sign in sign up
<<
Home , Age of Discovery, Gambier Islands, Melanesia, Micronesia, Nukuoro, Polynesia

and : Sociocultural Aspects

Stouffer S A, Suchman E A, DeVinney L C, S A, Williams marangi), in Micronesia to the northwest of the R M Jr 1965 [1949] The American Soldier: Adjustments During . Army Life. Wiley, New York, Vol. 1 Micronesia forms a wide arc of small Traugott M W, Lavrakas P J 2000 The Voter’s Guide to Election spanning from the western of Insular Southeast Polls , 2nd edn. Chatham House, New York to the Central Pacific, comprising the following R. Y. Shapiro groups: and outlying islands, and the , , , , and two isolated islands, and ( Island). Contemporary political considerations may include island groups of the Central Pacific like the Phoenix and ; Polynesia and Micronesia: Sociocultural although geographically located in the Polynesian Aspects Triangle, these islands, which were not permanently inhabited until the modern age, are governed by The two geographical areas commonly referred to as , the modern state based in the Gilbert Islands. ‘Polynesia’ and ‘Micronesia’ consist of a scattering of With the exception of Guam, the islands of Micronesia relatively small and widely disseminated islands across are small, although some of the largest in the the central, south, and northwestern Pacific Ocean. are found in the region (e.g., Kwajalein in the The two areas are complementary to , the Marshalls). third customarily recognized in the insular Pacific. Islands of many different types are found in Poly- Together, the three areas are commonly referred to as nesia and Micronesia: a few continental islands (e.g., the ‘Pacific Islands’ or ‘,’ although these Guam); volcanic structures, some of which can be categories, particularly the latter, occasionally include substantial in size (e.g., ); raised islands and , and occasionally the larger of different types (e.g., ); atolls (e.g., Kiribati); islands of . While some geographical, and combinations of these. social, cultural, linguistic, and historical generaliza- tions can be made about each of them, Polynesia and 2. The Historical Contingency of Labels Micronesia are meaningful entities beyond simple areal demarcations only as a result of historical The societies of each of the two share a number contingencies, in which the history of Western colon- of characteristics with one another, although it is ialism in the Pacific figures prominently. impossible to arrive at a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that would determine whether a given society should be identified as Polynesian or Micro- 1. General Identification nesian, or as something else. The reason for this is twofold. First, commonalities among the societies of The terms ‘Polynesia’ and ‘Micronesia’ are convenient both areas are balanced by important patterns of labels for geographical areas whose social, cultural, variation (to the extent that no feature of social archeological, historical, political, and linguistic sig- organization, for example, will be found in all societies nificance is somewhat arbitrary. In modern-day usage, in question). Second, many societies in other areas of the term ‘Polynesia’ refers to all island and island Oceania display sociocultural characteristics identical groups falling within a large triangular area whose to those prevalent among Polynesian or Micronesian apexes are to the south, Hawaii to the societies. Perhaps the least controversial criterion for , and Rapanui ( Island) to the west. The ‘Polynesian-ness’ is language: all languages spoken largest islands and island groups of the region are natively in the islands are more closely related to one Tonga, , Rarotonga and the Southern Cooks, another than to any other language. Indeed, the reason and the , the Marquesas, and for identifying Outlier societies as Polynesian is pri- Hawaii, in addition to the much larger New Zealand. marily linguistic: all Outlier communities speak Politically or culturally notable smaller islands include languages that are most closely related to the , and Futuna, , , the North- languages spoken on islands of the Polynesian Tri- ern Cooks, Rapanui, Pitcairn Island, and the angle. In terms of social organization and culture, , Austral, and Islands. however, Outlier communities vary widely, from In addition, a geographically heterogeneous group bearing considerable similarity to the rest of Polynesia of about 18 islands and sections of islands are (e.g., ) to having much more in common with commonly identified as ‘Polynesian Outliers’ societies their more immediate non-Polynesian neighbors (e.g., because they are located outside of this triangular the Polynesian-speaking villages of Ouvea, Loyalty area: in Melanesia to the west (e.g., Takuu off Islands). , and Rennell in the Yet even this criterion is not devoid of caveats: on Islands, Mae and Mele in ) and, in the boundary between Melanesian and Polynesian the case of two islands ( and Kapinga- Tonga, historical linguistic evidence suggests a con-

11723 Polynesia and Micronesia: Sociocultural Aspects tinuum of gradual linguistic differentiation rather than people appears to have traveled gradually from west to a clean break. Furthermore, linguistic factors are of east from Southeast Asia, settling islands of Melan- little use as determiners of what Micronesia includes esia, some of which were already inhabited while and what it does not: all languages spoken in the area others were not. The most salient archeological evi- are related to one another, but some (e.g., Chamorro dence for this conjecture is a lowly style of decorated of the Marianas and Palauan) are historically closer to referred to as ‘Lapita,’ fragments of which are languages spoken outside of Micronesia (e.g., in the found in insular Melanesia and Western Polynesia, ) than to the other languages of Micronesia. carbon-dated to 3500–2000 BP. Lapita pottery makers Two additional issues further complicate the prob- and users appear to have been accomplished long- lem. First, many Polynesian and Micronesian societies distance sailors, fisherfolk, and agriculturalists, to are increasingly diasporic, and significant communi- have organized their communities in hierarchical ties of , Wallisians, , Caroline fashion, and to have spoken languages ancestral to Islanders, for example, are well established in New most languages of insular Melanesia and Polynesia. Zealand, Australia, the , and the metro- They reached Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa around politan centers of Oceania. In some cases, emigrant 3000 BP, an area in which, according to some re- communities are much more populous than the island- searchers, migrations may have ‘paused’ for a while based communities. Second, the characterization of (while maintaining active contact both externally and some areas of the region as ‘Polynesian’ or ‘Micro- with the West from where they had come). Such a nesian’ is historically well motivated but, from a ‘pause’ would have allowed a social, cultural, and contemporary perspective, is part and parcel of acrid linguistic distinctiveness to emerge that would eventu- political debates. Such is the case of Hawaii, New ally become what is now recognized as Polynesian Zealand, and Guam, where the original Polynesian or distinctiveness. Micronesian inhabitants, as well as recent migrants From the Fiji–Western Polynesia area, early Poly- from other Pacific Islands, today form numerical and nesians settled the rest of Polynesia in the course of the political minorities, albeit vocal ones in terms of following two millennia, finally reaching Hawaii in identity politics. These observations highlight the about 650 AD and New Zealand around 1000 AD problems associated with attributing signifi- (Bellwood 1979, Kirch 1996). There is no convincing cance to the definitions of Polynesia and Micronesia. evidence of any subsequent prehistorical human settle- To say that the regions are arbitrarily defined does ment in Polynesia other than the Lapita potters and not mean that their characterization is haphazard. their descendants, although they intermarried with Rather, the definition of sections of the globe as their non-Lapita-making neighbors, forming as di- ‘Polynesia’ and ‘Micronesia’ is deeply embedded in a verse a genetic pool as is found in any other part of the history of elaboration of certain differences and world. similarities and the obscuration of others to suit Micronesia’s is much more heterogene- politically dominant agendas, of the kind that suffuses ous and complex than that of Polynesia, and less well any characterization of the ‘other.’ In this case, this understood. Evidence of human settlement in the history is that of Western colonial hegemony and of Mariana Islands dates back to approximately 4000 the intellectual endeavors that ran alongside it. When BP. The archeological record indicates a Southeast Enlightenment-era Europeans invented it, the term Asian connection for this early population, as does ‘Polynesia’ (‘many islands’) was applied to the entire relatively more recent evidence gathered on Palau and Pacific region. In the course of the nineteenth century, . The rest of the Caroline Islands, the Marshall it became more common to restrict the term to its Islands, and the Gilbert Islands were settled by a current referent, and to contrast it with the newly northwestward back-migration from eastern Melan- coined ‘Micronesia’ (‘small islands’) and ‘Melanesia’ esia. Languages spoken in this region, commonly (‘black islands’). As the etymology of the latter term referred to as ‘Nuclear Micronesian,’ exhibit greater indicates, race and its various associations figured linguistic homogeneity than other Micronesian prominently in the newly created finer distinctions. languages, suggesting a more focused history of The term ‘Polynesia’ came to embody (mostly positive) prehistoric settlement. images of noble fair-skinned otherness already promi- nent in the Enlightenment and early Romantic in- 4. Contacts and MoŠements tellect, in contrast to Melanesia in particular, which Westerners deemed to be dominated by dark-skinned It is difficult to issue brief general statements about the and uncivilized savagery (Smith 1985, Thomas 1989). history of Polynesia and Micronesia since colonial encroachment because of the diversity of experiences 3. Initial Human Settlement and heterogeneity of influences. European travelers began through Polynesia and Micronesia early The prehistory of Polynesia can only be understood in in the Age of , making contacts with the context of human movements in the Pacific region Islanders that were sporadic except in Guam and the since about 3500 BP. Around that date, a wave of Marianas, which were situated strategically on the

11724 Polynesia and Micronesia: Sociocultural Aspects road between the Philippines and the . powers, particularly Great Britain, which by then had claimed the islands in the mid-sixteenth century, also delegated some of its colonial authority to a move which was followed by the virtual decimation Australia and New Zealand. In Polynesia, for of the Islanders, through disease, slaughter, and forced example, Western Samoa (now Samoa) was granted resettlement. in 1962, and Tonga ceased to be a Contacts between Westerners and Islanders in both British protected state in 1970. in Polynesia and Micronesia began earnestly at the end island groups held by the United States and of the eighteenth century, and often had equally tragic (Micronesia and , respectively, in consequences on the island populations. Enlighten- particular) was and still is a slower, more complex, and ment-era travelers, spurred on by complex and some- conflictual process. A notable factor in both cases is times contradictory motivations, roamed Polynesia in the use by both powers of islands for nuclear testing particular, making contact with Islanders in a variety until well into the 1990s. of fashions that ranged from the hostile to the very Today, France maintains a colonial presence in friendly. They were soon followed by Christian mis- French Polynesia and (both Poly- sionaries (who would eventually succeed in converting nesian groups), which is contested in the former but all of Polynesia and Micronesia), adventurers and receives general local approbation in the latter. The traders, developers seeking to establish plantations United States signed Compacts of Free Association and other large-scale ventures, whalers, and of course with the Federated States of Micronesia and the governments seeking to establish and spheres Marshall Islands in 1986, and with Palau in 1994, and of influence, often under the pretext of protecting their since then these entities have been recognized as citizens. In Polynesia, the key players (big and small) sovereign nations despite some continuing US security in the nineteenth century were predominantly British interests in the islands. and Guam and French, to which American and German interests are unincorporated US territories in which the federal added competition later in the century. In Micronesia, government continues to maintain control of many Spain continued to hold political and economic sway, functions, in spite of some local opposition in the case until it was completely displaced at the end of the of Guam. The is a Com- century by the United States and Germany. monwealth with more control of local affairs. Rapanui A notable consequence of Westerners’ increasing is administered by , despite some political ten- visibility in nineteenth century Polynesia was the sion, and tiny Pitcairn Island (Polynesian from a consolidation of hitherto politically fragmented chief- geographical point of view) by Britain. New Zealand doms. In Tonga, Tahiti, and Hawaii (and to a lesser holds special political ties with three now self- extent Samoa), ambitious and astute chieftains utilized governing territories, namely Niue, Tokelau, and the the new tools that Westerners introduced to the islands Cooks. Hawaii, a state of the United States, and New (trading goods for firearms, protection for religious Zealand are both postcolonial entities in which the conversion) to defeat their contenders and impose politics of indigeneity are tense. These varied historical their rule over entire islands and island groups, connections, as well as the different configurations in establishing themselves as sovereigns under the pro- which domination, resistance, and everything in be- tection of Western powers. Of these kingdoms, only tween are embedded, have contributed to the socio- Tonga remains to this day. political diversity of both regions. By the dawn of the twentieth century, European The states and territories of Polynesia and Micro- powers had divided Polynesia and Micronesia (as well nesia include some of the tiniest political entities of the as Melanesia) into sphere of colonial domination and world, such as Tuvalu (10,000 inhabitants, 26 km#). influence. The end of I somewhat re- Outside of New Zealand, most are heavily dependent shuffled the distribution of these spheres, introducing on world powers, relying on foreign aid, migrations, as a colonial power in Micronesia (except the and access to preferential markets to ensure at least a Gilbert Islands, which by then had become a British semblance of economic viability and, in some cases, ). World War II had a profound and dramatic political stability. The notable exception is Nauru, effect on all of Micronesia, which was the stage of which is one of the richest countries of the world some of the fiercest battles, as was Melanesia. In because of decades of phosphate mining. contrast, Polynesia (other than Pearl Harbor in Hawaii) remained in the background of the conflict.

6. Society and Culture 5. Political Re-emergence In precontact times, the societies of Polynesia and Micronesia displayed a certain degree of sociocultural In tune with the worldwide decolonizing trends of the commonality, as witnessed, for example, in a tendency second half of the twentieth century, island nations to have stratified political systems and in the elab- began obtaining their independence from world oration of certain symbolic complexes such as

11725 Polynesia and Micronesia: Sociocultural Aspects

(roughly, ‘religiously-based prohibition’) and whereby kinship could be based on either patrilineal or (roughly, ‘efficacy of divine origin’) in Polynesia. matrilineal principles, thus providing room for ma- However, the recognition of patterns of commonality neuvering for individual advantage. In Polynesia, must always be qualified in at least two ways. First, there emerges an east–west contrast between societies one must be attentive to the dynamics through which in which gender and its associations constitute a certain characteristics have come to be identified as pivotal organizational principle for kinship organiza- ‘typically’ Polynesian or Micronesian in spite of the tion (as in Tahiti and Hawaii), and societies in which fact that these characteristics are absent in some seniority plays a greater role (as in Samoa and Tonga). societies of the region. Second, ‘precontact times’ is a Adoption in its various guises was and is also prevalent vague characterization at best, and all island societies throughout Polynesia and Micronesia. experienced radical changes over the centuries, some Many aspects of precontact (or early contact) of which can be identified archeologically, in the society and culture have reproduced over time and course of which ‘typical’ Polynesian or Micronesian continue to characterize contemporary circumstances. characteristics appeared in and disappeared from However, any statement about contemporary Poly- particular societies. nesian and Micronesian societies must take into A significant number of societies in both regions consideration the enormous transformations that appear to have been stratified political entities, the these societies have undergone in both bygone days more so in Polynesia than in Micronesia. Particularly and more recent times, introducing dynamics and on large islands and island groups, were agents that have been variously resisted, localized, and organized around a leadership that derived power transformed. Two examples will suffice. The first is the through a combination of genealogical ties to both recognition that many contemporary Polynesian and sacred and profane entities that confirmed claims to Micronesian societies are vigorously diasporic. While power (ascription) and personal performance that strong sociopolitical forces continue to ground society hopefully confirmed these claims (achievement). In and culture in the ‘islands of origin,’ these forces are some of more stratified societies, persons were also increasingly subject to contestation as second- and ranked into categories ranging from the highest ranks, third-generation expatriates constantly negotiate their which were commonly sacralized, to the lowest ranks, place across different identities and allegiances. The whose members were often not considered human. second illustration is the fact that , which Other societies, in contrast, displayed little stratifica- is two centuries old in some area of Polynesia and tion and emphasized egalitarianism and consensual Micronesia and much more recent in others, is almost decision-making. Political organization on some universal and highly visible in both regions. In some islands was centered on localized kinship units, par- parts of Polynesia, it has become one of the main ticularly in Micronesia but also on the smaller islands backbones of hierarchy, exchange systems, and kin- of Polynesia. The rough correlation between the , and is viewed as one of the most fundamental amount of resources to be produced and organized tenets of ‘tradition.’ In short, like all social groupings and the degree of social stratification, at least in around the world, Polynesian and Micronesian Polynesia, led some early researchers to propose that societies are dynamic and adaptable entities, whose one engenders the other: chiefs, as resource managers, boundaries, core cultural values, and principles of increase in importance as resources increase in volume social organization are subject to change, reassess- (Sahlins 1958). Few anthropologists today would give ment, and potential contestation. such determinative power to resource management (and indeed the empirical evidence does not support the proposal), although it certainly plays a role in the See also: , Anthropology of; development and elaboration of social stratification. and Colonialism, History of; Cultural Assimilation; Prevalent patterns throughout the area centralized Melanesia: Sociocultural Aspects the identification of a common founding ancestor, creating in some societies a pyramid-shaped kinship structure. In Polynesia, the most important branch was the senior patrilineal branch, and members of other branches reckoned their relative status ac- Bibliography cording to their relative distance from the main descent Bellwood P 1979 Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory branch, measured through relative patrilineality and of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Oxford University Press, New seniority. Micronesian societies are predominantly York matrilineal. There, matrilineal clans have historic Denoon D (ed.) 1997 The Cambridge History of the Pacific claims to particular pieces of land and are the basis for Islanders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK social organization. Rank is based on claims of Howard A, Borofsky R (eds.) 1989 DeŠelopments in Polynesian founding settlement of particular pieces of land. . University of Hawaii Press, , HI Probably all Polynesian and Micronesian societies Kirch P V 1996 The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic also offered the possibility of bilateral affiliation, World. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK

11726 Popper, Karl Raimund (1902–94)

Kirch P V 2000 On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological experience in 1919 was his taking interest in History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Eddington’s test of Einstein’s eclipse predictions car- University of California Press, Berkeley, CA ried out at an expedition of the Royal Astronomical Kiste R C, Marshall M (eds.) 1999 American Anthropology in Society, whose results gained widespread publicity at Micronesia: An Assessment. University of Hawaii Press, the time. During a total solar eclipse which was Honolulu, HI Lal B V, Fortune K (eds.) 2000 The Pacific Islands: An observed from West and , a shift of Encyclopedia. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI apparent position of in the presence of the sun’s Sahlins M 1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia. American gravitational field could be established, as predicted by Ethnological Society, University of Washington Press, Seattle, the general theory of relativity. This coined Popper’s later insistence that scientific theories develop by Smith B 1985\1969 European Vision and the South Pacific. Yale exposing them to possibly falsifying experience. University Press, New Haven, CT Around that time, Popper visited a lecture by Einstein Thomas N 1989 The forces of ethnology: origins and significance in Vienna. of the Melanesia\Polynesia division. Current Anthropology The young Popper also tried manual work. From 30: 27–41 1922 to 1924 he was an apprentice to a cabinet maker. At the same time, he passed the high school exams N. Besnier (‘Matura’) as an external participant and formally enrolled as a student at the University of Vienna. He also considered becoming a musician. After being disappointed with the sort of cultivated in the Scho$ nberg circle, he enrolled as a student of Church Music at the Vienna Academy of Music (‘Konserva- torium’) and stayed there for one year. He was Popper, Karl Raimund (1902–94) admitted upon submission of a fugue for organ in F sharp minor. Besides his scientific studies at the 1. Popper’s Life University of Vienna, in 1924 he qualified as a primary school teacher. Since no appropriate teacher’s post Karl Raimund Popper was born in Vienna, Austria, was available at the time, Popper worked as a social on July 28, 1902. His father, Simon [Siegmund Carl] worker with neglected children. Popper (1856–1932), who had come from to In 1925 Popper became a student at the Pedagogic Vienna, was a well-established lawyer with his offices Institute of the City of Vienna, where he stayed until and family residence in the center of Vienna. Karl 1927. This institute, which Popper was admitted to Popper’s mother, Jenny Popper (nee! Schiff) (1864– due to his status of a social worker, had been newly 1938) came from a musical family and was a gifted founded. It was linked to the University, though pianist herself. Both Simon and Jenny Popper were formally independent. In today’s terms, its purpose Jews by origin, but converted later in their lives to was to scientifically accompany and evaluate the Protestantism. Besides their son Karl, they had two school reform movement. This school reform move- older daughters, Dora (1893–1932) and Anna ment had been politically supported by the Austrian (1898–1975). social democrats since 1919 and was in 1925 still very Karl Popper left high school (Franz Josef Gym- strong in Vienna. It was characterized by ideas of nasium) at the age of 16 without a degree, moved out abolishing school learning as an accumulation of facts of his parents’ home and attended lectures at the in favor of developing a more autonomous and University of Vienna on various subjects, in particular participating attitude. The influence of these ideas on mathematics, philosophy, physics, and psychology. Popper should not be underestimated. His later Besides occasional jobs to earn his living (e.g., coach- criticism of what he calls the ‘bucket theory of ing American students), Popper was engaged in social knowledge,’ i.e., the inductive generation of knowl- activities. For some time, he worked as an assistant of edge by collecting facts, is related to pedagogic Alfred Adler on neglected children. Hints in Popper’s proposals on how learning proceeds or should pro- autobiography indicate that this connection (through ceed. Actually, Popper’s first published papers were in which he got acquainted with Adler’s ‘individual this field and appeared in journals belonging to the psychology’) contributed to Popper’s later critique of school reform movement. The very first one Uq ber die psychoanalysis as a ‘pseudoscience.’ In his youth, Stellung des Lehrers zu Schule und SchuW ler (On the Popper had a strong favor for democratic socialism. teacher’s attitude towards school and students, 1925) is For a few months, he even considered himself a very significant in this respect. communist, from which he refrained, in 1919, after At the pedagogic institute, Popper met Josefine witnessing a shooting incident in which socialist Henninger (1906–85), who was training as a teacher workers were killed by police forces. This experience and who was to become his wife in 1930. (They had no of a useless sacrifice of lives demonstrated to him the children.) He also met the psychologist Karl Bu$ hler futility of ideologies. A second, more intellectual and the philosopher Heinrich Gomperz, both of them

11727

Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences ISBN: 0-08-043076-7