In Central New Guinea Michael Lee Wesch Fairbury, Nebraska BS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Witchcraft, Statecraft, and the Challenge of "Community" in Central New Guinea Michael Lee Wesch Fairbury, Nebraska BS in Anthropology, Kansas State University 1997 MA in Anthropology, University of Virginia 2001 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Virginia January 2006 i abstract This dissertation examines how and why “witchcraft” came to be the primary obstacle of local efforts to build “community” in Nimakot, an area in the Mountain Ok region of central New Guinea. I begin by pointing out that witchcraft is a part of a broader cultural process I call relational sociality, oftentimes referred to in studies of self and personhood as dividuality. “Community” on the other hand is part of the very different cultural process of modern statecraft. One of the core differences between these two cultural processes is in the domain of personhood and identity. While relational sociality emphasizes relational identities, modern statecraft instead emphasizes categorical identities. The tensions between these cultural processes come to a head in Operation Clean and Sweep, a plan developed by indigenous government officers in which the small hamlets scattered throughout the bush were to be eliminated, forcing all people to live in one of twelve government-recognized villages. The plan comes to a halt however, when many begin complaining that they cannot move to the government villages due to fears of witchcraft. At this point, the operation altered its focus as it became a concentrated effort to use the mechanisms of statecraft to annihilate witchcraft, clearing the way for “community.” While witchcraft is a small part of a much broader relational ontology, this relational ontology is most visible to social actors in the accusations and imageries of witchcraft. Hence it is witchcraft that is viewed locally as the core obstacle to community. I examine how the cultural processes of relational sociality and statecraft interact throughout the operation and how the dynamics between them are negotiated. In conclusion, I illustrate that by attacking witchcraft, the operation only attacks relational sociality tangentially – allowing the relational tensions it does not address to produce more witchcraft accusations, ultimately reproducing the small scattered hamlets and relational sociality the operation originally set out to eliminate. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................................1 Chapter Two: Nimakot Relational Sociality .....................................................37 Chapter Three: Modern Statecraft: Making Groups in Nimakot ......................82 Chapter Four: The Tensions of Relational Sociality and Statecraft ................137 Chapter Five: Relational Sociality, Statecraft, and the Modernity of “Witchcraft ................................................................... 172 Chapter Six: Schismogenesis and the Dynamics of a Witch Hunt ................. 212 Chapter Seven: Why “Community” Fails: The Disintegration of Nimakot ... 247 Endnotes .......................................................................................................... 264 Patrol Reports Cited ........................................................................................ 266 References Cited .............................................................................................. 267 iii Acknowledgements The growth and completion of this dissertation owes everything to the challenging yet collegial atmosphere at the University of Virginia. The entire department made for a remarkable place to grow as a person and a scholar, and I thank you all. In particular, I would like to thank Eve Danziger for always asking the right question to take my work in new and interesting directions, Ira Bashkow for having the courage to push me to where I needed to be, Peter Metcalf for the great discussions, even better stories, and for showing me how to inspire undergraduate students in a large introductory level class, Edie Turner for sharing herself and her wisdom in all of those late night talks, Fred Damon for questions that were so challenging that I did not even understand them until years after he first stated them, Susan McKinnon for being such a remarkable guiding force, particularly through the labyrinth of grant-writing, and finally Roy Wagner, simply for being Roy, there is simply no comparison nor any words that are worthy or adequate. Everywhere I went throughout the Mountain Ok region I received a hero’s welcome, yet I was only a stranger. The reason for this is surely embedded in customs and colonial history of which I explain in this dissertation, but also on the warmth, kindness, and integrity of the anthropologists who have come to the region before me. Though many people I met did not know what an anthropologist was, my explanation that I was “like Dan” (Jorgensen), “Joel” (Robbins), “Wilson” (Wheatcroft), “Tony” (Crook), “Don” (Gardner), “George” (Morren), or “Eytan” (Bercovitch) was always greeted with the most joyous and enthusiastic response, as if they had reconnected with a long lost brother. I am grateful for all of the help and support each one of these iv anthropologists has given me throughout my research, and especially for being so gracious in the field that I was warmly welcomed throughout the region. I would like to thank the Melanesian And Pacific Studies (MAPS) Center at the University of Papua New Guinea for inviting me to give a seminar as I was leaving the field in 2003. The rich discussions that followed helped a great deal in shaping my ideas. I would especially like to thank Nick Araho, Andrew Moutu, and the entire staff at the Papua New Guinea National Museum for giving me a place to stay in Port Moresby and providing a rich intellectual environment. During this time I also had the pleasure of meeting Robert Welsch, a great listener, and a tremendous guide on many levels. I came to the Mountain Ok region of New Guinea for the first time in 1999 as an over-spirited and somewhat naive first year graduate student of anthropology, but I did not come to Nimakot to do anthropological fieldwork. I came only to fulfill a simple promise made to a fast friend – whom I now know and love as a brother – that I would visit the place where he grew up and now lives with his wife and newborn son. It was to be a quick visit, a simple stopover, a side-trip along the way to my real field site 30 miles east of Nimakot. But I fell in love. I had been to many places throughout Papua New Guinea, but none as happy, playful, enthusiastic and vivid as Nimakot. I wish to thank all of the people of Nimakot for an unforgettable 18 months, but most of all I must thank Lazarus, Penny, Alfonz, and Deon. The classic term “key informants” simply does not do you all justice. You are my best friends and brothers na tru tru mi no inap lusim tingting long yu. This research would not have been possible without the financial support from numerous granting agencies. My first trip to New Guinea was funded by a Husky v Summer Language Training grant. The second was funded by a National Science Foundation Research Methods grant. The third was funded by the Explorer’s Club of Washington DC. During the time of my first three trips I was also funded by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. My most recent field research was funded by a Fulbright-Hayes International Dissertation Field Research Program fellowship. Of course, these acknowledgements would not be complete without thanking my parents and family for inspiring me to know the world and to love and have empathy for all humans. It was this inspiration that sent me half-way around the world from our little home in Nebraska, knowing that I was never truly leaving home if I shared love for those around me. And finally, to Sarah, my soul mate and life companion, for always lifting me up through the rough times, and for sharing in this remarkable experience. 1 Chapter One Introduction Above all, anthropology should proceed, like good fieldwork, in full awareness of difference and contradiction. - Roy Wagner, The Invention of Culture 1981(1975):158 This research started with the wrong question: Have conceptions of self and personhood in central New Guinea transformed from dividual or relational forms to more individualistic forms since the introduction of modern institutions such as statecraft, Christianity, formal education, and biomedicine? I am not the first to ask this question. Several research projects in Melanesia and elsewhere, especially over the past 20 years, have had some form of this question in mind, at least as a tangent to the research if not the main focus. Fortunately, the process of discovering why this was the wrong question sheds light towards a solution, so recounting my own mistakes by way of introduction seems appropriate. Following Michelle Rosaldo, I take “conceptions of self” to be “all concerns that bear on folk understandings of human action” (1980:262 n.18). In Melanesia, shifting conceptions of self are considered to be fundamental to understanding broader cultural changes. As Edward LiPuma noted recently, conceptions of self “figure centrally in any understanding of the forms and implications of the conversation between Melanesia and the West, not least because the concepts of 2 personhood indigenous to Melanesia and Papua New Guinea