Pacific Science, vol. 54, no. 3: 265-274 © 2000 by University of Hawai'i Press. AIl rights reserved American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-19971 ROBERT C. KISTE 2 AND MAC MARSHALL 3 ABSTRACT: Before the Second World War, relatively few American anthro­ pologists had worked in the Pacific, and Micronesia was virtually unknown. After the war, the U.S. Navy sponsored the Coordinated Investigation of Micronesian Anthropology, the largest research project in the history ofthe dis­ cipline. Several CIMA participants became major figures, and they inspired substantial further work in the region. In this paper research trends in Micro­ nesia during the past half century are discussed and suggestions for the future are offered. CEREMONIES AT PEARL HARBOR on 7 Decem­ that had composed the Japanese Mandate. ber 1991 marked the fiftieth anniversary of Of all the islands of Micronesia, only the Japan's attack on American military bases Gilberts and Nauru were not under Ameri­ on the Hawaiian island of O'ahu, the inci­ can control; at war's end, they reverted to the dent that catapulted America's entry into British sphere of authority. World War II. Of those assembled at Pearl Before the war, Micronesia was little Harbor in 1991, only a very few would have known in the English-speaking world, but it known that the following day was also the had a long legacy ofcolonialism under Spain, silver anniversary of another significant, al­ Germany, and Japan. However, in 1943 Mi­ beit unnoticed, event. cronesia began to emerge from behind the On Monday, 8 December 1941, and what "bamboo curtain" when the first of a half in retrospect appears as an act of incredible dozen handbooks on the islands appeared optimism, George Peter Murdock anticipated as products of the work at Yale. American that the United States would need basic in­ anthropology had become involved in the formation on Micronesia. He called together region and was poised to enter the next the staff of the Cross-Cultural Survey, In­ period of engagement. stitute of Human Relations, Yale University, The history of American anthropology in to begin gathering data on the islands ad­ Micronesia is a fascinating story in itself. In ministered by Japan as a League of Nations early 1999, the volume American Anthropol­ Mandated Territory. Unforeseen at the time, ogy in Micronesia: An Assessment edited by the Yale initiative was the beginning of the the authors of this paper was published by largest research effort in the history of University of Hawai'i Press. The idea to as­ American anthropology and a major pro­ sess anthropology's involvement in the "tiny gram in applied anthropology. islands" began with Kiste's conversations at Murdock's optimism was warranted. By the XVII Pacific Science Congress in Hono­ the end of World War II, American forces lulu in 1991. With the intention of producing controlled most of Micronesia. The United a multiauthored volume, in 1993 Kiste and States recaptured the American territory of Marshall organized the University of Ha­ Guam and occupied the Micronesian islands wai'i's Center for Pacific Islands Studies (CPIS)'s annual conference, "American An­ thropology in Micronesia." Reference. was made to other subdisciplines, but the focus 1 Manuscript accepted I November 1999. was on sociocultural anthropology, and 2 University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawai'j 96822. the scope was limited to the American­ 3 University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. administered islands of Guam and the U.S. 265 266 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 54, July 2000 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the thropologists who reached the Pacific was islands of the former Japanese Mandate. greater than is appreciated today. Eighteen American cultural anthropologists conducted research in the Pacific outside of Hawai'i. They were almost evenly divided between THE CONTEXT Polynesia and Melanesia, and only one had set foot in Micronesia. Foreshadowing things In the early 1940s, anthropology was still to come, an applied project for the U.S. a relative newcomer on the American aca­ Navy had taken Laura Thompson to Guam demic scene. The Society for Applied An­ in the late 1930s. thropology was a fledgling organization, its In the decade before the war, salvage inception predating the disaster at Pearl ethnography was in decline, and a "rising Harbor by only a few months. The American current of scientism in the late 1930s" began Anthropological Association was just over to challenge the Boasian program (Stocking four decades old, and its Fellows numbered 1992: 142). There were three developments approximately 300. Although about a dozen within the "scientizing trend," all more in­ and a half departments offered a doctorate tegrative in purpose and design than Boasian in anthropology, six dominated the produc­ ethnology: a psychological focus evident in a tion of new Ph.D.s. Of the 106 doctorates culture-and-personality movement; a socio­ awarded between 1939 and 1946, 87 (82%) logical line largely derived from the func­ came from Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, tionalism of British social anthropology; and Pennsylvania, Yale, and the University of a materialist orientation that led to cul­ California, Berkeley. In 1999, there are 10,784 tural ecology and neoevolutionary concerns members of the American Anthropological (Stocking 1992: 135-142). Association, and 85 universities in the United Other forces also shaped the transforma­ States award a Ph.D. in anthropology. tion of anthropology. Social problems ac­ In the late 1930s, the conceptual frame­ companying the Great Depression and issues works of cultural anthropology were largely concerning the governance and welfare of derived from the Boasian paradigm of his­ Native Americans heightened the social con­ torical particularism. As George Stocking sciousness of many scholars, who called for a has noted, an American cultural anthropol­ more relevant anthropology. The Bureau of ogy had recently evolved from ethnology and Indian Affairs and other federal agencies was opposed to British "social anthropol­ began to employ applied anthropologists. ogy" (1992: 147-159). Reflecting its North Reflecting the concern with contemporary American origins and history, most Ameri­ issues, anthropology began to shift toward can anthropologists conducted field research the study of culture change, and the first among dislocated Native Americans living studies of acculturation appeared in the early on reservations. Anthropology's agenda was 1930s (Redfield et al. 1936, Bee 1974: 94). largely that of salvage ethnography, the re­ On the other side of the Atlantic, Malinowski construction of traditional cultures from the had begun to call for an anthropology of the memories of aged informants. "changing native" (1929, 1930). Nonetheless, before World War II, the The new interests in culture change and Pacific Islands enjoyed a position of promi­ applied work helped prepare anthropologists nence in anthropology from the work of such to respond to the demands of the war effort. figures as Raymond Firth, Bronislaw Mali­ With the outbreak of hostilities, the military nowski, and Margaret Mead. However, for a and other government agencies required an­ variety of reasons, particularly a paucity of thropological expertise both at home and research funds, fieldwork outside the Amer­ abroad. The Yale project was an early ex­ icas was the exception rather than the rule. ample, and an unprecedented number of an­ At the same time and given the small size of thropologists became engaged in a broad the profession, the number of American an- range of applied tasks. American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-1997-KIsTE AND MARSHALL 267 THE APPLICATION OF ANTHROPOLOGY the desire for continued research, the navy funded the Scientific Investigation of Micro­ At the end of World War II, the U.S. nesia (SIM), a program of studies in the Navy was given temporary administrative physical, biological, and life sciences. Between responsibility for the former Japanese Man­ 1949 and 1951, nine anthropologists and date. For strategic reasons, the United States twenty-two other researchers representing six was determined to retain control of the is­ disciplines conducted work in Micronesia. lands, and an acceptable solution was arrived Second, district anthropologists appointed at in 1947 when the islands became the in five of the USTTPI's six districts were su­ U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands pervised by the staff anthropologist attached (USTTPI) under the umbrella of the United to the Office of the High Commissioner. Nations. The war's end also returned Guam They interpreted the technical language of to navy rule, but by 1951, the navy era the CIMA reports, conducted research, pro­ ended, and the Department of Interior as­ vided advice, and eventually trained Micro­ sumed responsibility for both the USTTPI nesians to work as assistant anthropologists. and Guam. There was optimism on all sides In the decade of the 1950s, eleven Americans about the usefulness of anthropology, and served as district anthropologists and six Mi­ Harvard anthropologist Douglas Oliver cronesians worked as assistants. Homer Bar­ joined Murdock in planning Micronesia's nett, University of Oregon, was the first staff future. Under Oliver's supervision, the navy anthropologist appointed after the navy pe­ sponsored a survey ofeconomic conditions in riod, and he had three successors. Almost in­ Micronesia (U.S. Commercial Company, or evitably, there was some overlap in the per­ USCC) in which several anthropologists were sonnel ofCIMA, SIM, and the applied effort. involved. More important, Murdock and Oliver planned the cardinal event that shaped the direction of American anthropology in Micronesia for years to come. NEW DIRECTIONS With the assumption that knowledge of The 1960s marked a major turning point Micronesians and their cultures would make for Micronesia. For a variety of reasons, the for good administration, the navy sponsored initial optimism about a mutually beneficial the Coordinated Investigation of Micro­ cooperation between anthropology and ad­ nesian Anthropology (CIMA).