Anthropologists, Indigenous Scholars and the Research Endeavour

Seeking Bridges Towards Mutual Respect

Joy Hendry, Laara Fitznor

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136331152
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection offers the fruits of a stimulating workshop that sought to bridge the fraught relationship which sometimes continues between anthropologists and indigenous/native/aboriginal scholars, despite areas of overlapping interest. Participants from around the world share their views and opinions on subjects ranging from ideas for reconciliation, the question of what might constitute a universal "science, " indigenous heritage, postcolonial museology, the boundaries of the term "indigeneity, " different senses as ways of knowing, and the very issue of writing as a method of dissemination that divides and excludes readers from different backgrounds. This book represents a landmark step in the process of replacing bridges with more equal patterns of intercultural cooperation and communication.

Part I

History of the Divergence and Some Ideas for Reconciliation

1 Felavai, Interweaving Indigeneity and Anthropology
The Era of Indigenising Anthropology

Tēvita O. Ka’ili

Fakatapu: An Honorific Salutation to the Indigenous People & Places of England

Tapu mo e tangata’ifonua ‘o Polata’ane

Mo e fonua tupu’a ‘o e Laione

Pea tulou atu ki si’i Vai ko Tame

Mo e ‘otu Ha’amonga ‘o e fonua pele

Kae ‘atā ke u kau he vahevahe

Ki he felavai ‘ilo ‘a Moana mo e Uēsit

My highest respect to the indigenous people of England

And to the ancient land of the Lion

May I also pay homage to Thames River²

And to the Stonehenge of this cherished land³

Please allow me take part in the sharing of knowledge

About the interweaving of Oceanian and Western knowledge

TALATEU: INTRODUCTION

I begin this paper with a fakatapu—an indigenous Tongan poetic way of paying respect and homage to the indigenous people and places of a land. In my culture, it is important to begin an address by paying respect to the tangata’ifonua (native people of the land) and to the fonua (land and its people). I pay my respect to the indigenous people and places of England.

In this paper, I discuss the role of anthropological theories in the so-called history of divergence between anthropology and indigenous/native studies. It is possible to examine the divergence as a split between anthropology and indigenous studies, or view the divergence as a process of indigenising anthropology—transforming anthropology into an indigenous/native discipline. I prefer to frame the divergence of anthropology and indigenous/native studies as an indigenisation of anthropology. Within this view, indigenous/native studies is rooted in the profound experience of indigenous people, yet it maintains genealogical (in terms of intellectual genealogy) ties to anthropology. I view anthropology as a cultural product of the anthropology of indigeneity, and indigenous/native studies as a cultural product of the indigenisation of anthropology (as well as other related disciplines such as history, political science, humanities, geography, literature, ethnobotany, cultural studies, etc.).

My paper is based on the Tongan concept of felavai, which means to crisscross, intersect, or to interweave (Māhina, Ka’ili, and Ka’ili 2006: 21). In Tonga, beautiful intricate geometrical patterns—known as kupesi—are created through the symmetrical interweaving/intersecting (felavai) of lines, colours, strands of pandanus leaves, sennit ropes, etc. (see Figure 1.1). These aesthetic patterns adorn indigenous art forms such as tattoos (tātatau), carvings (tātongitongi), mats (fala), bark cloths (ngatu), and sennit lashings (lalava). In this paper, I draw parallels between the artistic process of interweaving and the academic process of indigenising anthropology. I also use examples from Moana (Oceanian) cultures to illustrate this process of interweaving anthropology and indigeneity. Before I continue, I want to explain the name Moana—an indigenous pan-Polynesian name for ocean. I use the name Moana because the name honours indigenous languages as well as highlighting the sea culture of people from Oceania (Māhina 1999: 278; Helu 1999: 113).

As a Moana anthropologist, I have had an ambivalent relationship with anthropological theories. I began a serious study of anthropological theories during my years as an anthropology graduate student at the University of Washington in Seattle. I must admit that the dominant anthropological theories—such as Evolutionism, Historical Particularism, Functionalism, Structural Functionalism, Psychological Anthropology/Culture & Personality, Neo-evolutionism, French Structuralism, Ethnoscience, Feminist Anthropology, Cultural Materialism, Symbolic/Interpretative Anthropology, Postmodernism, Post-colonialism, Globalisation, Power, and Agency—did not always resonate with my cultural experience as a Moana. Most anthropological theories were predominantly based on non-Moana ideas and concepts.

This was not the only problem. I also felt distant from many of the theorists. The cultural concepts and practices from the Moana were included in the content of anthropology. However, it was theorised in a way that was not in harmony with my experience as a Moana. I refer to this period in anthropology as the ‘age of anthropologising indigeneity.’ In other words, indigenous concepts and practices provided the raw materials for the anthropologists ‘ . . . to process, refine, package, advertise, market, and profit from’ (Teaiwa 1995: 60–61). Take, for example, the Moana concept of mana (supernatural power). In the early years of anthropology, Robert Marett (1914) packaged (or repackaged) mana to support his concept of animatism and his brand of evolutionism. Later, Bradd Shore (1989) processed (or reprocessed) mana (and its companion tapu) to fit his ideas of functionalism. Other Moana concepts and practices such as reciprocity, gift exchanges (Mauss 1990), and chieftainship (Marcus 1989) were all framed through anthropological theories of the West.

Figure 1.1 This classical kupesi, geometrical pattern, is known in Tonga as Amo-amokofe. Kupesi Artist (Tufunga Tā Kupesi), Sēmisi Fetokai Potauaine, Aotearoa/New Zealand, 2010.

In recent years, Moana scholars have been actively engaged in the process of indigenising elements of anthropological theories and practices. Currently, we are living in the era of the indigenisation of anthropology. Moana indigenous scholars are not discarding anthropology. Rather, they are transforming anthropology into an indigenous discipline. In other words, they are interweaving indigeneity and anthropology to create a new pattern of anthropology. I refer to these interwoven patterns as Moana worldviews, Moana epistemologies, Moana methodologies and Moana theories. Some of the indigenous scholars are trained in other disciplines and not anthropologists. Below are examples of this process of felavai (interweaving) of indigeneity and anthropology.

MOANA WORLDVIEWS

The interweaving of indigeneity and anthropology appears in the use of Moana indigenous worldviews in the academic writings of Moana scholars. For instance, Epeli Hau’ofa’s concept of Oceania is a good case in point (Hau’ofa 2008). Hau’ofa empowers Pacific people by calling the Pacific region Oceania. He argues that the name Pacific Islands connotes smallness and isolation. Moreover, the name belittles Oceanians. He argues that ancestors of the Moana people called the region Oceania or Sea of Islands. The name counters the idea of smallness by pointing to the vastness of the ocean. It also liberates Moana people from the belittlement of the West. Hau’ofa does not discard the English language. He interweaves indigenous meanings with English words such as ‘ocean’ and ‘sea of islands’. Through this interweaving process, he effectively deploys English names to empower and liberate Moana people. This is an example of interweaving indigeneity and anthropology to create a new pattern.

MOANA EPISTEMOLOGIES

Indigeneity and anthropology is expressed in the interweaving of Moana ways of knowing and Western epistemology. Native Hawaiian educator, Manulani Meyer, explores Hawaiian philosophy of knowledge. She proposes several Hawaiian epistemological themes (Meyer 2001). One of the themes points to her critique of the separation of body and mind in Western epistemology. Meyer argues that ‘the separation of mind from body is not found in a Hawaiian worldview. Intelligence . . . was not separate from feeling. Indeed, intelligence is found in the core of our body system—in our viscera, the na’au’ (Meyer 2001: 141). Meyer does not discard the Western philosophy branch of epistemology. She weaves together Hawaiian philosophy of knowledge and Western epistemology. She proudly calls it ‘Hawaiian epistemology’. I argue that Meyer’s ‘Hawaiian epistemology’ is a new and beautiful interwoven pattern of Moana and the West.

MOANA METHODOLOGIES

The interweaving of Moana and Western knowledge is also taking place in the area of Moana methodologies. Indigenous Māori educator, Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s, work on Māori research methodology, such as the Kaupapa Māori research approach, is a good example. Smith proposes that the Kaupapa Māori Research includes the following:

1)		It is related to ‘being Māori’;
2)		It is connected to Māori philosophy and principles;
3)		It takes for granted the validity and legitimacy of Māori, the importance of Māori language and culture; and
4)		It is concerned with ‘the struggle for autonomy over our own cultural well being’ (Smith 1999:185).

In addition, the Kaupapa Māori research methodology incorporates indigenous Māori concepts such as whānau (extended family). The whānau concept is used as a way of organising research groups and incorporating ethical procedures—such as reporting back to the researched community (Smith 1999:187). Lastly, the Kaupapa Māori methodology is ‘based on the assumption that research that involves Māori people, as individuals or as communities, should set out to make a positive difference (i.e., social justice) for the researched’ (Smith 1999:191). Smith’s works illustrates the interweaving of indigenous Māori practices and Western methods to create a new pattern of Moana research methodology.

Native Hawaiian anthropologist, Ty Kawika Tengan, provides another example of the interweaving of indigeneity and anthropology. Tengan has been at the forefront of developing what he calls ‘indigenous anthropology’. Tengan’s conceptualisation of indigenous anthropology includes:

1)		involving Kanaka Maoli [indigenous Hawaiians] as active agents and producers of anthropological discourse rather than its object;
2)		incorporating ‘Oiwi Maoli [indigenous/native] protocols and practices into anthropological ones; and
3)		conducting research and practice in ways that are relevant, responsible, and respectful to those with whom these projects are undertaken’ (Tengan 2001; see also White and Tengan 2001).

Tengan does not reject anthropology. Rather, he transforms anthropology by incorporating indigenous Hawaiian practices into its methodology. Again, this is an example of weaving indigenous practices into anthropology.

MOANA THEORIES

Lastly, the best example of indigenisation of anthropology appears in the area of Moana theories. Hūfanga Dr. ‘Okusitino Māhina, a Tongan historical anthropologist, has been the vanguard for the development of Moana theories—academic theories that are based on indigenous concepts and practices. Māhina’s new general tā-vā (time-space) theory of reality is a prime example of the interweaving of indigeneity and anthropology. The theory is based on the indigenous Moana concepts and practices of time (tā) and space (vā). Māhina’s general tā-vā theory of reality has the following tenets:

•		that the general tā-vā, time-space theory of reality is philosophically-led, empirically-driven and conflict-based in form and content;
•		that reality is divided into nature, mind and society, where mind and society are both in nature;
•		that ontologically tā and vā, time and space are the common medium in which all things are, in a single level of reality, spatio-temporality or four-sided dimensionality;
•		that epistemologically tā and vā, time and space are socially arranged differently in different cultures;
•		that the relative coalition of tā and vā, time and space, across cultures is conflicting in nature;
•		that all things in nature, mind and society, stand in eternal relations of exchange to one another, giving rise to conflict or order;
•		that conflict and order are permanent features of all things in nature, mind and society;
•		that conflict and order in the form and content of all things, in nature, mind and society, are of the same logical status, in that, order is itself an expression of conflict;
•		that tā and vā, time and space are the abstract dimensions of the fuo and uho, form and content of all things, in nature, mind and society;
•		that the fuo and uho, form and content, of all things, in nature, mind and society, are the concrete dimensions of tā and vā, time and space;
•		that while tā does not exclusively correspond to form and vā entirely to space, both entities combined give form and content to all things of the one and only order of being;
•		that while tā-vā is universal, all things, in nature, mind and society, have nevertheless further myriad and infinitely complex forms in dialectical relation to other countless and multifaceted contents; and
•		that tā and vā, time and space, like fuo and uho, form and content, of all things in nature, mind, and society, are inseparable in both mind as in reality (Māhina 2008: 33–34; Ka’ili 2008: 36–37).

In the past nine years, I have been part of a group of indigenous scholars—Hūfanga Dr. ‘Okusitino Māhina, Dr. Nuhisifa Williams, Sēmisi Fetokai Potauaine—who have been developing and advancing the tā-vā (time-space) theory of reality (Ka’ili 2008). The theory interweaves indigenous Moana concepts with Western philosophical concepts—i.e., tā-vā (time-space) and fuo-uho (form-content). In addition, the indigenous theory incorporates Western philosophical branches—such as epistemology and ontology. Moreover, the theory deals with classicalism, realism, and aestheticism. Finally, the theory deals with indigenous and Western ideas that are related to the nature of reality, order and conflict, relations of exchange and the universality and particularity of time-space. Again, the tā-vā (time-space) theory of reality symmetrically interweaves strands of Moana and Western ideas to create a new and aesthetically pleasing pattern of indigenous anthropological theory.

TĀTUKU: CONCLUSION

The examples above illustrate the indigenisation of anthropology through the interweaving of indigenous and Western knowledge. Although, on the surface, it may appear that there is a divergence between indigenous/native studies and anthropology, in actuality, there is a convergence of indigeneity and anthropology in indigenous/native studies. This interweaving (or convergence) of Moana and Western ideas is giving rise to new symmetrical and beautiful kupesi (patterns).

NOTES

1. Lion is a common symbol for England in the Tongan language.

2. It is common in Tonga honorific salutation (fakatapu) to pay homage to historical and beautiful features of the indigenous land (rivers, mountains, plants, winds, rain).

3. There is a Stonehenge-like structure in Tonga known as the Ha’amonga. In the Tongan version of the fakatapu (honorific salutation) I refer to the Stonehenge as Ha’amonga.

REFERENCES

Hau’ofa, E. 2008. We Are the Ocean: Selected Works, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Helu, I.F. 1999. Critical Essays: Cultural Perspectives from the South Seas, Canberra: The Journal of Pacific History.

Ka’ili, T.O. 2008. ‘Tauhi Vā: Creating Beauty through the Art of Sociospatial Relations’, PhD dissertation, Seattle: University of Washington.

Māhina, O., Ka’ili, T.O., and Ka’...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Note on the Use of Capitalisation in the Text
• Introduction
• PART I: History of the Divergence and Some Ideas for Reconciliation
• PART II: Science and Epistemology
• PART III: Indigenous Heritage and Post-Colonial Museology
• PART IV: The Senses as a Way of Knowing and Communicating
• PART V: Writing and Other Forms of Dissemination
• Contributors
• Index