When Malinowski announced he had ‘found’ the means by which anthropologists could ‘grasp the native’s point of view’ (1932: 6, 25), he set the dominant agenda for the ethnographic method in Oceania and beyond. In recent decades however, the ethnographer’s ‘grasp’ on the interlocutor’s viewpoint has become contested. In the contemporary Pacific, European ethnographers may instead be accused of ‘seizing’ knowledge through taking into their possession an interpretation of ‘the native’s point of view’, whilst offering little in return. Advancing a ‘general theory of obligation’ in his analysis of the hau, the ‘spirit of the gift’, Mauss asserted, ‘the bond created by the transfer of a possession (...) is in fact a bond between persons, since the thing itself is a person or pertains to a person’ (1954: 10). Embedded in both tangible and intangible items of exchange, the hau of the donor exerts a ‘magical or religious hold’ over the receiver and compels the recipient to make a return. While Mauss stressed the dangers of keeping that which is given, Henare emphasises the capacity of the hau to activate ongoing relationships between exchanging parties through successive generations. Viewed from this perspective, the transfer of knowledge from Pacific Islanders to European anthropologists has the capacity to forge or cement alliances, repair or maintain relationships, or establish ties between strangers (2007: 57-58). This panel investigates how European anthropologists and Pacific Islanders conceptualise the interplay between knowledge, exchange and the ethnographic encounter. We seek to illuminate how the transfer of knowledge is discursively framed and assess what Pacific Islanders expect in return for the knowledge they share. Papers might address, for example, conceptions of knowledge as intellectual property, as a sacred possession, a volatile resource, a political tool, an economic commodity, or an ethical challenge. We invite papers that explore these themes with reference to the hau and encourage contributors to share reflections of their ethnographic encounters in a world where the ‘other’ is no longer a colonial subject, and may even ‘read what we write’ (Brettell 1993).
Paper submissions are closed