Downloaded From
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A. van der Leeden Social structure in New Guinea In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 116 (1960), no: 1, Leiden, 119-149 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 05:43:17PM via free access SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN NEW GUINEA am glad to comply with Pouwer's request for a reply to his review of my doctor's thesis. I shall begin with a survey of the discus- Isions on the structural looseness of the Papua cultures; next, I shall consider Pouwer's criticism of the characterization I gave of the social structure in the western interior of Sarmi; and finally I shall compare various forms of social organization in New Guinea in a search for structural similarities which may perhaps serve as a starting-point for a general characterization of the social structure in this area of study. It is mainly due to the work of the late Professor Held that discus- sions on "structural looseness" in New Guinea have come to play such a large part particularly in the Dutch literature. Held was the first writer to consider structural looseness an important characteristic of the Papua cultures.* He based this on the widely held opinion that New Guinea shows great cultural differentiation. Held was of the opinion that the Papua cultures are so little related to one another, that one cannot find general cultural similarities which could serve as an over-all characterization. According to him, the only general simil- arity was precisely this "differentiation" and "variability" of form. For that reason he characterized the Papua as an "improviser of culture", who "is continually improvising new combinations of the elements of his culture, thus forming ever varying culture-complexes, but never taking the trouble to work out these complexes to a complete and finished form".2 Another Dutch anthropologist who has occupied himself with the "structural looseness" of the Papua cultures is Dr. Van Baal. In principle, Van Baal shares Held's point of view, but he has developed it further along psychological lines. According to him, the improvising tendency of the Papuas is due to their "lack of organization". He 1 I use the word "Papua"cultures in this article for designating all cultures in New Guinea. 2 G. J. Held, De Papoea Cultuurimprovisator ('s-Gravenhage/Bandung 1951), pp. 51—55. Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 05:43:17PM via free access 120 A. C. VAN DER LEEDEN. concludes to this lack of organization on the ground that clear-cut systems of class and chieftainship are rare, and that one has observed "centrifugal tendencies" in many Papua cultures. "Wherever one comes in New Guinea", he says, "one again and again encounters the Papua's resistance against the restraints which society tries to impose on him". As a consequence, there is a "tendency towards fission and dispersal" in many parts of New Guinea. "There are also areas . .. where fear of sorcery is the dominant motive; this shows up everyone's distrust of everyone else, and leads to the clearest manifestation of individualism in its negative aspect". Van Baal sees all these phenomena as the result of "a deeply-rooted indiscipline", which, together with an "un- reflective attitude towards life" he holds to be the most typical charac- teristic of the Papua.3 Many objections may be raised against these views of Held and Van Baal. Before going into details, I would stress that a certain looseness of structure is undeniably common to many Papua cultures, and that clearly pronounced, rigid types of organization are rare in New Guinea. Many a worker in the field knows by own experience of that area how hard it often is to derive the elements which are structurally important from the variegated and changeable picture presented by the society one is studying. One can approach this structural looseness from several angles. Held's and Van Baal's starting-point was psychological. The terms "improviser of culture" (Held) and "individualism" (Van Baal) refer to the variability of behaviour in Papua cultures. Van Baal carries the psychological approach to the greatest lengths. Held was more aware than Van Baal of other implications of the structural looseness of New Guinea cultures. Instead of "improvising" cultures, Held, justifiably, also called them "implicit" cultures. "To put it differently: it is typical of Papua culture, that so many elements of culture remain implied. That is to say, these elements are present, and even demonstrable, but they are not elaborated to an explicit, clear-cut form".4 And indeed, this is a point one must always bear in mind in New Guinea. In addition, Held makes use of a term Margaret Mead applies to the Arapesh, viz. "importing culture". Although he links this concept to his idea of the "improviser", he clearly states in his book how 3 J. van Baal, Volken, in Nieuw Guinea. De oniwikkeling op economisch, sociaal en cultweet gebied in Netherlands en Australisch Nieuw Guinea (edited by W. C. Klein; 's-Gravenhage 1954), II, pp. 439—441. 4 G. J. Held, o.c, p. S3. Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 05:43:17PM via free access SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN NEW GUINEA. 121 receptive the Papua is towards foreign cultural elements, and with what ease they "adopt various elements of each other's culture without much ado".5 This can be observed all over New Guinea, and it is con- nected with the "open-ness" of Papua society, which has so frequently struck observers. It is to this open-ness that Read, for example, attri- butes the rapid diffusion of cargo-cults in New Guinea.6 Some anthropologists, in dealing with social structure, use the term "structural open-ness" instead of "structural looseness", with a slight difference in meaning. For example, Schoorl characterized the marriage system of the Muju in the interior of southern New Guinea as an "open asymmetrical system",7 adopting Salisbury's terminology used in a study of the Siane in the Central Highlands. Pouwer has spoken of "structural open-ness" as a characteristic of the kinship organizations in south-western New Guinea.8 Now one has to bear in mind that "looseness of structure" refers to the variability of individual behaviour and to cultural integration, not to culture contents. "Looseness of structure" is connected with the role of the individual in the society, with social tensions, with processes of change, etc. Actually, looseness of structure is not typical of New Guinea, but is a universal phenomenon. Absolute cultural integration is inconceivable, and one cannot imagine human life without variability of behaviour. All the same, cultures do differ from one another in the measure of integration they achieve, and thus it may well be that Papua cultures are more loosely structured than others. However, the term "looseness of structure" does not tell us anything about the contents, the basic features of Papua cultures. Looseness of structure must even remain a fiction, as long as one does not know these basic characteris- tics, i.e. as long as one cannot determine the measure to which the features one is studying are integrated. Held and Van Baal failed to take this into account in their general characterization of Papua cultures, and it is precisely for this reason that we cannot accept them. They have over-accentuated the structural 6 o.c, pp. 10—11. 6 K. E. Read, A "Cargo" Situation in the Markham Valley, New Guinea, SwJoA, 14, p. 294. 7 J. W. Schoorl, Kultuur en kultuurverandering in het Moejoe-gebied (Leiden 1957), p. 34. He also calls individualism a "striking" feature of the Muju (o.c, pp. 125, 126). 8 From a brief note by Pouwer on the ethnographical material collected by J. Boelaars in the Jaqai area (typescript report with restricted circulation). Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 05:43:17PM via free access 122 A. C. VAN DER LEEDEN. looseness of the Papua cultures, and thus made what is after all a universal phenomenon into a principal characteristic of these cultures. Van Baal's characterization in particular makes a negative impression in this respect. His views on the Papuas' individualism is the expres- sion of a doubt as to the immanent value of Papua cultures which is scientifically unjustified. Held's and Van Baal's characterizations take a methodically incorrect starting-point, viz. the variability of Papua cultures. This phenomenon can hardly serve as basis for a comparison of cultures. If there really were no relationship between the various Papua cultures, there would simply be nothing to compare, and one could only ascribe the New Guinea situation to a most peculiar historical coincidence. The manifest contents of culture is the only basis for a comparative study that aims at giving a general characterization of a certain cultural area. The views of Held and Van Baal are also based on premature conclusions which exaggerate the differences between various Papua cultures. Van Baal goes furthest in this respect. For instance, he contrasts the "unemotional" and "dull" ceremonial of the Papuas of Waropen with the spectacular "glorious ritual" of the inhabitants of the Papua Gulf area, but neglects a consideration of the background and meaning of the ritual in these regions. He fails to see that they may show certain resemblances which could be important for comparative purposes. According to him, there is also a contrast between patrilineal and matrilineal organizations in New Guinea.9 Data from other areas, e.g. Indonesia, teach us however that this may be the result of varia- tions within a structural type which comprises patrilineal as well as matrilineal features.