• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CHAPTER THREE THE BETSIMISARAKA, HISTORY AND THE SPREAD OF TROMBA We do not obey the orders of others —Village elder This chapter outlines the broader historical context oftromba posses- sion in Marofatsy. The significance of the regional political history to my analysis is twofold: First, tromba is, like other cultural practices in Madagascar, subject to historical movement and change. The intro- duction of tromba to the local community is connected to historical forces. Tromba possession spread throughout Madagascar during the colonial period, and appeared in Marofatsy at a significant point in time. Second, history, politics and categories such as ethnicity con- stitute parts of the raw material that the imagery of tromba posses- sion feeds upon and refracts. The political history of the Betsimisaraka region, therefore, provides an important part of the picture when try- ing to understand the workings of tromba through time and space. Difference and sameness in Madagascar Although Betsimisaraka nowadays is a commonly heard term in the local region, the way it now refers to the peoples inhabiting the Toa- masina Province is a relatively new phenomenon dating back to the colonial administrative order. Nevertheless, the Betsimisaraka counts as an official ethnic group. The division of the Malagasy population into ethnic groups has provoked much discussion in scholarly circles. The question of difference and sameness in relation to culture and identity is not only a recurrent theme in anthropological studies on Madagascar, but it also brings us to the centre of political issues and struggles in the present-day Malagasy society. Both Western aca- demics and Malagasy nationalists speak about a “Malagasy culture” and “pan-Malagasy themes” (Middleton 1999). As Lambek (2001b) notes, “. the similarity among the idioms through which society is constructed and imagined across Madagascar is phenomenal” (305). 38 chapter three Considering the fact that all Malagasy share a common language and there is considerable cultural continuity across the island, some have questioned whether or not it is appropriate to speak of ethnic groups in Madagascar at all (Astuti 1995a; 1995b; Eggert 1986; Lambek and Walsh 1999; Larson 2000; Middleton 1999; Raison-Jourde and Randri- anja 2002; Southall 1971; Walsh 2001). Nevertheless, Madagascar is an island with great diversities in social and cultural practice. As Middleton writes (1999), “Like all so-called ‘culture areas’, however, Madagascar poses problems for the scholar: of acknowledging what is held in common while not obscuring the very real differences that exist”. From this, Middleton goes on to write that “The challenge therefore is to find the fertile place between platitudi- nous generalization and pointless particularism” (6). On the one hand, it has been argued that ethnicity in Madagascar can best be under- stood as fluid, inclusive and performative, as opposed to essentialist or “kinded” categories (Astuti 1995a; 1995b; Emoff 2002; Lambek and Walsh 1999; Middleton 1999). On the other hand, Malagasy people themselves often talk about ethnicity in essentialist terms (Sharp 1993; Raison-Jourdes and Randrianja 2002). The answer is, perhaps, not either/or, but that the “Malagasy peoples draw on both essential- ist and non-essentialist models to think about themselves” (Middle- ton 1999, 20) in ways that vary and shift according to the context. Again, according to Middleton, the “ongoing processes of creating, sustaining and transforming identities (national, ‘ethnic’, regional and local) in the various regions of Madagascar are diverse, complex and often highly nuanced” (ibid., 20). If ethnicity in Madagascar is fluid, the fluidity is limited by “the relations of forces in society” (Alonso 1994, 392). The production of identity and ethnicity in Madagascar is rooted in complex and diverse processes, in which local- or regional-level pro- cesses interact with larger imposed structures. The current classifica- tion of the population into twenty officially recognised ethnic groups has its roots in the history of French colonisation, when the population was divided into different groups to facilitate colonial administration. Few of these names were previously in use by the people themselves as labels of ethnic identification. Some of the official ethnic terms are linked to pre-colonial polities, such as the Merina, Sakalava and Betsi- misaraka, while others were locatives and ecological descriptions, such as the Antanosy, Antankarana, and Antandroy. Within these groups there are numerous subdivisions of different kinds..

Load more

  2

Copy Link