Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Ethnologist.
http://www.jstor.org
848
american ethnologist
849
1952:10]
isolationof the variousgroupsthanon the relationsbetweenthem. [Levi-Strauss
Perhaps the most relevant to the current interest in subaltern inversions of the culture of
dominance, especially insofar as these inversions represent a politics of identity, are
Levi-Strauss's remarks on the phenomenology of the process: on the development of
self-consciousness through the apprehension of the other as opposition. Consider this
Hegelian passage, again at the end of the Mythologiques:
The problem of the genesis of myth is inseparable, then, from that of thought itself, the constitutive
experience of which is not that of an opposition between the self and the other, but of the other
apprehended as opposition. In the absence of this intrinsic property-the only one, it is true to say, that
is absolutely given-no act of consciousness constitutive of the self would be possible. Being, were it not
apprehensible as a relationship, would be equivalent to nothingness. The conditions which allow the
emergence of myth are therefore the same as those of all thought, since thought itself cannot be other
than thought about an object, and since an object, however starklyand simply it is conceived, is an object
only in so far as it constitutes the subject as subject, and consciousness itself as the consciousness of a
relationship. [Levi-Strauss1990(1971 ):603-604]
Many of Thomas's writings show his agreement with the classic structural principle that
the self is constructed in a relation of opposition to the other. But when he chooses not to
link his original theoretical insights with the pendant ideas of the anthropological old-timers,
the effect could be an intellectual loss all the way around. There is, for example, a certain
parallel between the received notions of "equilibrium" in the older discussions of intercul-
850
american ethnologist
And, if one may judge by the repetitionsof the argumentelsewhere, the moraldrawnfrom
Thomas's pseudohistory of kerekere is on its way to becoming a scholarly tradition:
Ironically, as Thomas (n.d.) has pointed out, anthropologists seeking to discern "authentic" cultural
traditions and to filter out exogenous elements are prone to attributeto the "ethnographic present" (their
own mythical construction) patterns of life derivative of, shaped by, or transformed radically in reaction
against colonial influence. IKeesing 1989:28-29; "Thomas (n.d.)" refers to a prepublication version of
Thomas 1992b]
851
I have the honor to be singled out by Thomasas the only named defendantin the class
action againstethnographersof Fijifor misleadingrepresentationsof kerekere,presumably
because the journeymanmonographI produced about Moala Island"remainsone of the
mostdetailedethnographiesof neotraditionalFijiansociety"(1992b:65).2Not even Hocart's
published description of the "begging system" (that is, kerekere)in the Lau islands is
mentioned(1929:99-101). Butprobablyit would be a partyto the ethnographicdeception
of representingpracticessuch as kerekereas " 'customs'in the strongsense, withoutits being
recognizedthattheirexistenceas such derivesfromthe oppositionaldynamicsof the colonial
encounter"(Thomas1992b:65). Thereare, then, two interconnectedfaultsin the ethnographies of "Sahlinsand others"(Thomas1992a:222):they accord kerekerea salience that is
actually a function not of the Fijianculturalorder but of Britishcolonial rule; and they
understandthe significanceor value of kerekereby its relationshipsto otherFijianformsand
practices,itsrelationshipsinthis Fijianorder,thusignoringthatitssignificancewas externally
inducedby colonialism.
Thomas draws an analogy with the overvaluationof the contrastbetween "gifts"and
"commodities"in Gregory'sstudyof New Guineasocieties (1982), which likewise involves
a failureto noticethatthe propertiesof thegifteconomyaresimplyconceptualandideologicalinversions
of thecapitalisteconomy,ratherthanattributes
derivedfromparticular
studiesof gifteconomiesthathave
not been caughtup in colonialentanglements.[Thomas1992b:661
"famouscustom"before the 1860s and that kerekereis rarelymentioned for this period
indicates Thomas is not makingthe strongerclaim that there was no such thing before
colonial rule, only that kerekerewas not yet an objectifiedcustom. More precisely, it was
not singled out and named as a definite entity, nor was it held to be characteristically
Fijian-thus the particularsignificanceThomasaccordsthe 1896 reportof the government
commissionon depopulation,of which the colonial official-cum-ethnologistBasilThomson
was a coauthor, as markinga critical phase in the development of kerekere.3Until this
colonial censure, kerekerewould have been at best an unreflected activity. Here the
argumentturns on a broad and crucial distinction between unarticulatedpractices and
self-consciousobjectifications.Thereis a difference,writesThomas,"betweenpracticesor
ideas that are simply done or thought,that simply take place, and those that are set up as
definiteentitiesto be spokenof, reflectedupon, and manipulatedby people in the situation
underconsideration"(1992a:215; also 1992b:64). In the earlier article he arguedthat an
activitymustbe named in orderto be conceived as somethingmanipulable.Being named,
a given practice-a ceremony,forexample-can then be taken"asan entityseparablefrom
particularenactments"(1992b:64).Hence Thomasinitiallyused the term"substantivization"
ratherthan"objectification"-indeed,the nominalizationof a verbwould makepossiblejust
852
american ethnologist
Thomas's positive story is that the recognition of kerekere was in the first place, and to
some extent, a product of the "communal system" foisted on Fiji by the first colonial
governor, Sir Arthur Gordon. Communalism included the corporate ownership of land by
mataqali, or clan units, an arrangement that from 1880 onward the government attempted
to discover in local society withoutmuch success, and after1913 decided simplyto impose.
However, if such communalism encouraged the give-and-take of kerekere, it was not, in
Thomas's view, the main historical reason for kerekere's objectification. The main reason
was the later colonial policy and sentiment that turned against the communal system and
saw in kerekere a barrier to Fijian commercial enterprise. "The meaning of kerekere as a
substantivized practice," Thomas observes, "derived largely from the fact that it was the target
of policies that sought to foster individualism and dismantle the communal social order"
(1992b:72). But now he is speaking of a time well beyond the 1860s and into the 20th
century, the great opening salvo of the attack on kerekere and related practices being the
aforementioned 1896 report on the decrease of the native population. There followed the
attempts to abolish kerekere through decrees of district and provincial councils and-through
agitation in the government-sponsored gazette Na Mata-the formation in 1905 of an
anti-kerekere league (which lasted a few years). Even as late as Hocart's time in Fiji
(1909-13), according to Thomas, the "recognition" of kerekere was only "inchoate and
partial" (1992a:223). So what Thomas is saying is that kerekere achieved a determinate
neotraditional form as an emblematic custom around the second decade of the 20th century.
If it was then described by ethnographers as a "way of life," this was
a neotraditionalexistence that was profoundlyaffected by the rigidifyingeffortsof a paternalistic
administration, and, more particularly,partly structured in opposition to the incursions of planters and a
853
cash economy. The communal formswere recognized and magnified through contrast to what they were
not, to what occasionally threatened to encroach upon them. [Thomas 1992b:731
*
In actuality, kerekere was both objectified and recognized as a distinctively Fijian custom
well before the colonial period (let alone the early 1900s). As early as 1835, it appears in
the characteristic phrase kerekere vakaviti (kerekere in the Fijian manner). It is recorded in
the substantive or nominalized form in several dictionaries of the precolonial period, and
thus was a named practice. Moreover, kerekere is described in early historical texts in the
same terms as in recent ethnographic monographs: it has the same attributes-which could
not be expected if its value were determined by opposition to the colonial order rather than
by relationships in the Fijian order. To show these points, to determine what is at issue, I
need first to rehearse a lengthy (though still abridged) excerpt of the modern ethnographic
description of kerekere singled out by Thomas:
Kerekere is the prevailing form of economic transaction among kinsmen as individuals.... [I]tis a form
of reciprocity.... It is not restrictedto special occasions, but occurs daily and constantly. More goods
change hands through kerekere than through any other form of distribution, excepting familial pooling ...
Kerekereis most emphatically not "begging," which is the usual translation of the term. "Begging"...
obscures the essential kinship ethic, the implied reciprocity....
The word kerekere has the generic meaning of a request. The transitive verb from which it is derived,
kerea, means "to request." In its generic meaning, the verb can be used in non-economic contexts ...
[and] thus a man may "request" (kerea) permission of his chief to leave his village for a trip. But in
economic contexts the general meaning of kerea is: to solicit a good, resource, or service, or the use of
a good or resource. Almost anything or any type of use-right can be solicited through kerekere.One may
ask for possession of food of any sort, mats, tapa cloth, canoes, whale's teeth, cotton cloth, tobacco,
money, pigs, chickens-in short, practically the entire inventory of material culture....
Kinship between donor and recipient is an indicative characteristic of kerekere .... [But] kinship can
always be widely extended through classificatory devices.... The avenues of kerekere [are]open to just
about anyone a person meets. The significance of kinship for kerekere is that kin ethics, the obligation to
give support, aid, and comfort, dominate the transaction....
A second, complementary characteristic is that the request should be engendered by a genuine need
(leqa). Moalans referdespicably to "greed"or "covetousness" as kocokoco, and to kerekerewithout need
is kocokoco, which is extremely reprehensible....
A request normally begins something like this: "A request here, my kinsman. Be of good heart: I am in
need." By the same token, the most legitimate reason for refusal-except lack of the thing desired-is that
in acquiescing the donor would place himself in need....
Requests for use may be distinguished from requests for possession .... If the employment of a
productive good or a resource yields direct returnto the solicitor, a small part of that should be given to
the donor when the item is returned....
The typical form of kerekere is not borrowing, however, but request for full possession. ... There is no
necessary understandingthat the person receiving goods will returntheir equivalent on his own initiative.
What is implied is that the recipient is ... made more accessible than otherwise to a future request by
the donor....
There may be a continuous series of one-way transactions from haves to have-nots. ...
Another form of kerekere is one in which the request is ... initiated by a presentation of something
valuable to the potential donor....
Traditionally,two goods have been used to initiatesuch "serious"kerekere:whale's teeth and kava....
Kerekere which involves an initial presentation is, however, vulnerable to influence by market
transactions. Such kerekere seemed to me to sometimes take on an ambiguous character.... [M]oney
itself may become the initialgift. Buyingand selling (volitaka)is not "custom of the land."On the contrary,
it remains bad form within the community, particularlyfor close relatives....
Another, very critical aspect of kerekere etiquette is the overtones of rank and prestige. To solicit an
object... is to admit weakness; by the same token, to honor a kerekere is to show "strength"(kaukauwa),
productive ability.... In entering a house to make a request a person typically remains near the door,
the position of least honor, while the owner of the house, the potential donor, sits rearcenter in the place
of greatest honor....
A fundamental implication of this status display is that a series of one-way transactions tends generally
to elevate the donor over the receiver.... At the level of the community, ... the amount of goods given
through kerekere generally increases in proportion to hereditary status.... [C]hiefs are expected to give
aid to those in need, and in doing so the superordinate chiefly social position is sustained. The familial
metaphor is sometimes used: the chief is "father"of his people, and he should care for them.... [The
chiefly requisiting of goods, /a, is differentfrom kerekere.]
854
american ethnologist
Properly, [chiefs] should not even use the term kerea;theirs is to command.... In fact, Naroi chiefs do
use kerea now, but not humbly....
People of high office are especially open to kerekere.... In any community there may well be people
who are not of official position dispensing goods freely through kerekere, creating loyalties thereby, and
attracting esteem. Here we confront the essence of that chronic status rivalrywhich is the outstanding
characteristic of Moalan political life. [Sahlins 1962:203-213; see also index entries for kerekere,
1962:449]
Are we to believe that Fijians went to all this trouble simply pour 6pater le bourgeois?That
all these modalities of kerekere, in common use even in remote villages and islands, were
elaborated in reaction to the colonial regime? If not, is it still possible that a practice so
manipulated in social life and for political purposes remained unremarked by those who
were doing it, not recognized "as an entity" until it was singled out by foreigners? In fact, the
substantive form of kerekere appears in dictionaries dating to the late 1830s.
Thomas (1992b:68) refers to the entry for kerekere in David Hazelwood's dictionary of
1850, but apparently he considers it without much significance for the claim that an
objectification of the practice had to await Britishrule. Thomas does not mention the similar
entries in other extant lexicons of about the same or earlier date. Evidently these all derive
from one or two sources, notably David Cargill's dictionary of c. 1839, but they were used
as working texts by missionaries posted to several areas. The Cargill entry is brief, but it shows
that kerekere had already begun its notorious English career as an act of "begging":4
Kerev. [intr.]to beg, implore
From the same period is a notice of "CeryCery," glossed as "Beg," in the 1833-36 papers of
the ship Emerald; it is part of a word list compiled by the well-known beche-de-mer trader
J. H. Eagleston (cited in Geraghty 1978:67). The orthography and other evidence suggest that
Eagleston's notice was provided by his colleague Warren Osborn (see below). Another version
of the Cargill entry was published in the "Vitian Dictionary" of Horatio Hale, who was in Fiji
with the U.S. ExploringExpedition in 1840 (Hale 196811846]:396); and what may very well be
still another is in the manuscript dictionary and grammar in the hand of John Hunt, written in
1839 (Hunt 1839).5 By Hazelwood's time (1850), the relevant entry had become rather
complex, including not only the nominalized form for the request but another for the returnon
something requested for use (the latter also found in modern practice):
Kere-av. tr. to beg; ask for.
Kere, Kerekere,v. intr.of the above:
n. petition, request.
Kere vosa, to urge or incite a man to speak.
ai Kere, n. a thing given for the use of a thing
begged; the interest. [Hazelwood 1850:54]
855
historical citation as early as 1835, together with testimony of an interdiction in the manner
of Fijian tabus.
The evidence comes from the detailed journal of Joseph W. Osborn, commonly known as
"Warren," who was the clerk of the Emerald (out of Salem, Captain John H. Eagleston).
Osborn was in Fijifor the better part of 16 months in 1834-35. The Emeraldwas on a trading
voyage, collecting beche-de-mer and turtle shell, and Osborn was on shore a good deal of
the time, including a stay from May to August 1834 as Eagleston's agent in the political center
of Bau and its dominions. Osborn lived with and spent most of his time with ranking chiefs.
Except perhaps for the relationships of the small white settlement at Levuka, the contact
between foreigners and Fijians until the 1 860s passed mainly through chiefs; this was true
for missionaries as well as merchants and is generally reflected in extant accounts of Fijian
life. So early February 1835 found the Emerald at anchor off southeastern Viti Levu, in the
roadstead serving as access to the great Rewa kingdom, where the ship was frequently visited
by the Bau and Rewa "royal familys." These included the Rewa king, "Canyah" in Osborn's
spelling (Kania, holding the title Roko Tui Dreketi), and his wife "Wassawassah" (Qoliwasawasa, of Bau origin). Osborn uncharitably describes the Rewa ruler as "a big scoundrel,
theif [sic] & beggar"-the last, we shall see, an epithet often accorded to ranking chiefs in
early European documents. What "beggar" and "begging" mean in Fijian terms-namely,
kerekere in the Fijian manner (kerekere vakaviti)-immediately becomes clear in Osborn's
journal entry for January 31 to February 25, 1 835:
she is an old vixen &
Canyah'smothersometimesattendsthemupontheirexpeditions[tothe Emerald];
is the terrorof all the maidsof honour&otherswho surroundthe Queen. [W]hentheyvisitthe ship,they
generallycome in a largedoublecanoe so as to bringtheirwhole retinue.Theyhardlyevercome empty
handed,butin the end theirpresentcosts twice as muchas if we hadboughtit. Beggingis the besetting
sin of them all & both sexes do not scrupleto CeryCeryfuckabedeas they call it. This is the most
unpleasantpartof the business,for if you refusethemtoo oftenyou get the reputationof being stingy,
of. [Osborn
Boorunu[?]Boorongastheycall it,whichepithettheywillkeepyou inconstantremembrance
1833-36:337-338, some punctuationadded]6
"Cery Cery fuckabede" is Osborn's immortal transcription of kerekere vakaviti-which
demonstrates that Fijians objectified the practice, perceived it as a custom, and claimed it
as their own months before the first missionaries came, decades before Fiji became a colony,
and almost a century before a colonial campaign of censure is supposed to have made them
self-conscious of it. Of course 1835 was not before centuries of intercourse between Fijians
and the peoples and customs of Tonga, Uvea, Rotuma, and other Pacific islands. For
historiographic reasons, note again the equation between "begging" and kerekere in Osborn's text, as it will persistently recur in European annals, including ethnographic accounts,
for over a century (cf. Thompson 1940:207). "Something may be learnt respecting a people
from their language," wrote the missionary Joseph Waterhouse, so unself-reflexively: "They
must ever have been liberal. Words for give and gifts there are; but none for lend. And so
exists the verb to beg, but not to borrow" (1866:346). And not only do English semantics thus
map onto Fijian, but we shall see that when English speakers describe Fijian "begging," it
has the characteristics of kerekere as we know it-as in borrowing and the so-called interest
thereon (i kerel).
For his part, Osborn had already had his fill of "begging" at Bau Island in the beginning
of his stay, at least until a chief put something like a tabu on soliciting from him. "Went to
all the chiefs' houses," his journal notes for May 5, 1834, "the women almost begged my
flesh off" (1833-36:299). Five days later, "[t]he girls at the King's house [where Osborn was
staying], now they have found out I have got something do not cease begging me"
(1833-36:299). Relief seemed to come when he moved into the house of "Saratahnoah,"
probably Seru i Tanoa, a manslayer title; he was apparently chief of the Vusaradave people,
famous warriors of Bau. "Iexpect to have some piece here," wrote Osborn in his inimitable
856
american ethnologist
[spectating]when
orthographicstyle, "asthe chief dose not allow begging & sarra-sarra-ing
I open my trunk"(1833-36:300 [May29 to June 1, 18341). Here is strongevidence that
Fijianscould manipulatekerekere,not merelydo it. Still, the interdictionnotwithstanding,
just a few days laterOsbornwas again subjectto beggarsroyal:
I went to see the old king [Tuiveikoso]; he and all his troop commenced begging directly. He should be
called a Kingof Beggars for about all hands here practice it, principally for Red Paint & Tobacco of which
all hands are immoderately fond. 11833-36:302 (June 12, 1834)]
of askingforsurplusproperty
Comparethe latterpartof thisstatement,abouttheappropriateness
butthe improprietyof takingthe only one of somethingin a potentialdonor'spossession,with
the followingethnographicnotice fromthe 1950s:
There is a proprietarydifference between a man's first knife, the one he uses, and the second, third and
fourth, if he has them. Because he can only use one knife, any others that he may have become liable to
request for possession by others both inside and beyond his family. These requests cannot easily be
denied, given the extant social relations, whereas a refusal to give an only knife is perfectly legitimate on
the grounds that the "owner"would otherwise have nothing for himself. [Sahlins 1962:1 37; this discussion
assumes that the transactions referredto would be kerekere.]
Hunt's missionary colleague R. B. Lyth-who, Thomas says, does not mention kerekere in
857
with his people" (Lyth1835-54: to his mother, May 1, 1844).7 Or consider this entry in Lyth's
daybook, outlining a day in the life of a missionary at Viwa, near Bau:
Komainaua[a high-ranking
Bauanof the TuiKabamataqali]afterpartaking
a good dinnerwantsa knife,
afterthe samewantsa knife.... Gavidi[chiefof the Lasakau
box, spades,anything.... Koroithokonauto
fishersof Bau],I hada letterto writeforhimin the morning,wantsa pairof pincers.... RatuMeliwants
a whalestooth .... RatuIlaija[Varani,a highchiefof Viwa]wantsto borrowthe canoe. [Lyth1849-50:
September13, 18491
Western missionaries and merchants presented themselves to the chiefs and would-be
chiefs as means of their own generosity, a source of status all the more necessary and strategic
insofar as the disposition of European goods was fast becoming a condition of Fijian noblesse.
Coupled with the moral assimilation of the foreigner created by participation in kerekere,
this demand on ranking chiefs helps account for their own importunate "begging." "The
chiefs seem to think we are sitting in their land merely to supply their covetous desires," the
missionary Thomas Jaggarconfides in his diary (Jaggar 1837-43: August 22, 1839). He goes
on to tell how the Rewa paramount, Kania, had asked for many goods and had accused the
missionaries themselves of asking for things but not giving any, from which the chief had
concluded they had "no love for him." An analogous notice of Gavidi, head of the
fisher-warriors of Bau (Lasakau), indeed suggests that the strategic dunning of foreigners
increased with rank. Or so supposed Mary Wallis, wife of an American beche-de-mer trader,
because Gavidi's "begging" intensified after he had been favored by the Bau war-king with
the betrothal of the latter's daughter:
Navindicameto visit.He wishedto beg five axesof Mr.W[allis],whichbeingrefused,he departedvery
muchdispleased.Sincethischiefhasbeen betrothedto thedaughterof theking,he appearsto be looking
up, and begs in a wholesalemanner.IWallis1851:210]
The list of great chiefs characterized as "great beggars" in the early European chronicles
reads like the Fijian Social Register. The rulers of the leading kingdoms, Bau, Rewa, and
Cakaudrove, have already been mentioned. Not to forget their royal wives, such as Qereitoga
of Bau, of whom the American trader Eagleston wrote, "she is a great beggar but any little
present satisfies her for the visit" (Eagleston 1831-36:380-381). Or the wife of Tuikilakila,
whose honor her husband defended by threatening to kill the missionaries Hunt and Lythfor
"expostulating with the Queen about her extravagant begging" (Hunt 1839-47: December
16, 1839). Likewise cast in this mendicant light by Western journalists are Ritova, a ruling
chief of Macuata (Wallis 1851:143, 148, 393), and the major herald of Lau,Tui Tubou, whom
Lythdescribed as "a most original character: a consummate liar, hypocritical, vain, covetous,
insinuating, an endless beggar" (n.d.:27).
Not that the chiefs found the missionaries an easy mark. On the contrary, they were often
left complaining how "difficult"the foreigners were. Even if they did get what they asked for,
they often had to endure a righteous sermon on their mendacity. A Rewa royal, Ratu
Qaraniqio, objected to Jaggar that "when he begged of us we did not give him what we
wanted without talking a great deal about it, & that he hated, etc" (Jaggar1837-43: October
14, 1839). "'This is a land of chiefs,'" Tuikilakila replied to the missionaries when they
disapproved of his constant begging, " '& it is our custom to give & not to sell. Give us your
riches, & we will freely give you food'" (Lyth 1835-42: December 30, 1839). Another
characteristic incident related by Lyth concerns a Bau chief who, while on a visit to the
Cakaudrove capital Somosomo, entered into an argument with the missionary over the lotu,
"Christianity."When Lyth protested that he and his colleagues had come to Fiji out of love
for the people and a desire to save their souls, the Bauan disputed the moral proposition,
precisely in exchange terms:
"youcome here&you will only buyand sell, and we hatebuying.Whenwe askyou fora thingyou say
no. If a Feejeean said no, we shd kill him, don't you know that. We [Bauans] are a land of Chiefs. We
858
american ethnologist
have plentyof riches.When we come to Somosomowe haveplentyof pigs and [thesame] in Lakemba
and in everykoro[town].We havethemwithoutbuying,we hatebuyingand we hatethe lotu.We will
. . . He concludedby begginga knifeforone of his friends,which
neverlotu [convertto Christianity]."
as Icould. [Lythn.d.:74-76]
aftersucha conversationIthoughtitbestto refuse,whichIdidas respectfully
An interesting case of moral schismogenesis broke out between the early missionaries and
the Fijians over the proprieties of exchange. Each party perceived and disapproved of the
other's habitual economic behavior from the perspective of their own. Fijians contrasted
their customary generosity-and it was definitely customary, as Tuikilakila said-with the
self-regarding buying and selling of the white men, even as the latter were virtuously
comparing the honest repayment of value with Fijian "begging." But for good reason, I am
not suggesting we push back the institutionalization of kerekere another 60 or 100 years,
seeing it now as a reaction to the missionaries and beche-de-mer traders, or even earlier to
the European sandalwood traders who worked over western Vanua Levu for about ten years
at the beginning of the 19th century. One good reason is the disproportion between the
external trade and its supposed internal cultural effects. Again, are we to believe that this
pervasive and systematic mode of exchange, so well integrated into Fijian social structure
and politics, developed out of pique over the people's occasional commercial dealings with
a handful of white men? Another good reason to suppose otherwise is that if this is all it takes,
then the Samoans, Tongans, Hawaiians, New Caledonians, New Guineans, indeed virtually
all Pacific islanders should have the specific equivalent of kerekere, as a named, self-conscious, emblematic, and protean custom, because they have all had the same kind of
experience with European commercial ethics. But this has not happened. On the other hand,
one can reasonably conclude that so far as the historical evidence runs, it was Fijians' own
ease of exchange, their already customary kerekere, that led them to construct the Europeans
as difficult, rather than the selfishness of Europeans that caused Fijians to construct themselves as generous-by fabricating a custom of kerekere.
The contrasts in economic behavior also had a reflex within the missionary camp. The
willingness of some of "the brethren" to acquiesce in Fijian "begging," notably John Hunt,
brought the remonstrances of others, notably James Calvert. Calvert has a long passage about
this issue in Fiji and the Fijians, in the course of which he argues that some of his colleagues
have been too liberal in trying to conciliate the chiefs by making presents (Williams and
Calvert 1859:11, 430-432). He contends (speciously) that this behavior lowers the missionaries' prestige, as unrequited giving is for Fijians "an acknowledgment of inferiority and
subjection." So Hunt's "kind heart" in this respect-"he was renowned among the natives
for his liberality"-has led him into difficulty. Calvert reports that Cakobau, the famous Bau
war-king, once said of Hunt: "He is ready to give when he can ill spare the article we beg.
He is a kind man. But the missionary at Lakeba gives you a preachment and lecture when
you beg of him!" Calvert proudly cites this reproach on himself: he was the missionary at
Lakeba. Moreover, he was now coming to the Bau circuit with the intention of "abolishing
the system of promiscuous giving." He proceeds to relate "the first step" he took "towards
the reformation," which was precisely to lecture Cakobau on how the latter would be happy
when he took the religion Calvert offered and would be cured when he took Calvert's
medicines. Calvert added, "when I send [to England] for goods, I have to pay for them, and
you must pay for whatever I obtain for you." With his usual address, Cakobau replied that
he was glad to know the right plan. Calvert was satisfied to have made his point, but it seems
he was not so sanguine about the effect, because the practice of "persistent begging" went
quite beyond the chiefs:
A decisiveand importantstep was thustaken,which madeiteasierto resistthe persistentbeggingof the
smallerpeople.Yet,in manycases, itwas stillhardto refuse;forthe nativesweresuchaccomplishedand
judiciousbeggars,neveraskingbutwhen they saw a good opportunity.Nevertheless,thoughit was still
necessaryto make occasional presents,the more reservedplan was found to answer;for the people
859
860
american ethnologist
the methodological principle that certain customs, of which kerekere is one, are better
understoodin lightof theirexternaldeterminationsthanas positionalvalues in an indigenous
culturalscheme. The colonial system is, then, the raison d'etre of kerekereas we know
it-indeed it would be otherwisedifficultto know it at all, as Thomas'sresearchseems to
demonstrate.The empiricalgroundof kerekereis providedby the Britishcolonial order, in
the sense that kerekere'scultural form, its essential attributes,and its salient values are
derived therefrom,if only by negation and inversion.These matterswould appear in a
differentlight,however,if kerekereprovedto have been a recognizedentity,self-consciously
Fijian,beforethe advent of the colonial power.
Thehistoricalnarrativeof kerekerewould then be differentintwo importantways (at least).
First,Fijianswould have to be grantedan autonomousand positive role in theirself-representation as a people who customarilypractice kerekere. In the event, the process of
essentializingkerekerewas reciprocal,involvingFijiansas much as Europeansand entailing
a complementarynegative assessmenton the Fijians'partof the foreigners'own exchange
habits.We have alreadyseen this schismogenesisunfoldingin the documentsof the 1830s
and 1840s: kerekere versus buying and selling. The Europeanswere not playing with
amateursin the game of "constructingthe other."Accordingly,the mutualepitomizing of
Fijiansand Europeansin economic termsbegan well before BasilThomson'sreporton the
decrease of the native population.And second, the Fijians'self-characterizationin termsof
kerekere had cultural grounds in their own conceptions, given that they already knew
kerekereas a distinctivelyindigenouscustom.Theessentializationof kerekerewas well and
trulymotivated(inthe sense of being logicallyauthorized)inthe Fijianculturalscheme, even
if Fijianswere not solely responsiblefor it, because it developed by invidiouscontrastto the
practicesof others.On the other hand, it is clear that Britishcolonial pressurewas by itself
insufficienttomakean element of Fijianculturethe emblemof indigenousidentity,forother
customssingled out by governmentpolicy and reproachdid not achieve such significance.
The customs of chiefly requisitioncalled IaIawere subject to official opprobriumand
legislation, along with and in equal measure to kerekere.But Fijiansdid not represent
themselves in termsof Ilal-despite the fact that, as Thomasobserves, the "neotraditional"
culture had a chiefly bias. Nor did the mataqali, or clan, ever become emblematic,
notwithstandingthat its universalityand proprietarysignificancewere enduringchimerasof
the Britishadministration(as we shall see). Forall its power, the colonial statedid not have
the hegemonicculturaleffectsthatsome anthropologistsand historianshave been too quick
to accord it (cf. Guha 1989). And as for kerekereand its laterhistory,there is strongreason
to believe that its salience had good empirical-meaningfulgroundin the way Fijiansrelied
upon it in the colonial situation.Itdid come to have a singularfunctionalconnection with
Fijianunity.
*
We are now in the colonial period. The line taken earlierby Calvert,that kerekerewas
the economic ruinof Fijians,preventingthe accumulationof wealth by distributingit from
the haves to the have-nots,had a brilliantcareer in colonial ideology. It played notably as
the theme of an intense anti-kerekerecampaignthat began about 1897 and lasted another
10 to 15 years.The campaignwas encouragedby two governors,Sir GeorgeT. M. O'Brien
and Sir Everardim Thurn, who were bent on reversingthe Fijian "communalsystem"
invented by Sir ArthurGordon. Convinced that the Fijianswere dying out, im Thurnhad
even biggerplansthan the developmentof Fijian"individualism":
namely,the alienationof
Fijianlands(France1969; Macnaught1982). Hence at the turnof the century,the agitation
againstpracticessuch as kerekerebecame feverish,includingmoves to legally abolish the
practice.CertainFijiansnow formedan anti-kerekereleague, publishingtheirnames in the
861
862
american ethnologist
historyconsists of and how it should be done. Perhapssomethingof the same can come out
of the arguments about Fijian kerekere.
863
after 1913. This official creation of Fijiansocial structurefinally opened the way for the
institutionalizationof collective ownership by the major,mataqalisegments, a significant
part of the "communalsystem" promoted by Sir ArthurGordon that a series of Lands
Commissionsbeginningin 1880 had failedto implement.After1913, however,the colonial
even a Fijianrealityto the extent that it
tenuresystembecame a workingmisunderstanding,
constitutedthe structuralmediationbetween governmentand local society. As such it was
known and practiced by Fijianswith interestsin this mediation. Still, ethnographerafter
geographerwould testifythat the official Fijiansystem was not the way it worked in the
villages. Landholdingand landuse were subjectto othergroupsand relationshipsthanwere
envisioned inthe "clans,"or mataqalisegments.Nordid the governmenthierarchyof lineage
groupsdescribe local social orders,let alone accommodatethe changes in village structures
since the time the systemhad been inscribedin official documents.In the event, as many
researchersand even census-takersdiscovered,people often could not articulatethe system
of groupsby which they were supposedlyorganized,much less say with certaintyto which
groups they personallybelonged (see, for example, Clammer1973; France 1969; Nayacakalou 1975, 1978; Sahlins1962; Toren 1990; Ward1965; Watters1969).
It is fashionablethese days to talk about the disciplines laid on by colonial regimes, the
policies of taxation,classification,enumeration,education,sanitation,and their like. Unfortunately,it also seems fashionableto readdirectlyfromthe colonial impositionsto the social
Too often this turnsout
existence of the colonized people-or even to their "subjectivity."
to be an overestimateof colonial power and an underestimateof the people's historical
agency and culturalintegrity.Inspiredby the Fijianexamples, as also by RanajitGuha's
discussion of colonial "dominancewithouthegemony"(1989), one mightinsteadhazarda
to the effectthatno assertionof an imperialistdiscipline
subalternprincipleof historiography,
can be received as an event of colonial history without a properethnographyof that
discipline's local practice.We cannot equate colonial historysimplywith the historyof the
colonizers. It remainsto be known how the impositionsof the colonial state are culturally
mediatedby the indigenouspeople, or indeed how they are culturallysabotaged.
notes
IamgratefuIto theanonymousreviewersof the firstversionof thiscommentary.They
Acknowledgments.
caused me to thinkharderand,I hope, betteron the issues.
1. I have takenthe assertionsand much of the wordingof this and the precedingparagraphfroman
articlein press,"Goodbyeto TristesTropes"(Sahlins1993).
2. Quitea way furtheron in his earlierarticle,Thomasdoes mentionanotherethnologistand a colonial
hasinfactalways
inthecontextof thesomewhatcuriousstatementthat"[klerekere
administrator-ethnologist
been alludedto, or moreextensivelydiscussed,specificallyin relationto the questionof the inhibitionof
enterpriseand development(e.g., Brewster... Roth... Belshaw... Sahlins1970(1960], 84)"(Thomas
1992b:71).
3. Basil Thomson has a substantialdiscussion of kerekere in his own name in The Fijians:A Study of the
864
american ethnologist
5. Because the form of the Cargilloriginal is unknown to me, I cannot say definitively that the John Hunt
manuscript grammar and dictionary (a microfilm of which I have seen) is a copy, but this seems likely as
Hunt had barely arrived in Fijiwhen he wrote it (1839).
6. "Boorunu [?] Boorong" would be Osborn's transcription of buroburogo, "refusing to give things"
(Capell 1973:20).
7. Lythgoes on to mention that whale's teeth are "thegreat article"and in continual circulation. He notes
that besides knives, axes, and calico, Tuikilakilaoften "begs" the missionaries for food-that is, pork, fowl,
or tea. "Indeed the Mission House is a general store for all his wants" (Lyth1835-54: to his mother, May 1,
1844).
8. The Na Mata letters were signed with pseudonyms. One of the critics, Vulagi Tauloto, thus puts the
case for abolishing kerekere:
It is our strictduty to gather all the old customs of our land together and pile them up, firstdeciding on a
division of them into two groups: those that are useless and bad, not appropriate to this time, which we
will throw aside directly; while those that are good and useful will be preserved, to add to the good things
the government gives us so we can make use of them. [1905:1 72-1 73]
9. Curiously, Thomas likewise cites Fijian uncertainty about what the colonial administrationmeant to
prohibit by banning kerekere as evidence of the practice's indeterminate nature and thus of a need to find
out from government what kerekere was (1992b:78).
10. Peter Francecites a Fijiancontribution to a church magazine (duringthe same period as the Na Mata
debate) that held Christianityresponsible for the expansion of kerekere. In the old days, a man could "beg
... only from his chief or his relatives," but now Christianityhas made all men brothers and kerekere is
equally indiscriminate-which is definitely not Fijian custom but "half-caste"(1969:1 56).
11. "Earlyin my investigations of kerekere I asked a man the following very naive question: 'Suppose
two men, one a relative of yours and one not, had something you needed, which would you go to [for
kerekere]' The reply was to this effect: 'I would go to my relative, of course. If he didn't give it to me, and
the other man did, I would know that the other man was really my relative.' " [Sahlins 1962:204]
12. In his manuscript The Windward Islands of Fiji, Hocart recounts a history of the anti-kerekere
campaign that was omitted from the published version, Lau Islands, Fiji:
Saimone None0a [Goneca] of Nakorosule in Viti Levu claimed to have originated the anti-begging
campaign. His idea was to prohibit only the begging of money and European goods which have been
bought with money. Other hill tribes, being jealous that he had originated this idea, insisted on going one
better and proposed to forbid all begging. As Saimone foresaw, the whole thing collapsed because it was
unworkable, and the wearers of anti-begging badges were soon obliged to beg from their neighbours.
[n.d.:128-1 29]
references cited
Bateson, Gregory
1935 Culture Contact and Schismogenesis. Man (n.s.) 35:178-183.
Cabral, Amilcar
1973 Returnto the Source: Selected Speeches by Amilcar Cabral. New York:Monthly Review Press.
Capell, Arthur
1973 A New Fijian Dictionary. FourthEdition.Suva: Government Printer.
Cargill, David, et al.
c.1 839 Fijian Dictionary. MS, photocopy in the files of Paul Geraghty (original housed as A 2065 in the
Mitchell Library,Sydney).
Cata Na Kerekere
1905 Ai suani Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, January:11-12.
Clammer, John R.
1973 Colonialism and the Perception of Traditionin Fiji. In Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.
T. Asad, ed. Pp. 199-220. London: Ithaca Press.
Comaroff, John L.
1989 Images of Empire, Contests of Conscience: Models of Colonial Domination in South Africa.
American Ethnologist 16:661-685.
Eagleston, John H.
1831-36 Ups and Downs through Life.MS, Peabody Museum, Salem, MA.
France, Peter
1969 The Charterof the Land:Custom and Colonization in Fiji.Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Geraghty, Paul
1978 Fijian Dialect Diversity and Foreigner Talk: The Evidence of Missionary Manuscripts. In Fijian
Language Studies: Borrowing and Pidginization. Bulletin of the FijiMuseum No. 4. A. Schitz, ed. Pp.
51-67. Suva: FijiMuseum.
Godelier, Maurice
1991 Is the West the Model for Humankind?The Baruya of New Guinea between Change and Decay.
InternationalSocial Science Journal 128:387-399.
865
Gregory, Chris A.
1982 Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press.
Guha, Ranajit
1989 Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography. In SubalternStudies VI. R. Guha, ed. Pp.
210-309. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guta Na Vinaka
1898 A Kerekere.Na Mata, October:1 51-152.
Hale, Horatio
1968[1846] Ethnographyand Philology. United States ExploringExpeditionSeries, 6. Ridgewood, NJ:
Gregg Press.
Hazelwood, David
1850 A Feejeean & Englishand an English & Feejeean Dictionary. Viwa: Wesleyan Mission Press.
Herskovits, Melville J.
1935 A Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. Man (n.s.) 35:145-148.
Hocart, ArthurM.
1929 Lau Islands, Fiji. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 62. Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum.
n.d. The Windward Islandsof Fiji.MS, MS Papers 60, Alexander Turnbull Library,Wellington.
Hunt, John
1839 Grammarand Dictionary, 1839. MS, microfilm in AlexanderTurnbullLibrary,Wellington (original
in the Smithsonian Institution,Washington DC).
1839-47 FijiJournalof John Hunt. 2 vols. MS, Methodist MissionarySociety, South Seas Box 5b, School
of Oriental and African Studies Library,University of London.
Jaggar,Thomas
1837-43 Diaries of Thomas Jaggar, 1837-1843. MS, microfilm in the Pacific Collection, Adelaide
University Library(original in the Fiji National Archives, Suva).
Kaisi Saka-rika LigaligaMatua
1905a Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, November: 168-170.
1905b Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, August:118-120.
Keesing, Roger M.
1989 Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific. The Contemporary Pacific
1:19-42.
Levi-Strauss,Claude
1952 Race and History. Paris: UNESCO.
1971 Rapportsde symetrie entre rites et mythes de peuples voisins. In The Translationof Culture. T. O.
Beidelman, ed. Pp. 161-178. London: Tavistock.
1990[1971 The Naked Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyth, Richard Burdsall
1835-2
Journalof Rev. R. B. Lyth, 1835-1842. MS, B533, Mitchell Library,Sydney.
1835-54 Lettersto and from Rev. Dr. R. B. Lyth,1 835-54. MS, A836, Mitchell Library,Sydney.
1849-50 Day-book, 1849-1850. MS, CYB 538, Mitchell Library,Sydney.
n.d. Tongan and Feejeean Reminiscences. MS, B549, Mitchell Library,Sydney.
Macnaught, TimothyJ.
1982 The FijianColonial Experience. Canberra:The Australian National University.
MaristMission
1854 Essaide Grammaireet Dictionaire Fidjien-Francais,by a MaristPriest,1854. MS, microfilm, Pacific
Manuscripts Bureau451, Turnbull Library,Wellington.
Methodist Missionary Society
1839-57 Methodist Missionary Society In-Letters.MS, Box 533, School of Oriental and African Studies
Library,Universityof London.
Nayacakalou, R. R.
1975 Leadershipin Fiji. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
1978 Tradition and Change in the Fijian Village. Suva: South Pacific Social Sciences Association in
association with Instituteof Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Osborn, Joseph Warren
1833-36 Journalof a Voyage in the Ship Emerald... during the years 1833, 4, 5, & 6. MS, microfilm,
Pacific ManuscriptsBureau 223:269-446 (original in the Peabody Museum, Salem, MA).
Sahlins, Marshall
1962 Moala: Culture and Nature on a FijianIsland. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan Press.
1993 Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Ethnography in the Context of Modern World History. Journal of
Modern History.(In press.)
Spradley, James P.
1969 Guests Never Leave Hungry:The Autobiographyof James Sewid, a KwakiutlIndian. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Stoler, Ann
1985 Capitalism and Confrontation in Sumatra's Plantation Belt, 1870-1929. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
866
american ethnologist
Thomas, Nicholas
1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
1992a The Inversion of Tradition. American Ethnologist19:213-232.
1992b Substantivization and Anthropological Discourse: The Transformationof Practices into Institutions in Neotraditional Pacific Societies. In History and Tradition in Melanesian Anthropology. J. G.
Carrier,ed. Pp. 64-85. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.
Thomson, Basil
1908 The Fijians:A Study of the Decay of Custom. London: Heinemann.
Thompson, Laura
1940 Southern Lau, Fiji:An Ethnography.Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 162. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum.
Toren, Christina
1990 Making Sense of Hierarchy:Cognition as Social Process in Fiji. London: Athlone Press.
Trigger,Bruce
1975 Brecht and Ethnohistory.Ethnohistory22:51-56.
Wallis, Mary ("A Lady")
1851 Life in Feejee; or, Five Years among the Cannibals. Boston: William Heath.
Vakatudaliga
1905a Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, July:l11-112.
1905b Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, October:1 54-155.
Vatu ni Tatabe ni Turaga
1899 Ai Vola ki Na Mata: A Kerekere. Na Mata, September:141.
Via Veivuke
1898 Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekere. Na Mata, December:186.
Vulagi Tauloto
1905 Ai Sau ni Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, November:1 70-173.
Ward, R. Gerard
1965 Land Use and Population in Fiji. London: Her Majesty's StationeryOffice.
Waterhouse, Joseph
1866 The King and People of Fiji. London: Wesleyan Conference Office.
Watters, R. F.
1969 Koro: Economic Development and Social Change in Fiji.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Williams, Thomas, and James Calvert
1859 Fiji and the Fijians. 2 vols. New York:D. Appleton.
867