matters of ience as beginning in 1986 with the some significance for Hawaiian and publication of Clifford and Marcus's Polynesian prehistory. The radical Writing Culture, has flow spread to transformation ofland use in the upper works about Melanesia. (Make no valley following Kamehameha's 1804 mistake: the "anthropology" in this occupation is a matter that Kirch sub­ book's title really means "ethnogra­ sequently relates to other settlement phy." No serious attention is paid to transformations throughout the archi­ archaeology, much less biological pelago in late prehistory (2:53-56). A anthropology, though these subdisci­ further theme is that of architectural plines might tell us something useful changes in Hawaiian housing during about "history.") However, although the early nineteenth century, an issue the criticisms in the collection under largely ignored by archaeologists until review are sometimes phrased in such recently. The restructuring of burial trendy terms as "historicism," "essen­ patterns during the prehistoric and tialization," and "Orientalism," the BOOK REVIEWS 225 book's underlying argument is modest Thomas's chapter-"Substantivization and cogent, to "challenge an ... idea and Anthropological Discourse: The that anthropology in Melanesia can Transformation of Practices into Insti­ offer us the study of alien societies that tutions in Neotraditional Pacific are fairly untouched by social Societies"-is explicated in only forces" (3). slightly less ponderous text. However, This argument is developed in Car­ he does make an important point: the rier's "Introduction" in terms both role of colonialism in producing "es­ general (II-18) and specific to the sentialized constructs of selves and book's contents. To foreshadow a others within which particular customs point elaborated later in this review, .and practices are emblematic" (82). He I would note that he is careful not to ably illustrates this by drawing on his­ make claims for earth-shaking revela­ torical documents from Fiji, with tions, but rather admits (viii, 3, 7, 22) special reference to the practice of kere­ that some ethnographers ofMelanesia kere; his additional examples, recy­ have consistently paid attention to cling his reviews ofLinnekin's Hawai­ history and change. He further, and ian and Kahn's Wamiran materials, are wisely, distances himself from the most perforce somewhat less compelling. wretched excesses of"New Model Ethnographers who worked in Papua Anthropology" (read, "postmodern­ New Guinea may well be reminded of ism"), emphasizing that an exclusive the "Anthropology" section that young concern with rhetoric and discourse patrol officers were required to include not only fails to engage real issues of in their reports. Did their inquiries oppression but "merely parasitizes heighten or transform villagers' notions villagers in order to provide ... eth­ of kastom that subsequently became nographic texts" (17). part of modern rhetoric in Papua New Margaret Jolly's chapter then sets a Guinea? high standard for those that follow. It is salutary to have a contribution Using a severely critical reading (sof­ from a thoughtful historian like tened in the footnotes) ofAnnette Bronwen Douglas in a book ofthis Weiner's Trobriand ethnography as her kind. In "Doing Ethnographic His­ starting point, she not only advances tory," she warns that "the tyranny of the general argument ofthe book, but the ethnographic present in anthropol­ has extraordinarily valuable things to ogy is at least matched by the tyranny say about the necessity to incorporate of outcomes in history" (109). Thus change into feminist anthropology, the none ofthose, French or Melanesian, debates about "gifts versus commodi­ fighting in New Caledonia in 1868­ ties," and the current "invention of 1869 could know ofthe ultimate tradition" controversy. She brings to French conquest, yet histories are writ­ this, as to all her work, the sensitivity ten that interpret not only events but that "Melanesia" can mean more than motivations in terms ofthat outcome. the Highlands, the Sepik, or even all of Douglas's chapter is one ofthe more Papua New Guinea. narrowly focused in the book, empha­ The ponderous title of Nicholas sizing local detail over broader theoret- Ali ""IN

226 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING 1994

ical considerations, and probably have consistently ignored the role that strengthens the volume's overall impact Christianity (in some form) has played for that very reason. and continues to play in Melanesian Carrier's concern in "Approaches to lives. Much of the existing literature Articulation" could hardly be more thereby seriously distorts the lived fundamental: to illuminate "the way reality of the people described. While that village societies are linked to and Barker's approach is perhaps not so interact with the larger social, political, "ideologically disinterested" as the dust and economic orders in which they are jacket describes this entire book, his embedded" (II7). He has written eth­ criticism seems undeniable. Max nographic accounts ofthis interaction Weber is reputed to have said that, in for the Ponam of Manus Province, matters ofreligion, he was the equiva­ Papua New Guinea. Here he mounts lent of tone deaf. When it comes to criticisms of a number of anthropolo­ perceiving the profound effects of gists (eg, Finney, Gregory, Meillasoux) Christianity in Melanesia,too many who have written about economic ethnographers seem deaf, blind, and change before he briefly (131-136) reca­ mute. Barker's otherwise lucid chapter pitulates the Ponam material. These is not always clear in his distinction criticisms are well taken, but one won­ between "syncretism" and "religious ders whether he has underestimated the pluralism," but this is more than com­ general difficulty of simultaneously pensated for by other valuable services paying adequate attention to both the he performs (eg, in directing attention macro- and microcosmic levels of mod­ to the work ofthose, like Michael ern Melanesian political economies, in French Smith, who have written with a single, manageable, and readable great insight about Melanesian Christi­ ethnography. (Compare the varied anity). approaches taken in Robillard's 1992 Roger Keesing's discussion of Social Change in the Pacific Islands.) "Kwaisulia as Culture Hero" is another None ofthe examples he provides has chapter rather narrowly focused, in as complex a history ofcolonialism in this case on Malaita. By effectively varied forms as, for example, Bougain­ combining his own research with that ville. None has felt the impact of ofPeter Corris and other historical multinational, high-technology enter­ documentation, however, he is able to prise. IfCarrier does not provide any use this case study to raise more gen­ neat answers to the problem of dealing eral questions about the constitution of with these more complicated cases, he leadership in Melanesia. His point that has certainly alerted future writers to "Modes ofleadership and arenas for the importance ofthe general issue of power were historically constituted articulation. and changing ... in Melanesia as John Barker here continues an argu­ everywhere else, political processes ment he has made elsewhere, most were characterized by flexibility and notably in the introduction to his opportunism" (187) should help to put edited volume, Christianity in Oceania aside sterile debates about ideal types (1990). His point is that ethnographers like "big men" and "paramount chiefs," BOOK REVIEWS 227 which obscure, rather than illuminate, Melanesian, the Trobriand Islander the workings ofMelanesian societies. John Kasaipwalova, who said in a 1972 Michael Young's wonderful essay Waigani Seminar, "if we are going to "Gone Native in Isles of Illusion ..." depend on anthropological studies to fits rather uncomfortably in this collec­ define our history and our culture and tion. Indeed, in its emphasis on reflex­ our 'future', then we are lost. " They ivity, "the duplicitous nature of could point to E. W. P. Chinnery's fieldwork practice" (193), and the complaint, made sixty years ago, that ambiguities ofgenre writing, it comes anthropologists in New Guinea con­ perilously close to the "lit-crit-biz" side sistently ignored change in favor of ofthe "New Model Anthropology" the describing "more spectacular and editor deplored in his introduction. [allegedly] untouched" groups. They Nonetheless, this wide-ranging explo­ might voice their own complaint that, ration of the published work of Robert although some of the book's contribu­ Fletcher, an English writer and some­ tors are careful to say (eg, 22) that they time planter in what was once the New are only reminding anthropologists of Hebrides, made me vow to read Isles of what has already been done and needs Illusion and Gone Native at the earliest to be continued, the book has over­ opportunity. The impact of Young's looked as many contributions to the chapter is, ofcourse, enhanced by his study of change in Melanesia as it cites. graceful prose (but see footnote 8!), all Thus one seeks in vain for any mention too rare in ethnographic writing. of the work of Ron Crocombe, who for Keesing and Jolly's "Epilogue" does years maintained a critical discussion much more than merely recapitulate of "development" in Papua New what has gone before. It raises search­ Guinea, and it does seem strange that a ing questions about the audience to book with "History" in the title ignores whom ethnography is addressed and Gewertz and Schieffelin's History and the problems of an anthropological Ethnohistory in Papua New Guinea history (233-235) and is especially clear (1985). As Carrier himself asks (viii), is about the political vacuity into which the reminder to make Melanesian eth­ postmodernist modes ofrepresentation nography sensitive to history neces­ too easily fall (237-239). It puts the sary? What has this book done to issues that have been discussed for advance that cause? Melanesia into a larger context, citing My answer to the first question is the subaltern literature from India, and loudly affirmative. To take just one the important work ofJean Comaroff recent example, Chris Healey in on South Africa. This "Epilogue" thus Maring Hunters and Traders (1990) rounds off most effectively a book that states that, in the 1980s, change among merits serious study. the people he describes "has been Ofcourse, many who have written slight" (xvi). Yet coffee had been grown about Melanesian societies might ask, as a cash crop in the area since the late "So, what's new?" They might argue 1960s (26). Should the reader suspect that even Said's "Orientalist" critique some "ahistoricism" in this work? of anthropology was anticipated by a More disturbing are the radical differ- • -!'MiS. • &@gyfl

228 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING 1994

ences regularly imputed to Melanesian on intellectual grounds than on what thought processes by anthropologists. interests of each group member must For example, we are told these people be represented in a publication. In have "partible selves" that are quali­ recent years, scholars no longer see tatively different from the self-concept contradictions in reviewing their col­ of Westerners. But these same people laborators' books, or even books that regularly participate in a cash economy began as theses under the reviewer's like Westerners, go to church on Sun­ supervision. It is hardly surprising that day like many Westerners (though such reviews are characteristically perhaps not many anthropologists), fulsome in their praise. Clearly, book and often use pidgin and even English review editors must take some respon­ terms (hence concepts) to communicate sibility for this state of affairs, and with each other. Don't these circum­ there is something to be said for media stances, as the book under review features like "Book Review Forum" in forcefully argues, demand more expla­ the journal Pacific Studies. nation than the anthropologist usually The point is, in such a world, it provides when attributing completely becomes too easy for significant bodies alien worldviews-"radical alterity" in ofwork to be ignored, simply because trendy discourse-to the people under the authors attend the wrong social study? events. Final accountability to main­ But another question is implicit in tain critical scholarship rests with each this discussion. Ifin fact a concern with researcher and writer, whether work­ history and change has been present in ing individually or collectively. Institu­ a body ofethnographic writing about tions like Australian National Univer­ Melanesia for decades, why has this sity's Research School of Pacific corpus gone unrecognized (22), why Studies, University ofHawai'i's Center has it been "subordinate" (242), why for Pacific Islands Studies, and the has it been relegated to less prestigious Association for Social Anthropology in publication outlets (13)? To refer to Oceania need at least as much self­ Thomas Kuhn's notion of"paradigm" reflexivity as has recently been in science (cf, 21) is to invest the prac­ enjoined to ethnographers, if they are tice of academic anthropology with too to use their resources to advance much dignity. The notion ofparadigm knowledge rather than to become cozy implies, among other things, a free havens for mutual backscratching and market ofthought, in which ideas are career grooming. regularly subjected to critical examina­ So the reasons for neglect of history tion. But anthropology in general and and change in Melanesian ethnography recent Melanesian ethnography in are to be found less in the analysis of particular more often resembles-to abstract ideas than in a sociology of put it tactfully-a set ofmutual admi­ knowledge that honestly assesses roles, ration societies. social networks, institutional affilia­ Thus we find groups of practitioners tion, and power structures among the defining problems (eg, what societies ethnographers. This is not the task that should be included in "Oceania") less the book under review set out to BOOK REVIEWS 229

accomplish. Rather the editor and River Societies (1983), was that the authors should be praised for what Chambri have always been a part of a they have done: pointing ways for regional system and that "external" others to join them in the effort (in factors, threats, and peoples have Barker's felicitous phrase, 145) "to always been an element in the Chambri situate ethnography in a shared world world. However, as Gewertz and of historical experience rather than the Errington ably illustrate in this vol­ romanticized and divided universe of ume, the encounter with the world Them and Us." system oftoday is significantly differ­ EUGENE OGAN ent from the interactions with, for University ofMinnesota example, the Iatmul oftwo hundred years ago. Although the Chambri attempt to exploit the new circum­ * stances and are not passive recipients Twisted Histories, Altered Contexts: of change, there is little, if any, oppor­ Representing the Chambri in a World tunity for equitable relations and System, by Deborah B. Gewertz and mutual entailments between the Cham­ Frederick K. Errington. New York: bri and those that now impinge on Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN them from outside. 0-521-40012-0, xiv + 264 pp, maps, The body of Twisted Histories is appendix, photographs, notes, bibliog­ composed of a series ofcase studies, raphy, index. Cloth, US$44.50; paper, each ofwhich illustrates how the US$14·95· Chambri engage the contemporary world and attempt to make it work for Anthropologists, especially American them. These are almost told as stories ones, have been studying change -Gewertz and Errington rightly sug­ throughout most of this century. Only gest that this is a relatively unconven­ recently have we begun to understand tional ethnography because it is told the experience of change as people through this series of narrative cases. struggle to construct their lives and The goal is a simple one: "to make make sense of them as'they negotiate Chambri lives as accessible as possible the almost overwhelming encounter to as many as possible" (21). This goal with a system that encompasses the is admirably achieved. world. In this wonderful book, The first case explores the meaning Gewertz and Errington bring their long and effects of tourism on the Chambri. and extensive research experience in (It is ironic that they are ofinterest to Melanesia to bear on the ways in which tourists because of their lack of devel­ the Chambri ofthe Sepik region of opment, and yet the Chambri see tour­ Papua New Guinea encounter, engage, ism and its benefits as a road to devel­ and make sense of their lives in the opment.) The second case continues contemporary world. with tourism but examines a male initi­ The Chambri have never been ation ritual to which tourists were isolated; indeed, a main point of invited (and charged admission). The Gewertz's first monograph, Sepik third case concerns Chambri people