European Society for Oceanists 2015 Conference

Back to Conference session list

Session Detail (parallel)

The Hau of the ethnographic encounter: Pacific Islander expectations and European responses

Coordinator(s)

Dominik Schieder, Dave Robinson

Session presentation

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

Accepted papers

“That’s what your eyes and ears are for”: Negotiating the Ambiguities of Gift and Counter-Gift in Aotearoa-New Zealand

Dave Robinson (London School of Economics and Political Science)

In his written response to an enquiry by Raymond Firth about the nature of Māori gift and counter-gifting practices, the New Zealand ethnologist, Elsdon Best explained: “The Māori seems to have had an objection to making definite bargain. The usual plan was to make a present and by some means convey a hint of what was desired in return” (Firth 1929: 403). Some eighty years later, when during my third day of fieldwork on Aotearoa-New Zealand’s East Coast, I made a not dissimilar enquiry, my Māori mentor curtly delivered the following response: “That’s what your eyes and ears are for.” Thus it seems, exchange relations between the present-day ethnographer and the modern-day Māori echo those between the past ethnographer (Elsdon Best) and the “old-time Māori”—namely, that participation in social relations required the adjustment of an individual's “eyes and ears” to the sensibilities of their Māori respondents. This paper builds on this episode by delivering a series of fieldwork reflections on my quest to arrive at that which Firth termed the “tacit understanding between [...] parties as to the goods which would be most acceptable” (1929: 405). In so doing, the paper addresses the potential disconnect that can occur between the ethnographer’s preconception of guest-host relationships and the expectation of guest-host relationships that may be held by our respondents.

Exploring conceptions of knowledge and the logic of the gift within research with Māori

Domenica Gisella Calabrò (University of the South Pacific)

The reflection on the possibilities of exchange and on the kind of relationship a European anthropologist could create was the constant undercurrent to my ethnographic encounter with Māori. Based at Māori Studies, I was powerfully confronted with the Māori attempt to assert their ideas of knowledge and their perception of the relation researcher-informant. The Māori engagement within research as well as their tensions with Western researchers urged a profound reflection. This paper will, therefore, explore the multiple notions of knowledge I was exposed to in Māori contexts and the ensuing reflections, situating them in the contemporary Māori sociopolitical, cultural and academic scenario.
In the contemporary research context Māori knowledge emerges, first of all, as a political tool. From this point of view, doing a research which would benefit Māori becomes paramount. Knowledge is also identified as a taonga, a sacred possession, to be treated with respect. This treasure is conceived as a collective property, upon which one should not generalize. Thus, Māori customary perceptions and uses of knowledge challenge both the history of the ethnographic encounter with the Europeans and the nature of the ethnographic encounter itself. Some Māori also view knowledge in terms of intellectual property, demanding the control on the knowledge used in the research. Many others see it as a treasure to be proudly shared with those who are genuinely interested.
While the reflection on the possibilities of a collaboration with Māori viewed in terms of exchange is still open, I argue that the notion of the gift could be identified in actions such as the respect of their aspirations within the research, the recognition of their conceptions of knowledge in the ethnographies, and the sharing of our own ideas and experiences.

Dilemmas of ethnographic encounter: Reflections on estranged interlocutors and the anthropologist as community builder

Dominik Schieder (University of Siegen)

In this paper I will use two fieldwork encounters as a starting point to address the ethical challenges I faced while conducting ethnographic research on Fiji Islander perceptions of community life in Tokyo, Japan. The first episode discusses the gradual disentanglement of an initial gatekeeper after I had established contact with other Fiji Islanders without her knowledge. The second case describes a request to organize and mediate social activities for the Fijian migrant group. I argue that both encounters were informed by agendas which aimed to promote certain understandings of the boundaries and purpose of the Fijian diasporic ‘community’ in Japan. While the gatekeeper provided limited knowledge about Fiji Islanders in Tokyo based on her perception of appropriate research partners (community members), the other interlocutor’s suggestion for my becoming an active agent in shaping social relations was mainly driven by his plans to promote Fiji economically in Japan. I will use these examples to reflect on how interlocutors attempt to shape the ethnographer’s fieldwork and why anthropologists cannot accommodate certain requests and expectations in the field, especially if they have the potential to alter significantly their research agenda.

'Unreturnable' Knowledge: Mana, Affect, and Inter-cultural Exchange in West Gao, Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands.

Johanna Louise Whiteley (London School of Economics and Political Science)

The following excerpt is taken from a series of written reflections completed in July 2012, a month after returning from my doctoral research in West Gao, Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands:

In the final weeks of fieldwork, when my oldest male interlocutor, Boni, allowed me to document all of his fanitu [ritual techniques] I felt as if I was taking something from him that could never be returned.

This paper explores how this phenomenon of ‘unreturnable’ knowledge that I felt so acutely in 2012 can shed light on analyses of inter-cultural exchange. One answer lies in what Viveiros de Castro (2009, 243) has described as the “the mysterious effectiveness of relationality” that is illuminated by recourse to Oceanic concepts such as mana and the hau of the gift. According to my research participants, fanitu, or ritual techniques, “work” because they “have mana”. Drawing from ethnography of fanitu transmission I argue that fanitu in West Gao are a particular instantiation of what Henare (2007, 62) terms “dynamic relational matrices” in which human actors participate but do not fully control. I then suggest that my heightened emotional state upon exiting the field sensitised me to the significance of “affect” for understanding the “force” that animates such matrices (Venn 2010, 135).

To ensure we are better equipped to deal with the ethnographic ‘feelings’ that take hold of us during research, theories of anthropological exchange in Oceania should, following Venn (2010, 134), be sensitive to “mechanisms … [that] are invisible or remain below the threshold of the kind of knowing we are familiar with.”

Europe/Makira: L’un dans l’autre

Michael W. Scott (London School of Economics and Political Science)

André Breton’s apartment at 42 rue Fontaine in Paris was home to numerous objects from the Pacific, a region that sparked his world of imagination. ‘Oceania…this word has enjoyed a tremendous prestige in surrealism’, wrote the surrealist leader in 1948. ‘It will have been one of the great sluices of our hearts. Not only has it been inspiring enough to hurl our reverie into the most vertiginous bankless stream, but also so many objects bearing its trademark will have supremely aroused our desires.’ Among the many objects in Breton’s apartment was a collection of indigenously crafted fishing hooks from the Pacific, including a small lure from the island of Makira in the Solomon Islands. This paper explores how the author, an ethnographer of Makira whose attention was snagged by this tiny shimmering lure, might renew the encounter between surrealism and the Makiran world, reactivating interplays among artefacts, inquiries, recognitions, alterities, opacities, and imaginings that locate Europe in Melanesia and Melanesia in Europe. Presented to Oceanists gathering in Brussels, a city celebrated for its at once famous and ‘forgotten’ Surrealist Group, this paper is offered as a poetics of a surrealist anthropology.