Firth Media

www.questmediaproductions.co.uk

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

This article outlines the main ideas purveyed by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Firstly, focus will be drawn towards the construct of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, explaining the framework and ideologies that the hypothesis consists of. Further, an analysis of the historical, current and future representation of the Whorfian hypothesis will follow.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis fundamentally expresses that language creates a cognitive framework for perceiving, understanding and articulating ones world. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis language is responsible for structuring the conscious and unconscious interpretations of personal existence, also stating that language is the determining element of installing structural guidelines for human thought to follow. (Barfield 1997:492). For example different languages will produce unique world views constructed primarily through the specific use and expression of language, such as the construct of phonetics and application of the specifics of syntax. “Classical examples include grammatical forms such as gendered singular pronouns in English (he, she), hierarchal markers such as elder brother/younger brother in Chinese and tu/vous in French, and whether a language has generic or specific words to define varieties of things such as plants, food, snow, cars and so forth”. (Barfield 1997:492).

It is apparent within the expressed Sapir-Whorf ideas that language is essential for the conceptualisation of ones environment along with creating a symbolic framework in which thought and ideas can be expressed and interpreted. Further, emphasis is placed on the concept that different languages produce different world views due to the selective organisation, structural expression and depth of semantics any language possess.

For example, in Brown’s (1976:128) work he demonstrates that the Whorfian hypothesis put forth such ideas as, “The structure of anyone’s native language strongly influences or fully determines the world view he will acquire as he learns the language.” (Kay. P, Kempton 1984:66). Therefore according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis language is infact the essential medium that construct’s a framework for cognitive thought and social conversion to be initiated, along with fundamentally influencing the personal perceptions of one world.

In understanding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis one must take into account the historical influences that shaped Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf’s conceptual ideologies towards the relativity of language. Firstly, “The doctrine of radical linguistic relativity is to be understood historically as a reaction to the denigrating attitude toward unwritten languages that was fostered by the evolutionary view prevalent in anthropology in the 19^th century”. (Kay. P, Kempton 1984:65). This lead to the research of Boas and his students presenting detailed analysis that non western cultures with unwritten languages was subsequently as “systematic and as logically rich as any European language.” ( Kay. P, Kempton 1984:65 ). As Sapir was Boas’s student and Whorf was Sapir’s the assimilation of their methodological approaches, similar conceptual perceptions and ideologies where gained through shared and transcended knowledge. Furthermore, one could argue that without the heavily ethnocentric evolutionary views that emerged out of Europe from the 19^th century towards unwritten languages, there would have been little instigation for Boas and his student to carry out their contrasting relativist’s approach of studies that in turn have reshaped prejudices early evolutionist’s expressed. Thus ultimately directly influencing the rationale for the ideas and approaches to emerge between Sapir and Whorf’s hypothesis. Therefore, due to the historical circumstances of cultural prejudices forming within Europe towards other native languages the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was spawned.

From a more current perspective the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has impacted anthropologists ideas, perceptions and methodologies towards the relativity of language. For example, critical analysis of the how people of alternative languages classify particular objects or visually presented forms, such as colours are framed cognitively within the specific language one is subjected to according the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. ( John A. Lucy and Richard A. Shweder 1981) This expressed idea has lead anthropologist to undergo further studies in questioning and understanding this facet of the hypothesis. One well known approach to researching language and thought that has been predominately influenced by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is colour classification testing. In the earlier period of colour-research it followed the interpreted ideas of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that “language shapes thought” ( John A. Lucy and Richard A. Shweder 1981:133), although ironically as colour-research developed further, anthropologists such as Kay shifted towards “ the psychological inequalities of the colour spectrum”, which questioned foundations of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Therefore, current perception and ideologies have been heavily influenced by the fundamental ideas of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, thus creating a framework that anthropologist have based their endeavours of further research of the relativity of language on.

In conclusion, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis historically manifested itself due to reaction to early evolutionary views of non-European languages being of more basic construct, thus presenting in its hypothesis that in fact other language of the world were as rich as European languages. Fundamentally the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis expresses the key ideas that language is the framework for cognitive thought, expression and interpretation to occur by. The hypothesis is responsible for moulding and influencing current day approaches to the relativity of language, and will continue to raise further thought and rebuttal between anthropologists in the world of academia.

Balinese Cockfighting

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

The following aticle is analysis of a series of six photographs of the Balinese cockfight. Firstly, I will outline the significant circumstances that lead to my positioning among a group of Balinese engaging in the ritual of cockfighting. An approach of comparing and contrasting the writings of Clifford Geertz’s and his interpretive account of the Balinese cockfight will be addressed, followed by an in-depth analysis of the problems of accurate representation and interpretation of Geertz’s writing and my photographs. Inclusive in the overall text focus will be drawn to the relevance of photography as a tool in ethnography.

Technical Data:

Photographer: Jess Ramon Firth

Photos taken: February 2004.

Fuji NPH 400asa 35mm colour film, the six colour prints are 8×12inch originals.

Camera used: Canon SLR EOS 3000 with 28-80mm lens.

Shots where taken in low light conditions with slow shutter speeds, between 30^th and 60^th of a second, this has had the effect of softening the images and showing movement.

Positioning Space and Time.

The sequence of photos provided, at a first glance are a series of images of the Balinese cockfight. Firstly, I feel obliged to give explanatory account of my presence among the Balinese; this is to help further illuminate the realities of the space and time which the six photos are reflective of. This is an attempt to clarify how and why I was privileged enough to take part in the culturally significant ritual of cockfighting, as well as to justify the authenticity of the ritual in the sense of it being in no way staged for the delights of tourist photography.

In late February 2004 I arrived with a friend on the Indonesia archipelago, spending several weeks traveling through Java, Bali and Lombok. During my time in Bali my travel companion and I investigated the islands landscape by the mode of motorcycle; unfortunately I was involved in a minor accident, being knocked off my bike about 30 kilometers north of Depensar. Fortunately I was able to push my damaged bike and body to a nearby village where I came in contact with a Balinese man named Suko. Suko was to be my savior, fixing my motorcycle, dressing my wounds, and later that afternoon inviting my friend and me to a traditional Balinese cockfight. It was most likely my probing questions of the cockfight and praise for his magnificent roosters that where caged near the entrance of his house that lead to our invite to the ritual late that afternoon. Geertz describes in “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” that if one is not part of Balinese society or culture then they are treated as almost as a transparent being. In Geertz’s account he explains “We were intruders, professional ones, and the villagers dealt with us as Balinese seem always to deal with people not part of their life who yet press themselves upon them: as though they were not there. For them, and to a degree for ourselves, we were non persons, spectators, invisible men.” (1973:412). It is from my experience this textual description rings not entirely true. From the moment I meet Suko he went out of his way to help, and further, introducing me to his family and friends. In this particular instance Geertz’s cultural interpretation and representation of the Balinese presents itself in contrast to my own experience of the Balinese, but it is possible that this may be because of broader historical realities, such as the increase of western influences and impact in Balinese society since 1958 when Geertz visited the island. (Fox, 1991). But in contrast to the above statement, on arrival to the site in which the cockfighting took place I experienced this treatment of social invisibility that Geertz so clearly describes. During my time spent with the Balinese men as they actively engaged in the cockfighting ritual my friend and I were indeed “invisible men”, with the exception of the occasional acknowledgement from Suko and his invite to bet our money for us on his own fighting cock.

Textual and Photographic Account

Geertz’s descriptive and interpretive ethnographic accounts of culture can be seen as problematic; the totality of his writing is reliant on the descriptive abilities of his writing, based on his own interpretation of culture through finding meaning in “webs of significance” (1973:5), Geertz ignores the possibility of photography as an accompanying documentation method, using text as his only reflection of culture. For example, “The concept of culture I espouse, . . . is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in the search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.” ( Geertz, 1973:5 ).

These ideas are the bases to Geertz’s theoretical approaches and conceptual methods towards the interpretation of culture through symbolic meaning, and fundamentally have acted as premises for Geertz’s ethnographic inquiries and writings to be articulated and interpreted within modern anthropology. (Barnard, 2000). It is my argument that Geertz’s confidences in his ethnographic writing abilities, has lead him to disregarding the use of photography as a valid ethnographic research and documentation tool. Throughout Geertz’s ethnography’s, in particular “Deep Play” there is not a single use of photography; instead he represents the Balinese cockfight purely through his own experience and interpretation in his writing. For example, In “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” Geertz’z has taken ethnographic authority in interpreting the surface symbolism of the actual event of the cockfight, adding depth and meaning by in a sense dissecting the metaphorical presentation of the fight, and in result textually describing this cultural event and its relevance to understanding Balinese society with great depth. “In identifying with his cock, the Balinese man is identifying not just with his ideal self, or even his penis, but also, and at the same time, with what he most fears, hates, and ambivalence being what it is, is fascinated by - The Powers of Darkness.” (Geertz, 1973:420). I believe that this symbolic interpretation of the Balinese cockfight could have been illuminated further with the combined assistance of photographs of the event, thus illustrating Geertz’s discourse on the subject with greater depth and interpretive insight to his own experience of being there as the ethnographer. Photographs could have added additional insight into the actual event of the cockfight, framing particular aspects that Geertz witnessed and displaying the environmental influences that aided in shaping his interpretations, thus giving the reader of the ethnography a more holistic account.

Pink argues that, “Ethnographic research is intertwined with visual images and metaphors.” (2001:17). In Geertz’s cases he relays the visual images and metaphors of culture through what he describes as “Thick Desciption”, which is essentially the Geertzian framework for interpreting and textually presenting culture. (Shankman, 1984). “Looked at in this way, the aim of anthropology is the enlargement of the universe of human discourse. That is not, of course its only aim. . . But it is an aim to which a semeiotic concept of culture is peculiarly well adapted. As an interworked system of construable signs (what, ignoring provincial usages, I would call symbols), culture is not power , something to which social events, behaviors, institutions or processes can be casually attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly­ - that is, thickly - described.” (Geertz, 1993:14).

Geertz is fundamentally reliant on his own discourses in the ethnographic inquiry of culture, thus transcending imagery through his text to be cognitively interpreted by the reader. Ultimately, I believe that Geertz’s writings on the Balinese cockfight could have been improved with the inclusion of photography as a visual aid in his work. This would have demonstrated the visual realities of the space and time of the ethnographic environment Geertz was immersed in, thus allowing further interpretation of the ritualistic setting of the cockfight to be made by the reader.

Representation and Interpretation of Geertz’s writing and my photography.

In my own photography of the Balinese cockfight I have arranged six selected images in the attempt to visually tell a story of this aspect of Balinese culture. These images are a demonstration of visual representation of the Balinese cockfight, and are essentially an attempt to explain the actions of the cockfight. In effect, “patterns of culture are what we are presenting when we do anthropology; and taking photographs, or looking, or taking notes are tools for articulating and stating the patterns that we anthropologists, wish to show others.” (Mead, 1980:190). Being an anthropology student and having been influenced by the field of study I felt compelled in the instance of attending the Balinese cockfight to document these cultural actions through the use of photography. In photo 1 is a Balinese man presenting a cock to the crowd, enticing those who wish to bet on the cock to place a bet. In the centre of the photograph one can see the attached steel spur to the rooster’s leg; Geertz also illuminates this in his monograph of the cockfight. “The selected cocks have their spurs (tadji) affixed – razor-sharp, pointed steel swords, four or five inches long.” (Geertz, 1973:421). The textual description of Geertz appears comparatively aligned with photo 1, which visually aids his commentary and ultimately presents a visual guide to his text. “In many cases, social investigators choose to create some marriage of text and image, where each provides a commentary on the other.” (Banks, 1995). Arguably, as stated earlier the accuracy of Geertz’s work could have been improved if he had of “married” his monograph of the cockfight with additional photography. It is possible that if Geertz presented the reader with additional photography of the cockfight the reader would not be entirely dependant on cognitively shaping interpretive understandings of the text. Therefore, the reader would not have to rely only on intertextual references to illuminate the text, meaning that the photo becomes a point of visual reference and essentially reinforces the ethnographic narrative.

Photo 2 depicts two cocks being placed in the centre ring area by their handlers. The mid-range close up camera angle used here focuses attention towards the cocks that are about to engage in fighting, selectively drawing attention away from the surrounding crowd. This approach could be seen as a prime example that raises Collier’s point of, “The camera, however automatic is a tool that is highly sensitive to the attitudes of its operator. Like the tape recorder it documents mechanically but does not by its mechanics necessarily limit the sensitivity of the human observer; it is a tool of both extreme selectivity and no selectivity at all.” (1986:9). As all photography is bound by this reality, photo 2 clearly demonstrates my own selectivity towards placing emphases upon the roosters about to fight, which raises the point of the authority of representation. Representation of culture or a cultural manifestation within the historical boundaries of anthropology is most often served and trusted by the ethnographic researcher that has experienced the alternative culture, such as through participant observation. “. . . The experience of the researcher can serve as a unifying source of authority in the field. Experiential authority is based on a “feel” for the foreign context, a kind of accumulated savvy and a sense of the style of a people or place.” (Clifford, 1988:35). In the particular case of photo 2 I have taken authority into my own hands, although I am no ethnographer, I have been enculturated with anthropological ideas through my studies, and it is possible that my own subjectivities have been influenced to focus on documenting what I have come to understand as the key visual elements of the Balinese cockfight. Collectively, the six photos have selectively been chosen chronologically to represent the act of a Balinese cockfight beginning to end. Therefore, the representational authority of the Balinese cockfight in this instance is reflective of my own subjective photographic approach; Geertz’s (1973) writing on the subject could also be viewed in the same manner, due to the inescapable reality that ones own subjectivity and ethnocentricities will always be present in their own interpretation and representation of culture. (Keesing, 1976).

In photo 3 I have selectively attempted to portray a more holistic view of the Balinese cockfight by using a wide angle shot that includes both the audience of the cockfight and the cocks themselves. Comparatively, this photo further brings to light Geertz textual account, “Surrounding all this melodrama the crowd is packed tight around the ring, following in near silence. . .” (Geertz, 1973:423). Interpretively, photo 3 illustrates great similarities to this text. Furthermore, it is likely that my motivations to frame photo 3 in this manner stem from the broader social realities of how photography is used and presented in my own society. For example, “Ethnographers themselves are members of societies in which photography and video are already practiced and understood in particular ways. The ways in which individual ethnographers approach the visual in their research and representation is inevitably influenced by a rage of factors, including theoretical beliefs, disciplinary agendas, personal experience, gendered identities and different visual cultures.” (Pink, 2001:29). In my own case the above stated factors can broadly be applied to influencing my own approach and style of documenting cultural facets through photography, not only in photo 3 but in all images I consume and produce. It is possible that my previous contact with Geertz’s descriptive writing of the cockfight acted as a key proponent in influencing how and why I documented the Balinese cockfight. In addition, the stylistic approach to framing photo 3 in its presented manner is possibly due to influence of the imagery I have come in contact with in my own society. Therefore, the consumption and production of images, namely photographs, is shaped to ones own enculturation and exposure to surrounding influences; by acknowledging this and attempting to realise the significance and existence of ones own subjectivity a reflexive appreciation is achieved, which ultimately “. . . recognises the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production and representation of ethnographic knowledge.” (Pink, 2001:19).

Because Photo 4 and 5 have been shot with a slow shutter speed the captured effect is blurred movement of the cocks fighting. These two photos effectively highlight the reality of movement in the frames of focus. Arguably, this depiction of movement is functional of intensifying significant actions; it can be viewed as a stylistic attempt to captivate the attention of the audience. Although photos 4 and 5 may functionally demonstrate movement of roosters fighting, they could also be viewed as being slightly artistic in nature, thus moving them stylistically into the frame of the postmodernism realm, rather than that of an ethnographic account. (Banks, 1995). In stating this though, I believe photos 4 and 5 are essential to the ethnographic theme of the series of photos, and combined with all of the images are essential to shaping what I purpose as a visual ethnographic narrative.

Photo 6 quite simply depicts the end result of the Balinese cockfight, portraying the feather plucking of the losing cock, that I was told is returned to its handler, who then will generally eat it. Interestingly, Geertz does not draw any attention to this social reality, whether he felt it was irrelevant or just neglected to includ it in his notes, raises the point again that ethnographic authority is highly subjective.

Photographic Relevance in Ethnography

The overall purpose of taking photos of the Balinese cockfight was to document the social actions of the event; ultimately the photos were taken as a visual reference for me. The series of photos also act as a visual depiction of the cockfight, presenting a narrative of the event that is selectively influenced by my own subjectivities.

Although, photography may be subjectively selective in the framing of social action, it still acts as a documented point of reference to any sort of social action, acting merely as a window that assists further interpretive investigation into any subject of focus. (Grimshaw, 2001). It is my argument that the use of photography in ethnographic field work is valid as a supplementary support that can add depth to ethnographic text. I have demonstrated with my photography a narration of social action that is indeed selective in nature, but still presents a visual reality. “Postmodern thinkers have argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a fiction that represents only the ethnographer’s version of reality, rather than an empirical truth.” (Pink, 2001:19). Photography of the Balinese cockfight or any social or cultural aspect in my view further shapes the formation of ethnographic knowledge, as it acts as a reflective visual reference for the ethnographer, and also helps further contextualise the representation of culture in ethnographic text.

In conclusion, it appears that in the comparison made between Geertz’s writing and my photographs of the Balinese cockfight there are differences and similarities of representation. Obviously the immediate difference is the technical style of documentation of the Balinese cockfight, with Geertz using text to record and depict the event, whereas I have used photography to document and present the cockfight. In comparing the general narrative of my photos they appear to coincide with much of Geertz’s narrative on the cockfight, but combined with my own experience they also illuminate aspects of the cockfight that Geertz has selected not to focus on or has interpreted differently, and vice versa with Geertz’s writings addressing far more scope than the narrow focus of my photos. This reinforces my argument of the reality of ethnographic inquiry being influenced by ones own subjectivity, and in addition centralises my presented ideas of photography being used in collaboration with ethnographic text, which I believe adds greater depth to the textual analysis and representation of culture. As photography proves to be problematic through representing and interpreting culture so does the writing of culture. By taking a reflexive approach of being aware of such problems as subjectivity in the representation and interpretation of culture, both the use of photography and writing can be improved. Therefore, the analysis of my own photography and of Geertz’s writing on the Balinese cockfight has lead me to believe that the combination of both text and photography helps present a more holistic account of cultural manifestations, and ultimately adds to the greater depth of ethnographic inquiry.

Tradition and Transformation in Fiji:

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

Focus will be drawn to the relationship between economic and political influences that have impacted the emergence of new identities and the transformation of tradition with Fijian society. Firstly, an investigative approach is taken, glancing at how colonial contact has reshaped the political arena of Fiji and influenced the development of Fijian tradition and the national identity. Secondly, a brief insight into how the occurrence of the 1987 coup has influenced sociopolitical and economic structures in Fiji, as well as divulging how this engagement has divided ethnicities. Then insight development of tourism and its impact on tradition and cultural identity will be discussed.

(Economic and Political Engagements):

Colonial influence and its alignment with chiefly power:

When attempting to understand Fijian social alignment with political structures one must firstly take into account the fundamental historical occurrences of the past one hundred and fifty years. Prior to British colonization in 1874 Fiji was made up of tribal based social groups, socially governed or arranged under the provincial rule of chiefly power structures. First European contact was made in the mid 17^th century and continued largely through the activities of explorers and traders. Eventually in 1874 the British colonized the Fijian islands, this was followed by a period of internal strife much of which involved rivalries between Ma’afu and the powerful Bauan chief, Ratu Seru Cakobau. Bau was one of three eastern confederations, the others being Lau and Cakaudrove, which had come to dominate all of the small islands off the north and east coast of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, as well as significant areas of the main islands themselves. (Lawson, 1996). “The strife, however, was not simply a matter between islanders, and European interests were very much involved in the political turmoil.” (Lawson, 1996:45). According to Lawson (1996) Europeans initial attempts to establish a colonial controlled government, lead by Cakobau, to have control over all the islands of Fiji failed due to a lack in sociopolitical unity between Fijians. As a result the British crown agreed to sign a deed of concession with twelve highly raked chiefs, including Cakobau, and Ma’afu. Fiji was thus brought under the mantel of British colonialism through the agency of eastern chiefs. And as it seems over history that it was these Fijians who where to benefit most from colonial rule and carried the hierarchical advantages through to the independence of the 1970’s and onwards. (Thomas, 2000). Therefore, the political governance of Fiji has been highly influenced and controlled by eastern chiefs, thus resulting in power structure being prodomantly held by eastern chiefs and over time being recognized by indigenous Fijians as a traditional element of their society.

“Chiefly authority and Fijian ‘tradition’ can often be treated synonymously because the former is so frequently taken to embody the latter. More specifically, however, the apotheosis of chiefliness has centered on the eastern provinces of the Fiji islands. Since before colonization by Great Britain in 1874, and throughout the colonial era until independence in 1970, as well as for most of the period since then, Fijian politics has been dominated by chiefs from these areas.” (Lawson, 1996:37).

These chiefly power structures are arguably central to upholding notions of national identity among the indigenous Fijians, due to this political order of chiefliness being deeply embedded in the people’s historical traditions. Also, Fijian chiefship may indeed be viewed by many scholars as being aristocratic elite who have promoted ethnic division and conflict to secure power and privilege for themselves and their common allies (Norton, 1999), but in stating this I believe chiefs have also acted as a regulatory function of potential negotiating between the divided ethnicities of Fiji. For example, “Under colonial rule the chiefs in administration and political leadership became rallying points of Fijian ethnic solidarity and the most powerful symbolic markers of cultural boundaries. But from this secure position as ethnic leaders, they were encouraged also to assume a function of as conciliators across the ethnic divide.”(Norton, 1999:22). This exemplifies the notion of chieflship being central to cultural representation of indigenous Fijians along with acting in an engagement of correspondence with India Fijian’s. Although, the relationship between both ethnicities has always been politically divided and still is, the function of chiefship’s in the political arena arguably has the potential to act as a positive mediator of cultural and social cohesion if they were to embrace the Indian Fijians as equals rather than counterparts of Fijian society, this could preserve relations and close the ethnic divide, thus strengthening political alliances and ultimately encouraging future economic growth due to social cohesiveness rather than conflict. Obviously, this is a highly ambiguous and optimistic statement considering historical circumstances that have socially and institutionally divided Indian and indigenous Fijians, such as, Indian’s introduction into Fiji originally as labour for the sugar cane industry by the British colonials, this being a point that many indigenous Fijian’s illuminate in their arguments of why Indian Fijian’s should not receive equal political power, due to them being of foreign origin and ethnicity.

The inclusion of chiefs in the islands political senate has also proved to be a central point of conflict between Indian Fijian’s and Indigenous Fijian’s (Firth, 2003), one could say it is indeed a contributing factor in the political feuding Fiji has experienced in the past and present. Chiefs historically have been socially positioned as upholders of Fijian ethnic identity, along with being instated with figure head status that is granted social support to represent and lead the Fijian people. The 1960’s was a time of change in the identity of the leading chiefs from paternalistic and often resenting of authorities overseeing Fijian local government to defenders of the Fijian ethnic collectivity in opposition to Indian Fijian’s. (Norton, 1999). For example, “The chiefs’ symbolic importance strengthened as political party rivalry aggravated ethnic conflict in the move to self-government. As ethnic leaders the chiefs were able to co-opt trade unionists and other potential challengers emerging with economic change.”

(Norton, 1990). This assertive control the council of chiefs possesses can be viewed as a driving influential force over economic activities within Fiji, whether it is internal infrastructures or international trade. Furthermore, this poses as problematic in the context of the Indian Fijian’s who are not socially aligned with chiefly power structures, and are evidently economically superior in commercial farming, business, as well creating many economic opportunities for Fijians. (Murray, 2000). The catch is that little or no support is given by the chiefly order to the Indian Fijian’s, thus strengthening the ethnic divide further. Therefore, although chief’s have powerful political influence over the social governance of indigenous Fijian’s they lack the power over Indian Fijian’s economic endeavors in many respects, as well as showing little if any support for this ethnic group. This ethnic divide appears to be highly detrimental to economic stability of the nation as a large proportion of economic stability is contributed by the Indian Fijian’s who are poorly represented in the political arena of Fijian government. Currently, this lack of equal treatment by the political powers of the state is causing many Indian business owners to remove their businesses from Fiji, thus migrating to alternative nations and causing economic loss to the Fijian nation as a whole. (Norton, 1999).

The history of Coups and the relationship within Fiji’s plural society.

In 1987 Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka over threw the elected government that was lead by Fijian commoner, Dr Timoci Bavadra. Rabuka was a commoner but nonetheless a member of a high ranking eastern decent group. The reasons put forth for the motivations behind this coup was on the grounds that the constitution in place with the elected government were racially discriminatory, protecting Indian Fijians more so than indigenous Fijians, and in affect a new constitution was put in place. The main justification for the occurrence of this coup was to safeguard indigenous Fijian rights. According to Lawson (1996: 40) “Most academic commentators on these events have argued strongly against the notion that ethnic factors were the essential cause of the 1987 coups and, more specifically, against the idea that indigenous Fijians rights were at risk under the Bavadra government”. This particular sociopolitical upheaval could arguably be aligned with the fact that historically because eastern indigenous Fijians have dominated the power structures of the state (Miyazaki, 2005), and in turn have had the power to promote a sort of model of tradition for the whole of Fiji to embrace. In addition the power the easterners have had, and used to promote a model of tradition has indeed created a figurative point of identity amoung the Fijian people.(Thomas, 2000).

As a result of the 1987 there was the introduction of the 1990 constitution, which was indeed in favor more towards the political representation and social rights of indigenous Fijians rather than Indian Fijians. (Lawson, 1996). The broader social out come of this lead to the Indian Fijians political voice being silenced as their presents in the government was more of a guest like status. Without a political voice the social dived of class became much more visible, with little government support towards such facets as Indian Fijian industry, thus motivating many to migrate from Fiji. (Firth, 2003).

In accordance with Sahlins fundamental ideologies of the ‘invention of tradition’, non-western societies use tradition as a symbolic representation of a cultural identity, for such reasons as ones own social sustainability of power, and positional reaction to “foreign-imperial presence”. (1993:53). In this particular case though the upholding of chiefly tradition and its power is not a direct reaction to ‘foreign-imperial presence’, but to the internal presence of the other ethnic presence that makes up the Fijian culture in a holistic sense. Although, in stating this it seems ironic that the current political institutions were implemented by colonial presence and have now influenced the formation of ideologies the ‘invention of tradition’ that seem to be more inclusive of indigenous Fijians.

Furthermore, by applying the theoretical ideologies of Lawson (1996), Fiji presents its self as a plural society, in the way it is predominately constructed of two main ethnic groups that are each culturally distinct but nationally attempt to up hold a relatively homogenous identity. But as it seems in Fiji can not be easily categorized as a straight forward plural society due to the internal divide over agreement of one national identity; two main ethnic groups there are, but due to political representation being unbalanced, the question is do the Indian Fijians adopt the same notion of national identity indigenous Fijians? It is my opinion, probably not, mainly because of the lack of fair treatment by stately institutions, thus causing these people to possibly reject the chiefly order as being an iconic representation of traditional elements that enforce or promote national identity. But of course there does have to be some sort of national identity, whether it is collective it questionable.

Development of tourism and its impact on tradition and cultural identity

Another economic engagement that has influenced changes in national identity and the practice of ‘tradition’ amoung the Fijian people is the industry of tourism. Fiji currently boasts tourism to be its second largest income earner. (Murray, 2000). Many of Fijian people are indeed aligned with propelling the tourism industry; they are subjected to a multitude of culturally influential factors that are central to cultural and social change. Such as, committing to labour that services the tourism industry, building infrastructure that caters for tourists demands, and more importantly marketing and presenting a ‘traditional’ identity of Fiji and its people to appease the demands of many western travelers that demand the ‘exotic’. (Bossen, 2000).

Arguably, for Fijian’s this process of engagement with tourism is highly influential in re-shaping certain aspects of tradition and ultimately national identity, being due to the need to package the culture and its environment as an economic aesthetic that captivates tourists. Bossen illuminates this further by stating, “Tourism development has important and complex effect on the formulation of identity. As a potential threat to the authenticity or integrity of local cultures, tourism’s relation to cultural, ethnic, and national identities has been and remains controversial.” (Bossen, 2000:123). With the presents of tourism and its demands of entertainment and a gaze for an exotic culture comes the manifestation of ‘staged authenticity’. This development of staged authenticity for economic benefits of appeasing the tourism industry is arguably a central proponent in reforming traditional values and essentially the Fijian national identity. These changes of traditional practice are indeed reactionary to the economic engagements with tourism, causing ripples of cultural transformation to occur. Furthermore, such facets as ‘staged authenticity’ are central to the creation of new identities and of course the reinvention of customary or tradition cultural practices. (Bossen, 2000). For example, the development of the ‘Hibiscus Festival’, which is staged annually in Suva, has interwoven international tourism and national identity in such a way that cultural and national identities are reinforced in counterpoint with wider political social changes. (Bossen, 2000).

Established in 1956, the Hibiscus Festival was started up by the Suva branch of the Junior Chamber of Commerce (JCC) as an attempt to prolong the tourist season, turning the low season into the high season. (Firth, 2003) Inspired by the Aloha Festival in Hawaii the Hibiscus Festival was implemented and promoted as an event that displayed authentic cultural customary practices for the display of tourists. By the 1960’s the festival program lasted eight days and included a night of traditional performances allocated to each of the two main ethnic groups, the Indian Fijian’s and indigenous Fijian’s, giving both groups a chance to present customary practices such as dance to the tourists. The climatic point of the festival was crowning of the Miss Hibiscus contestant, the women said to be the most beautiful Fijian woman. This construction of events the Hibiscus Festival puts forth is indeed not originally part of Fijian’s traditional practices, but it is arguably an example of the boundaries of tradition being realigned and adapted for the economic benefits of tourism. Further, in attempting to situate these engagements of social and cultural change in the broader context of its impact on national identity one must acknowledge such theoretical ideologies espoused on the matter. For example, “The discourse of tradition is a political discourse, for the content of tradition is frequently contested. It represents a symbolic resource that can either support or undermine particular configuration of power. Anthropologists who write about tradition enter this political arena, for they cannot comment on discourse of tradition without simultaneously adding their own voice.”(Turner, 1997:14). So as it seems that firstly in the context of the Fijian Hibiscus festival there is functional reasoning of economic attraction through adapting traditional practices as a response to an engagement with tourism, proving to be economically beneficial. Secondly, the question is, has tourism affected and changed the internal discourse of Fijian tradition; I believe it has, as the economic incentives of tourism has promoted Fijian’s to adapt their own traditions into a marketable and consumable product for tourist. In doing this they have not necessarily lost their internal traditional identity, but instead they have used it as a form of economic engagement, taking from their own notions national identity and further developing it for purposes of a cultural aesthetic to be viewed by the ‘west’. Furthermore, when attempting to analyse tradition and its symbolic relationship to any cultures identity it proves problematic, as the articulation and interpretation of traditional elements are firstly subject ethnocentricities of the observer, and are institutionally exposed to perpetual change as a reaction to socio-environmental circumstances. Therefore, tourism has indeed been a proponent for changing socioeconomic practices and ultimately shifting traditional customary practices into an economic arena. Through this application of staging culture for the economic benefits of tourism there has been a ripple affect of change in some traditional elements of Fijian culture in reaction to its contact with tourism. Also, form an academic perspective, to attempt to analyse and articulate tradition and its realities of application in a society such as Fijian is problematic as one is always bound by interpretive bias of there own voice.

In conclusion, the engagement between political institutions, economic realities, social and cultural arrangements are highly complex and indeed interrelated. Historically the establishment of government with the chiefly order has had an effect of creating a precedence of social conformity and adoption of this as a traditional trait within Fiji, also influencing an iconic traditional element that has further shaped ideas of national identity within Fijian society. This also illuminates the problematic realities of an ethnic divide between Indian Fijians and indigenous Fijians, with their being an absence of political representation of this ethnic group, thus having broader economic and social implications. Also, the functionality of the 1987 coup retaining the political power and social well being of indigenous Fijians presents its self as evident, and ultimately suggests a divide in ethnic ideology which again influences economic and social practices between and within the two groups. Finally, Tourism has been highly influential over economic developments within Fiji. The engagement between tourism and the Fijian people have indeed lead to changes occurring within traditional structures, such as the ‘staged authentic’ culture being presented to the tourism industry for economic benefits. Therefore, Fiji appears to be evolving socially and culturally through the internal political conflicts of the state and as a reaction to historical colonial impacts, along with reshaping aspects of tradition as a result of the economic incentive and demand of the tourism industry.

Google Earth and Network Societies

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth.

The following article investigates the media text ‘Google Earth’ and its functional alignment with influencing network societies. An analysis of how Google Earth intersects with media theory and cultural production will be articulated. The impact of Google Earth over notions of network society, along with focusing on its further implications for cultural production will be outlined. Furthermore, a descriptive account of key influential factors involved will be expressed; technological realities, informationalism, globalisation, social and cultural influence, and notions of social connectedness, will all be investigated as a contributing counterpart to the broader framework of network societies and cultural production.

“More than any other new media technology, the internet has represented the idea of change and newness within contemporary culture. A whole vernacular has developed from its myriad forms that underline its pervasive influence and its normalisation in our lives” (Marshall, 2004:45).

Google Earth as a media text is an example of a collective array of networks of human society, presenting a notion of the interrelationships of globalised and localised societies. The text presents realities of globalisation and how they are presented within the networked societies of the world. Google Earth arguably presents its self as an influential proponent of forging the development of network society, through means of information channels that are supplied through the websites domain.

The website presents a geographic mapping system that visually references the cities of the world through the use of satellite imagery. Google Earth allows users to select any location on the globe and focus on it, the user is able to view locations at different magnitudes of focus. For example, if the user wishes to focus on New York City, they may choose a close up view of Manhattan Island or wide shot of the greater New York area. Combined with the visual mapping functions of the web site are directory services, such as street names, national heritage sites, regional parks, restaurants, hotels, and a multitude of other directory listing services. Also Google Earth provides a social commentary forum where users can comment on the web program.

As a media text Google Earth acts as a facilitator and example of global convergence that is highly influential over network societies in a global context. (Castells, 1998). Schirato and Webb (2003:217) define global convergence as, “The tendency, facilitated by communication technologies, to bring together different communities, institutions, media.” Google Earth is indeed a proponent of this on several levels. Firstly, Google Earths central function is localising global information to vast social groups of the world (obviously those with internet access), through the website’s collective grouping of these many geographic locations of the world an overall montage of togetherness is presented, which ultimately seems to be symbolic of relationships of connectedness. This can be directly related to illuminating the world as a ‘global village’ (Keesing, 1996), in turn demonstrating the notion of interconnected societies under the umbrella of globalisation. Google Earth appears to have the functional aspect of being a symbolic creationist of networked societies, because it provides a service of technological informationalism that allows different social groups of the world to access information collectively, thus forging a network of shared information on a globally social scale. (Garson, 2000).

Google earth negotiates transitions in media technology firstly through its physical construction as a text. The way in which the website is a construction of visual references of the geographic locations of the world is in its self an example of media technology cohesively creating a visual text that can be consumed as a commodity. For example, Google Earth incorporates the listings of hotels and restaurants within the maps of many the popular tourist destinations of the world. Indeed this is a prime example of a media medium that is a technologically driven form of informationalism that aligns itself with advertising a service orientated commodity. (Mansell, 2000). Also, access of the Google Earth program is via download from the actual web site, users can choose the trail version which is free or a complete paid version. Essentially, Google Earth can be interpreted as functioning as an advertising mechanism, but simultaneously presents its self as a geographic locator tool for personal inquiry or entertainment.

Through Google Earth presenting these combined services online, coverage across social and cultural field is expediential, and arguably of great influence due to the vast coverage of the internet, thus acting as a key proponent in networking societies of the contemporary world. (Eriksen, 2003). Arguably, this is an example of current transitions in media technology, in the sense Google Earth has been produced as a visual communicator of global geography, and through the use of internet technology, it presents its self as a service that incorporates a consumer pleasing construct. It seems ironic that this text denotes the impacts and influences of globalization, through visually structuring the societies of the world geographically on a web based network, and yet it is inescapably a contributor of networking the global field of cultural production through channels of informationlism. (Eriksen, 2003).

For example, Google Earth acts as a contributor of information in its aesthetic formation. The construction and production of this media text is reliant on current technologies and is a product of media technology. Furthermore, Google Earth is arguably an example of created networks that occur within media technology; in the sense it captures and projects visual information of a geographic localised setting, but simultaneously through the active use of this program users become socially networked and contributors of the world system of globalization. (Armitage, 2002). Therefore, Google Earth is firstly a product of applied technology that exists in the global field of the media; its production is based on contemporary technology, thus having overall impact on consumption and influence with cultural field of production. Secondly, the text demonstrates interconnections between the localised communities and the global village they are part of, through providing a structure of organization where societies are globally networked, and essentially acting as a driving force in the processes of cultural production.

When analysing Google Earth as a media text several assumptions are brought into focus. From a practical point of view Google Earth appears to illuminate itself as having a contributing discourse that could be interpreted as demonstrating the effective realities of globalisation on localised societies. (Ess, 2001). In the sense that Google Earth exhibits a functional value of providing localised societies a connection with mapping information of the globe, inclusive of localised information of any area of focus. This is ultimately a highly socially orientated influential force of information technology, and is arguably a prime component of the broader effects the internet has over cultural production. (Armitage, 2002). For example, Google Earth acts also as a public forum for people to comment further on the geographic location that are visually depicted, such as elaborating on whether Google Earth’s listing are correct.

Therefore, through the practical application of Google Earths influence over localised society it seems clear that as a media text it functions firstly; as a provider of networked information, secondly as a mechanism that provides a forum for a network of societies to exist, interact, and share information collectively, thus globalising localised societies. Furthermore, through forging a networked space within the realm of informationalism that is socially engaging, new formations of cultural production become evident. This being due to the use of such technologies as the internet increasing human beings collective access to information which arguably influences cultural production. (Ess, 2001).

Through the geographic visual representations Google Earth has technologically weaved together and displayed globally on the internet; specifics of information have been made accessible between many societies of the world. (Marshall, 2004). Arguably, the alignment of Google Earth as a counterpart of the internet is that of a specific media text that communicates information of global and local insight. Through communicating collective information of geographic location around the world to localised communities a sense of cultural connectedness presents its self. For example, “Globalisation and localisation in the field of culture – however defined – are the result of communications in its widest possible forms. It is through communication that culture is made public and shared and it is through culture that the forms of communication are shaped.” (Lie, 2003:13). Arguably, Google Earth visually espouses a discourse that is a communication of localised culture in their geographic setting but in a global context, thus illuminating the reality of interconnectedness of the societies and cultural manifestations of the world.

This visual representation of interconnectedness of global society is further demonstrated with the individual user’s engagement with Google Earth, in the sense by using the program one becomes connected to the network of informationalism and ultimately become socially networked through the media text. (Ess, 2001). This effectively presents the realities of globalisation being applied to the cultural field of production, in the sense that through the networks of communication there has been a manifestation of economic, political, and cultural action spread globally which has shaped and interconnected localised societies of the globe. (Shirato and Webb, 2003).

In the particular case of Google Earth’s positioning as an internet based media text, it presents is self as being supportive of communication between the societies of the world, thus functioning as a influencial force over the preservation and development of network societies. Castells (2004:3) articulates the reality of this concept further by stating “A network society is a society whose social structure is made of networks based by microelectronics-based information and communication technologies.” Indeed Google Earth is a fundamental example of facilitating contemporary network societies of the world through the means of information communication technology. Furthermore, Google Earth visually presents information to many societies of the globe via the already established social network the internet provides. It presence online surely has impact over the transition and change between the many societies of the world, due to the network of information it provides.

The point of global culture and its alignment with networked societies can be further elaborated with the aid of theoretical frameworks espoused by Schirato and Webb which denote; “Most theorists fall into one of two camps with respect to the question of global culture. One is the cultural homogenisation camp, the other the cultural hybridisation camp.” (2003:155).

In the case of the homogenization ‘camp’ the concept is upheld that localisation of cultures is eventually dismissed with destruction of individual cultural identity. Schirato and Webb state, “. . . Because of the power of the media to mobilise identity and affect, it is argued, the effect is of a single commodity / identity world, the destruction of the local and the authentic, and the reimagining or renarrativising of traditions as commodities.” (Shirato and Webb, 2003:155). “Globalisation hypothesizes that the world is becoming one place with a single system.” (Lie, 2003:70). Relating these ideologies to the functional realities of Google Earth, it is apparent that through creating a media space in which localised cultures can become interlinked with a network of global information, they become a contributing part of the homogenized global networked society, thus placing their local identity under the umbrella of globalization and ultimately through these networks align the local with the global.

The other is that of the notion of hybridization which suggests that the impact of globalization upon non-westernised cultures does not lead to the extinction of local culture and traditional formations. (Shirato and Webb, 2003). Instead it supports the idea that the global networks created by globalization up hold cultural and social diversity. “Commentators who align themselves with the hybridization argument sometimes suggest that the networking of the globe does not necessarily lead to the extinction of local cultures and local forms. Rather, they argue, it may regenerate traditional practices, languages and forms of cultural production.” ( Shirato and Webb, 2003:157). The systematic processes of Google Earth could be interpreted as helping maintain local cultural and social diversity, in the sense the text allows users to be reflective of their own geographic positioning in contrast to the rest of the globe.

Although, Google Earth as a media text seems to be more so reflective of homogenisation, in particular within the applied realm of networked societies in general. For example, the text takes the approach of providing information of geographic locations of the world, grouped together under the packaging of the Google Earth representations. Further, Google Earth’s global accessibility could be viewed as being symbolically representational of the realities of globalisation and its prevalence within connecting localised societies of the world. In affect this notion of homogenisation that is functionally presented within Google Earth shows a localised formation of cultural production becoming socially connected through these technological networks that can be directly applied to frameworks of globalization. (Marshall, 2004). In addition this media text can be viewed as presenting iconic characteristics of shaping local cultural production through its formations of network society, thus causing local cultural production to become heavily homogenized through transient networks of global information, and becoming ideologically aligned through this public sphere of informationalism.

When attempting to contextualise Google Earth’s relationship with networked societies and cultural production under the umbrella of globalization, one must draw emphasis towards the notion of capitalism, which essentially is a key counterpart of understanding the processes of how globalisation and cultural production interact through network societies. (Peet, 1991).

Primarily global capitalism is fueled by competition in the economic realm, but this is further spread than economy; the impact of capitalism is far more holistic having influence over such facets as political organisation, social and cultural structure, and the natural environment. (Peet, 1991). In the case study of Google Earth and how capitalism is relavant to this text, can be divulged through the depiction of applied promotional advertising of selective hotels, restaurants, and other amenities. Thus showing capitalistic structure applied to create a cultural field related to social demands of consumption.

Furthermore Google Earth as a media text ironically acts as mediator of information that has capitalistic motivations, but also acts as a media text that it is a commodity in its own entirety, being due to the fact one can subscribe to Google Earth for the full version of functions that the text can perform. Thus being an interconnected part of the global capitalistic system. The realities of Global capitalism and its implications over contemporary media ownership are tightly intertwined. As media serves as a mechanism for the transfer of information and the interaction between the many societies of the world, it is arguably a key proponent in shaping and driving global capitalisms existence. The validity of the media’s role in the contextualisation of capitalism is central to the creation of networks that ultimately aid the flow of ideas and the linkage of the global economy. (Peet, 1991).

Neoliberal discourse can be recognised as a key counterpart in driving the capitalistic model (Schrito. T, Webb 2003), but indeed it could be also argued that ideologies of neoliberalism are in fact contradictory to the true practices of capitalism. For example, “Neoliberalism is a way of understanding the world as committed to a particular idea of freedom, in the form of the unfettered circulation of capital and goods. It aspires to the liberation of money and entrepreneurship from social contexts and their obligations.” (Schrito. T, Webb, 2003:218). It is clear that this concept can be widely applied to the practices of capitalism and many of the realities of media ownership, such as in the creation of brands, but within the practices of the model of global capitalism the concept of freedom and liberty that is espoused by neoliberialism is problematic. Google Earth, is arguable a product of Neoliberal ideologies, in the sense the construction of the text is clearly motivated by this Neoliberal discourse.

In conclusion, Google Earth proves to align itself as being functionally influential over network societies and cultural production on a global scale. As a counterpart of the internet, Google Earth supplies a service that provides internet users access to geographic mapping information. Through the applied use of information technology Google Earth has created a service based on supply and demand within the pre-existing network societies forged through the internet. The influence and impact over cultural production in relation to Google Earth’s presence within the network societies of the globe is certain. As it seems technology is central to maintaining the public sphere of the contemporary world, as it is the binding force of communication, and essentially the mechanism in which networked societies are forged. Google Earth as an example of a media text, is undoubtedly a product of technological development, but also created as media tool as a result of cultural production. Further, Google Earth’s presence within the network of societies surely has the influence over future cultural manifestation and production due to its function of sharing knowledge through a networked public sphere.

Invention of Tradition

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

The following article outlines the key argument of James West Turner and Marshall Sahlins in response to academic literature focusing on the ‘invention of tradition’, along with presenting both theorists own interpretations of the ‘invention of tradition’. Firstly, Turners account will be addressed followed by Sahlins. Then a comparative analysis will be made of their theoretical ideologies and findings and how both Turner and Sahlins move beyond the ‘invention of tradition’ in their arguments.

Turner begins his argument by firstly illuminating the problematic realities of ethnographic documentation of tradition. He presents the notion that ethnographic writing is a political act, and raises a central question to his argument of what the implications for anthropologists writing about tradition are. “The discourse of tradition is a political discourse, for the content of tradition is frequently contested. It represents a symbolic resource that can either support or undermine particular configuration of power. Anthropologists who write about tradition enter this political arena, for they cannot comment on discourse of tradition without simultaneously adding their own voice.”(Turner, 1997:14). As it seems according to Turner’s interpretation of the writings on tradition, the influence of the of the etic voice and its inescapable ethnocentricities will essentially shape the overall framing of the cultural group of focus, thus further influencing academic interpretation of what could be seen as a subjective presentation of the realities of tradition, and its centrality to the social group of study. Therefore, Turners entry point of his argument highlights the problems of interpretation and representation of tradition within the literature produced by academics; furthermore he recognises that the anthropologist’s voice becomes intertwined with this interpretation and representation of tradition as a cultural phenomenon.

Turner also places emphasis upon what he interpretively denotes as the key influential theorists writing on the subject of tradition. His entry point into the analysis of the invention of tradition focuses on the presentation of these fundamental works on tradition; along with demonstrating their influence over academic interpretation of the concepts of tradition, later Turner constructs his arguments from these premises of thought. For example, the work of Roger Keesing and Robert Tonkinson (1982) are presented as a central point of knowledge embedded in shaping perceptions of tradition. Keesing and Tonkinson “. . . definition and evaluation of tradition were shown to be product of discourse structured by political rivalry and competing ideologies.” (Turner, 1997:14). It seems apparent that Keesing and Tonkinson interpretations of tradition have essentially come from a position that focuses on contestation, discourse and the political associations that they deem to be functional within tradition as a cultural phenomenon. Also it appears that Turner has used the fundamentals of these theorists ideologies as a foundation to his investigative analysis of the political implications of the ‘invention of tradition’, thus divulging that much of literatures focused on tradition has been concerned with the preservation of identity in reaction to configurations of power. (Turner, 1997).

Turner then comparatively draws reference to Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger’s work ‘The Invention of Tradition’ (1983) which again shows tradition to be politically driven, but also places emphasis on the concept of tradition being a conscious invention, an act of manipulation, and an example of hegemony. (Turner, 1997). The literature produced by both Hobsbawm and Ranger has been cited by Tuner to of had wider impact over academics ideas of tradition in the eighties and onwards. (Turner, 1997). Turner elaborates further by introducing and aligning theorists such as Handler, Linnekin and Hanson, who where dominant figures in the writings and interpretations of tradition, all of which focused on the issues of invention as a key counterpart to understanding tradition. (Turner, 1997). All of the mentioned theorists are arguably responsible for shaping the formation of contemporary ideas towards the concept of tradition, specifically within the Pacific. These cited theorists are essentially the backbone of Turners arguments regarding the concept of ‘the invention of tradition’. Turner draws on the literature of the mentioned theorists and states “. . . that the invention-of-tradition literature made a useful contribution by focusing increased attention on a neglected topic, tradition, and linking it to issues that anthropologists have become increasingly interested in-the ways in societies reproduce themselves, the ways in which culture and history interact to produce change, and the role of human agency in both processes.” (1997:15). Central to this argument Turner reiterates that ultimately this literature affirms “. . . that a people’s traditions are a product of their historically situated action.” (1997:15). It seems apparent that based on the presented theorist’s literature Turner is arguing that there is continuity between lived cultures and tradition, and there is constraint between real history and ideology in the present. Furthermore, Turner investigative analysis shows the literature produced on the invention of tradition to be slightly narrow in focus and defective in practice. “. . . key contributors to this literature have been flawed by an over emphasis on the malleability of tradition and on the novelty and disjuncture inherent in invention. This emphasis results in a very synchronic view of tradition.” (Turner,1997:41). Therefore, it seems evident that although Turner argues that ethnographic writings on the invention of tradition are quite often narrowly focused through taking a synchronic approach, he himself appears to align some of his theories with the cited theorist ideologies, but indeed Turner does look past a snapshot view, taking a more holistic and diachronic view towards the invention of tradition.

Within the body of Turner’s text ‘Continuity and Constraint: Reconstructing the Concept of Tradition from a Pacific Perspective’ he is strongly supportive of the ideologies put forth by Linnekin regarding the nature of tradition. For example, Linnekin provides five premises to describe the concept of tradition applied to a social context. (Refer to Anth 308 course reader pp22). It is my interpretation that Turner has used Linnekins premises of tradition as a foundation to the development of his ideological understanding and interpretation of tradition as an applied social aspect of identity and attempted creation of cultural authenticity. But in stating this Turner also illuminates the problems of Linnekin’s applied theories when analysing such social groups as the Hawaiians. Turner raises the point that Linnekin’s application of theory in the conceptualisation of Hawaiian tradition is inadequately explored, in the sense she fails to clearly illustrate her theoretical ideas in her ethnographic writings on Hawaiian culture. For example, “Linnekin implies that tradition entails an essential, enduring core of cultural traits, quite different from that summerised here.” (1997:23), this of course refers to her theoretical premises of tradition. Therefore, Turner seems to align his foundation of thought on the interpretation of the nature of tradition with Linnekin’s theoretical premises. Furthermore, Turner seems to have developed the notion from Linnekin’s work that continuity is a key characteristic within the interpretive framework through which a people understand and evaluate human action. (Turner, 1997).

Central to Turners argument is the notion of continuity and constraint and its lack of acknowledgment within literature bases on the invention of tradition. Turner espouses the idea that continuity and constraint are indeed a key aspect of tradition and goes on to state, “These ideas are not totally absent from the invention of tradition literature, but they have definitely been suppressed in favor of an emphasis on the ‘free play of sign substitution,’ novelty, and discontinuity.” (Turner, 1997). Essentially what Turner argues is that literature on the ‘invention of tradition’ has neglected the realities of continuity and constraint on the invention of tradition, thus failing to interpret tradition from a more holistic positioning. For example, the constraining historical realities, such as colonial contact, that has impacted the formation of Maori tradition in reaction to that colonial contact. Turner illuminates this further by stating; “Cultural or political movements such as the Hawaiian renaissance and Maori self-determination are attempts to reclaim the power of self-definition.” (1997:25). In the case of the Maori and Hawaiian’s this attempt to reclaim the power of self definition is arguably linked to retaining a political voice, and ultimately retain their own cultural identity rather than become a totally assimilated into a ‘western’ construct of social practice. This highlights Turners argument in the sense that the invention of tradition among such groups as the Hawaiians and Maori is a product of historical circumstances combined with the continuously changing socio-environmental setting these cultures are subjected to. In reaction to these historical occurrences social groups project tradition as a means of cultural preservation, which act as an attempt to grasp an authentic self representation of identity. This point also centralises Turners notion of continuity in the context of the invention of tradition, as it demonstrates that tradition is fluid in formation as it is reflective of the ever-changing socio-environmental setting. (Turner, 1997). An example of this would be how in Maori culture the meeting house on a Marae has become focal point of importance and is currently considered to be a traditional aspect of their culture. When in fact historically this has not always been true, prior to colonial influence it was the food store that was the focal point of importance. The meeting house has become the focal point of the Marae as tradition has been reinvented to present this due to the ever changing social world around. (Sissons, 2005). Therefore; based on Turners argument, continuity and constraint as applied to the contextualisation of the ‘invention of tradition’ is essentially a framework in which historical realities and the impact of ever-changing social arrangements mold traditional projections of ones culture.

The transformation of structure and practice in relation to the ‘invention of tradition’ is central to framing Sahlins arguments on the subject. Sahlins expresses firstly the occurrence of global integration of industrialisation or essentially the spread of capitalism as the main proponent of “cultural self-consciousness” (Sahlins, 1993:52). Through this spread of western industry along with its social and political structures, Sahlins argues that the self importance of the word ‘culture’ is realised as a reaction to the intergration and application of western social systems upon non-western social groups. The concept of practicing custom is presented as being central to the identification of ones own culture, essentially custom proves to play an active role in the invention and identification of tradition. Sahlins draws upon Maurice Godelier (1991) to further clarify his ideas on tradition, “If we didn’t have kustom, we would be just like the white men.” (Sahlins, 1993:53). From this point Sahlins develops the notion of; “What distinguishes the current ‘culturalism’ (as it might be called) is the claim to one’s own mode of existence as a superior value and political right, precisely in opposition to a foreign-imperial presence.” (Sahlins, 1993:53). So in accordance with Sahlins fundamental ideologies of the ‘invention of tradition’, non-western societies use tradition as a symbolic representation of a cultural identity, for such reasons as ones own social sustainability of power, and positional reaction to “foreign-imperial presence”. (1993:53). It is this transformation of the structure and practice within social groups that Sahlins argues western intellectuals to often forget, and instead focus their interpretation of tradition as being invented for the purpose of the present.(1993). A culturally specific example of this given by Sahlins is that of the cultural practice of the Hula by Hawaiian society. “The hula has been functioning as a mode of cultural co-optation for more than 150 years – a significance, moreover, that was inscribed in the meanings of hula performances before the first white men set foot in the islands.” (Sahlins, 1993:57). On contact with colonial influence the hula became a symbol of resistance to Christianity among the Hawaiian people. And presently has become a symbol of Hawaiian ‘tradition’ for the purposes of tourism in many cases. (Sahlins, 1993). Therefore, it becomes evident that Sahlins argument focuses on firstly, that the re-invention of tradition occurs out of the reaction to western influence. Secondly, Sahlins raises the point that western intellectuals to often bypass focusing on the transformation of the structure and practice within social groups of analysis, thus producing literature that takes a synchronic approach, rather than acknowledging that “culture must be conceived as always and only changing” (Sahlins,1993:53).

Within the body of Sahlins argument relating to the ‘invention of tradition’ focus is situated around Marx’s ideologies of the World System theory. One of Sahlins pivotal ideas relating the invention of tradition to the World System theory is;

“. . . if the world is becoming a Culture of cultures, then what needs to be studied ethnographically is the indigenisation of modernity – through time and in all its dialectical ups and downs from the earliest develop-man to the latest invention of tradition. Western capitalism is planetary in scope, but it is not a universal logic of cultural change.” (Sahlins, 1997:70). What Sahlins appears to be stating is that realistically all cultures are part of the world system, working within the framework of modernity is the ‘re-invention of tradition’ by cultures as an attempt to be different under the unbraller of the world system. In addition, Sahlins claims that academic literatures focus has to often carried agendas of interpreting the invention of tradition from a histographically and ethnographically imperial position rather than attempting to see the invention of tradition from a more emic location, thus disallowing a deeper insight into the non-western cultural rationale for change. (Sahlins, 1993). For example, “Alernatively the old timers remind us that a politics of culture is a process of structure. Rather than the over throw of the World System, which is now an irreversible fact of their existence, the local peoples’ inventions and inventions of tradition can be understood as attempts to create a differentiated cultural space within it.” (Sahlins, 1993:69). Therefore, Sahlins draws attention towards the realities of cultures maintaining their identity within the construct of the World System, he appears to gain the view that cultural structures come into conjunction with each other, and that it is through the invention of tradition that cultures maintain a sense of identity while still being indeed assimilated into a dominant culture. In addition a funermental component to the structure and practice of the invention of tradition is expressed through myths and rituals (mythopraxis). This is a key point to the cultural creation of symbolically projecting tradition within the construct of the World System. (Sahlins, 1993).

Both Turner and Sahlins attempt to move beyond the ‘invention of tradition’ literature by proposing alternative approaches of interpreting how and why tradition has become central to understanding ones own cultural identity. Also focus is drawn to the implications of interpreting the ‘invention of tradition’ from a western perspective, indicating the problems of western ethnocentricities when writing and interpreting the invention of tradition. Turner demonstrates his frustration with western intellectuals synchronic approach to the articulation of non-western cultures invention of tradition by arguing that “Insufficient attention has been given to the personal and collective pasts that constrain invention and interpretation and make them intelligible as a historical process.” (Turner, 1997:41). He goes on to illuminate the importance of identifying the realities of continuity and constraint when interpreting the functional rationale behind cultural group’s invention of tradition. Whereas, Sahlins also argues that theorists have to often taken a synchronic view of the nature cultures invent tradition, he also specifically identifies the interrelationships of cultural reaction to western influence, portraying the notion of how although assimilation is prevalent within the World System, a formation of binary opposition within the invention of tradition exists as a means of retaining an identity of influence under this umbrella of the World System. Turners argument of continuity and constraint demonstrates that culture are continually changing and the constraints imposed on cultures by such influences as dominant imperial movements cause reaction, such reaction is that of the change in the presentation and practice of tradition. Through this notion of the invention of tradition Turner highlights the lack of current literatures emphasis to this facet. Sahlins takes a similar but more focused approach by outlining cultural group’s direct reactions to colonial impact and the way in which traditional practices are re-invented such as the hula, being functionally applied as a resistance to Christianity. Sahlins also places emphasis upon cultural groups retaining a sense of power through the use of tradition as a means of self identity, while still being assimilated into many of the contemporary practices of the western world. (Sahlins, 1993).

Therefore it seems that Turner and Sahlins constructed arguments generally take a more holistic formation of thought in comparison to much of the literature presented on the subject of the invention of tradition. Both theorist are aligned with a similar dispositions, in the sense they both centrally focuses on the nature of historical realities of tradition before colonial influence, along with addressing the issue of changes brought on by continuity and constraint in tradition due to colonial impact. Although Turners and Sahlins articulate much of their discourse on the matter of the ‘invention of tradition’ with a similar result, they also take an investigative approach that differs. For example, Sahlins pays more attention to the concept of cultures living under the umbrella of the World System and how in reaction to being assimilated these cultures draw on tradition as a means of retaining their own power and identity. Whereas, Turner places more emphasis on how people validate their existence through tradition, but in saying his argument does still align with Sahlins.

Additional opinion

In my opinion, it is Turners theoretical arguments and ideas that I prefer as an applied framework for interpreting the ‘invention of tradition’. The framework of Tu