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). In 1947­ ministration waned, and the era of large 1948,41 CIMA researchers were divided into organized anthropological ventures drew to teams and assigned throughout the USTTPI. a close. Most research became "anthropol­ Of these, 25 were cultural anthropologists, ogy for the sake of science," conducted by and the others were physical anthropologists, individuals and largely funded by the Na­ linguists, geographers, sociologists, physi­ tional Science Foundation and other federal cians, and a botanist. There were precedents agencies. The change in anthropological for such a research initiative; CIMA had its activity in Micronesia occurred with and prototypes in the earlier work of the Bureau partly as a consequence of a major shift of American Ethnology and the Philippines in American policy. From the outset, the Ethnological Survey. United States had provided little more than Murdock has described CIMA as being a caretaker administration, and its strategic the largest expeditionary survey in the history interests were protected by the trusteeship ofmodern anthropology (Richard 1957: 582), arrangement. Early in the navy era, educa­ and the results of CIMA were formidable. Its tional, health, and other innovations based final bibliography included 32 reports and on American models were introduced. How­ over 100 articles and other publications on a ever, budgets were minuscule, initiatives were wide range of anthropological topics. small in scale, and results were few. The era CIMA had two important immediate off­ has been characterized by some observers as shoots. First, because of CIMA's success and one of "benign neglect." Nonetheless, the di- 268 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 54, July 2000 rection of change had been charted, and the of the Northern Mariana Islands (CN1'V1I) "Americanization" ofMicronesia had begun. became American citizens, and the CNMI In 1961, the United States was severely became part of the United States. criticized by the United Nations for its ne­ In 1983, voters in the Federated States glect of the islands. In response, a massive of Micronesia (FSM), the Marshall Islands, agenda of development was launched. Pro­ and Palau each approved Compacts of Free grams initiated by President John ,Kennedy Association with the United States. The quickly expanded, and then ran amok dur­ compacts define a relationship in which the ing the Johnson administration when the island states grant the United States certain USTTPI and other American territories in strategic prerogatives in exchange for self­ the Pacific and Caribbean were included in government, generous financial packages, the "Great Society" initiative designed to and a number of support services. The people eliminate poverty in America. During its are citizens of their own countries, and al­ heyday, over 160 federal programs were op­ though they do not enjoy American citizen­ erating in the USTTPI. Annual territorial ship, they are allowed free access to enter and budgets soared to exceed $110 million (16 work in the United States. The compacts for times those of the late 1940s), with the federal the FSM and the Marshalls went into effect programs costing another $35 million (Kiste in 1986. A disagreement over a nuclear-free 1993: 71). constitution delayed the implementation of Many of the programs were inappropriate Palau's compact until 1994, a quarter of a for small island communities, proved cor­ century after the future political status nego­ rosive to Micronesian cultures, and under­ tiations commenced in 1969. mined subsistence economies. Government Micronesians have been pleased to achieve employment and bureaucracy expanded by self-government, but the new political sta­ leaps and bounds, and unplanned urbaniza­ tuses have had their disappointments and tion proceeded at a rapid rate. In the process, difficulties. The CNMI resents the fact that it little in the way of significant economic de­ has less autonomy than the freely associated velopment occurred, and massive social and states. The arrangement of free association economic dependency was achieved. Criti­ has not been well understood in the inter­ cism by the UN also precipitated movement national community, and the freely asso­ in the political arena. By the early 1960s, ciated states have encountered difficulties in Micronesians had taken to heart American the management of their external affairs. notions about the virtues of democracy and Perhaps the greatest challenges to the FSM self-determination. They lobbied for a terri­ and the Marshalls are massive economic de­ tory-wide legislature, and the Congress of pendency and rapidly growing populations. Micronesia (COM) was formed in 1965. As Both have problems of governance. Further, one of its first acts, the COM created its own major parts of the compacts have a duration Micronesian Political Status Commission in of 15 years and are scheduled to expire in the 1967. year 2001. Concerned at the prospect that Beginning in 1969, discussions with the future financial arrangements may be less United States proved to be the longest and generous, both nations have begun negbtia­ most tortuous of all negotiations in the de­ tions for renewal. Palau is only 5 years into colonization of the Pacific. The United States its compact agreement, but it is struggling was determined to protect its strategic inter­ with problems of economic development. In ests and encour'!-ged existing divisions among response to conditions at home and oppor­ Micronesians. In the end, the USTTPI be­ tunities in America, increasing numbers of came divided into four political entities. Micronesians have migrated to the United Forms of government were determined by States. Indeed, one recent Ph.D. dissertation plebiscites in each. The Northern Marianas concerns the Marshallese community in Enid, opted for commonwealth status in 1975, and Oklahoma (Allen 1997). eventually the people of the Commonwealth Over a half century has passed since American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-1997-KrsTE AND MARSHALL 269

American anthropologists became involved who conducted the survey was Leonard Ma­ in Micronesia. Those who pioneered the son, who had worked for Murdock's Cross­ work of the 1940s could not have imagined Cultural Survey in Washington during the the Micronesia of today. The past three war. Mason subsequently was involved in decades in particular have witnessed phe­ both CIMA and SIM. He is one of the nomenal changes of enormous magnitude in deans of Micronesian anthropology, having all sectors of society and culture. The subject founded the Pacific Islands Studies Program matter of anthropology of 50 years ago has at the University of Hawai'i (since 1986, the also been radically altered. Indeed, the disci­ Center for Pacific Islands Studies), having pline itself has been transformed. Like Mi­ taught or influenced younger anthropologists cronesia, anthropology, both pure and ap­ and Pacific Islands leaders, and having made plied, has grown much more complex and significant contributions to applied anthro­ has experienced a population explosion of its pology, cultural ecology, and studies of Mi­ own. With its proliferation into numerous cronesian arts. Mason directed the Pacific subdisciplines and specializations, as the Islands Studies Program for nearly 15 years, chapters in American Anthropology in Mi­ while also serving as chair of the Department cronesia reflect, the anthropology of today of Anthropology at the University of Ha­ would not be recognized by those who wai'i, before he was succeeded as director by launched its involvement in the region a half Norman Meller, who led the program for century ago. In retrospect, judging from the much of the following decade. A political entire range of anthropological work in Mi­ scientist who became interested in Micro­ cronesia, the CIMA project had the greatest nesia as a consequence of his war experi­ overall impact on the discipline. ences, Meller has played an important role in the region. Glenn Petersen (1999: 182-187) discussed his accomplishments and their rel­ evance for political anthropology in some CONSEQUENCES OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL detail. PROJECTS IN MICRONESIA It was the CIMA project that transformed World War II was arguably the pivotal the anthropology of Micronesia and brought event in modern Pacific history. The war also it into the mainstream of American anthro­ strongly affected American anthropology via pological research. Conceived and imple­ anthropologists' involvement in the war effort mented primarily by Murdock at Yale and itself, and via their organization of and par­ Oliver at Harvard, CIMA spawned at least ticipation in the various postwar programs in four academic "lineages" that have had a applied and academic anthropology in Mi­ major impact on postwar anthropology in cronesia mentioned above (the USCC survey, the Pacific. The key persons were Homer G. CIMA, SIM, and the USTTPI applied an­ Barnett, Murdock (and his student, Ward H. thropology venture). These programs gen­ Goodenough), David M. Schneider, and erated a great deal of new knowledge and Alexander Spoehr. These men have been helped launch the careers of a host of schol­ among the major figures in postwar Ameri­ ars who have left an indelible mark on Pacific can anthropology. Murdock and Spoehr anthropology. Several of these scholars also were president of the American Anthropo­ have made major theoretical and other con­ logical Association; Murdock, Goodenough, tributions to anthropology as a discipline. and Barnett all served as president of the The U.S. Commercial Company survey, Society for Applied Anthropology; and directed by Douglas Oliver immediately after Schneider was a founder and president of the the war (Oliver 1951), gathered otherwise Society for Cultural Anthropology. Good­ unavailable information on the impact of the enough, Spoehr, and Murdock all were war on Micronesian peoples, with a particu­ elected to the National Academy of Sciences, lar focus on their economic situation. Among and Schneider and Goodenough were Fel­ the three anthropologists and one sociologist lows of the American Academy of Arts and 270 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 54, July 2000

Sciences. All (Barnett, Goodenough, Mur­ of the natural sciences can be successfully dock, Oliver, Schneider, and Spoehr) chaired applied to the study of human culture and their university departments. Collectively society, and he calls this "normal science." through 1997, the academic lineages of Bar­ The accumulation of research in Micronesia nett, Murdock, Schneider, and Spoehr have over the past half century provides numerous produced 83 "descendants" who have com­ instances where successive scholars have built pleted Ph.D.s based on fieldwork in Oceania; upon one another's work, and the CIMA 26 of these doctorates were done in project was the launching pad for this en­ Micronesia. deavor. This normal science research tradi­ Yet another very influential CIMA re­ tion in Micronesia has most affected anthro­ searcher has been Melford Spiro, who does pological theory in the areas of psychological not fall within the above four lineages. Spiro anthropology, cognitive anthropology, kin­ (like Murdock and Goodenough) was presi­ ship and social organization, and the anthro­ dent of the American Ethnological Society pology of religion. Peter Black argues that and also president of the Society for Psycho­ research in Micronesia has been central to logical Anthropology. A Fellow of the Na­ the development of psychological anthropol­ tional Academy of Sciences and the Ameri­ ogy via studies "where cognitive anthro­ can Academy of Arts and Sciences, and pology, psychology, and linguistics overlap, founder and chair of his university depart­ especially in studies of emotion" (1999: 229) ment at the University of California, San and through the rise of ethnopsychology, Diego, Spiro-along with Schneider and which developed out of the cognitive turn Goodenough-has made a profound mark in cultural anthropology, much of which on anthropological theory. "played itself out in Micronesia" (1999: 239). Goodenough, Schneider, and Spiro are the Moreover, Black credits Goodenough and CIMA researchers who have been most Thomas Gladwin (another CIMA researcher prominent in the wider discipline. All three who studied under Murdock) with clearing have made fundamental contributions to a space for the rise of cognitive anthropol­ anthropological theory, especially via their ogy, notably through their writings on the writings on kinship and social organization, Caroline Islanders' indigenous navigation psychological anthropology, and the anthro­ system. pology of religion. Goodenough played a The foundation for normal science in central role in the development of cognitive studies of kinship and social organization in anthropology and has written extensively on Micronesia was laid by Schneider and language and linguistics and on the applica­ Goodenough. Both were advocates for emic tions of anthropology. Schneider was a lead­ analysis, but Schneider concentrated on the ing proponent of symbolic anthropology, symbols and meanings encoded in kinship helped revitalize the culture concept, and systems while Goodenough gave primary at­ wrote pathbreaking books concerning the tention to their formal, logical (cognitive) study of kinship in contemporary Western properties. Of course, the influential writings societies. Spiro is best known for his creativ­ of these two men on kinship subjects have ity in psychological anthropology, but he has reverberated far beyond Micronesia. contributed equally significant works in the Spiro's contributions to the anthropology anthropology of religion and in kinship and of religion are legion; they began with his family studies. Ifaluk research as part of CIMA and have The research completed by American an­ expanded into studies in Asia and into a thropologists in Micronesia since the war, as series of more general publications on the discussed in American Anthropology in Mi­ topic. Goodenough has also sustained a long­ cronesia: An Assessment, illustrates "the in­ standing interest and publication record in terpretive manner in which natural science is this area, drawing primarily on his Chuuk actually practiced" (Roscoe 1995: 497). Ros­ material. Although religion was not a major coe concluded that the hermeneutic methods focus of his writing, Schneider sought to ex- American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-1997-KIsTE AND MARSHALL 271

tend the kind of analysis he advocated for terns of land tenure. Marshall (1999: 107­ kinship to religion (Schneider 1969). 143) argued for "partial connections" among Our ethnographic data base for Micro­ Micronesian societies, consisting of a set of nesia has been greatly increased by the nu­ social and cultural themes drawn from a pool merous studies that have been conducted of common ideas whose elements are com­ over the past 50 years. This work is of special bined and recombined in different ways importance precisely because it allows for the across the region. He examined these con­ pursuit of normal science as discussed above. nections as they have been reported for seven As contemporary sociocultural anthropology major topics in kinship and social organiza­ has begun to reorient toward more practical tion: (1) siblingship; (2) systems of kinship concerns, driven at least in part by a limited and descent; (3) adoption, fosterage, and rit­ number of academic positions, the applied ual kinship; (4) the links among kinship, anthropology program of the 1950s and land, and food; (5) marriage systems and 1960s in Micronesia has provided some im­ practices; (6) incest taboos; and (7) post­ portant lessons. Barnett's Anthropology in marital residence rules. Glenn Petersen Administration (1956) illustrated applied an­ (1999: 166) discussed "shared Micronesian thropology in colonial settings, and Good­ political patterns" and "some very funda­ enough's Cooperation in Change (1963) has mental similarities in Micronesian sociopo­ been read widely outside the discipline and litical organization," and Karen Nero (1999: captured an important shift in ways of ap­ 255-257) suggested that Micronesian art plying anthropology in a postcolonial world. forms have a distinctive character all their Both books draw heavily on the authors' own when contrasted with other parts of the CIMA-sponsored Micronesia fieldwork. Pacific. Taken together, these findings sup­ port at least a limited viability of the culture area concept for understanding the region known as Micronesia, even through there is RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT clearly important variation, particularly An issue raised by David Hanlon when the three westernmost island groups are (1999 : 53-79) is whether the very idea of compared with the rest of the area. Micronesia is anything but a figment of the In the book's final chapter, Kiste (1999: anthropological imagination. Although there 454) provided a table that gives the number may be some truth to this idea, there are of doctorates earned in sociocultural anthro­ several ways in which Micronesia coheres. pology based on fieldwork in Micronesia Ward Goodenough noted at the 1993 CPIS by decade and gender from 1949 to 1997, conference, for example, that there is a lin­ and it reveals several interesting things. A guistic connectedness among most of the total of 78 such dissertations was com­ region's languages (those that are Nuclear pleted during that period, with another 20 in Micronesian), and that many of the islands anthropology's three other major subfields were linked via interisland voyaging (see (archaeology, anthropological linguistics, also Rehg 1995). But beyond Goodenough's and physical anthropology). The disserta­ comments, several contributors to American tions reflect the sources of funding, the trans­ Anthropology in Micronesia: An Assessment formation of Micronesia since the 1960s, and support the position that there are certain a gender shift that is altering the character of major uniformities in the region. the larger American academic scene. Concerning the ways that Micronesians Concerning the funding for research, have adapted to their environments, William American anthropology's involvement in Alkire (1999: 86) posited that "a universal Micronesia may be divided roughly into conceptual unity inalienably ties people (kin three periods. First, the U.S. Navy was the groups) to land (their estates)" and went on primary source of funds during the USCC, to mention a number of attributes that are CIMA, and SIM years. The second period common if not universal to Micronesian sys- was marked by the generous outlay offederal 272 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 54, July 2000 funds for scientific research that followed the of mostly academic interest to one in which a immediate post-Sputnik years and develop­ majority have concentrated on sociocultural ment initiatives that shaped much of the change. Many in this latter group have been transformation of Micronesia. The last concerned with political change or matters covers more recent years that have witnessed related to urban or peri-urban life, reflecting a marked decline in federal support for the growing urbanization of Micronesia's scientific research and social programs. population. Ironically, and not by any con­ The first two sociocultural dissertations scious design, the transformation of Micro­ (Goodenough's and Schneider's) were com­ nesia became a favored topic of anthropo­ pleted in 1949, with 11 more done in the logical research and was largely funded by 1950s. All but two of this latter group were federal sources. derived from CIMA, SIM, or USTTPI After more than a half century of Ameri­ applied anthropology. Nine more doctorates can involvement in Micronesia, the region were produced in the 1960s, seven of which has become one of the most studied of all were by researchers connected to the work of world areas. Nevertheless, a number of re­ the 1940s and 1950s. Three were the last of search topics have been neglected. First, the the district anthropologists and four were impact of Micronesia's largest "industry"­ students of CIMA participants. It is striking Western-style formal education-has been that only one of the twenty-two such dis­ relatively ignored. In similar fashion, legal sertations awarded between 1949 and 1969 anthropology has received very little atten­ was to a woman: Ann Fischer in 1957. tion despite a plethora of topics that might be The increased federal funding of the post­ explored, ranging from the introduction of Sputnik era launched an explosion of re­ Western-style jurisprudence and courts to search in the islands that began in the 1960s studies of the legal relationships that the but was most evident in the 34 'dissertations United States has with the new Micronesian completed in the 1970s. The availability of political entities. Medical anthropology has federal funding began to decline late in the been greatly underrepresented, particularly same decade, and the number of new doc­ given its rapid growth within the broader torates decreased accordingly. The 17 dis­ discipline and the health problems that face sertations of the 1980s were exactly one-half Micronesians today. Many chronic disease of those of the previous decade. Only five conditions have become leading causes of Ph.D.s were awarded between 1990 and morbidity and mortality, even as significant 1997. infectious disease problems remain. Equally In recent years, the number of female pressing are problems of primary health care students at all levels of tertiary education in and delivery, medical supplies, and general America has increased, and the research ex­ public health. Given the importance of such plosion of the seventies helped to bring the concerns that have accompanied urbaniza­ first significant number of women researchers tion and an increased involvement in a cash to Micronesia. More than a decade elapsed economy, studies of the role played by im­ between Ann Fischer's Ph.D. in 1957 and ported foods in chronic diseases are long Nancy Pollock's in 1970. Nine of the thirty­ overdue. Numerous topics related to the four dissertations of the 1970s were by wom­ visual and performing arts await investiga­ en, and in the 1980s, women accounted for tion, and the same is true of contemporary eight of seventeen. Although several more are religious life, particularly the indigenization of in progress, no males are represented among Christianity and the proliferation of Protes­ the five dissertations completed during 1990­ tant denominations and other faiths. 1997. Still other topics present themselves as Kiste (1999: 455-457) also identified a candidates for future research. Growing mi­ shift over the period examined from a situa­ gration from the freely associated states to tion in which most dissertations focused on Guam, Hawai'i, and mainland United States traditional ethnographic concerns or topics destinations has raised a host of questions American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-l997-KIsTE AND MARSHALL 273 about the maintenance of language and eth­ GOODENOUGH, W. H. 1963. Cooperation in nicity. Guam and Saipan both now have change: An anthropological approach to highly diverse, polyglot populations made up community development. Russell Sage of people from many parts of Asia, North Foundation, New York. America, and Micronesia and provide ideal HANLON, D. 1999. Magellan's chroniclers? venues for the study of interethnic relations. American anthropology's history in Mi­ Gender issues have only begun to be ex­ cronesia. Pages 53-79 in R. I(jste and M. plored, and a tremendous amount of work Marshall, eds. American anthropology in remains to be done in this vibrant area. Micronesia: An assessment. University of American anthropology in Micronesia Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. since the war has reflected the vagaries of KISTE, R. C. 1993. New political statuses in funding sources, changes in the discipline, American Micronesia. Pages 67-80 in growth in the number of women who have V. S. Lockwood, T. G. Harding, and B. J. entered the profession, and shifts in the ap­ Wallace, eds. Contemporary Pacific soci­ plication of anthropological knowledge to eties: Studies in development and change. the solution of everyday problems. Although Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New it is always difficult to predict the future, Jersey. available portents suggest the continued via­ ---. 1999. A half century in retrospect. bility of anthropological research in this fas­ Pages 433-467 in R. I(jste and M. Mar­ cinating area, as new scholars join the ranks shall, eds. American anthropology in Mi­ and, importantly, as Micronesians them­ cronesia: An assessment. University of selves begin to obtain graduate training in Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. anthropology and closely related disciplines. MALINOWSKI, B. 1929. Practical anthropol­ ogy. Africa 2 (1): 22-38. ---. 1930. The rationalization of anthro­ pology and administration. Africa 3 (4): LITERATURE CITED 405-430. ALKIRE, W. H. 1999. Cultural ecology and MARSHALL, M. 1999. "Partial connections": ecological anthropology in Micronesia. I(jnship and social organization in Micro­ Pages 81-105 in R. I(jste and M. Mar­ nesia. Pages 107-143 in R. I(jste and M. shall, eds. American anthropology in Mi­ Marshall, eds. American anthropology in cronesia: An assessment. University of Micronesia: An assessment. University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. ALLEN, L. A. 1997. Enid "Atoll": A Mar­ NERO, K. 1999. Missed opportunities: Amer­ shallese migrant community in the mid­ ican anthropological studies of Micro­ western United States. Ph.D. diss., Uni­ nesian arts. Pages 255-299 in R. I(jste and versity of Iowa, Iowa City. M. Marshall, eds. American anthropology BARNETT, H. G. 1956. Anthropology in ad­ in Micronesia: An assessment. University ministration. Row, Peterson & Company, of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Evanston, Illinois. OLIVER, D. L. 1951. Planning Micronesia's BEE, R. I. 1974. Patterns and processes: An future: A summary of the United States introduction to anthropological strategies Commercial Company's economic survey for the study of change. The Free Press, of Micronesia, 1946. Harvard University New York. Press, Cambridge. BLACK, P. W. 1999. Psychological anthro­ PETERSEN, G. 1999. Politics in postwar Mi­ pology and its discontents: Science and cronesia. Pages 145-195 in R. I(jste and rhetoric in postwar Micronesia. Pages M. Marshall, eds. American anthropology 225-253 in R. Kiste and M. Marshall, eds. in Micronesia: An assessment. University American anthropology in Micronesia: of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. An assessment. University of Hawai'i REDFIELD, R., R. LINTON, and M. J. HERS­ Press, Honolulu. KOVITS. 1936. Memorandum for the study 274 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 54, July 2000

of acculturation. Am. Anthropol. 38 (1): ism" in cultural anthropology. Am. An­ 149-152. thropol. 97 (3): 492-504. REHG, K. 1. 1995. The significance of lin­ SCHNEIDER, D. M. 1969. Kinship, nationality guistic interaction spheres in reconstruct­ and religion in American culture: Toward ing Micronesian prehistory. Oceanic Lin­ a definition of kinship. Pages 116-125 in guistics 34 (2): 305-326. R. F. Spencer, ed. Forms of symbolic RICHARD, D. E. 1957. US Naval admini­ action. Proc. Am. Ethnol. Soc., University stration of the Trust Territory of the of Washington Press, Seattle. Pacific Islands. 3 vols. Office of the STOCKING, G. W. 1992. The ethnographer's Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, magic and other essays in the history of D.C. anthropology. University of Wisconsin ROSCOE, P. B. 1995. The perils of "positiv- Press, Madison.